Sitting of 2 May 1996

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

  BODMIN MOOR COMMONS BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Thursday 9 May.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Abortion
    Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to extend the Abortion Act 1967 to Northern Ireland. [26375]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Malcolm Moss): I have no plans to extend the Act to Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Brown: I understand entirely the answer that my hon. Friend gave to my question, and I am sure that that answer will be welcomed by most hon. Members representing the Province. Why do we continue to legislate differently for the Province than for the rest of the kingdom?
    Mr. Moss: The Government did not include Northern Ireland in the Abortion Act because at that time they considered the reform of social law in that very sensitive area to be a proper matter for a devolved administration; that remains the Government's view.
    Dr. Hendron: The Minister will recall that, last year, an all-party delegation met the Prime Minister to discuss that question, and we all expressed our absolute and total opposition to any extension of the 1967 Act to Northern Ireland. I hope that the Secretary of State or the Minister will confirm that the Government will make no effort to extend that Act.
    Mr. Moss: I am happy to confirm the answer I gave some moments earlier.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: My hon. Friend might like to know that I led that delegation to meet the Prime Minister, and I and other hon. Members are delighted to learn that the policy has not changed. It has the personal support of
    1282
    the Prime Minister and the unequivocal and unanimous support of hon. Members from all political parties in the House that represent the Province.
    Mr. Moss: I am aware of the deputation that the hon. Lady led to the Prime Minister, and I am happy to repeat his assurance that there are no plans to extend that Act to Northern Ireland.

    Motorway Emergency Telephones
    Mr. John D. Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for what reasons the emergency telephone system on motorways is to be replaced; and if he will make a statement. [26376]
    Mr. Moss: The chief executive of the Department of the Environment's road service advises me that the existing motorway emergency telephone system is more than 30 years old and is now obsolete. Many of the spare parts needed to maintain it are no longer available. In the interests of safety, it is therefore imperative that a new replacement system be provided.
    Mr. Taylor: If the telephone system is 30 years old today, it was 29 years old yesterday. Why has it suddenly become a priority expenditure in the roads programme in Northern Ireland? It has never been in the roads programme before. Why has it replaced important major road schemes in the constituency of Strangford, which has not had a major road scheme for many years? Especially, I name the Comber bypass and the major link road between the Comber road and the Portaferry road in Newtownards, both of which were on the road programme and both of which have been damaged by the sudden inclusion of a new telephone system on the motorways. Is the real reason for the priority that the new telephone system is in some way connected with the provision of cable television in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Moss: In some ways, I regret having to contradict what the hon. Gentleman just said. The telephone system was first assessed by independent consultants back in March 1989, and recommendations in the short term were implemented in 1990 and 1991. It was recommended that the entire system be replaced, and the scheme first appeared in the five-year programme in 1993–94. We had to prioritise the road programme for the next five years, and the Comber bypass has slipped by only one year.

    Unemployment
    Mr. Spring: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what changes have taken place in youth and long-term unemployment in the past 12 months. [26377]
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the percentage change in the level of unemployment in the Province in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [26384]
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): Over the year to March 1996, youth unemployment in Northern Ireland fell by 6.1 per cent. and long-term unemployment by 9.1 per cent. The headline unemployment total fell by 5.1 per cent., or 4, 580.
    Mr. Spring: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the prospects for enduring social stability in Northern Ireland are enhanced by that welcome news? Given the historically high levels of long-term unemployment in the Province, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the clear fall in long-term unemployment is welcome, especially as it is nearly twice the overall rate of decline?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: My hon. Friend is right. Long-term unemployment has fallen by 9.1 per cent. compared with 5.1 per cent. for unemployment overall. We continue to work extensively in the area and are pleased that we are reskilling and retraining that group of people to be competitive in gaining the jobs that we are attracting to the Province.
    Mr. Coombs: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that a significant contribution to the improvement in the unemployment figures which he has just announced comes from tourism in Northern Ireland, which has received a tremendous boost from the more peaceful times of the past two years? Can he think of anything more important to continued prosperity and job creation in Northern Ireland than that visitors should feel secure in coming there? Can there be anything more important than an immediate resumption of the ceasefire?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I endorse everything that he has said. The total number of out-of-country visitors for 1995, reaching 1, 557, 000, constitute a 20 per cent. increase on the number in 1994. The boost to employment that that gives works in exactly the way that my hon. Friend describes. There has never been any excuse for violence and the return to the ceasefire of August 1994, and an improvement on it, is urgently required.
    Mr. A. Cecil Walker: I am sure that the Minister is aware of the consternation surrounding the reduction in jobs in the action for community employment projects throughout the Province. In that connection, will he consider the problems of released prisoners and set up some form of job training agency under the auspices of the Training and Employment Agency?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I know my hon. Friend's concern with the unemployment problems in his constituency. He will be glad that, over the year, there has been a reduction of 8.9 per cent. in his constituency. It is important that prisoners should be helped to be reintroduced into self-supporting and lawful life outside prison, and I take note of what my hon. Friend says.
    Mr. Robert McCartney: Will the Secretary of State explain why, if there is to be support for youths in long-term unemployment, £12 million has been taken from the ACE budget? Is it to be restored?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: We must consider the best and most effective way in which our public expenditure can be deployed. The first and foremost avenue for that should be to encourage private sector investment, which has been so successful in the past year or so. The hon. and learned Gentleman will know that the ACE programme has been reduced—I did not enjoy doing that, but we did it for that purpose. The community work programme comprises three pilot schemes that provide improved conditions and a more attractive scheme in comparison with ACE. We are looking forward to seeing the results of their evaluation.
    Rev. William McCrea: Bearing in mind the fact that the largest employer in the Province is agriculture and the crisis that it faces, what hope can the Secretary of State give to young farmers and young people hoping to come into the family farm? Does the Secretary of State accept that many European Governments, such as those of Germany, France and the Irish Republic, have been playing selfish games with the British beef industry? Is it not about time they were told where and when to get off? Finally, in future negotiations, will the Secretary of State bat for Ulster beef, which is no doubt the best in Europe?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: Many people take that view, not least the Dutch. The hon. Gentleman will know that very big importers from Holland have stipulated that all beef from the United Kingdom should come exclusively from Northern Ireland. When the ban was imposed, they took the trouble to visit Northern Ireland to say they would continue in that if their Government allowed them to do so. I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of the agriculture industry. Yesterday, I had the pleasure of speaking at the Ulster Farmers Union annual general meeting where, although they did not need to do so, farmers stressed the importance of getting the wholly unjustified ban lifted, not just from Northern Ireland but from the United Kingdom. My colleagues and I will certainly press for that with utmost vigour.

    Tourism
    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what further measures are proposed to attract visitors to Northern Ireland from (a) the rest of the United Kingdom, (b) the Republic of Ireland and (c) overseas; and if he will make a statement. [26378]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Ancram): The Northern Ireland tourist board continues to promote Northern Ireland vigorously in all identified markets. Through co-operative campaigns with the relevant tourist authorities, it will strive to build on the considerable growth in visitor arrivals in 1995. Continual priority is being paid to increasing facilities and improving standards.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Is the Minister aware that the greatest hindrance to visitors leaving London for Northern Ireland is not the mountains, streams, rivers or seas, but the high prices and profits of British Airways and other principal operators between London and Northern Ireland? Will he make it his business to encourage British Airways and other principal carriers to reduce the prices of air fares between Northern Ireland and London's principal airports

    1285
    with a view to increasing the number of people—visitors and those living in London and Northern Ireland—who can use those routes? Is he aware that there is great competition over the route between London and Dublin with Ryan Air, which offers a genuinely low fare? Will he encourage other budget airlines to operate routes, provide competition and increase mobility?
    Mr. Ancram: I am sure that the airlines will have heard what the hon. Gentleman said. The Government wish to encourage all those involved in promoting tourism to do so in a way that attracts the maximum number of visitors. It is interesting to note that, despite what the hon. Gentleman says, in 1995 there was a 14 per cent. increase on the previous year in the number of visitors from Great Britain. That was most encouraging. My right hon. and learned Friend has already mentioned the overall increase of 20 per cent. It is also interesting to note that there was a 53 per cent. increase in the number of tourists from north America and a 60 per cent. increase in the number of tourists from Australia and New Zealand. All in all, the Northern Ireland tourism industry is doing very well at promoting itself, increasing the number of holiday visitors and creating jobs in the process.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the success of the Northern Ireland tourism industry depends on its ability to offer competitive prices? How would that competitive position be affected by the introduction of a national minimum wage or by the social chapter being signed?
    Mr. Ancram: I very much agree with my hon. Friend, who makes a good point. One reason why Northern Ireland is doing well, not only in tourism but in general economic terms, is that the employment regulations are favourable to economic growth and activity. Certainly, if we were to sign up for the social chapter that would no longer happen.
    Mr. William Ross: We were told earlier that last year roughly as many people came to visit Northern Ireland as actually live there. Although we commend the efforts of those who increase the number of visitors, what is the point of attracting people to Northern Ireland if we do not have good-quality accommodation for them? What steps do the Government and the tourist board intend to take to increase the amount of reasonable-quality accommodation in the main tourist areas, which were almost overcome by the number of visitors last year?
    Mr. Ancram: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that, in a sense, we were victims of our own success last year, but I am sure that he will agree that that is the right kind of problem to have. I am delighted that hotel investment is taking place. Both the Stakis and Jurys hotel groups recently announced major hotel investments in Northern Ireland.
    It is also worth reminding the hon. Gentleman that, since the beginning of 1995, the Northern Ireland tourist board has agreed, or has been in the process of negotiating, assistance to the hotel industry of £24 million. That investment represents total expenditure of more than £98 million on new and
    1286
    improved hotels. I hope that the problems caused by last year's success will gradually be met through such encouragement and support.

    Terrorism
    Mr. John Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his latest assessment of the capability of the Provisional IRA to mount a terrorist campaign. [26379]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Sir John Wheeler): It is a fact that the Provisional IRA remains a formidably organised terrorist structure with the personnel and the weaponry available to mount a terrorist campaign, as evidenced by recent bomb attacks in London and other activities in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that last week's attempt to blow up Hammersmith bridge is a further chilling reminder of the terrorist capabilities of the Provisional IRA? Does that kind of incident not show that we need to demand not only the decommissioning of weapons but the standing down and dismantling of the terrorist structure? Nothing less will convince the people of Northern Ireland and of the United Kingdom of the IRA's real intentions with regard to peace.
    Sir John Wheeler: My hon. Friend is quite right: the standing down of the terrorist structure is essential. The Mitchell commission report said:
    "There must be a commitment and adherence to the fundamental principles of democracy and non-violence. All participants in any future all-party negotiations should confirm their commitment to those principles and honour them".
    There can be no place for those who possess stockpiles of Semtex and weapons or who engage in racketeering or in punishment attacks. My hon. Friend is right to say that the confidence of all people depends on adherence to those principles.
    Miss Hoey: Does the Minister agree that it would be inconceivable if the Republic of Ireland, which is an independent country, were to face the same terrorist threat as the United Kingdom, with bombs being found now and again—some of which explode and some which do not? The Irish Government would be much more up-front in dealing with those who were perpetuating terrorism. Does the Minister believe that we could learn some lessons from how the Republic of Ireland faced up to terrorism when it was occurring in that country?
    Sir John Wheeler: The Republic's security forces, and the Garda Siochana in particular, co-operate very well with the Royal Ulster Constabulary. There is an excellent relationship between the two police forces who work closely together. The hon. Lady is right: it is a serious matter. Since 9 February, there have been six terrorist bombings in London alone, apart from the daily evil of punishment attacks in Northern Ireland. It is essential that the Governments continue to explore the best possible ways of extending and improving co-operation between the security forces and the police services in particular.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Minister confirm that the IRA is still training, making weapons and attacking people by letter and by intimidation? Will he confirm that the police have recently visited many people in our constituencies to ask them to leave their homes and go to places of safety? Will he join me today in condemning the scurrilous attack made yesterday at the forum of the British-Irish interparliamentary body on the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire)? He was attacked because he denounced the IRA, and he was told by Paddy Harte that his attitude had caused many generations of Irish people to kill each other and to be anti-British. When the hon. Gentleman claimed that Northern Ireland was his country also, he was rebuked by the same Paddy Harte.
    Sir John Wheeler: The hon. Gentleman is quite right when he describes the activities of the Provisional IRA. Unhappily, the targeting, training and other criminal activities continue. It is a regrettable fact that this year, to 21 April, there have been no fewer than 98 so-called punishment attacks on people in Northern Ireland. That is exactly double the number over the same period in 1995, and 61 of the beatings have been attributed to Republican groups. It is essential that that evil ends if there is to be confidence in an ensuing peace process.
    I note the hon. Gentleman's comments about the forum in Dublin and I am sorry to hear them.
    Ms Mowlam: Labour agrees with the point just made by the Minister about punishment beatings. Unless they end, the trust and confidence needed will not be engendered. Does the Minister share our view that the issue of decommissioning of paramilitary weapons must be addressed at the beginning of the negotiations on 10 June and that the Mitchell report provides the best way to deal with that issue? In addition, does the Minister agree that the proposals advanced by the Irish Foreign Minister, Dick Spring, are entirely in keeping with the report and provide the most sensible way to proceed if we are to avoid returning to the logjam on that issue when the negotiations start on 10 June?
    Sir John Wheeler: The Government's position is based on the principles of the Mitchell report. It lays down a clear route if those engaged in terrorist activities wish to renounce violence and enter the democratic process. As I have said, the six principles in the Mitchell report set out very clearly what they must do, but they have to honour those principles. That will be essential if there is to be progress. I agree with the hon. Lady that the first item on the agenda must be decommissioning.

    Deregulation
    Mr. Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to promote further deregulation measures in the Province. [126380]
    Sir John Wheeler: I shall do so through the draft Deregulation and Contracting Out (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, which the House debated yesterday, and six specific deregulatory amendments will be made to Northern Ireland legislation.
    Mr. Steen: As deregulation has not, unfortunately, been a great success in Great Britain—given that 7, 839 statutory instruments have been passed in the past two years and only a few hundred have been repealed, although we have a £1.3 million task force of 43 staff in the Deputy Prime Minister's office, and that only 24 orders have come out of the Select Committee on Deregulation—why does the Minister think that we should impose the same disadvantages that Great Britain has had on Northern Ireland?
    Sir John Wheeler: My hon. Friend took a distinguished part in the debate late last night on the draft Deregulation and Contracting Out (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 which, as the House knows, was passed shortly before midnight. He expressed himself in similar terms during that debate and I shall ensure that my right hon. and hon. Friends in Great Britain are made aware of his interest and concerns. I can assure him that in Northern Ireland we shall proceed with all due dispatch to ensure that our contracting-out and deregulatory arrangements work as efficiently and effectively as they can.
    Sir James Molyneaux: As one who is more optimistic than the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen), may I make a point to the Minister? Given the success and the ability demonstrated by the district councils in Northern Ireland in promoting in-house tendering, will the Minister make use of last night's Order in Council and enable councils to compete with private suppliers from the private sector?
    Sir John Wheeler: As the right hon. Gentleman will know, last night's order will not compel, but will enable councils and other bodies to contract out and to compete for tendering. I hope that they will do so, because the evidence is that millions of pounds have been saved in Northern Ireland—money that can be better used for the services that people want. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman's support will be made widely known in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Dowd: I am not sure whether the Minister found the contribution by the hon. Member for South Hams in last night's debate quite as positive as he now claims. Still, how does he intend to implement the considerable powers given to him and, more particularly, given to his civil servants under articles 9 and 10 of the order, to ensure that full consultation with all affected by any changes occurs before decisions are taken? Furthermore, how will he ensure that the powers are not abused for purely administrative convenience?
    Sir John Wheeler: The powers agreed last night will in part be exercised by senior civil servants under the general policy guidance of Ministers responsible for Northern Ireland Departments. It will be inherent in the process of discharging those powers that those with a necessary and relevant interest in any subject will be properly consulted.

    Transport Links
    Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will institute a review of transport links between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. [26381]
    Mr. Moss: In view of the continued success of commercial transport operators and the growth in traffic between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, I do not believe that there are any grounds for a review at this time. In any event, shipping and air services between Northern Ireland and Great Britain are a matter for the Department of Transport.
    Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful. Will the Minister, however, confirm that the route from Cairnryan and Stranraer to Larne remains, in the thinking of the Government and of the European Union, one of the principal routes between Great Britain and the island of Ireland? In order to ensure that it does, will he say what guarantees he has obtained so that after rail privatisation the link from the west coast main line to Stranraer will continue to operate a service at least as frequent as, and preferably better than, the current one?
    Mr. Moss: I am happy to confirm that the Government consider the sea link between the ports of Stranraer and Cairnryan and Northern Ireland to be vital to the economy of Northern Ireland. The steady increase in freight and passenger traffic, combined with the introduction by operators of improved vessels and infrastructure, point to the viability of these operations.
    The privatisation of the rail link is a matter for the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Transport; but I understand that a minimum service requirement for the proposed line has been put out to consultation.
    Mr. Beggs: Can the Minister confirm that the A8 Larne to Belfast road is part of a recognised Euro-route? Does he agree that total funding for the roads programme in Northern Ireland has been inadequate for years? Does he recognise that cancelling the proposed dualling extension for the A8 has caused considerable concern? When reviewing proposals for future road development in Northern Ireland, will he give consideration to the increased traffic that will travel the A8 owing to the new P and 0 fast ferry service due to come into operation in June? Will he therefore seek to reinstate the dualling extension in the Northern Ireland's roads programme?
    Mr. Moss: I confirm that the A8 is indeed a trans-European network route, and that funds for road improvement are not sufficient to meet the ever-increasing demand. We have repositioned schemes in the programme this year to reflect new priorities—especially the traffic congestion on the west link in Belfast. I am happy to reiterate, however, that the Government's long-term intention remains to dual the A8, in stages spread over the six to 15-year major roads programme. That may be subject to change if traffic volumes on the A8 change significantly. In any case, investment can be considered for minor improvements to ease congestion, eliminate delays and deal with aspects of road safety.

    Royal Ulster Constabulary
    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to restructure the Royal Ulster Constabulary. [26382]
    Sir John Wheeler: My right hon. and learned Friend yesterday published a White Paper detailing proposals to
    1290
    improve and clarify the accountability and effectiveness of the police service in Northern Ireland. Separately, the fundamental review of policing continues. Conclusions are expected in the summer.
    Mr. Corbyn: Does the Minister concede that the report itself states that there are serious differences between the confidence felt in the police by the nationalist and loyalist communities in Northern Ireland? Full restructuring should take place as a matter of urgency, including an examination of recruitment methods and a change in the name of the Northern Ireland police force, which should no longer be known as the Royal Ulster Constabulary. That will inspire greater confidence in the police among the nationalist community.
    Sir John Wheeler: The White Paper was about improving the tripartite structure. Some aspects of the hon. Gentleman's question relate, perhaps, to the fundamental review of policing that will take place in the summer, but there is a strong desire to see recruitment into the Royal Ulster Constabulary reflect the character of the population as a whole, and there is some sign of a welcome improvement. That is the objective of the police authority and chief constable.
    Sir John Cope: Although I welcome my right hon. Friend's suggestions, having personal knowledge of the RUC, I ask him to be most cautious to do nothing that would damage the morale of the RUC, as that would be unwise and dangerous, particularly while the terrorists are fully active and armed, as they are at present. Does not the maintenance of the rule of law over many years owe much to the bravery, skill and restraint of the RUC?
    Sir John Wheeler: My right hon. Friend is right to point to the fact that we do not have a ceasefire in Northern Ireland. The provisional IRA remains a serious and formidable threat, and the officers of the RUC are on the front line. We should not forget that. Nor should we forget that every test of public opinion in Northern Ireland shows that the RUC is increasingly seen as an effective police service, responding to the needs of the public, which is what it wishes to do.
    Mr. Worthington: We welcome yesterday's White Paper on policing, but does it not fudge on one central issue? Will not the police authority have the independent strength that it needs only when representatives of the local authorities, professions, trade unions and industry are chosen by the bodies themselves, and when it is not a quango selected by the Secretary of State?
    Sir John Wheeler: The Government are open minded about the way in which members of the police authority find their places on that body. The appointments method currently employed at least has the virtue that it enables my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State to select people from all parts of the community in Northern Ireland and to ensure that the police authority is as fairly balanced and representative as possible. For the future, however, there may be other ways of securing people to the membership of the authority which reflects some of the democratic systems in Northern Ireland, or how they might emerge. It is a matter on which the Government's mind is open.

    Electricity Industry
    Mr. Soley: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action he intends to take on electricity generation and distribution following the second report of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee on electricity prices in Northern Ireland, HC 395 of Session 1994–95. [26385]
    Mr. Ancram: Following their response to the Select Committee's report, the Government announced a £15 million support package to reduce the increase in Northern Ireland electricity prices in 1996–97 by 3 per cent. The Government remain committed to securing the economic and environmental benefits of energy efficiency.
    Mr. Soley: Notwithstanding the fact that the Select Committee represents five different political parties in the House, the unanimous view of everybody on the Committee was that the people of Northern Ireland have had fewer advantages from privatisation than people in the rest of the United Kingdom. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] That is comparative. The Minister will accept that all the recommendations in the report were carried unanimously and that there is a strong view that not only the individual consumer but business and employment will be greatly affected by the steps that the Government take to improve the effect of privatisation in Northern Ireland, which was not as it was planned to be.
    Mr. Ancram: I very much appreciate the hon. Gentleman's recognition of the advantages that have flowed from privatisation. I sometimes wish that some of his colleagues were as forthcoming in their recognition of the benefits of privatisation. Obviously, the Government wish to see those benefits and advantages increase. There is no evidence that decisions on major economic investment projects have been adversely influenced by higher electricity prices in Northern Ireland, but, in their response to the Select Committee, the Government set out the need, which they achieved this year, to keep any price increase below the rate of inflation.
    Mr. Trimble: The Minister must be aware that the high cost of power is imposing a crippling burden on Northern Ireland industry, and is leading some firms to consider relocating elsewhere in the United Kingdom. The problem arises from the botched way in which privatisation was carried out: Northern Ireland was locked into high-cost contracts. Do not alternative energy supplies need to be made available speedily, and the regulator's powers enhanced, so that he can act sooner? Does that not require action, not words, from the Government?
    Mr. Ancram: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that steps are currently being taken—not least by Premier Energy Suppliers Ltd.—to develop downstream gas in Greater Belfast. Consultations are being offered between Premier Energy Suppliers and others to establish whether gas supplies can be taken to the north-west as well. Alternative energy sources are, in fact, being considered. The Government have made it clear that they also want to look at renewable resources. They have always taken the view that the greater the variety and choice in energy, the better it will ultimately be for consumers.
    Mr. Illsley: Does the Minister accept that, even with a £15 million subsidy this year, the price increase in
    1292
    Northern Ireland is still 2.6 per cent.? That means that electricity prices in Northern Ireland are still 20 per cent. higher than the United Kingdom average, mainly as a result of contracts for generators which, in some instances, are in place until 2024. Until those contracts are renegotiated, there can be no progress on electricity prices. Should not the Minister take action now to restructure what is indeed a bungled privatisation?
    Mr. Ancram: I reject any suggestion that it is a bungled privatisation. The generators' charges are fixed in real terms, and protect consumers against generator costs rising faster than inflation. The contracts prevent generators from increasing their charges throughout the period of those contracts. Higher generators' profits have been achieved through greater efficiency and cost savings, and not at the expense of consumers. Surely the hon. Gentleman welcomes increased efficiency in the industry, which is in the long-term interests of consumers.

    Flags
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on what occasions (a) the Union flag is flown over RUC stations and (b) the tricolour is flown at the Garda Siochana stations in the Republic. [26386]
    Sir John Wheeler: The Union flag is flown over RUC stations on 19 prescribed occasions. I have written to the hon. Member listing those occasions. In addition, the Union flag is flown on any occasion directed by the Chief Constable, the last such occasion being 9 June 1994, at the time of the Chinook helicopter crash on the Mull of Kintyre.
    I understand that the Irish national flag is flown over Gardai stations on certain national days and throughout the year over Gardai headquarters, Dublin. Otherwise, the decision to fly the flag is at the discretion of local commanders.
    Mr. Arnold: Has my right hon. Friend received any request for the European Union flag to be flown over those stations?
    Sir John Wheeler: I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that no such request has been received. Were such a request to be received, I would of course consider it with great care.

    A-level Examinations
    Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the performance of secondary school children in Northern Ireland in the A-level examinations. [26389]
    Mr. Ancram: Northern Ireland pupils continue to maintain a high level of performance in A-level examinations, and I offer my congratulations to both pupils and teachers.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: Does the Minister consider that the superb success of Northern Ireland children in GCSEs and A-levels may have been achieved for the same reason as the success in Southend-on-Sea? More than 24 per cent.

    1293
    of all those children, irrespective of religion, go to grammar schools. Will the Minister bear it in mind that grammar schools give working-class children an opportunity to break through educationally, and will he tell his colleagues and the Labour party that grammar schools achieve a great deal of sound success? We should be proud of what Northern Ireland has achieved.
    Mr. Ancram: As the Education Minister for Northern Ireland, I am more than happy to pay tribute to the quality of education produced by grammar schools, which contribute to the high quality of education provided there, but we must recognise that there are other reasons for that. There is a traditionally high regard for academic qualifications—particularly in higher education—in the Province, and I have found that parents place a high value on education. Parental support also plays a great part in producing the results that we are seeing.

    Ulster, North Down and Ards Hospitals HSS Trust
    Mrs. Bridget Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent discussions he has had concerning the financial position of the Ulster, North Down and Ards Hospitals HSS trust; and if he will make a statement. [26390]
    Mr. Moss: I met the trust chairman and senior officers on 21 February and took the opportunity to discuss the financial position. The trust has experienced problems in recent years regarding in-year pressures, but it is developing a recovery plan and has to date achieved all of its strategy financial obligations.
    Mrs. Prentice: Is the Minister aware that the hospitals feel that they are in financial chaos? Is he further aware that those involved believe that they will no longer be able to carry out any casualty treatment and that all elective surgery is likely to be cancelled? Is it not time that the Minister worked with the hospitals to ensure that financial stability is returned? Those involved believe that this is not a temporary phenomenon and that the Government must take some responsibility.
    Mr. Moss: I reiterate that I met the trust chairman and officers on 21 February. On 20 February, I announced a major investment programme at the hospital, totalling some £13.5 million. I do not consider that to be ignoring the hospitals' requirements.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 May. [26405]
    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. Arnold: During his busy evening, did the Prime Minister have an opportunity to watch television last night, as an interesting broadcast demonstrated conclusively that people get better value for their council tax from Conservative councils? Does he not think that people will get better value by voting Conservative today?
    The Prime Minister: They can certainly see that, by voting Labour in the past, they have had to pay high council tax. Southwark, Islington, Wellingborough and probably any Labour authority one can mention has had a significantly higher council tax in the previous year, and a higher tax than a comparable Conservative authority. That is the nature of the Labour beast—vote for it, and then pay for it.
    Mr. Blair: What most people recall is that they did vote for the Conservative party and they did pay for it, with 22 tax increases.
    However, is the Prime Minister aware that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said yesterday that the cattle slaughter scheme would be fully operational today? In view of the widespread reports of confusion from all around the country today, can he give a factual account of what is happening?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that the information should now be available to people. My right hon. and learned Friend wrote to the National Farmers Union with details of the scheme, and information was published in the farming press last week. Guidance on the scheme was distributed on Monday evening to the abattoirs and markets that have been designated to operate it. As my right hon. and learned Friend made clear yesterday, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will issue detailed guidance to farmers, and that will be sent out tomorrow. In the meantime, the Intervention Board and MAFF are operating a helpline to provide information to farmers, and that will continue throughout the weekend.
    Mr. Blair: Is not the difference between theory and practice the problem here? The scheme is supposed to be operational today, but does not appear to be operational in many parts of the country. In particular, people are saying, first, that there are insufficient collection centres; secondly, that there may be inadequate capacity for incinerating the carcases; and, thirdly, that many farmers appear to be in the dark both about the details of compensation and how it will operate. I know that this is difficult, but can the Prime Minister ask the Agriculture Minister to respond with even greater urgency to the situation, because at the moment the response appears pretty inept?
    The Prime Minister: I have already made my own inquiries to ensure that such information as is necessary is distributed and made available to farmers speedily. The scheme is large and will involve the slaughter of 15, 000 to 20, 000 animals a week. The scheme has been finalised and we moved immediately to ensure that farmers had the information they needed. Most of them should have. If some have not, the matter is now being examined and investigated, and I hope that farmers will have the information speedily.
    Sir Cranley Onslow: Has my right hon. Friend seen the letter about the EC ban on British beef exports which a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends sent yesterday to all the EC ambassadors in London? Will he ask the Foreign Secretary to call in those ambassadors to ensure that they report accurately to their Governments on the great damage that is being done in terms of British confidence in the European Union as a result of the way in which the EC is handling the matter?
    The Prime Minister: I shall certainly draw that interesting suggestion to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend, who is already in touch with his fellow Foreign Ministers across the European Union. I share the view expressed by my right hon. Friend. The evidence shows that British beef is safe, as both the Commission President and the Agriculture Commissioner have acknowledged. I am delighted to see this afternoon that the Wimpy chain has lifted the ban on British beef with immediate effect and I have no doubt whatever that that is the right decision.
    Mrs. Bridget Prentice: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 May. [26406]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Prentice: Three times on Tuesday the Prime Minister failed to give a direct answer to questions about discussions he had had with the Deputy Prime Minister. I ask him now whether he has ever discussed with the Deputy Prime Minister the possibility—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must listen to the hon. Lady.
    Mrs. Prentice: Has the Prime Minister ever discussed with the Deputy Prime Minister the possibility that he would stand aside and allow his deputy to take over if, by tomorrow, Conservative party fortunes have not improved?
    The Prime Minister: The last Labour politician who was that smug about elections is now earning his living elsewhere in Europe.
    Mr. Carrington: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday May. [26407]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Carrington: Does my right hon. Friend agree that another vital election is about to take place—the one in Northern Ireland leading to negotiations on 10 June when the people of Northern Ireland will be able to decide their future for themselves through peaceful and democratic means? Does he agree that the time has come for the IRA to stop trying to coerce and blackmail the people of Northern Ireland and to abandon terrorism?
    The Prime Minister: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. There is no absolutely no credible reason for the IRA not to stop its violence immediately. The all-party negotiations will be serious and they will start on 10 June. Sinn Fein can play a part in them if there is an unequivocal IRA ceasefire. In that case, Sinn Fein will find itself in the same position as other political parties. As I have said many times, the choice is for the IRA to make and I hope that it will make it. It will certainly gain nothing by waiting, still less by more violence, which can only call even further into question its readiness to adopt peaceful methods. Whether there is a ceasefire or not, the talks will go ahead.
    Mr. Soley: Is the Secretary of State for Scotland right to refuse to distribute European Union posters on Europe day?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend is a very proud Scot and the flag that he wishes to see flying in Scotland is the Union flag—so do I.
    Mr. Spring: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 [26408]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Spring: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the satisfaction in my constituency that unemployment has fallen to 4.5 per cent? Is he aware that there is particular satisfaction this week because Labour lost control of St. Edmundsbury borough council? Does my right hon. Friend share the view of the Labour councillor who defected to the Conservatives that, underneath a thin veneer, all those tawdry old socialist instincts of Labour remain alive and well?
    The Prime Minister: Clearly, the lady concerned is a councillor with great insight. There is no doubt about what the fate is of those parts of the country that are unfortunate enough to have Labour councils: they pay higher council taxes. The 10 councils with the highest council tax are all Labour-controlled, and that is the message that every voter should remember. If voters want to pay an extra £225 a week on band D, all they have to do is to vote Labour, and it will be guaranteed.
    Mr. Gapes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 May [26409]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Gapes: Does the Prime Minister agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that economic and monetary union is no threat to the nation state?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman should look carefully at what my right hon. and learned Friend has said—he would then not misrepresent him.
    Mr. Cash: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a misrepresentation to allege that Euro-realists urge that Britain leave the European Union? Does he agree that we have now reached a position at which we should be

    1297
    having a proper discussion in the intergovernmental conference on all the fundamental issues? As I said at the end of last year's leadership contest, we should be talking to one another—in Europe and in the United Kingdom—rather than at one another.
    The Prime Minister: I am very much in favour of that type of dialogue. There is no doubt that it is the right position for the United Kingdom to play a leading role in the European Union, but it is equally right to say that that does not mean that we shall necessarily agree with our colleagues on many issues. We are as entitled to fight our corner and disagree as any other nation state in Europe.
    I intend to stay at the centre of the European debate, assessing, on each issue, what is best for the British national interest—in precisely the same way in which other heads of Government will assess what is right for their countries—and always arguing for the sort of Europe that the Government believe is right for the whole of Europe.
    Mr. Chisholm: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 May. [26410]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Chisholm: Given the unsatisfactory replies given on bovine spongiform encephalopathy earlier to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and to my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), is it not time that we have a Government who are taken seriously in Europe? Will he condemn the infantile and counter-productive gesture politics of the Secretary of State for Scotland in refusing to allow the European flag to fly for one day next week?
    The Prime Minister: I answered that question some moments ago. I do not know quite where the hon. Gentleman was then, but the answer I gave then still stands.
    Mr. David Atkinson: Will my right hon. Friend accept the appreciation and thanks of my constituents because the Government went further than they were originally prepared to go on the Housing Bill, which received its Third Reading earlier this week, in giving special control provisions to local authorities to deal with the seedy bedsits and squalid landlords that were threatening our towns with decline and decay? Does he agree that those provisions will need political will and determination to be implemented effectively, and will he remind our voters of that as they go to the polls today?
    Mr. Mackinlay: He is not one of us.
    The Prime Minister: That is certainly true, nor, as my hon. Friend is a man of taste and discretion, would he
    1298
    wish to be one of them. As for the legislation that my hon. Friend mentioned, there has been a problem in recent years with many people moving, particularly to seaside towns. It is right to have taken the measures that we have. I hope that those measures will stop the abuse of the social security system and the difficulties faced recently by many seaside towns.
    Mr. Beggs: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 May. [26411]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Beggs: Does the Prime Minister share the view of Fergus Finley, who thinks for Dick Spring, that if Sinn Fein does not attend the talks in Northern Ireland, the talks will be a waste of time? Can the Prime Minister confirm to the House that the participation of democratic parties in the forthcoming talks will have influence?
    The Prime Minister: I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. What we need to see in the forthcoming talks is the democratic parties meeting, talking and seeking to reach a position that will enable there to be agreement in Northern Ireland. I emphasise the point that it is for the democratic parties. If there is no credible, clear-cut and certain ceasefire, Sinn Fein in no sense can claim to be a democratic party and it will not be there, as other parties will.
    Mr. Luff: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 May. [26414]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Luff: Will my right hon. Friend seize this opportunity to remind the House once again that the superior management and policies of Conservative councils deliver better services and lower taxes for council tax payers—some £225 lower, I believe, for the average band D household?
    The Prime Minister: I can certainly confirm that. One only has to see the performance of Labour councils to illustrate it. I see that the shadow Environment Secretary is not here. If he were, he could explain why bad debts cost Camden tax payers £2.95 for every dwelling every week. Perhaps Opposition Members can explain why the highest band D council tax is in Labour Liverpool and why the highest amounts of council tax are in Labour Lambeth. I could stretch the list from here until next Tuesday, so bad and so inefficient are Labour councils.

Business of the House
3.31 pm
Mrs. Ann Taylor: May I ask the Leader of the House for details of future business?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 6 MAY—The House will not be sitting.
TUESDAY 7 MAY—Second Reading of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Bill [Lords].
Motion on the Contracting Out (Administration of Civil Service Pension Schemes) Order.
WEDNESDAY 8 MAY—Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Opposition Day [11th allotted day]. Until about 7 o'clock, there will be a debate on the prospects for water supplies this summer, followed by a debate on the fire service. Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
THURSDAY 9 MAY—Consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the Armed Forces Bill.
FRIDAY 10 MAY—Private Members' Bills. The provisional business for the following week will be as follows:
MONDAY 13 MAY—Opposition Day [12th allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats, of which the subject-understandably—has not yet been announced.
TUESDAY 14 MAY—Opposition Day [13th allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, the subject of which also—understandably—has not yet been announced.
Motions relating to the Education (Grants for Nursery Education) (England) Regulations and the Education (Grants for Education Support and Training: Nursery Education) (England) Regulations.
WEDNESDAY 15 MAY—Until 2 o'clock. there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Debate on the common agricultural policy and other agricultural issues on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
THURSDAY 16 MAY—Until about 7 o'clock, proceedings on the Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill.
FRIDAY 17 MAY—Debate on education and training of 16 to 19-year-olds on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The House will also wish to know that the following European Standing Committees will meet at 10.30 am on Wednesday 8 May to consider European Community Documents as follows:
European Standing Committee A: There will be a debate on the welfare of calves.
European Standing Committee B: There will be a debate on consumer credit. Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
The House may also wish to know that it is proposed that on Wednesday 15 May there will be a debate on agricultural prices for 1996–97 in European Standing Committee A and a debate on fraud in European Standing Committee B.
[Wednesday 8 May:
European Standing Committee A—European Community Documents 13099/95, Welfare of Calves 4647/96. Relevant European Legislation Committee Report: HC 51-xii (1995–96)
European Standing Committee B—European Community Documents: 7774/95 and unnumbered on consumer credit. Relevant European Legislation Reports: HC 70-xxiii (1994–95, HC 70-xxv (1994–95) and HC 51-xi (1995–96)
Wednesday 15 May
European Standing Committee A—European Community Document 5215/96, Agricultural Price Proposals 1996–97. Relevant European Legislation Committee Report: HC 5 I-xiv (1995–96)
European Standing Committee B—European Community Document 4512/96, Detection of Fraud and Irregularities. Relevant European Legislation Committee Report: HC5 I-xv (1995–96)
Debate on the common agricultural policy and other agricultural issues on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. Relevant documents: Council Document 5215/96 ADD 1, Volume I of 29 February 1996; Council Document 5215/96 ADD 2, Volume II of 7 March 1996; Council Document 5215/96 ADD 3, Volume III of 18 March 1996; Explanatory Memorandum 5215/96 ADD 1 and 2, Volumes I and II of 12 March 1996; Explanatory Memorandum 5215/96 ADD 3, Volume III of 12 March 1996; the Commons Select Committee Report on Explanatory Memoranda 5215/96 ADD 1, 2 and 3, Volumes I, II and III of 27 March 1996.]
Mrs. Taylor: I thank the Leader of the House for once again giving us as much notice as possible of future business. Can he shed light on rumours that the Government intend to clear the decks of Government business by July to minimise the need for a spill-over session in October and so prepare the ground for an autumn election?
As the right hon. Gentleman has been sympathetic when I have previously requested a debate on parliamentary reform, will he assure us that even if such a debate cannot take place in the next couple of weeks, we will be able to debate that important matter before the summer recess? As he is in the process of planning the business leading up to the summer recess, will he say why we still have not had a date for the remaining stages of the Community Care (Direct Payments) Bill? Is it because the Government suffered significant defeats in Committee on the rights of disabled people? He knows that there is bound to be a suspicion that the unusual delay in returning the Bill to the House is because Government Ministers are plotting to overturn those amendments, which would mean a great deal to disabled people. It would be help everyone if we knew when the Bill was coming back.
Everyone recalls the tragedy at Dunblane. At that time, there were many calls for changes in the law on the possession of firearms. It was right not to take instant decisions at the height of the grief that everyone felt then, but we understand that the Government have now made a submission on gun control to the Cullen committee of inquiry. Would it not be right for the House to contribute to that debate, in what I hope would be a measured way, before the Government reach any final conclusions on what changes might be appropriate to gun control?

1301
My other point is also specific and important. The Leader of the House announced that the debate on the common agricultural policy on Wednesday 15 May is to be on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. I ask him to reconsider that decision. Will he confirm that previous debates on that, the big set-piece agriculture debate of the year, have been on take note motions and therefore amendable? Why is he so adamant that this year's debate should be on the motion for the Adjournment? Of which amendments are the Government more afraid: those that might be tabled by the Opposition or those of their Back Benchers? Or are they afraid of any vote on any issue connected with Europe?
Mr. Newton: Perhaps I might take the last point first. The hon. Lady did not present a full picture of what I proposed in my statement. I proposed both scrutiny in European Standing Committee A, where complex and detailed proposals can be scrutinised extremely effectively—including by the questioning of Ministers—and at the same time I provided for the annual debate, which the House rightly expects, on agricultural matters on the Floor of the House at a time when there are many matters of great interest in agriculture which go well beyond the technicalities of the CAP. My proposals give the House the most effective form of scrutiny in detail and a full opportunity to debate matters of interest. In combination, of course, that is a greater opportunity than would be provided by either proposal on its own.
On the question of Dunblane and guns, the hon. Lady is quite right that the Government have presented, and published, their evidence to Lord Cullen's inquiry. I have no doubt that hon. Members on both sides of the House may wish to submit observations. I will certainly bear in mind the hon. Lady's request for a debate on the subject.
On the Community Care (Direct Payments) Bill, there is nothing sinister or devious about the position. My right hon. and hon. Friends obviously wish to consider carefully what happened in Committee and it would be quite wrong were they to do otherwise.
On the question of a debate on parliamentary reform, I have always said that I see some attractions in such a debate. I will continue to bear in mind the requests for a debate, but the hon. Lady will realise that there is a great deal of Government business to be carried through at present.
I agree that there are a lot of rumours about, including the suggestion that the House might rise at a very early date in July. I do not know who is putting those rumours around; I only know that it is not me and I do not wish to give any credence to them.
Finally, and as ever, I express my thanks to the hon. Lady for her thanks at the beginning of her remarks.
Mr. Edward Gamier: Will my right hon. Friend find time soon for a short debate on planning regulations as they relate to the erection of mobile telephone masts? A number of my constituents have written to me to complain about the way in which those masts appear in beautiful parts of Leicestershire without proper scrutiny by local planning committees. This matter is one of increasing public interest and I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend could provide time for a short debate.
Mr. Newton: I am aware of concerns that have been expressed in many constituencies, including my own. I will, of course, bring my hon. and learned Friend's remarks to the attention of the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: May I, too, acknowledge with thanks the announcement by the Leader of the House of the provisional business for the week starting 13 May? It is always useful to have such information. In that context, may I ask him to give special consideration through the usual channels to the date for the minority Opposition day? I have not had a chance to discuss that with colleagues or other minority parties, but the proposed date clashes with the meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee in Dundee, so that might cause some difficulties. I hope that that problem can be discussed through the usual channels.
Will the right hon. Gentleman also give us an assurance that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will make sure that he gives regular reports on the important subjects raised today by the Leader of the Opposition with the Prime Minister about the cattle disposal scheme? That must get started, and the sooner the better.
Mr. Newton: I assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. and learned Friend will continue to make reports to the House as appropriate. I cannot add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said about what is going on at this very moment to ensure the implementation of the 30-month cull scheme and to ensure that information about it is widely communicated.
On the hon. Gentleman's first point, he well knows that we always listen, even if we cannot always respond as he would like, to representations made through the usual channels. As it happens, there was one change in the business I announced, made in response to some other representation through the usual channels. We will obviously consider the hon. Gentleman's representations.
Mr. John Butcher: May we have a debate on the system of justice in this country given the growing evidence that a proportion of High Court judges seem to have lost all touch with reality? During that debate we could refer in particular to Sir Richard Scott's cash-for-treason judgment, under which he awarded £70, 000 to George Blake, who betrayed and therefore condemned to death 42 British agents. Does my right hon. Friend regret that that particular judge cannot be sentenced to two years counselling by the SAS? Failing that—
Madam Speaker: Order. Perhaps I should remind the hon. Gentleman that if he is seeking to criticise any member of the judiciary we have procedures to do that through substantive motions.
Mr. Butcher: Of course I accept your judgment, Madam Speaker. I would convert my comments into a request for such a debate to consider a Bill to allow the House to ban the prospect of treason being rewarded in that way.
Mr. Newton: In the light of your comment, Madam Speaker, I might be wise simply to take delivery of my hon. Friend's suggestion.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to be made about the

1303
reduced earnings allowance? As an ex-Social Security Minister, he will know that in the late 1980s a law was passed which has enabled that reduced earnings allowance to be cut dramatically by about 75 per cent. during the past few weeks. That has affected literally thousands of people who were disabled in the mines and various other organisations throughout Britain. Is he aware that that cut has resulted in severe hardship for many of these people? Will he consider a statement on this matter so that we can look at it afresh?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman, who is an assiduous attender, was probably present last week when I made some observations on the subject and the background to it. The House settled the law in this area some considerable time ago. I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security.
Mr. Harry Greenway: May I ask my right hon. Friend for a debate next week on cruelty to animals so that the latest RSPCA annual report can be considered? The report reveals that cruelty to horses has increased by 60 per cent. in the past 12 months and that unpleasant cruelty to dogs and to other animals is also increasing. Many hon. Members are concerned about this issue and I would be grateful if we could have an early debate on it.
Mr. Newton: I cannot promise my hon. Friend an early debate on the matter that he has raised. However, he may have noted that in my statement today I announced a debate on the welfare of calves—another point about which the hon. Gentleman is interested—in European Standing Committee A next Wednesday. I remind my hon. Friend that any hon. Member may attend and take part in the debates in those Standing Committees.
Mr. Harry Barnes: When in Government time will we have a debate on the pathetic state of the electoral registers in this country? Clearly, we have to act as there will be a general election at some time in the future. There are 3 million to 4 million people missing off the electoral registers, including young, poor and black people. This issue should be of great concern to any hon. Member who depends on the people themselves.
Mr. Newton: As the hon. Gentleman implied, this is a matter that he has raised on a number of occasions. I can think of nothing to say on this occasion that I have not said before.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: May I thank my right hon. Friend for calling the debate on education and training for young people aged between 16 and 19. It would have been more appropriate for this subject to be debated on an Opposition day because we are all aware of the intention of the Labour party to withdraw child benefit to the tune of £560 from every young person in that age range who is in education and training. That Labour party proposal will particularly hit young people from unskilled homes. Under the Labour Government, less than one fifth of those young people stayed on in education; under the Conservative Government, half of them stay on in education.
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend is right to remind hon. Members—and the country—of the policy of the Labour party in this regard. It seemed inconceivable that the Opposition would seek to debate this important subject, so I thought that it was appropriate to do so on a Government day.
Mr. Tony Banks: May I associate myself with the request of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) for a debate on animal welfare. Is the Leader of the House aware that yesterday 1, 500 people from Compassion in World Farming were at central hall? There was considerable anger about the proposed treatment of cows as a result of BSE and the culling of large numbers of animals, including working cows, calves and even healthy beasts. This is appalling and it is being done in the name of restoring public confidence. There is not much public confidence in the Government at the moment, but surely no one would suggest that we should cull Ministers.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman's remarks are a bit over the top. The underlying objective of these policies is to preserve the livelihoods of almost 650, 000 people who work in and around the industry. He should not dismiss that aim in the way that his remarks imply. Nevertheless, I respect the hon. Gentleman's concern for animal welfare and I draw his attention to the debate on the welfare of calves in European Standing Committee A next week. He can take part in those discussions if he wishes.
Mr. Peter Luff: Given the accelerating trend among Labour and Liberal-controlled local education authorities to deny young students of dance and drama access to discretionary awards, can my right hon. Friend assure me that the terms of the debate on education and training will enable right hon. and hon. Members to refer to that important subject and enable the Government to make constructive proposals to tackle the problem? It would certainly reassure the parents whom I shall meet tomorrow night at a leading Worcestershire dance school, who face agonising choices about their young children's future.
Mr. Newton: I am sorry to hear of the circumstances in Worcester. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of the subjects, and I think that would certainly be within the scope of the debate that I have announced because it is on a motion for the Adjournment. That illustrates the advantages of debates on the Adjournment, to provide for wide-ranging debate.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Leader of the House make time available in the very near future for an urgent debate on the treatment of asylum seekers in this country? That would allow the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), to explain at the Dispatch Box why she leaked to the newspapers last night the information that Adae Onibiyo, a young Nigerian, is due to be deported tomorrow and that she has refused to meet any Member of Parliament between now and tomorrow to discuss his safety or any removal arrangements. It would also allow her to explain the basic inhumanity of holding in custody for more than a year a young man, aged 20, who has committed no crime in this country, and who has been

1305
denied education, freedom and access to his family because of that abominable treatment by the British Government.
Mr. Newton: I would want to make sure that my hon. Friend is aware of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, although without for a minute accepting the flavour of his observations directed at her. It is well within the hon. Gentleman's knowledge that asylum matters generally are under consideration in another place at present, and that will in due course no doubt lead to further debate here.
Mr. Richard Spring: I welcome the announcement by my right hon. Friend of the debate on the common agricultural policy being expanded to agricultural matters in general. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that that could include discussion, not only on BSE, but on the great prosperity currently enjoyed by the farmers of East Anglia?
Mr. Newton: The answer to that is yes. It again illustrates the advantages of providing for a debate on the Adjournment, which would enable all those issues to be embraced.
Mrs. Bridget Prentice: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 768?
[That this House is alarmed by the growth of trafficking in Khat, a drug illegal in America, Canada, Sweden, Norway and Ireland amongst others; recognises that the discrepancy in British law with that of other countries has led to the conviction and imprisonment of British subjects abroad for importation and possession of Khat; is concerned about the health problems associated with Khat, notably paranoid psychosis and hypomania and about the increasing social problems caused by this substance in some communities; and therefore calls upon Her Majesty's Government to make Khat a controlled substance under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.]
I remind the Leader of the House that khat is legal in this country but illegal elsewhere in the world, and that a constituent of mine has now been imprisoned in Ireland as a result of carrying it. Several social and health problems are associated with it. Will he ask the appropriate Minister in the Home Office to make a statement at the Dispatch Box about the control of drugs or about the possibility of a debate on the misuse of drugs?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Lady is probably aware that the background is that the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, which I believe is widely respected, advised in 1988 that in the United Kingdom there was insufficient evidence of misuse to justify bringing that plant under the controls of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. We do, however, continue to monitor the position, and I will ensure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has his attention drawn to the concerns that the hon. Lady expressed.
Mr. John Marshall: When will we have the annual summer economic debate? Many of us would like to point out that unemployment in Britain is well below that in Germany, France, Spain and Italy, that industrial relations have been transformed since 1979 and that privatisation has been good for the consumer and the
1306
taxpayer, who now receives £50 million a week from those industries whereas, in 1979, he had to pay £50 million towards their losses.
Mr. Newton: In view of the quality of my hon. Friend's rhetoric, I am tempted to change the business and announce such a debate for next week. I cannot quite go that far, but I will try to satisfy the hon. Gentleman and, I hope, also to please the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), by making a reasonably early announcement of when I expect the summer economic debate to be
Mr. John McFall: May I point out the tragic suicide of a young constituent of mine, Angela Bollan, aged 19, in Cornton Vale women's prison in Stirling last Friday, in the constituency of the Secretary of State for Scotland? I point out to the Leader of the House that that is the fourth suicide of young women in that prison in the past 10 months, so this is a very serious situation. I sat with the family of young Angela in their home last Friday, and they asked me to make urgent inquiries into the position in Cornton Vale. Will the Leader of the House pass on my comments to the Secretary of State for Scotland? May we have a statement in the House on the situation in prisons and any future policies designed to avoid such tragic consequences?
Mr. Newton: The House will understand and respect the hon. Gentleman's reasons for raising the matter in the way that he has. In a similar spirit, I shall ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland sees what the hon. Gentleman has said.
Mr. David Nicholson: My right hon. Friend may have noticed that, following an agreement through the usual channels on Tuesday night, the homeless clauses of the Housing Bill were galloped through with hardly any Back-Bench contributions. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the issue of homelessness is complex and raises a number of questions that go beyond the sensible reforms in the Bill? They include the rough sleepers initiative, which is being extended from London to the provinces. May we have a debate on that complex, but important subject?
Mr. Newton: One of my predecessors, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Biffen), once observed that many of the questions asked during business questions were speeches that had been frustrated during the week. We have just heard a classic case and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) on releasing his frustration in that way.
Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will have heard the answer that the Leader of the House gave to my request for a debate next week on the safety of asylum seekers. You will also have heard me tell the House that the Minister had refused to meet me or any other hon. Member to discuss the safety of Ade Onibiyo. Are there any means by which the Minister of State or any other Minister from the Home Office can be brought to the House to explain their continuing behaviour—they essentially show contempt for hon. Members who legitimately try to raise issues of concern about people who are wrongly held in custody and wrongly deported from this country, often to places of danger?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may wish to raise that matter with his Front-Bench team and through the usual channels. On the general issue, there is a convention that hon. Members have the right to make representations to Ministers; I know that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about that and I expect that right to be recognised. Equally, Ministers are required to take decisions and it is for them to determine how to respond to hon. Members' representations. If a Minister took the view that he was prepared to take account only of representations that contained new material or new arguments, I could well understand that attitude. I make that point because I know that the hon. Gentleman is deeply concerned about such matters.

NORTHERN IRELAND
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
That the draft Road Traffic Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 1st April, be approved.—[Mr. Wood.]
Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees),
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
  AGRICULTURAL STRATEGIES: EU AND THE ASSOCIATED COUNTRIES
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 12503/95, relating to a study of alternative strategies for the development of relations in the field of agriculture between the EU and the associated countries with a view to the future accession of those countries; and supports the Government's intention to press for a Common Agricultural Policy which is affordable, in which support distorts neither prices nor production and is targeted on environmental and other specific objectives, which contains fair common rules and which facilitates the accession of these countries.

  PROGRESS TOWARDS CONVERGENCE
  That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 10380/95, a Commission report on Employment in Europe 1995; 11417/95, relating to the impact of currency fluctuations on the internal market; 11478/95, the Communication, The Future of Social Protection: a framework for a European debate; 11987/95, a report by the European Monetary Institute on Progress towards convergence; and 12633/95, relating to exchange rate relations between participating and non-participating countries in Stage 3 of Economic and Monetary Union; and agrees with the Government that Protocol (No. 11) annexed to the EC Treaty, which means that the United Kingdom is not committed to move to Stage 3 of Economic and Monetary Union, and can decide whether to join on the basis of the United Kingdom's national interest given the circumstances at the time, is to be welcomed.—[Mr. Wood.]
  Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day

  Arbitration Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.57 pm
  The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Mr. John M. Taylor): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill's purpose is to improve the law of arbitration as it applies in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Arbitration law has evolved over three centuries, with the development of commerce and industry. We are looking to refine the system of arbitration rather than to make any radical new departures.
  At first sight, the Bill may appear to be no more than lawyers' law, but the Bill's benefits, both to business and to other users of arbitration, as well as what might be called the arbitration industry, will be substantial. The Bill is founded on the proposition that arbitration is a valid—and perhaps the preferred—alternativlitigation as a system for resolving disputes that inevitably arise in business and commerce. It certainly does not need excessive controls or to be made like litigation—what are needed are provisions that are primarily enabling and facilitative.
  The Bill seeks to improve the current law in two main ways—it proposes certain changes to the substance of the law and introduces major improvements in the way the law is presented. Hon. Members may find it helpful if I say a little more about each aspect.
  I start from the premise that commercial disputes are bound to arise from time to time. They are an inevitable part of business life. When such disputes occur, they need to be resolved as speedily as possible and without great expense if they are not to frustrate further transactions and divert time and resources from more productive activity.
  Prompt dispute resolution, therefore, should contribute to competitiveness. At the same time, business looks to a system that is fair and delivers a final result. It is the responsibility of government to provide a framework that enables the parties to a dispute to settle it in a way that meets those needs.
  The parties may decide that their dispute can best be dealt with through the courts. Last June, Lord Woolf presented an interim report to the Lord Chancellor on ways of improving access to justice in the context of the civil courts. He made a number of recommendations to reduce delays in litigation and tackle the complexity and cost of using the courts. The Bill has been framed with the same concerns in mind as they relate to arbitration.
  We started from the principle that, if parties choose arbitration to resolve their dispute, their decision must be respected. We propose to curtail the ability of the court to intervene in that private arbitral process except where the assistance of the court is clearly necessary to move the arbitration forward. At the same time, we must uphold the integrity of the arbitral process by allowing access to courts where there has been or is likely to be a case of manifest injustice.
  The concept of an arm's length relationship with the courts is certainly not new and has been refined and developed over the year. It reinforces the finality of arbitration. The involvement of the courts slows down the

  1309
  process and has the inevitable result of adding to costs. Freeing the process from unwanted interference by the courts is, therefore, positively deregulatory.
  To this end, we have strengthened the powers available to the arbitral tribunal. For example, unless the parties agree otherwise, the tribunal has the power to order security for costs. Under current law, that power is exercisable only by the courts. We have given primary responsibility to the parties and, in the absence of such agreement, to the tribunal to decide all procedural or evidential matters and powers exercisable by the tribunal in support of the arbitration. The court can act in support of the arbitration only where the tribunal has no power or is temporarily unable to act effectively.
  Of course it is necessary to provide checks in the Bill to ensure that the tribunal acts fairly and impartially in the exercise of its powers. Principles of fairness and impartiality are included in the general principles on which the Bill is based. They appear right at the start of the text so that users are left in no doubt about their importance. The duty of the tribunal to act fairly and impartially is restated at clause 33. The Bill provides that arbitrators who fail to live up to their responsibilities can be removed from office.
  Another key principle that is central to the Bill, and is mentioned in clause 1, is party autonomy. That means, with a few exceptions for reasons of public policy, that the parties in dispute can decide how the arbitration should be conducted. That gives the parties control over such issues as how many arbitrators there should be and any arrangements for discovery. In that way, the Bill gives the parties the maximum possible freedom to keep the costs of the arbitration in check.
  There is also a specific provision in the Bill whereby, with the parties' agreement, the tribunal can cap the recoverable costs of the arbitration. Where the parties have not taken the opportunity to devise their own arrangements, the Bill sets out default provisions so that the arbitration can proceed without delay. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that the improvements that I have outlined so far will assist business to resolve disputes more speedily and cost effectively while not compromising fairness. As I have said, that should contribute to enhanced competitiveness as it will enable companies to settle disputes with the minimum of fuss and distraction from their main business activities.
  At first sight, presentation might seem of minor importance, but I suggest that it is a key ingredient of an improved arbitration Bill. Law is not just for lawyers. If users are to be attracted to arbitration, they must be able to establish with the minimum of effort what the law entails. Those hon. Members who are familiar with the current statutes will know that that is far from easy at the moment. The fact that the law is spread over three statutes—the Arbitration Act 1950. the Arbitration Act 1975 and the Arbitration Act 1979—is not helpful, and the language used is far from accessible to the layman.
  However, the problem goes deeper. The statutes do not represent a coherent picture. To a large extent, they represent legislative reaction to particular issues as they have arisen from time to time. In the new Bill, we have tried to give a comprehensive and a coherent statement of the principles and practice of arbitration in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Bill combines a restatement of the current statute law, modified as I
  1310
  outlined previously, with codification of the more important principles of arbitration law developed through the courts. The layout of the Bill follows a logical sequence and the language used is as clear and as simple as possible. The draftsman should be congratulated.
  I am sure that the improved presentation will find favour with business both here and overseas. Without the Bill, there might have been a question mark over the future of the City of London as a world centre for the arbitration of international commercial disputes. When international companies are negotiating contracts and have to decide—often at the end of a long, tough session—where any disputes will be arbitrated, they need to know quickly and easily what rights and obligations they have under the arbitration law of any given country.
  The business of arbitration is highly internationally mobile. A number of other jurisdictions have been trying to make their legislation more accessible, and we cannot afford to be left behind. The fact that companies choose to arbitrate in London, despite the current muddled law, is a testimony to the high regard in which the arbitral community is held. However, we cannot afford to be complacent. The Bill will do much to enhance the competitiveness of the arbitration industry.
  Hon. Members have had to wait a long time for the Bill to be placed before them, but I am sure that they will agree that the wait has been worth while. My Department has been responsible for its development since 1992, but work was progressing in the private sector for some time before then. As far back as 1989, Lord Mustill, in his capacity as chairman of the Department's advisory committee on arbitration law, first recommended that our arbitration law needed a serious overhaul. The work begun by Lord Mustill was carried forward first by Lord Steyn and it then fell to the current chairman of the advisory committee, Lord Justice Saville, to complete the task.
  We owe an enormous debt of gratitude to the three chairmen—particularly Lord Justice Saville—and to the members of the advisory committee who have served under them. I took over responsibility for the Bill in the final days of its preparation, but I am fully aware of the immense effort that the judge and his team have made in the past 18 months to bring the complex project to fruition.
  The Bill has been warmly welcomed by the arbitration world. It was scrutinised carefully in another place by noble Lords, including several noble and learned Lords, and I am glad to say that it passed muster. We were much gratified by the support given to the Bill by the official Opposition and by the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey). It gives me great pleasure to commend the Bill to the House.
  4.9 pm
  Mr. Ian McCartney: Today, I have drawn the shadow Cabinet short straw and, instead of being in my constituency on local election day, I am left here. It is a pleasure to debate with the Under-Secretary and, in the past few weeks, we have been constant companions, either on the Floor of the House or in Committee, morning, noon and night. I have enjoyed the discussions with the Under-Secretary, but I think that this one will be the most pleasurable that he has had with me for some time because of the Opposition's position on the Bill.
  I said earlier that I should be in my constituency as it is local election day. My local agent has substituted me on the loudspeaker with a tape of my favourite,

  1311
  Jimmy Krankie. Worryingly, I understand that nobody has yet been able to tell the difference. [Laughter.] That is the last of the jokes.
  The Under-Secretary was right when, at the conclusion of his remarks, he said that the official Opposition and our parliamentary colleagues from the Liberal Democrats broadly welcomed the Bill in another place. Given the amount of international trade created by arbitration, and its contribution to this country's invisible earnings, we are pleased that proposals have come forward to simplify arbitration proceedings in England and Wales. We are relieved because the lack of commitment shown in the past by the Government had threatened the future of that important source of invisible earnings, of which London is an international centre. A movement to reform arbitration law has existed for 10 years yet, unbelievably, the Government still wasted time before making their proposals.
  Arbitration for the resolution of commercial disputes is of vital importance. England has been the preferred forum for the settlement of disputes by arbitration in vast areas of international trade—the Under-Secretary alluded to that fact—and we were in danger of losing much of the trade to the courts of arbitration in Holland, France, Switzerland and other areas, because English law had become outdated, unnecessarily obscure and far too legalistic.
  A number of eminent lawyers, headed by Lord Justice Saville, have led the battle to defend London as the arbitration centre of the world. It is just as well that we did not have to rely on the Government to undertake that task over the past decade. Conservative Back Benchers have, on occasions, ranted and raved about the powers of the European Court of Justice, yet when urgent action was needed to defend our legal system, they, until now, sat on their hands. As the Minister of State at the Home Office might say, they should be chained up for their behaviour.
  The United Nations Commission on International Trade Law adopted a model law of arbitration in 1985, which was the first worldwide step towards simplification. Scotland, not for the first time, was quick off the mark and adopted the United Nations model. England and Wales declined to do so.
  The departmental advisory committee of the Department of Trade and Industry, chaired by Lord Justice Mustill, as he then was, reported in 1989 on the direction that English law should take. The committee said that a new Act, consolidating the existing arbitration statutes of 1950, 1975 and 1979, but making a number of innovations, was required and that, above all else, the law should produce an easily readable and accessible Act that could be understood and operated by lay arbitrators, reducing court intervention to the minimum. That was accepted by the then Secretary of State, but in the full flood of privatisation, the Government made neither funding nor other resources available to enact the policy.
  The work of the departmental advisory committee was shelved until the Bill was produced. How often have we seen such a blinkered attitude? In the absence of DTI support, in 1990 a private group of arbitrators, funded by a collection of City solicitors, briefed counsel to produce a Bill. After two versions, the Department of Trade and Industry agreed to take it over and put it in the hands of a parliamentary draftsperson. A number of drafts have been
  1312
  produced, but by general consensus the version before the House this afternoon fulfils the requirements of the Mustill report. It is logical, it is designed to be acted on by the layperson and most sections of the arbitration community are in favour of it.
  Labour recognises that, according to the Bill, the object of arbitration is to obtain the fair resolution of disputes by impartial tribunals without unnecessary delay or expense. As the Opposition employment spokesperson, I have a great interest in the speedy resolution of disputes, especially with regard to industrial tribunals. As with the arbitration system, it is vital that industrial tribunals be streamlined and disputes be resolved as simply as possible. Labour is developing proposals to make the resolution of disputes more efficient; the courts must be used only as a last resort. This would save the taxpayer a great deal of money—by contrast with the Government's proposals. They are determined to place even heavier burdens on the industrial tribunal system.
  In February this year, the House debated the Collective Redundancies and Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) (Amendment) Regulations 1995, but the Minister offered no regulations worthy of the name. He simply said that the lack of guidance could be dealt with by industrial tribunals. That was wholly at odds with the promise given to the House on 18 March 1996 by the President of the Board of Trade, who said that he would publish a Bill to streamline the industrial tribunals system. So the Minister piled on the burdens in February and his boss, the Secretary of State, promised reform in March. What, in fact, is the Government's position? Will they reform the industrial tribunal disputes system, or was the idea—like job insecurity—all in the President's mind?
  The Bill states that parties should be free to agree how disputes are resolved, and the structure of the legislation follows that principle. Labour supports the fact that, when parties do not take full advantage of this freedom, the Bill lays down comprehensive fallback positions for the convenience of the parties and of arbitrators who do not wish to make their own decisions in these matters and are content to accept conveniently laid out structures.
  We welcome the fact that, for the first time, arbitrators are not to be held liable for anything they do or omit to do in the discharge of their duties unless they are shown to have acted in bad faith. Similar immunity is to be given to arbitration institutions in their capacity of appointing or nominating arbitrators. Parties now have greater freedom to say how they would conduct their arbitration; what rules of evidence should apply; and what procedures should be followed—whether according to law, and if so which law, or whether on the basis of the best solution for the parties without regard to law. This last is sometimes called an equitable solution. That is the basis on which a number of consumer-type arbitrations are conducted, either by an ombudsman or in areas of activity such as the travel industry.
  The court is now to be involved only when the parties ignore the arbitrator's orders, and the court must be brought in for more powerful remedies. No longer will the parties, if dissatisfied with the arbitrator's directions, go to the court to have them overridden. The court's role now is to uphold whatever the arbitrators say, as long as they have discharged their duty in good faith. Thus, after an award, which must be reasoned, the court has certain powers not dissimilar to its present ones. The court can hear a challenge

  1313
  from the parties on the grounds that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction, despite the arbitrator's decision, or on the grounds of serious irregularity, or on a point of law.
  As I have said, Labour supports the measure, but I want to raise a number of points and I would be obliged if the Minister responded to them, if not at the end of the debate then in writing.
  First, I have heard suggestions that the Act will come into force on 1 January 1997, but that there may be delay. The Lord Chancellor's Department thinks that it may take longer to prepare what it considers necessary amendments with respect to the jurisdiction of the High Court and county courts in arbitration. Can the Minister confirm the target date of 1 January 1997 for enactment? Can he confirm that all steps will be taken to ensure that there is no delay? It would indeed be regrettable if this important measure were delayed for bureaucratic reasons—especially since the Lord Chancellor's Department has been represented on the departmental advisory committee since its inception.
  I understand that the Department's role was specifically to avoid delay and conduct proper liaison. That being so, it would clearly be unacceptable—a charge of incompetence could be levelled—if the Bill were delayed because of inadequacies on the part of the Lord Chancellor's Department.
  Secondly, Lord Justice Saville has raised a concern about a cross-reference between clause 107(5) of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Bill and the provisions of this Bill as applied to the scheme for adjudication. Lord Justice Saville is an eminent and experienced lawyer. In a letter to the business law unit at the Department of Trade and Industry, dated 17 April, he says:
  "I am unhappy with present proposals (regarding the cross reference) which seem to muddle two quite separate concepts, namely arbitration and adjudication.
  It seems to me that there are two ways in which the problems could be addressed.
  Firstly, it would be possible to use the Arbitration Bill by incorporating into standard terms the agreement of the parties to operate Clause 39, giving the tribunal the power to order interim measures, which would (under sub-section (3) be subject to the final adjudication of the tribunal. If this course were adopted, then the rest of the Arbitration Bill would apply and there would be no need for any further detailed provisions.
  Secondly, it seems to me that it should be possible to devise a scheme of adjudication quite separate and distinct from arbitration, where the adjudicator is empowered to make temporarily binding decisions."
  Lord Justice Saville continued:
  "The present proposals, to my mind, are likely to cause confusion and to distract from the Arbitration Bill. It also seems they are meeting substantial opposition. The overall impression that I get from what is indeed a very cursory look at the problem is that it would be unwise to continue with the present proposals, and that it would be far better to sit down with interested parties and try to work out precisely what is wanted and how it can best be achieved."
  I am sure that the Minister will agree that I could not have put it better myself. Has the Minister read that letter? If so, what was his response?
  The opposition to which Lord Justice Saville refers is widely shared in the construction industry. Will the Minister take into account the views of Lord Justice Saville and consider the removal of the cross reference?
  1314
  If not, there is a serious risk that, in construction industry dispute resolution, the purpose and effect of the Arbitration Bill, which we all support, will be blunted.
  Thirdly, I shall speak about the construction sector in relation to the measure. The Bill, especially if Lord Justice Saville's point is acted on, should lead to arbitration in construction disputes becoming what it was once, and what it should be—a quick, effective and economical way of deciding largely technical disputes arising from construction contracts. The Bill is a sister measure to the relevant sections of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Bill, which will bring the Latham report into law. Sir Michael Latham's report was set up against a background of increasing concern about the number of disputes arising from contractual practices in the construction industry and the effect that they have on the industry's productivity and competitiveness.
  Both the Arbitration Bill and the Latham report are welcome, but some arbitrators have raised doubts about clause 69 because most of the joint contracts tribunal family of building contracts and sub-contracts contain a provision by which the parties agree in advance to refer any question of law to appeal. If, at the end of clause 69(2) (a), the words
  "provided that any such agreement shall not be effective unless reached after the dispute to which the arbitral proceedings relate has arisen"
  were added, there might be less clogging up of the courts. Perhaps the Minister will consider that amendment when the Bill goes into Committee. If not, perhaps he will write to me saying why he will not consider it.
  What of the appalling contracts sometimes offered to construction workers? Cowboy employers tend not to enter into arbitration agreements, so there is nothing in the Bill for exploited employees. Is the Minister aware that trade unions in the construction industry have been forced to launch a major drive to end tax fiddles by contractors who force building workers into bogus self-employment to avoid national insurance and tax payments? Mr. George Henderson, construction secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union, is quoted in Construction News of 25 April 1996, as saying:
  "This campaign is a drastic measure which we are forced to take after years of urging these employers to play by the rules.
  My officers are working undercover on the situation so that we can expose crooked labour agents, "—
  labour agents in construction, not Labour parliamentary agents—
  "and the guilty contractors and subcontractors."
  I understand that the main construction employers are supporting the union's actions, because they recognise that such dishonesty benefits neither side of industry. Will the Minister offer his support to the campaign?
  The self-employment trick is not confined to small projects. An estimated 10, 000 construction workers are in bogus self-employment. Quite apart from being illegal, the practice poses a serious threat to health and safety. A report in Contract Journal, also dated 25 April 1996, quotes a trade union official as saying:
  "There are cases of injured people being dumped outside hospitals and left there to be picked up by hospital staff because the employer was too frightened to call an ambulance because this would reveal the location of the work site."
  Labour will give the Bill a fair wind, and assist in its speedy implementation. In return, will the Minister consider proposals to assist construction employees and

  1315
  taxpayers who are cheated by those underhand, Arthur Daley-style practices? As I have said, Labour supports the Bill because it is a commonsense measure to assist dispute resolution. It is in line with our commitment to streamline dispute resolution in general. If the Government share our support for a reform of general industrial dispute resolution, will the Minister tell us when the House will be presented with the legislation to reform tribunals which was promised by the President of the Board of Trade on 6 February? Given that his right hon. Friend promised consultation, will the Minister tell us whether the consultation process has begun? Will he give details of whom he will consult, and will he give us a guarantee that the consultation submissions will be published so that hon. Members can give proper consideration to the proposals following their publication?
  Does the Minister accept the urgency of reform? He will be aware that, in order to cope with an unprecedented increase in its caseload, the Central Office of Industrial Tribunals was forced to open another tribunal office in north London. The Department of Trade and Industry advertised for lay members on a temporary basis, and that created further confusion. Temporary members were subject to different selection and reselection criteria from permanent members. Will the Minister explain why? Surely a lay member is either competent or not competent. Can we not simply have one set of rules for all appointees?
  As part of their reform, will the Government also consider giving reasons for non-reappointment, and a right of reply? That would avoid any repeat of the embarrassment that was caused last year when a lay member was given no reason for non-reappointment, but a memo from the president of The Industrial Tribunals in England and Wales questioning his mental capacity for the task subsequently came to light.
  Labour's commitment to a fair resolution of conflicts goes further than contracts between companies. We seek the meaningful resolution of disputes between companies and their employees, another concept that is sometimes alien to the Government. They have created unprecedented job insecurity among employees, paving the way for fat-cat excess among some unscrupulous employers. Those are wider issues, however; we intend to pursue them relentlessly with the Government, but today we shall assist the passage of the Bill into Committee—and, in the time that is left, we shall gleefully await the results of the local government elections.
  4.27 pm
  Mr. Nick Harvey: I, too, welcome the legislation, which defines new powers for arbitrators and parties to arbitration.
  There is no doubt that new provisions are required to provide a more effective management procedure and to give the courts a supporting rather than an interfering role. The Bill modernises the existing processes of arbitration, and also provides a viable and attractive alternative to litigation as a means of resolving disputes. In many ways it is an admirable and much-needed Bill, relying as it does on three main principles—the provision of an impartial tribunal to resolve disputes, the giving of greater freedom to parties in regard to how they resolve those disputes, and the confining of judicial interference to the bare minimum.
  1316
  Moreover, as both the Minister and the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) pointed out, the implications of the Bill are commendable. The role of London as an eminent centre for international commercial arbitration is particularly important. The Bill can only exemplify the quality of our legislative framework and serve the interests of parties both at home and abroad when they enter into arbitration.
  Having said that, I wish to make one observation about the Bill on which I hope that the Minister may be able to reassure me. The explanatory memorandum states that the Bill seeks to introduce certain changes in the law to confront the existing complex nature of the legislation and to make it fair. I agree that the Bill has more clarity than before and is logical in its language, and I echo the Minister's commendation of the draftsmanship.
  There is one particular difficulty that I would like to look at before the measure becomes law. The Bill sets out mandatory, as well as non-mandatory, provisions for the parties involved to take on board and to consider before entering into arbitration. So long as mandatory provisions are recognised, users of arbitration can, as the Minister said, put forward their own provisions and proposals. My point is that members of the general public or representatives of small businesses entering into arbitration may not be fully aware of the option open to them of proposing some arrangements on their own part. They may not realise the extent to which they are entitled to propose their own ground rules. The outcome of this may be that they will rely very much more on the mandatory provisions, which might have the effect of giving arbitrators more power than ever before.
  For those who do not understand the complex nature of the provisions, there is no protection against the immense power that the arbitrators will have. I would like to see some warning or information given to the parties that they have the option of employing their own provisions before they simply resort to taking on the mandatory provisions.
  The Department of Trade and Industry has said that people ought to read the Arbitration Bill, or Act as it will become, before entering into arbitration, and that if they do not do so, it is their look-out. I wonder whether we would normally expect members of the public or small firms to have read through statutes and to have understood an Act of Parliament. If we are talking about large companies with legal departments, it is not a problem. But the Government should indicate how they intend to publicise the fact that individuals and small firms have this opportunity for discussion, and what guidance the Government will give to people on how to make use of it. For example, a great deal of information and help is given in guidance to those using small claims courts, and I wonder whether it would be possible for something comparable to be done for the provisions in the Bill.
  We ought to give careful consideration to that matter and to the various other issues raised by the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney). In no way am I opposing the Bill, but I hope that we will look at the point that I have raised before we nod it through this afternoon.
  4.30 pm
  Mr. John M. Taylor: I should like to thank, in reverse order, the speakers who contributed to this debate. I thank the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) for his thoughtful contributions and his support. I shall certainly

  1317
  reflect on the possibility of providing guidance on the use of this legislative instrument, but he will not be entirely surprised if I say that many practitioners of arbitration law have been able to contribute to the legislation and are well versed and skilled in it.
  The hon. Member for Makerfield asked me about a number of matters concerning industrial tribunals. Without wishing to trespass on your job, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it occurs to me that this legislation is not about industrial tribunals at all. Since the hon. Gentleman was gracious enough to say that there was another channel of communication between us—that of correspondence—I invite him to write to me on the matter that he raised, and I shall do my best to furnish him with pertinent replies.
  The hon. Member for Makerfield also asked me when we intended to enact the Bill. We will enact the Bill as soon as possible and we are working to a commencement date of January 1997. We must give sufficient warning of the changes to users and to the arbitration community. However, we certainly pledge ourselves to that date.
  Mr. Ian McCartney: Will that date be placed on the face of the Bill or is it just a personal commitment?
  Mr. Taylor: I must rest with best endeavours because the Bill is perfectly clear about the date of operation. Clause 108 states:

  "(1) The provisions of this Act come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may appoint by order made by statutory instrument, and different days may be appointed for different purposes.

  (2) An order under subsection (1) may contain such transitional provisions as appear to the Secretary of State to be appropriate."

  I had better cover myself by saying that there will be best endeavours towards the date I mentioned. However, one never knows; things happen when taking legislation as far as Royal Assent. We are working to a target commencement date of January 1997.
  Mr. Michael Stephen: I had a case in which my constituents suffered financial loss as a result of misconduct by an arbitrator. I appreciate that that is very rare, but it did occur in my constituents' case. I had great difficulty extracting from the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators information about whether the arbitrator was insured. I eventually found out that he was not insured and that the institute had no rules requiring arbitrators to be insured. Will my hon. Friend consider legislating to require arbitrators to be insured so that they can satisfy any claim for damages against them in respect of misconduct?
  I also discovered that the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators seems to be answerable to nobody. Will my hon. Friend consider to whom it is answerable? And if it is answerable to nobody, will he consider legislating to make it answerable to somebody?
  Mr. Taylor: That is an interesting experience. I should like to reflect on the subject of answerability and insurance. My hon. Friend will know that before I went straight I used to practise one of the learned professions. Insurance was essential in order to practise, and mighty expensive it could be from time to time. I have a certain personal affinity for that subject. I will reflect on it and let my hon. Friend know my further thoughts in due course.
  1318
  The hon. Member for Makerfield mentioned read-across or interference between certain of the provisions of this Bill and some construction legislation that will be brought before the House next week, if I heard my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House correctly during Business Question Time. No doubt the hon. Gentleman and others will look at that matter then, although I believe that the previous anxieties are now considerably allayed.
  I should say that neither we nor anyone else is trying to force arbitration on a reluctant industry, be it the construction industry or any other sector. Arbitration is a consensual process and it must be chosen freely by the parties. As to the point on clause 69(2)—
  Mr. Ian McCartney: On clause 69, I am not sure that the Minister has dealt adequately with Lord Justice Saville's argument about cross-reference between the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Bill and this Bill. I asked the Minister clear and specific questions. First, I asked whether he had knowledge of or had been made aware of Lord Justice Saville' s letter to the relevant Departments. Secondly, I asked whether he had considered it and what response he had given to Lord Justice Saville. The Minister's reply was nicely put, as is the way of lawyers, but it did not adequately cover the questions I asked him. I need to know precisely whether Lord Justice Saville's point has been met, rejected or partially rejected. The point that he raises merits serious consideration as he is one of the leading experts in this area of legislation.
  Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman has already told me that he would be happy for me to pursue certain of these matters in correspondence. I shall take advantage of that. He also knows that there is a Committee stage to the Bill—when, no doubt, all those matters will be examined very carefully. My understanding on these matters, which I offer to the House in good faith, from the last instruction that I took before coming to the House today, is that anxieties about some form of read-across or interference between the two Bills have now been considerably allayed. The hon. Gentleman can take comfort from the fact that there will be a Committee stage to this Bill before very long, and he has the actuality of the other Bill next week.
  I should like to say something about clause 69(2) and the suggestions made by the hon. Member for Makerfield.
  Mr. McCartney: I am trying to do this in a manner that enables us to reach a conclusion earlier than we normally would. When the Minister says "considerably allayed", it again does not answer the point. As he rightly said, the Leader of the House announced today that the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Bill, about which there is some dispute, will have a Second Reading debate next week. It is therefore important to all those concerned that before that debate takes place the Government are absolutely clear about it and are able to provide clear and adequate information that there is no difficulty about cross-over in respect of the two pieces of legislation.
  I think the Minister used the phrase "considerably allayed". Frankly, that leaves a gaping hole between the gate-post and the gate. He knows that in legal terms that leaves a lot that needs to be covered. I assume from the Minister's phraseology that he is not quite clear—I do not

  1319
  mean this in a derogatory way—about the status of the discussions taking place between his Department and the Lord Justice. I will accept from him a commitment in good faith that he will write to us, but I ask that we receive the correspondence before the Second Reading debate next week; I can then consult my colleagues who are to deal with that piece of legislation so that Opposition Members can be clear about the fact that the matter has been satisfactorily resolved.
  Mr. Taylor: I have two things to say about that. First, the letter from Lord Justice Saville to which the hon. Gentleman referred was a private letter to an official. I am therefore not prepared to comment on it.
  Secondly, the hon. Gentleman must understand that arbitration is a consensual process. The Bill has had distilled between its two covers what people more learned than I consider to be a comprehensive statement of the English law of arbitration—the law of arbitration applicable in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. One of its virtues is that all the information is in one "manual", and it is well and congenially written.
  All hon. Members who have spoken in this debate—not least the hon. Member for North Devon—have said that they would like to see London as the arbitration centre of the world. I would rephrase that and say that I should like to see London as the arbitration capital of the world. Anyone wishing to settle their disputes by arbitration in London can—by obtaining a copy of the Bill once it has become law—have access in a single document to the basic ground rules. But the process remains consensual, and it is for the parties themselves to decide the ground rules for resolution of their disputes.
  Inasmuch as I am not an expert on what the Department of the Environment's Bill will say about adjudication, the hon. Member for Makerfield should consult Environment Ministers if he wants to pursue whatever changes may be contained in that Bill. I am not the sponsor of that Bill, I am the sponsor of this Bill. The hon. Gentleman could pose the question of what is meant by "adjudication", and it might be a good question. We are not dealing here with adjudication, which is undefined—nor, in fact, is the word "arbitration" defined in the Bill—but I think that I can safely say that, over the best part of three centuries, custom and practice has developed in this country in such a manner that one knows from first principles what arbitration is, and here are the rules.
  Mr. McCartney: We have been very fair in how we have asked that question. We support the Bill, so I do not understand why the Minister is suddenly becoming a little belligerent. The questions have been put reasonably, and in a manner that is meant to facilitate the passage of the legislation and its effectiveness.
  The letter that I quoted is between officials in the Department of Trade and Industry who are dealing with this legislation and the Minister. It is highly unreasonable for
  1320
  the Government now to say that it is private correspondence and make no comment on it. It is something that goes to the heart of a specific part of this legislation. I should have thought, with all due respect, that the Minister would already have consulted the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration, who is responsible for the other Bill, to ensure that there is not a cross-over. So I ask the Minister again: will he ensure that, before the Second Reading debate next week, there will be clarification of those points?
  Mr. Taylor: Yes. However, I am responsible for the content of this Bill, and I cannot anticipate what is in the other Bill. But I will oblige the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] There was an intervention from a sedentary position which I did not hear. So the fact that I am not responding to it is in no sense intended as a discourtesy. I remember the conventions of the silent ones who sit next to Ministers—that their opportunities to rise in their places and intervene in debates is severely circumscribed. It is a discipline that I observed myself for nearly four years.
  I think that it might be convenient for us all if I concluded my remarks. We have had some interesting exchanges. The hon. Member for Makerfield has had his afternoon in the Chamber, and for all I know may yet get back for the local elections.
  Mr. McCartney: I know the results—it is a foregone conclusion.
  Mr. Richard Ottaway: Do not be too smug.
  Mr. Taylor: That is the right word.
  While this is a long and technically complex Bill, if is of great importance to business and companies across the country, as well as to those from overseas who choose to come here to resolve their business disputes. Although it is technically complex, I hope that hon. Members will have been impressed with the clarity with which the concepts and procedures that make up arbitration have been expressed in the Bill. If hon. Members have had an opportunity to look at the current legislation, I am sure that they will agree that we are making a major step forward.
  I should like to see this Bill reach the statute book as soon as possible, and I hope that I can count on hon. Members to support me. The Bill's next stage, in Committee, will give us an opportunity to consider its provisions in more detail than has been possible today, and I look forward to continuing our debate.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

  Mr. Joseph Marshall
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ottaway.]
  4.47 pm
  Mr. Bill Walker: I should like to thank Madam Speaker for selecting for an Adjournment debate the tragic case involving the death of my constituent, Joseph Marshall, and my plea for a fatal accident inquiry. Last Friday, I drew attention to the advantages of the United Kingdom's unwritten constitution. Today I am making use of one of those advantages: the Adjournment debate.
  It is always difficult for parents to come to terms with the death of a young adult son as the result of a road accident. It is made more difficult when the parents believe that the accident was not properly or fully investigated at the time. Pat and Betty Marshall are not vindictive people, although circumstances and events have made them distrustful and very apprehensive. All they have ever sought is that all the evidence in this tragic case should be brought out into the public domain. That is what my attempt this evening in this Adjournment debate is all about. Anyone who knows the road between Alyth and Blairgowrie, where the accident happened, will be aware that it is a narrow road with dips and bends, on which a number of nasty accidents have occurred.
  Joseph Marshall was driving a Ford Sierra and he was in collision with a large horse box. I remind my hon. Friend the Minister that the road is narrow with dips and bends and consequently there are many blind spots. The horse box in question is 21 ft long and 8 ft wide and can only be described as a very large vehicle. So we have a large vehicle on a narrow road with dips and bends.
  The Marshalls have been very disturbed by the conflicting evidence which they have managed to uncover. They have also been deeply concerned and shocked about what they believe were failures in the way in which the police conducted their investigation into the accident at the time.
  In an attempt to get at the truth, the Marshalls have put a number of questions to the Lord Advocate and the Secretary of State. For the record, I shall detail the questions, some of which have never been fully answered. Had they been answered, there would be no need for this debate tonight. The questions were as follows:
  "Why, despite laid down procedures in relation to slight injuries, was there no breath-test taken from the driver of the horsebox at the scene of the accident?
  Why have several witnesses indicated the horsebox driver was drunk?
  Why was a statement not taken from a business partner of the driver of the horsebox even though the person was on the scene of the accident before the emergency services and could have key information?
  How did so many relatives and associates of the horsebox driver come to be on the scene and why has it been accepted without question by police that testimony from these witnesses, forming the bulk of their 'case', is uninfluenced and therefore independent?
  Why are there so many conflicting, contradictory and self contradictory statements from witnesses?
  Why have police intimidated witnesses whose statements challenge the accepted version?
  1322
  Why were other, truly independent witnesses whose testimony may have been crucial, ignored?
  Why did a known associate of the horsebox driver and subsequently a vital witness to the accepted version of events, go home and then return in a different car to pick up the passengers left behind at the scene?
  Why did this same witness say he saw, prior to the accident and travelling in the opposite direction, only one of the other key witnesses despite this witness (white car) insisting that he was racing nose to tail with another of the witnesses in a silver car the whole time?
  Why does testimony from this same witness conflict with that of his passengers?
  Why is there doubt as to whether this witness was where he said he was at the time of the accident?
  Why did police insist that the time of the accident was between 8.20-8.30 PM despite corroborated evidence which puts the time of the accident at approx. 8.45 PM?
  Why did police insist that they have no knowledge of the driver of the white car despite interviewing him at the roadside at the time of the accident?
  Why have police been selective with regard to which skidmarks were recorded as pertinent, completely ignoring marks which point to an entirely different scenario?
  The car was fitted with an ABS braking system and should have left distinctive tyremarks on the road if it had gone into a skid. These marks were not present, why?
  Independent experts have completely refuted the police assessment of the skid mark evidence, why?
  The father of Joseph Marshall asked for and offered to fund, a reconstruction—this was refused, why?
  Why do police insist that the 7.5 ton horsebox, travelling downhill at a minimum '35-40 mph', was brought to an immediate standstill by the force of the impact even though elementary physics clearly shows this to have been an impossibility?
  Why do police insist that the 21 foot long, 8.5 foot wide, 7.5 ton lorry, fitted with a tachograph and capable of carrying 5 fully grown horses, is 'a van'?
  Why was this same horsebox released from police care and dismantled immediately despite the most strenuous objections of the Marshall family that they have evidence which challenges the accepted version of events?
  The tachograph disc from the horsebox is missing, why?
  Why was a potentially crucial witness who saw the horsebox driving erratically' just prior to the accident told by police that this was unimportant to the case and therefore irrelevant?
  Why was the police video of the accident scene delayed until several months after the accident and then filmed in weather conditions which effectively masked skid mark evidence?
  Why on this same video was Joseph Marshall named as 'The Accused' even though firemen in attendance at the time of the accident were told that it would be the driver of the horsebox who would be charged with manslaughter?
  How did the driver of the horsebox manage to locate his daughter and arrange for the ambulance he was travelling in to stop outside a public house en route to the hospital in order to pick her up even though his injuries were slight and he already had at least one son in the ambulance with him?
  Why did a senior representative of General Accident with many years experience in his field state categorically that: 'The car [Sierra] was hit on its own side of the road giving the driver no chance'?
  Why does the damage to the car challenge the 'accepted' version?
  Why did one vital witness keep people away from Joseph Marshall as he lay fatally injured by claiming to be 'a nurse' when in reality she was employed as a process worker in a nearby factory?
  Why did Mr. McLeod, Senior Procurator Fiscal, when faced with the evidence collected by Pat and Betty Marshall and presented by them in the company of their solicitor, say; 'I would not insult you both by trying to explain how the police came to this conclusion'?

  1323
  Why is the evidence held by the Crown Office now subject to a Confidentiality Order (similar to Official Secrets Act), preventing anyone acting on behalf of Pat and Betty Marshall from examining it and effectively barring further investigation or any form of private prosecution?
  Why, despite all of the above information being in the hands of the authorities, have Pat and Betty Marshall been refused, time and again, the only thing they have ever asked for—a Fatal Accident Inquiry?
  Why did Officer Barclay, when asked by Pat Marshall when the breath-test was taken, reply: 'I don't know. The officer who did the test forgot to sign and date it'?
  Why did Officer Barclay read out a statement allegedly taken from firemen in respect of the horsebox being cut to free the driver despite this being clearly not the case and then, after seeing the horsebox for himself, say to Pat and Betty Marshall that he must have misread it?
  Why did Officer Barclay say to Pat, Betty and their 13–year-old daughter Michele, who were reading the messages of support contained in the floral tributes which had been laid at the crash scene by friends in the 3 days since the accident: Tat, these [tyre] marks don't measure up to the statements these people have given. I will have to go and see the'"—
  so-and-so's—
  "'again'"?
  Why did it take Officer Barclay three weeks to inform Pat and Betty Marshall that there were three more official witnesses to the crash, bringing the total to six, all of whom have given conflicting or self-contradictory statements?
  Why did Officer Barclay say to Pat and Betty Marshall that 'the best thing you could do is just scrap the car [Sierra] and forget it'?
  Why did PC Barclay, in Pat and Betty Marshall's own home, say about the horse box driver: 'He's probably had four or five pints. What's hat? It would have worn off by the time of the crash?'
  How could Inspector Beaton (Blairgowrie Police) when asked by Pat Marshall if he would have the blood stains across the roof of the car analysed say: 'It's none of our business'?
  What made this same inspector say to Pat and Betty Marshall: What's the fuss? Your son went up the road and killed himself.'
  Why did the police issue Pat and Betty Marshall with their own insurance company claim number with the man at the desk quoting the Sergeant upstairs as saying: 'Just give him that one there, and that's all you're getting.'?"
  The Lord Advocate wrote to me on 23 January 1996 detailing his reasons for believing
  "that the evidence points to this accident having been caused by the deceased's vehicle rounding a bend at speed, on the wrong side of the road, and apparently out of control."
  The letter continues:
  "The photographs and the sketch plan, both of which he has seen, do not seem to offer any support to Mr. Marshall's contention that it was the other vehicle which was on the wrong side of the road. On the contrary, this evidence seems to entirely support the evidence of the eye-witnesses."
  Yet the damage to the car, confirmed by accident experts contradicts that claim.
  If the Lord Advocate is so confident that the facts are as he sees them, and I am satisfied that he believes that, I cannot understand why he cannot grant what I am asking for this evening. I remind my hon. Friend the Minister that on 23 August 1995, I asked for the case to be re-examined and in my letter to the Lord Advocate, I especially drew attention to the skid marks shown in the photographs and on the video.
  1324
  I believe that I have demonstrated that there is enough evidence to question the conclusions reached by the procurator, the police and the Lord Advocate. I further submit that the only way to put the matter to rest is to have a fatal accident inquiry at which all the evidence, including that of all the witnesses, can be properly evaluated and the evidence of the accident experts properly heard. That can be achieved only through a fatal accident inquiry. It is the only way to get rid of all the doubts.
  Almost everyone in Blairgowrie talks about the case and the fact that it has not been properly addressed. No one believes that it has. If after those matters are properly and fully evaluated, it is clear that the Marshalls' questions are wrong and that the facts that they believe that they have unearthed are wrong, it would all come out. As things are, nothing is being addressed. There is a great deal of secrecy. There is certainly evidence of intimidation, on which I shall not touch tonight because it will probably be dealt with in the courts. I find the whole thing distasteful and disturbing.
  I am delighted that we have the unwritten United Kingdom constitution that gives me the opportunity through the use of an Adjournment debate to raise these matters where they can be properly addressed.
  5.3 pm
  The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) on securing this debate on behalf of his constituent. All the points that he has raised are matters for the Lord Advocate, and I shall ensure that my hon. Friend's request for a fatal accident inquiry is drawn to his attention. It is fair for me to put before my hon. Friend the sequence of events and the up-to-date position, as I understand it, in relation to this unfortunate matter. Before I respond to the points that my hon. Friend raised, I express my sympathy to the family of the late Mr. Marshall for their tragic loss.
  Investigations conducted by officers of Tayside police and by the procurator fiscal at Perth into the death of Joseph Marshall have established that, on the evening of Saturday 28 August 1994, the deceased left the family home alone in possession of his father's Ford Sierra 4x4 motor car. He travelled to the Wellmeadow area of Blairgowrie, where he met up with friends who were in two other cars. The youths chatted for a while and then drove round Blairgowrie town centre in the three vehicles.
  At about 8.35 pm, all three vehicles were driven eastwards on the A926, the Blairgowrie to Alyth road. The deceased was at the rear of the convoy. At about 8.40 pm, the deceased's vehicle collided with a Bedford horse box. The driver of the other vehicle involved in the accident was travelling west on the same road. He was accompanied by two other persons who were front-seat passengers. A Metro motor car was being driven behind the Bedford horse box. There were two passengers in the Metro in addition to the driver.
  Those individuals, that is the three persons in the horse box and the three persons travelling in the Metro, were the only persons who witnessed the collision. In the statements that they gave to the police, they described seeing the deceased's vehicle rounding a bend at speed, on the wrong side of the road and apparently out of control.
  The deceased's vehicle collided, side-on, with the front of the horse box, trapping the deceased and the driver of the horse box in their respective vehicles. One of the

  1325
  passengers from the Metro supported the deceased's head until the arrival of medical assistance. The driver of the horse box sustained a broken left kneecap and was trapped by the legs in his vehicle.
  A doctor who had been driving to Alyth came upon the scene of the accident and provided what assistance he could to the deceased. The deceased was unconscious and never regained consciousness. The doctor pronounced life extinct at 9.30 pm. The post mortem examination established that the deceased had sustained multiple injuries.
  The evidence of the witnesses to the accident, and the evidence of those who observed the position of the vehicles immediately thereafter, showed that the deceased drove round a bend at speed, lost control of his vehicle, crossed to the wrong side of the carriageway and slid sideways into the oncoming horse box.
  The deceased's father, Mr. Patrick Marshall, has never accepted this version of events, as my hon. Friend described. He has accused Tayside police of failing adequately to investigate the circumstances of the accident. He has suggested that the marks left on the road by the two vehicles do not support the version given by the witnesses, and that the six eye-witnesses have given conflicting or self-contradictory statements. He believes that it was the driver of the horse box who caused the accident.
  The fact remains, however, that the evidence of all six witnesses exculpates the driver of the horse box and places the blame for the collision on the deceased. Mr. Marshall has suggested that the witnesses have not been truthful and that there has been an attempt to conceal the true nature of the accident. He has suggested that the driver of the horse box was driving at excessive speed and erratically; that the witnesses in the car travelling behind the horse-box were his friends and are protecting him; that the damage to the deceased's vehicle was not consistent with the explanation of the accident given by the witnesses; and that the skid marks left at the locus were not consistent with the evidence of the witnesses.
  One of Mr. Marshall's specific allegations has been that the driver of the horse box was not trapped in his vehicle. He has also alleged that the driver was under of the influence of drink. The evidence, not only from the civilian witnesses but also from fire and ambulance personnel who attended at the scene, flatly contradicts his allegations.
  The police officer who attended at the locus spoke to the driver of the horsebox and confirmed that he was trapped by the legs. Ambulance personnel who arrived at the locus at about 20.45 hours also spoke of seeing the driver trapped within his vehicle. Indeed, one of the ambulance technicians remained with the driver of the horsebox until the fire brigade managed to move the Ford Sierra from the front of the horsebox. That witness was then able to free the driver with the assistance of the fire brigade.
  The allegation that the driver of the horsebox was under the influence of drink was disproved by the fact that he was subjected to a breath test that proved negative.
  Mr. Marshall has made many of his allegations in the form of a complaint to the chief constable. He has alleged that officers dealing with the accident were in neglect of their duty and that they failed to carry out a full and thorough investigation into the accident. Mr. Marshall has suggested that the witnesses travelling in the Metro were known to the driver and occupants of the horsebox and
  1326
  that they collectively involved themselves in a conspiracy to conceal the true facts of the accident. There is, however, no evidence of collusion between the witnesses.
  Mr. Marshall has alleged that one of the firemen who attended at the locus was alleged to have told his work mates that the driver of the horsebox was to be charged with manslaughter and drunk driving. That fireman was also alleged to have said that the driver of the horsebox was not trapped in his vehicle. Inquiry revealed that the fireman identified by Mr. Marshall had not attended the scene of the accident. He denied ever having discussed the accident with any of his work mates.
  Mr. Marshall has also alleged that an officer of Tayside police had told him that the driver of the horsebox had drunk five or six pints on the day of the accident. The officer was also alleged to have told Mr. Marshall that there was no written record of the breath test having been carried out. Inquiry into those allegations failed to uncover any evidence to substantiate them. The officer identified by Mr. Marshall vehemently denied having made the remarks. There is written record of the breath test procedure that was carried out as a matter of routine given the nature of the accident. The senior police officer who investigated Mr. Marshall's allegations found that all were unsubstantiated.
  The statements taken by the police were submitted to the procurator fiscal at Perth. He then conducted his own independent investigation into the circumstances of the death. He precognosced a number of key witnesses to check the accuracy of the statements given to the police. The procurator fiscal confirmed that the witnesses' position was that the horse box was at all times on its own side of the road; that the driver was driving carefully; and that he reacted quickly on seeing the deceased's vehicle approach.
  The evidence given by the witnesses was unequivocal. It may assist my hon. Friend if I quote from the statement given by the driver of the car travelling behind the horsebox, who said:
  "As I approached the bend I saw a white Ford Sierra motor car swerve across the road and into a carriageway, colliding with the oncoming horse float in front of me. I braked and managed to avoid colliding with the rear of the horse float. The white Ford Sierra appeared to have been travelling at speed. I would say excessively for the bends which it come through".
  That witness concluded his statement by stating
  "the driver of the white Sierra motor car was most definitely to blame for the accident".
  It should be emphasised that there are no witnesses who contradict that version of events.
  Mr. Marshall has suggested that the skid marks observed at the locus following the accident are evidence that the horsebox was being driven on the wrong side of the road. Officers of Tayside police who attended at the scene of the accident prepared a sketch of the locus. On that sketch, they recorded the position of the vehicles on the road and the skid marks that appeared to have been made by both the deceased's vehicle and the horsebox. From the evidence available to him, the procurator fiscal was satisfied that neither the skid marks nor the final position of the vehicles on the road supported Mr. Marshall's assertion that the horsebox was being driven on the wrong side of the road.
  The procurator fiscal reported the circumstances to the Crown office in January 1995. Crown counsel instructed that there should be no further proceedings. As my

  1327
  hon. Friend will know from his correspondence with the Lord Advocate, the procurator fiscal thereafter had a lengthy meeting in February with Mr. and Mrs. Marshall and their solicitor. At that meeting, Mr. Marshall raised a number of matters which the procurator fiscal agreed to consider.
  The procurator fiscal concluded, having completed his re-examination of the evidence, including all the additional information provided by Mr. Marshall, that no significant additional evidence had been uncovered. The fiscal then had a second meeting with Mr. and Mrs. Marshall and their solicitor in August. During those meetings, the procurator fiscal attempted to provide Mr. and Mrs. Marshall with all the information that was available to him. Mr. Marshall has seen the sketch plan of the locus and a video film made by the police. The procurator fiscal has co-operated with Mr. and Mrs. Marshall's solicitor and has provided the solicitor with a copy of the photographs taken by the police, a copy of the sketch plan and a copy of the post mortem report.
  The procurator fiscal has also provided the solicitor with a full list of witnesses to enable him to precognosce those witnesses himself. Throughout, the fiscal has made it clear to Mr. and Mrs. Marshall that he is prepared to consider any new information which they or their solicitor draw to his attention. The fact remains, however, that no significant new evidence has been uncovered and, in particular, nothing that contradicts the evidence of the eye witnesses.
  My hon. Friend has referred to a lengthy list of questions which Mr. Marshall has also sent to a number of Members of Parliament. I believe that there are up to 41 questions on Mr. Marshall's list, and that most take the form of an allegation that there is evidence that contradicts the police version of events. I do not wish to refer in detail to those questions, but I can say that those matters were carefully considered by the procurator fiscal. He re-examined the evidence in the case, including all the additional information provided by Mr. Marshall, but, as I have already said, concluded that no significant additional evidence had been uncovered.
  The possibility of instructing an accident reconstruction expert has been discussed. As the Lord Advocate has explained to my hon. Friend, the advice to the procurator fiscal is that it would be impossible to carry out a proper accident reconstruction at this stage. An expert would base a reconstruction on his examination of the locus, including the distribution of debris, damage to vehicles and marks on the road surface. Proper accident reconstruction is very dependent on the locus having been preserved as nearly intact as possible. In this case, the skid marks are no longer visible and the debris has obviously long since disappeared, as have the vehicles. In the circumstances, the procurator fiscal does not intend to take any further action in respect of the matter.
  To carry out a form of reconstruction using only the sketch plan and the photographs would be of little value. Nevertheless, those are available to Mr. and Mrs. Marshall and they are free to instruct an expert to examine that material. In that connection, I understand that Mr. Marshall claims to have obtained the opinion of two independent crash analysts who allegedly say that the sketch plan prepared by the police was
  1328
  inaccurate. Mr. Marshall was asked in March of this year to provide the procurator fiscal with a copy of their report, but I understand that he has not done so. Obviously, I would say to my hon. Friend that if there is any such evidence it will be considered by the procurator fiscal, who will then decide whether any further action needs to be taken.
  As I have already said, Crown counsel has instructed that no proceedings should be taken in connection with the incident. Accordingly, in the view of the Lord Advocate, a fatal accident inquiry will not be held. The Lord Advocate has reviewed the papers in the case and he is satisfied that all the circumstances of the unfortunate accident have been fully investigated. He has said, however, that the procurator fiscal will be carry any further inquiries if significant new material comes to light. For the present, the Lord Advocate is satisfied that the Crown counsel's decision not to instruct a fatal accident inquiry was appropriate.
  A discretionary fatal accident inquiry will be held only when the Lord Advocate is satisfied that it is expedient in the public interest that an inquiry should be held into the circumstances. The Lord Advocate has had such a discretion since 1906 and it was continued by the Fatal Accident and Sudden Death Inquiries (Scotland) Act 1976, which consolidated the legislation and modernised the procedures. The Lord Advocate, in the exercise of his discretion, acts in a quasi-judicial capacity when deciding whether an inquiry should be held.
  In the case of a road traffic fatality, an inquiry would normally be held only if it were thought that there was a need to inquire into matters which might result in the sheriff finding that there were reasonable precautions whereby the death, or any accident resulting in death, might have been avoided. Fatal accident inquiries in road traffic cases are normally held to consider matters such as the layout of the road, the appropriateness of any speed limits at the locus or the adequacy of street lighting. In other words, a fatal accident inquiry will be held where there is a need to address issues of road safety.
  In this case, what is at issue is whether the driver of the horse box or the deceased was at fault. Where it is considered that a driver of a vehicle was at fault to the extent that his driving was thought to have been careless or dangerous, the appropriate step would be for criminal proceedings to be instituted. Where criminal proceedings are not appropriate—as in this case, where the evidence indicates that it was the deceased who was at fault—and issues of road safety are not raised, a fatal accident inquiry would not be appropriate, especially when the investigation by the police and by the procurator fiscal has already clearly established the circumstances leading up to the accident.
  Mr. Bill Walker: The critical point is the road layout. When one discusses this, one must realise that a large vehicle on a narrow road, with bends and dips, would trigger such an accident. I drive my daughter's horse box on that road and I am astonished by some of the comments.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I repeat what I said earlier: if Mr. Marshall genuinely has opinions from two independent crash analysts who have submitted a report, I recommend that it be forwarded to the procurator fiscal,

  1329
  who can then take a strong view as to what further action, if any, is required. In relation to the layout of the road, that is the best way forward if that evidence exists—and my hon. Friend has led me to believe that it does.
  Crown counsel is satisfied that the circumstances in this case are not unexplained and that they do not give rise to any serious public concern. Therefore, a fatal accident inquiry would not be appropriate. That decision can be reviewed if new evidence comes to light. In that connection, I can confirm that in March of this year Mr. Marshall's solicitor provided the procurator fiscal with copies of statements from two additional witnesses. He has promised to provide the procurator fiscal with the statement of a third witness.
  Once that information has been obtained, the procurator fiscal will consider whether he needs to carry out a further investigation. The results of any such investigation will be reported to Crown counsel. I assure my hon. Friend that the Lord Advocate has confirmed that the decision not to hold a fatal accident inquiry will be reviewed in the light of the new evidence, assuming that it is found to be reliable and relevant.
  I regret that Mr. Marshall has been so traumatised by the loss of his son that he is unable to accept that the circumstances of the accident have been fully and properly investigated. It is clear that Mr. Marshall has
  1330
  failed to come to terms with the death of his son and that he is now obsessed with allegations that there has been a cover-up. In this connection, I understand that he was convicted at Perth sheriff court on 25 April on a charge of conducting himself in a disorderly manner by telephoning a British Telecom operator and stating to her that he intended to purchase a gun and ammunition and use it to injure various people who were involved either in the accident or in the investigation of it. Sentence in that case, which is sub judice, has been deferred to 25 May and, therefore, I cannot discuss the details of the case.
  I can only hope that this debate, and the fact that Mr. Marshall's concerns have been given such a public airing, will go some way towards showing him that there is no conspiracy and that those involved in investigating this tragic accident have nothing to hide. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside for initiating the debate. I suggest that the best way forward is for the new evidence to be submitted to the Procurator Fiscal. As I promised at the outset of my remarks, I shall ensure that my hon. Friend's comments are passed on to the Lord Advocate.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes past Five o'clock.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Risk Assessments
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will set out the arrangements for Departments to carry out risk assessments on new regulatory proposals. [28165]

  Mr. Freeman
  I am today publishing a new guidance booklet on regulatory appraisal incorporating risk assessment and am arranging for copies to be placed in the House Library. The new guide requires risk assessments to be carried out on all proposed regulations affecting business. As part of the regulatory appraisal procedure set out in the guide, Ministers will have to receive a risk assessment before deciding whether to introduce new regulations. Ministers must personally certify that they have read both the risk assessment and a compliance cost assessment in order to satisfy themselves that the benefits of the regulation justify its costs.

DEFENCE

  Private Finance Initiative
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the revenue spending estimated by his Department in connection with the private financial initiative for(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97 and (c) 1997–98. [26625]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Spending by my Department on private finance initiative projects is predicted to be in the order of £10 million in 1996–97 and £20 million in 1997–98. No expenditure was incurred in 1995–96. This does not include staff costs and other departmental overheads associated with PFI projects.

  Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research has been carried out by the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down since 1990 into the cocktail of anti-nerve agents given to British Gulf war soldiers. [27647]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This is a matter for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.
  576
  Letter from John Chisholm to Dr. David Clark, dated 2 May 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question asking about research at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down since 1990 into the cocktail of anti-nerve agents given to British Gulf War soldiers. The Chemical & Biological Sector at Porton Down is now part of the Protection and Life Sciences Division of Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) of which I am the Chief Executive.
  The only anti-nerve agent drug given to British service personnel during the Gulf conflict was the nerve agent pre-treatment set (NAPS) containing pyridostigmine. This was administered as a pre-treatment to minimise the impact of exposure to nerve agents.
  In addition to the pre-treatment the post-poisoning therapy contained in self injector devices (Combopers) was issued to service personnel but was not administered. This therapy contains the drugs atropine, pralidoxime mesylate and Avizafone. The auto-injector is designed to be administered by the soldier himself or a comrade in the event that the individual shows the signs and symptoms of nerve agent poisoning.
  Since 1990 the Chemical and Biological Defence Sector at Porton Down has carried out research involving the use of in-service medical countermeasures for nerve agent poisoning in two main areas. A study has been conducted in human volunteers to investigate single fibre electro myography (SFEMG) during and following the administration of pyridostigmine for a period of eight weeks. The individuals involved took NAPS tablets as directed at 8 hourly intervals for 8 weeks. These studies showed a very small change in the SFEMG during the administration which had no clinical significance. The SFEMG returned to the values determined prior to taking the NAPS tablets within seven days of termination of the administration of NAPS.
  In the second type of study CBD Sector has placed extra mural research contracts with the Universities of Aston and Birmingham. The work has involved fundamental studies on antichloline sterases and included an examination of the effects of pyridostigmine. The work was conducted using rodent models and all the results will be reported in the open literature.
  In addition to these two areas of work the in-service medical countermeasures have been used in animal studies as a positive control in the research being carried out to develop improved medical countermeasures against nerve agent poisoning.
  I hope this information is helpful.

  Gulf War Syndrome
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what study his Department has made of the findings of recent research in the United States into the relationship between the multiple prescribing and use of drugs and subsequent unexplained illnesses among service men and women who served in the Gulf war; what further action he is taking; and if he will make a statement. [26895]

  Mr. Soames
  The research relating to possible interaction between drugs and chemicals used in the Gulf war, undertaken by Duke university, North Carolina, has not yet been published. The research team's report on its findings will be carefully considered by my Department when it becomes available.

  "Statement on the Defence Estimates"
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he plans to publish the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1996". [27648]

  Mr. Soames
  The 1996 "Statement on the Defence Estimates", Cm 3223, was published yesterday.

  Soviet Submarines
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what records his Department holds of the Soviet November class submarine carrying nuclear missiles which sank near Land's End in 1970; what measures his Department has taken to monitor the state of the missiles; what assessment he has made of the risks of radiation escaping from the submarine; and if he will make a statement. [27663]

  Mr. Soames
  The Soviet November class submarine lost in international waters outside the western approaches, on 12 April 1970, sank in deep water. It is assessed that the risk of radiation escaping from the submarine is minimal, and results from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's monitoring programme have shown no indication of contamination from this accident.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what records his Department maintains of Soviet Union submarines which have sunk off the British coast over the last 30 years. [27662]

  Mr. Soames
  No Soviet Union submarines have sunk near the British coast.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what reports he has evaluated about the Soviet November class submarine which sank in the western approaches to the United Kingdom on 12 April 1970; what action he has taken in relation to safety of naval vessels sailing in the vicinity; what representations have been made to the Soviet and Russian authorities in relation to compensation; what further action he proposes to take to protect United Kingdom interests; and if he will make a statement. [26708]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 25 April 1996]: The Soviet November class submarine lost in international waters outside the western approaches on 12 April 1970 sank in deep water and is not considered to be a hazard to vessels. This tragic loss is not a basis upon which compensation has been sought from Soviet or Russian authorities. It is assessed that the risk of radiation escaping from the submarine is minimal, and results from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food monitoring programme have shown no indication of contamination from this accident.

  Territorial Army
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many training days per year members of the Territorial Army have to serve in order to received their annual bounty. [27651]

  Mr. Soames
  Most members of the Territorial Army are required to complete 15 days camp training and 12 days out-of-camp training to qualify for bounty. Members of specialist units which recruit nationwide, and of certain pools of manpower, must complete 15 days camp training and four days out-of-camp training. A lower training obligation is available, with the consent of the commanding officer, to individuals whose personal or employment circumstances make it difficult for them to meet the full obligation. Special rules apply to the officers training corps and in certain other cases.
  578
  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much call-out gratuity will be paid to members of the Territorial Army on their return from Bosnia. [27655]

  Mr. Soames
  No call-out gratuity will be paid to members of the Territorial Army on their return from Bosnia. Call-out gratuity is a lump sum of £345 which is paid on mobilisation to every reservist called out for service in support of operations in Bosnia.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the Territorial Army called up for service in Bosnia in 1995 had not completed their annual training quota at the time of the call-up; if those personnel who had not yet completed their annual training quota were eligible for their annual bounty; and if he will make a statement. [27650]

  Mr. Soames
  Information on the level of training undertaken by each member of the Territorial Army before his or her call out in support of the peace implementation force is not immediately available. However, it is believed that the great majority would have attend annual camp, and that many would also have completed the required out of camp training. Those who had not done so were not eligible for bounty, as is explicitly provided in TA regulations.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if service on operational duties for members of the Territorial Army called up for service in Bosnia qualifies in lieu of the annual quota of training days required for an annual bounty; and if he will make a statement. [27652]

  Mr. Soames
  Reservists called out for permanent service receive pay at the full regular rate. Under current regulations, such service does not count towards annual bounty, which is earned through attendance at training. however, it has been agreed that members of the Territorial Army may count a period of called-out service in support of the peace implementation force in Bosnia in lieu of annual camp in the current training year or, in certain circumstances, the next one. It will be necessary for individuals to complete the remainder of their annual training before they qualify for bounty. These circumstances are being taken into account as the rules governing the payment of bounty are reviewed in the light of changes to be introduced by the Reserve Forces Bill.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if members of the Territorial Army called up for service in Bosnia will be required to relinquish their service kit on completion of their service; what provisions have been made to ensure that they have civilian clothes to change into and travelling bags; and if he will make a statement. [27654]

  Mr. Soames
  Members of the Territorial Army returning from Bosnia on completion of their period of permanent service will be required, at the demobilisation centre, to hand in all extra items of clothing and equipment issued to them specifically for service in Bosnia. They will retain their standard kit for future use when training with their unit. On mobilisation, reservists were instructed to pack a set of civilian clothes, and they will be available to be worn after demobilisation. All reservists will be permitted to retain their travelling bags in order to carry their belongings home.

  Atomic Weapons Establishment, Llanishen
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 29 April,Official Report, column 397, if he will give his current estimate of the time to be taken in thoroughly decommissioning the AWE Llanishen site; when the process is due to start; and if he will make a statement. [27827]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The process will start once current activities have ceased at the Llanishen site in 1997. The work will be undertaken in a careful and progressive manner and in conformity with all relevant guidelines and legislation and the requirements of the regulatory bodies. It is impossible to be precise as to duration, but the whole process will inevitably take some years.

  Departmental Data
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the police and security databases held by his Department have changed their procedures as a result of investigations by the Data Protection Registrar. [27656]

  Mr. Soames
  No changes have been made to procedures followed by the military police and security forces in the use of their databases as the result of investigations by the Data Protection Registrar. My Department will be glad to receive and comply with any advice proffered as the result of this or any other investigation.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what advice he has received from the Data Protection Registrar concerning his Department's handling of data under the Data Protection Act 1988. [27657]

  Mr. Soames
  The Office of the Data Protection Registrar has yet to advise MOD of the findings of its investigation which concluded in August 1995. As of 1 May 1996, no advice other than that which has been specifically requested by the MOD Data Protection Office to meet particular circumstances has been received from the Office of the Data Protection Registrar.

  Joint Service Command and Staff College
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the outcome of the consultation process regarding the interim arrangements for the Joint Service Command and Staff college; and if he will make a statement. [28292]

  Mr. Soames
  The consultation process on the interim arrangements for the Joint Service command and Staff college has been completed. A number of responses have been received, but none raised any new or major issues that might call the proposals into question. Those issues that were raised will be taken carefully into account in future work.

  This work remains on schedule for the new Joint Service Command and Staff college to open at Bracknell in September 1997 and immediate next steps include formal planning consultation with the local authority. In the longer term it remains our intention to dispose of the Bracknell site by the end of 1999, by which time the new college should be well established at its permanent site.

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 May. [26609]

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 May. [26610]

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

TRANSPORT

  Railway Lands (London)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the development value of the railway lands at King's Cross and Stratford which have been transferred to London and Continental and are not required for the channel tunnel rail link. [27860]

  Mr. Watts
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave him on 14 March,Official Report, columns 720 and 721.

  Railtrack
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if Railtrack shares left with the Government qualify for the special dividend payable from this year's profits. [27816]

  Mr. Watts
  Any Railtrack shares still held by the Government as at 4 September 1996 will qualify for the final dividend of 13.75p share in respect of the year ended 31 March 1996.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list the bodies who have audited costs and liabilities for the route structure of Railtrack; and to what extent each of these bodies will be held responsible for errors in these figures; [27820]

  (2) what assessment (a) he and (b) his officials have made of the reports on maintenance costs of Railtrack from the Civil Engineering Design Group; [27818]

  (3) if the estimates of maintenance costs commissioned from CEDG and Atkins were commissioned for inclusion in the Pathfinder prospectus; [27815]

  (4) on what maintenance estimates the Atkins Comfort letter in the Railtrack Pathfinder prospectus was based; who supplied these figures; and what adjustments were made to them before Atkins issued its endorsement; [27819]

  (5) if he approved the maintenance estimate for the rail structure quoted in the pathfinder prospectus; [27793]

  (6) what communication he has had with W. S. Atkins about its estimate of the cost of maintenance of the rail network; and if he will publish the figures they supplied to his Department; [27798]
  581
  (7) if the cost estimates of maintenance for the rail network submitted by W. S. Atkins are those used in the Pathfinder Prospectus; [27822]

  (8) what were the maintenance estimates for the Railtrack route structure, submitted by (a) CEDG and (b) Atkins; how many reports on these figures were submitted by Atkins; whether all the Atkins reports were submitted to the regulator; and what the range of figures was in the different reports; [27787]

  (9) what were the 10 year maintenance costs for the railways estimated by (a) the Civil Engineering Design Group and (b) W. S. Atkins; [27823]

  (10) what steps he has taken to verify the maintenance figures for the route structure operated by Railtrack as given in the Pathfinder prospectus; [27788]

  (11) if his Department commissioned S. B. C. Warburg to check the maintenance estimates in the Pathfinder prospectus for the sale of Railtrack; [27803]

  (12) how many reports on maintenance costs for Railtrack were submitted to his Department by W. S. Atkins; for what reasons none of them were quoted in the Pathfinder prospectus; and how many were submitted to the regulator; [27801]

  (13) on what basis his Department concluded that the study of maintenance costs by W. S. Atkins is a more detailed and extensive survey than that produced by CEDG of York; [27794]

  (14) what assessment he has made of the maintenance estimates in respect of the rail network from (a) Civil Engineering Design Group and (b) W. S. Atkins; and what checking procedures were adopted by his Department. [27821]

  Mr. Watts
  I understand that CEDG was commissioned to inform directors of Railtrack as to expected future costs of maintaining and renewing certain of it assets. CEDG's report to Railtrack was produced over a short time scale; was based on an extrapolation of a small sample; used less sophisticated analytical techniques than those subsequently used by W. S. Atkins; and was based on assumptions about asset lives which were not in accordance with prudent management of the assets concerned. Its cost estimates were inconsistent with historical spend in this area. The report was rejected by Railtrack and, having regard to the matters above and the superseding work of W. S. Atkins, its contents were not regarded as material or appropriate information for inclusion in the Railtrack prospectus.

  W. S. Atkins, a firm of independent consultants, was subsequently engaged by Railtrack with the approval of my Department to report jointly to the Secretary of State and the directors of Railtrack and our respective financial advisers, to assist in the development of its asset maintenance plan—AMP—for track and route structures. This included an assessment of the policies, targets, bases and assumptions, methods and procedures used by Railtrack in arriving at the estimate of expenditure related to the AMP which is described in the prospectus. My Department received one report from W. S. Atkins which was the basis of W. S. Atkins' expert certificate set out in the prospectus. The report was not submitted to the Rail Regulator although in his conclusions on the future level of access charges he allowed Railtrack sufficient income
  582
  form its charges to enable it to maintain the existing capability of the rail network having regard to projections of Railtrack's future expenditure,. My right hon. Friend is satisfied, on the basis of due and careful enquiries made by my Department and Railtrack and our respective advisers that the estimates set out in the prospectus were prepared on a proper basis.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what factors were taken into account in the estimate of the maintenance costs for the rail network in the Pathfinder prospectus. [27799]

  Mr. Watts
  All material factors were taken into account in the estimate of maintenance costs for the rail network and are described in the Railtrack prospectus.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the work commissioned by his Department from Professor Tony O'Hagan of Nottingham university relating to research of W. S. Atkins on rail maintenance costs. [27802]

  Mr. Watts
  Professor O'Hagan was not commissioned by my Department. I understand that he was engaged as a consultant by W. S. Atkins to assist it in its work on Railtrack's asset maintenance plan for track and route structures.

  InterCity East Coast
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many bids were received for the franchise for InterCity East Coast; and what is the subsidy required by the winners, Great Northern Railway Co. Ltd. and by the runner up. [26536]

  Mr. Watts
  Details of the number of bids received for individual franchises and the levels of subsidy required by unsuccessful bidders are commercially confidential.

  The Great Northern Railway Company Ltd. will receive support of £64 million in the first year of the seven-year franchise, falling to zero in the seventh year. It will receive a total of £164.88 million over the duration of the franchise. Figures are in 1996–97 prices and exclude any additional payments arising from level crossing grant. British Rail's preliminary claim for InterCity East Coast for 1996–97 is £76.25 million.

  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many staff(a) will be employed by the Great Northern Railway Company and (b) will have had previous employment experiences in the rail industry; and what are the equivalent figures for those employed by InterCity East Coast Ltd. in 1995–96 and by British Rail in 1992–93 in the provision of those same services. [26512]

  Mr. Watts
  The number and experience of staff employed by the Great Northern Railway Company Ltd.—GNR—in the provision of InterCity East Coast services is a matter for GNR. As at 1 April 1996, InterCity East Coast employed 2,867 staff. A comparable figure for 1992–93 is not available as this was prior to the restructuring of the railway.

  Freight
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of freight moved over land was moved by road vehicles in Great Britain in(a) 1965, (b) 1979 and (c) 1994. [24698]
  583
  Mr. Norris
  The information requested is as follows:

  1965: 74 per cent.

  1979: 77 per cent.

  1994: 85 per cent.

  East Coast Main Line
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the total investment made in the maintenance and development of the east coast main line in 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96; and what is the expected investment by Railtrack in 1996–97. [26511]

  Mr. Watts
  Railtrack informs me that investment figures for the east coast main line are as follows:

  Track renewal

  1993–94: Figures not held by Railtrack

  1994–95: £23.1 million

  1995–96: £23.2 million

  1996–97: £18.3 million (forecast).

  Other than track renewal

  1993–94: £5.9 million

  1994–95: £6.2 million

  1995–96: £6.6 million

  1996–97: £7.0 million (forecast).

  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what were the total costs and the net revenue received for Intercity services on the east coast main line in the financial years 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96. [26514]

  Mr. Watts
  The costs and the revenue for InterCity services on the east coast main line for the financial years 1994–95 and 1995–96 are as follows.

  £ million

  1994–95

  11995–96

  Revenue

  241

  292

  Costs

  307

  340

  Administered profit

  4

  18

  Grant support

  70

  66

  1 Provisional

  The figures for 1993–94 are not comparable because they do not reflect total costs for the use of infrastructure and rolling stock.

  Heavy Goods Vehicles
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on how many occasions over the past five years operators or employers have been prosecuted simultaneously with their drivers for offences relating to the regulations governing heavy goods vehicles, buses and coaches; and on how many occasions prosecutions have been made against the operators alone. [26674]

  Mr. Norris
  Separate statistics are not available in the form requested.

  Bus Safety, Manchester
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the quality and safety of buses in Greater Manchester. [27538]

  Mr. Norris
  Ensuring the quality and safety of buses is an integral element in the overall enforcement activities carried out by the Vehicle Inspectorate.
  584
  The VI is aware of concerns about the quality of some buses in use in Great Manchester and has worked with the local police to target operators with poor standards of vehicle maintenance. In the Greater Manchester and Derbyshire area during 1995–96, 12.75 per cent. of vehicles tested at spot checks were issued with immediate prohibitions and 13.38 per cent. with delayed prohibitions.

  New investment by bus companies operating in Greater Manchester is expected to impact favourably on vehicle standards in the coming months.

  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of(a) the number of bus operators in Greater Manchester and (b) the number of occasions on which consideration has been given to withdrawing operators' licences for failing to reach and maintain an acceptable safety standard; how many licences have been withdrawn; and if he will make a statement. [27539]

  Mr. Norris
  There are 36 bus operators running local services and claiming fuel duty rebate in the Greater Manchester area. Data about disciplinary action taken by the Traffic Commissioner are not available in the form requested.

  Rail Tunnels and Bridges
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what proportion of the total number of tunnels on the British Rail network has been inspected in the last(a) 10, (b) 20 and (c) 30 years; [27791]

  (2) what proportion of bridges on the British Rail network has been inspected in the last (a) 10, (b) 20 and (c) 30 years. [27792]

  Mr. Watts
  I understand that all Railtrack's bridges and tunnels are subject to regular visual inspection; in addition, all tunnels receive a full structural inspection annually and all bridges receive a full structural inspection on a six-year cycle.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what is the total number of tunnels in the British rail network; and how many were built(a) before 1875, (b) 1876 to 1900, (c) 1901 to 1950 and since 1950; [27789]

  (2) how many bridges there are in the British rail network; and how many were built (a) before 1875, (b) 1876 to 1900, (c) 1901 to 1950 and (d) since 1950. [27786]

  Mr. Watts
  Railtrack's network encompasses around 40,000 bridges, viaducts and tunnels. Many were constructed more than 100 years ago. Further information on the dates of construction could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Second Severn Crossing
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) on what dates the latest X-ray inspections of the steelwork on the approach roads to the second Severn crossing took place; if he will list those structures where
  585
  the outcome of the inspection involved the non-acceptance of the steelwork as satisfactory; and what assessment he has made of the impact of the inspections on the contract completion and opening dates for (a) the crossing, (b) the M4 approach roads and (c) the M5 approach roads; and if he will make a statement; [27824]

  (2) what measures he has discussed with the director of the Highways Agency in relation to the delays in the Balfour Beatty contract for the approach roads to the second Severn crossing; [27826]

  (3) what representations he has had in relation to the (a) delayed and (b) defective supply of fabricated Spanish steelwork for the bridge decks on the approach roads to the second Severn crossing and methods used by Balfour Beatty to make good the deficiencies. [27825]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Rhodri Morgan, dated 2 May 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent questions about the approach roads to the Second Severn Crossing.
  X-ray inspections are not carried out. Non-destructive testing (Ultrasonic and Magnetic Particle Inspections) has been carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Specification for Highway Works.
  Test results have been received for testing carried out on site up to 23 April 1996, and testing is ongoing.
  Defects have been found in the normal course of quality control and inspection. Unexpected levels of defects in some of the welding and some lack of fit between the stiffeners and main beams were found in bridges BI, B31, B44, and B46. All defects have been repaired or are being addressed.
  The inspections have no impact upon the contract completion and opening dates for either the crossing, M4 or M49 (M5) approach roads.
  There has been continued close liaison between us and Balfour Beatty Civil Engineering Ltd. (BBCEL) on contract completion which has ensured that the M4 completion will coincide with the opening of the Second Severn Crossing.
  On 1 May 1996, I explained to the Secretary of State for Transport that the Highways Agency's contractor had been encountering some problems with the steel fabrication for some structures, but that this was the responsibility of the contractor.
  We have been kept informed by BBCEL of the problems with steel supply and defective fabrication and are content with the steps they have taken to rectify the situation.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Entry Clearance Officers (Manila)
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many complaints his Department has received in each of the last six calendar years in respect of the treatment of visa applications and sponsors by entry clearance officers at the British embassy in Manila; and what proportion of all visa applications in each year these complaints represent. [27373]

  Mr. Hanley
  This information is not readily available and cannot be compiled except at disproportionate cost.

  Land Mines
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress made to ban the manufacture, export and use of anti-personnel land mines at the recent negotiations at the first review conference for the 1980 inhumane weapons convention in Geneva. [27140]

  Mr. David Davis
  The UN weaponry convention review conference is currently taking place in Geneva and is expected to be concluded on 3 May. We hope that significant new prohibitions and restrictions will be placed on the use and transfer of anti-personnel land mines taking us significantly closer to the goal of a total international ban on these weapons. The production of mines is not covered by the convention.

  UN Register for Conventional Arms
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the United Kingdom returned its 1995 submission to the UN register for conventional arms; and if he will place a copy of the submission in the Library. [27646]

  Mr. David Davis
  We submitted our return to the UN register covering calendar year 1995 to the UN Secretary-General on 30 April 1996. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House.

  European Union Council
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on forthcoming business in the Council of the European Union. [28196]

  Mr. David Davis
  The information is as follows:

  SUBJECT: MONTHLY FORECAST OF BUSINESS FOR MAY 1996

  1. The following Councils are scheduled:

  3 May: Spatial Planning and Regional Development (informal)

  4 May: Spatial Planning and Regional Development (informal)

  5 May: Agriculture (informal)

  6 May: Agriculture (informal)

  6 May: Education

  7 May: Agriculture (informal)

  7 May: Energy

  13 May: Foreign Affairs Council

  14 May: Foreign Affairs Council

  14 May: Health

  20 May: Industry

  20 May: Agriculture

  21 May: Agriculture

  23 May: Civil Protection

  28 May: Development

  28 May: Internal Market

  29 May: Telecommunications

  2. The following subjects are likely to be discussed:

  3–4 MAY: SPATIAL PLANNING AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL (INFORMAL)

  Agenda not yet available

  5–7 MAY: AGRICULTURE COUNCIL (INFORMAL)

  Agenda not yet available

  6 MAY: EDUCATION COUNCIL

  587

  "A" Points

  As advised by Council Secretariat

  "A" Points

  Open debate on White Paper on Education and Training

  Draft resolution on multimedia software

  Draft conclusions on synergies between academic recognition and professional recognition of qualifications

  Commission note on the assessment of the quality of higher education

  Commission note on the assessment of the quality of school education

  Commission information on:

  European Year of Lifelong Learning;

  Cooperation with Third countries;

  Progress on green Paper on Obstacles to Mobility'

  Key education figures (1996 edition)

  Communication from Greece on setting up a European centre for classical literature

  7 MAY: ENERGY COUNCIL

  "A" Points

  As advised by Council Secretariat

  "B" Points

  Electricity liberalisation: common position (possible item)

  Euro-Mediterranean energy cooperation: Council conclusions

  Commission's Energy Policy White Paper: Council resolution

  Commission communication on gas supply: Council conclusions

  SAVE II energy efficiency programme: political agreement (possible item)

  SYNERGY programme for energy cooperation with third countries: debate

  Integrated resource planning directive: debate

  Energy charter treaty: progress report

  Commission report on civil protection, tourism and energy;

  Commission presentation

  Commission report on oil supply: Commission presentation

  13–14 MAY: FOREIGN AFFAIRS COUNCIL

  Agenda not yet available

  14 MAY: HEALTH COUNCIL

  "A" Points

  As advised by Council Secretariat

  "B" Points

  Adoption of the draft agenda

  Proposal for a decision adopting a programme of Community action on health monitoring within the framework for action in the field of public health: adoption of a common position

  Proposal for a decision of the European parliament and of the council creating a network for the epidemiological surveillance and control of communicable diseases in the European Community: orientation debate

  Creation of an EU/US (EU/United States) action group charged with developing a global early warning system and response network for communicable diseases: information on work to date

  Proposal for a decision of the EP and the Council adopting a Community programme of Community action on the prevention of drug dependence within the framework for action in the field of public health: second reading, in preparation for concilliation with EP

  588

  Amended proposal for a Council directive on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the member states relating to the advertising of tobacco products: orientation debate

  BSE and the potential risks for transmission to man: information from the commission and exchange of views.

  20 MAY: INDUSTRY COUNCIL

  "A" Points

  As advised by Council Secretariat

  "B" Points

  SMEs: draft Council Decision for new multi-annual programme for SMEs: orientation debate

  Industrial cooperation with third countries, and the Mediterranean Basin in particular: draft Council resolution

  Automobile industry: Commission report on follow-up on Council resolution of 22 April 1994

  Competition Policy: 25th annual Commission report on competition policy

  Steel:

  State aids—Commission monitoring report

  Extension of steel state aid code: presentation and exchange of views

  Commission document on expiry of ECSC treaty in 2002: exchange of views

  Draft Council regulation on state aid for shipbuilding: exchange of views

  20–21 MAY: AGRICULTURAL COUNCIL

  "A" Points

  As advised by Council Secretariat

  "B" Points

  Reform of the fruit and vegetable regime

  Price fixing

  Bananas (possible item)

  Wine reform (possible item)

  Olive oil reform (possible item)

  Tobacco reform (possible item)

  Plant health: solidarity and responsibility (possible item)

  Veterinary and fish fees (possible item)

  BSE

  23 MAY: CIVIL PROTECTION COUNCIL

  "A" Points

  As advised by Council Secretariat

  "B" Points

  Community action programme on civil protection

  Resolution on civil protection research

  Resolution on cooperation with the CEEs on civil protection

  28 MAY: INTERNAL MARKET COUNCIL

  "A " Points

  As advised by Council Secretariat

  "B" Points

  Sweeteners: common position

  Traditional foodstuffs: common position

  Miscellaneous additives: common position

  Foodstuffs for particular nutritional uses (PARNUTS): common position (possible item)

  Food irradiation: orientation debate

  589
  28 MAY: DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL

  "A" Points

  As advised by Council Secretariat

  "B" Points

  Links between emergency aid, rehabilitation and reconstruction: debate on priorities for immediate action

  Conflict prevention: presentation by the Commission

  Operational co-ordination: Council conclusions

  Council conclusions on:

  Environmental impact evaluation

  Decentralised co-operation

  Migration and development

  Counterpart funds

  Proposals for legal bases for EC development cooperation (i.e. draft EC regulations governing EC aid) (possible item)

  Other business:

  Cocoa (requested by Belgium)

  UN Reform (requested by Sweden)

  29 MAY: TELECOMMUNICATIONS COUNCIL

  "A" Points

  As advised by Council Secretariat

  "B" Points

  Directive on a common framework for general authorisations and individual licences in the field of telecommunications services: common position

  Directive on common rules for the development of Community postal services and the improvement of the quality of service: common position

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Professor Mohammed Al-Masari
  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what decision he has reached upon the application for political asylum by Professor Mohammed Al-Masari. [26555]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Dr. Al-Masari has been given leave to remain for an initial period of four years. Dr. Al-Masari's asylum application has not been considered substantively.

  Drink Driving
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he will take to ensure that the police ensure that identity in drink drive cases is substantiated by evidence other than the driver's licence alone. [26591]

  Mr. Maclean
  This is an operational matter for the police, but I understand that, when someone is charged with a drink drive offence, the usual procedure is to carry out checks on the vehicle records and the address given, in addition to verifying licence details.

  Asylum Cases
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what budgetary allocation(a) was made in 1994–95 and (b) has been set aside for 1996–97 for (i) the B3 division of the immigration and nationality department and (ii) the Home Office presenting officers' unit in B1 division; how many decisions were made by B3 division
  590
  in each of the last two years; how many decisions are projected for 1996–97; how many (1) cases in total and (2) asylum cases were presented by Home Office presenting officers in each of the last two years; and how many cases in each category they are projected to present in 1996–97. [27175]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The available information is contained in the tables:

  Running costs

  Asylum division1

  B1 presenting officers' unit1

  1994–95

  £13 million

  £2.8 million

  1996–97

  Not finally settled2

  Not finally settled2

  1 Does not include accommodation costs and certain other overheads not allocated to the units concerned to manage directly.

  2 Final amount depends on the precise allocation of spend to save funds for 1996–97.

  Asylum division

  Decisions

  1994

  21,000

  1995

  27,000

  Projected 1996–97

  45,000

  April 1994 to March 1995

  April 1995 to March 11996

  Decisions on asylum applications

  23,975

  28,915

  Total appeal determinations2

  26,220

  21,700

  Of which; asylum appeals3

  3,335

  8,320

  1 Provisional figures.

  2 Separate figures for cases presented are not available.

  3 Includes asylum appeals referred back to the Secretary of State for further consideration.

  Firearms
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what review of firearms legislation is presently being carried out by his Department; when it(a) began and (b) was announced; what are its terms of reference; what are the names and positions of those conducting the review; from whom submissions have been received to date; and from whom else submissions have been requested. [27122]

  Mr. Maclean
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland announced on 21 March that they would conduct a joint review of firearms controls in Great Britain. The review began at that time and has now considered the arguments for and against the changes in the controls which have been suggested following the tragic events in Dunblane on 13 March.

  In conducting their review, my right hon. and learned Friend and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland have taken account of submissions from opposition parties, comments from the Firearms consultative committee and over 2, 000 letters from Members of Parliament and the public. Comments were invited from all interested parties who are, of course, free to submit their evidence directly to Lord Cullen's inquiry.
  591
  Mr. Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the recommendations made by the Firearms Consultative Committee in its(a) first, (b) second, (c) third, (d) fourth, (e) fifth and (f) sixth report (i) have been implemented, (ii) dealt with matters

  Firearms consultative committee annual report

  (a) 1st

  (b) 2nd

  (c) 3rd

  (d) 4th

  (e) 5th

  (f) 6th

  Recommendations which have been implemented or which require no action

  18

  15

  12

  6

  19

  15

  Recommendations which would require primary legislation

  1

  9

  9

  1

  17

  17

  Recommendations which could be implemented through a change in administrative procedures

  1

  4

  2

  6

  11

  13

  In addition, a number of the recommendations of the Firearms Consultative Committee would require secondary legislation to implement them and are not included in the table above. Some of the recommendations included in the table have been formally rejected.

  It is not possible to identify separately those recommendations which deal solely with matters of public safety but, in making recommendations, the committee always consider the likely impact on public safety.

  Mr. Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department at(a) directions and (b) terms of reference he has given to the Firearms Consultative Committee to review firearms legislation since 13 March; what submissions have been received and from whom; what other information has been sought and from whom; and if he will place a copy of (i) that information and (ii) the final report in the Library. [27123]

  Mr. Maclean
  The terms of reference of the Firearms Consultative Committee, as set out in section 22(5) of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988. These have not been changed since 13 March. Within its terms of reference, the Firearms Consultative Committee may consider any issues arising from the tragic events of 13 March that it considers appropriate.

  I understand that the Firearms Consultative Committee has received a number of submissions from members of the public and other interested parties. Publication of any material submitted to the committee is a matter for it.

  The Firearms Consultative Committee is required by section 22(6) of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 to make a report each year on its activities to the Secretary of State, who is required to lay copies of the report before Parliament. A copy of the report of the committee for this year will be placed in the Library in the usual way.

  Holloway Prison
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the oral statement of the Minister of State of 28 March,Official Report, column 1286 and his answer of 24 April, Official Report, column 163, on how many occasions in the last two years the Minister of State has visited Holloway prison. [27555]
  592
  of public safety, (iii) would require amendment of primary legislation and (iv) could be implemented by a change in administrative procedures. [27127]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is set out in the table:

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member on 24 April,Official Report, column 163.

  Durham Constabulary (Compensation)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much compensation Durham constabulary paid out in each year since 1980; and for what reasons. [27380]

  Mr. Maclean
  This information is not held centrally.

  Stray Dogs
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to transfer the responsibility for stray dogs from the police services to local authorities. [27302]

  Mr. Maclean
  Since April 1992, local authorities have had primary responsibility for dealing with stray dogs. The police have a duty under the Dogs Act 1906 to deal with stray dogs brought to police stations. The report of the review of police core and ancillary tasks, published on 27 June 1995, proposed that the police might shed this statutory duty so that local authorities would assume full responsibility for strays.

  The proposal, with examples of other co-operative schemes involving police and local authorities, is being considered in consultation with police and local authority associations before any decision is reached.

  Immigration
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been prosecuted under the provisions of paragraph 325, sub-paragraph (II)(f) of the immigration rules within the last five years; what guidelines on sentencing policy for those found guilty under the said provisions have been issued to the courts; how many of those prosecuted were convicted; how many of those convicted were sent to prison; how many were fined; what was the most common prison sentence given; and what was the most common fine levied. [27247]

  Mr. Maclean
  Information collected centrally cannot identify the exact immigration sub-rule under which a prosecution under section 26 (1) (f) of the Immigration Act 1971—whereby it is an offence for a foreign national,
  593
  subject to conditions imposed, to fail to register with the police—has been made. No guidelines have been issued by the Department on sentencing policy relating to the above legislation.

  Defendants proceeded against at magistrates' courts for offences associated with failing to register with the police under section 26 (1)(f) of the Immigration Act 1971 by result 1990 to 1994

  England and Wales

  Offence1 description/year

  Total proceeded against

  Total found guilty

  Total for sentence

  Total fined

  Average fine (£)

  Total immediate custody

  Average Custodial sentence length (months)

  Otherwise dealt with

  Foreign national failing

  1990

  6

  5

  5

  1

  100

  —

  —

  4

  to register with police

  1991

  6

  4

  4

  4

  48

  —

  —

  —

  or to produce

  1992

  8

  4

  4

  2

  38

  —

  —

  2

  documents etc,

  1993

  6

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1994

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1Principal immigration offence.

  Prisons (Suicides)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners in(a) prison establishments and (b) police custody have (i) committed and (ii) attempted suicide in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [27446]

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

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, dated 2 May 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about suicides.
  The attached tables give the number of self-inflicted deaths in Prison Service establishments, in England and Wales (1985–1995); the number of reported incidents of attempted suicides (1991–1995); and the number of suicides in police custody (1985–1995). Numbers of attempted suicides in police custody are not held centrally. Numbers of attempted suicides in prison establishments were not held centrally before 1991.

  Number of attempted suicides in prison establishments for the period 1991–95

  Number

  1991

  676

  1992

  731

  1993

  818

  1994

  847

  1995

  772

  Number of self-inflicted deaths in prison establishments for the period 1985–1995

  Number

  1985

  27

  1986

  21

  1987

  46

  1988

  37

  1989

  48

  1990

  50

  1991

  42

  1992

  42

  594
  The court proceedings data given in the table show the number of defendants prosecuted, in England and Wales only, for failing to register with the police, by result, from 1990 to 1994—latest available.

  Number of self-inflicted deaths in prison establishments for the period 1985–1995

  Number

  1993

  47

  1994

  62

  1995

  60

  "Self-inflected" deaths includes deaths where other inquest verdicts, such as "open" and "misadventure" have been recorded.

  Number of suicides in police custody for the period 1985–1995

  England and Wales (excluding Metropolitan police)

  Metropolitan police

  1985

  2

  1

  1986

  2

  2

  1987

  1

  1

  1988

  4

  1

  1989

  3

  4

  1990

  0

  3

  1991

  10

  —

  1991–921

  —

  2

  1992

  3

  —

  1992–931

  —

  2

  1993

  3

  —

  1993–941

  —

  1

  1994

  3

  —

  1994–951

  —

  21

  The statistics provided represent those deaths whereby the Inquest has been held and the verdict given as "Death due to Suicide".

  1 Figures recorded on a financial year basis.

  2 Provisional figure.

  Video Evidence
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the Home Office advisory group's recommendations on video evidence; and if he will make a statement. [27563]

  Mr. Maclean
  The Criminal Justice Act 1991 implemented most of the recommendations of the advisory group on video evidence. In particular, it prohibited the defendant from questioning the child and it allowed the child's main evidence to be given by means of a video-recorded interview conducted by police and social workers soon after the incident. We are
  595
  not persuaded that video recording of pre-trial cross-examination, also recommended by the group, would be in the best interests of children.

  The Government remain determined that the criminal justice system should be made more responsive to the needs of children and that the measures introduced by the 1991 Act should work as effectively as possible. We are pursuing a range of further improvements to the present arrangements to secure practical benefits for children.

  Greater Manchester Police
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list(a) the capital spending by Greater Manchester police in (i) 1993–94, (ii) 1994–95, (iii) 1995–96 and (b) the estimated and projected spending in (x) 1996–97 and (y) 1997–98 in (1) cash terms and (2) 1996 prices; and if he will make a statement. [27537]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information is listed in the table.

  Greater Manchester police—capital expenditure

  1993–94

  1994–95

  11995–96

  11996–97

  21997–98

  Cash terms £ million

  11.407

  11.774

  14.305

  13.845

  18.619

  1996 prices £ million

  12.265

  12.430

  14.968

  13.845

  18.619

  1 Force estimate.

  2 Force projection.

  Wheel Clamping
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for legislation following the consultation exercise on wheel clamping. [27878]

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government are still considering what action, if any, should be taken to regulate wheel clamping on private land. We are looking at the possible need for new legislation as part of that consideration.

  Police Cells
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the effect of the reduction in capital expenditure in his Department during the current financial year on the use of police cells; and if he will make a statement. [26671]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 29 April 1996]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Mr. Alex Carlile, dated 2 May 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about whether an assessment has been made on the effect the reduction in capital expenditure during the current financial year will have on the use of police cells.
  An assessment of the effect of the reduction in capital expenditure was made in December 1996. This work concluded that there was no significant increase in the risk of having to resort to the use of police cells in 1996–97.
  The Prison Service has not been using police cells since June 1995. Apart from a major unplanned loss of accommodation or an unexpected rise in the population above current projections, and above our capacity to accommodate with other measures, we do not plan to use police cells.

  Capital Expenditure
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list(a) total capital expenditure for his Department and (b) capital expenditure on (i) the Prison Service, (ii) police and (iii) other Department functions indicting the expenditure planned for each of the following three financial years set out in the public expenditure surveys for 1991–92 and each subsequent year together with estimated outturns where these are available. [26035]

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 24 April 1996]: Information in the form requested is not available.

  Capital spending by the Home Department has been as follows:

  £ million, outturn prices

  Year

  Prison service

  Police

  Other

  Total

  1991–92

  431.7

  193.7

  85.6

  711.0

  1992–93

  342.7

  221.4

  102.6

  666.7

  1993–94

  294.0

  243.6

  112.9

  650.5

  1994–95

  322.8

  242.5

  96.6

  661.9

  1995–961

  327.7

  252.5

  92.6

  672.8

  1996–971

  120.0

  224.7

  85.4

  431.1

  1997–981

  111.5

  220.3

  82.9

  414.7

  1998–991

  113.6

  200.8

  81.7

  396.1

  1. The data are standardised by including expenditure for services which are the current responsibility of the Home Office.

  2. The figures for "Police" and "Other" include capital grants and credit approvals to local authorities.

  3. Capital expenditure by the Charity Commission is omitted.

  4. "Police" expenditure includes expenditure by the Forensic Science Service agency. "Other" includes expenditure by the United Kingdom Passport Agency and the Fire Service College trading fund.

  1Actual expenditure is given for years up to 1994–95; estimates for 1995–96; public expenditure survey projections for later years.

  Prisoners (Television Sets)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to remove television sets from(a) sentenced and (b) remand prisoners; and if he will make a statement. [26672]

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 29 April 1996]: Policy on this subject is still under consideration.

  Eastwood Park Prison
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those courts which fall into the catchment area of HMP Eastwood Park, and those which previously were in the catchment area of Pucklechurch remand centre; if he will list for each court the number of prisoners by offence(a) remand in custody, and unconvicted, (b) remanded to custody following conviction, but unsentenced, (c) sentenced prisoners in each year since 1990 and (d) the number of cases brought before each court by offence in each year since 1990. [27235]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 29 April 1996]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange a reply to be given.
  597
  Letter from A. J. Butler to Mr. George Howarth, dated 2 May 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the Office, to reply to your recent Question about Eastwood Park and Pucklechurch prisons.
  The courts which commit female prisoners to Eastwood Park prison are given in the attached list and are the same as those which commit to Pucklechurch remand centre.
  The information requested about remand prisoners at each court is not available centrally.
  Information on the number of indicatable cases heard at each court is published annually in criminal statistics supplementary tables. Crown court information by centre is given in Volume 2 and magistrates' courts by individual Petty Sessional Division are in Volume 5 and Volume 4 from 1991 to 1994 (latest available). Copies of these volumes are available in the Library.
  The information requested for each court by offence could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Crown Court

  Barnstaple

  Bristol

  Dorchester

  Exeter

  Gloucester

  Plymouth

  Salisbury

  Swindon and Devizes

  Taunton

  Truro

  Cardiff

  Carmarthen

  Haverfordwest

  Merthyr Tydfil

  Newport

  Swansea

  Magistrates' Courts

  Bath and Wansdyke Division

  Bristol Division

  North Avon Division

  Woodspring Division

  Bodmin Division

  Dunheved and Stratton Division

  East Powder Division

  South East Cornwall Division

  East Penwirth Division

  Falmouth and Kerrier Division

  Isles of Scilly Division

  Truro Division

  Truro and South Powder Division

  Axminster and Honiton Division

  Cullompton Division

  Exeter and Wonford Division

  Exmouth Division

  Tiverton Division

  Barnstaple and South Molton Division

  Bideford and Great Torrington Division

  Plymouth Division

  South Hams Division

  Teignbridge Division

  Torbay Division

  Central Dorset Division

  598

  Poole Division

  West Dorset Division

  Weymouth and Portland Division

  Cirencester, Fairford and Tetbury Division

  Forest of Dean Division

  Gloucester Division

  North Gloucestershire Division

  South Gloucestershire Division

  Bromsgrove and Redditch Division

  Herefordshire Division

  Severminster Division

  South Worcestershire Division

  Mendip Division

  Sedgemoor Division

  south Somerset Division

  Taunton Deane Division

  West Somerset Division

  Atherstone and Coleshill Division

  Nuneaton Division

  Mid-Warwickshrie Division

  Rugby Division

  Kennet Division

  North Wiltshire Division

  Salisbury Division

  Swindon Division

  West Wiltshire Division

  Carmarthen North Division

  Carmarthen South Division

  Ceredigion Ganol Division

  Gogledd Ceridigion Division

  Gogledd Preseli Division

  Cleddau Division

  De Ceredigion Division

  South Pembrokeshire Division

  Dinefwr Division

  Llanelli Division

  Bedwellty Division

  East Gwent Division

  Newport Division

  Cynon Valley Division

  Lower Rhymney Valley Division

  Merthyr Tydfil Division

  Miskin Division

  Newcastle and Ogmore Division

  Upper Rhymney Valley Division

  Brecon Division

  Radnorshire and North Brecknock Division

  Ystradgynlais Division

  Machynlleth Division

  Newtown Division

  Welshpool Division

  Cardiff Division

  Vale of Glamorgan Division

  Port Talbot Division

  Lliw Valley Division

  Neath Division

  Swansea Division

  Buckley Hall Prison (Escapes)
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Prison Service will carry out an investigation into the escape of four prisoners from Buckley Hall prison on 23 April; and if he will publish details of the investigation. [27291]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 1 May 1996]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 2 May 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the investigation into the escape of four prisoners from Buckley Hall prison on 23 April 1996.
  An investigation into the escape began on 24 April 1996. Conclusions and recommendations will be submitted to the area manager on completion of the inquiry. In line with normal procedures, there is no intention to publish the report or the findings of the inquiry.

  Television Licences
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration has been given to the possible change in the number of people that might be imprisoned for the non-payment of a television licence fine following the introduction of a weekly cash instalment scheme for the payment of the television licence; and what discussions his Department has had with the Department of National Heritage on this issue. [26857]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer I May 1996]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the National Heritage has given approval in principle for the BBC to introduce a cash instalment scheme for television licence payment. The scheme is expected to be piloted by the BBC later this year, and this will assist those who find it difficult to pay for a television licence by existing methods. Television licence evasion remains, however, a criminal offence punishable by a fine. It is the non-payment of such a fine that can result in imprisonment, but only where that default is the result of wilful refusal or culpable neglect.

  My right hon and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has established a working group, which includes representatives of the Magistrates' Association and Justices' Clerks' Society, to identify ways of improving the effectiveness of fine enforcement.

  Small and Medium Businesses
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of his Department's budget was spent on procurement from small and medium enterprises in 1995–96[27528]

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer I May 1996]: The information required to answer this question is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

ENVIRONMENT

  Heating (Fuel Requirements)
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the percentage difference in fuel required to heat identical houses in Nottingham and Derby. [26517]

  Mr. Clappison
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend, the Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency on 24 April,Official Report, column 147.

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to extend the work carried out by his Department presented in "Indicators of Sustainable Development for the United Kingdom", by the construction of indicators at the level of individual businesses. [24697]

  Mr. Clappison
  The indicators published by the Department of the Environment are national in nature and, in many cases, relate to broad industrial sectors. Individual businesses should be able to construct their own indicators to compare their performance with the national sectoral norm.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will develop indicators to measure the contribution of United Kingdom international trade to sustainable development globally. [26516]

  Mr. Clappison
  The issue of international trade was flagged up in the report of indicators of sustainable development for the United Kingdom published on 12 March 1996. This area requires much further work as the issues involved are very complex. In the longer term, we will need to consider, in conjunction with other countries and international organisations, whether more appropriate indicators might be developed to illustrate the role of international trade in global patterns of consumption and production.

  Biodiversity
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much of the planned expenditure for 1996–97 on international biodiversity is devoted to(a) the administrative costs of the biodiversity convention secretariat and (b) contributions to developing countries for the implementation of their biodiversity action plans. [24699]

  Mr. Clappison
  In 1996–97, £433,000 has been allocated to the administrative costs of the biodiversity convention secretariat. In addition, the Government have set aside £167,000 principally to contribute towards the travelling costs of developing countries attending the convention meetings. Funding developing countries to produce biodiversity action plans is one of the priorities for the convention's interim financial mechanism, the global environment facility, to which the United Kingdom has committed some £130 million. National biodiversity projects are also funded under the bilateral aid programme.
  601
  Already this financial year, more than £0.6 million has been committed in addition to over £30 million in 1995–96. The Darwin initiative has so far funded over 110 projects costing £12 million to help almost 60 countries towards meeting their obligations under the biodiversity convention.

  Environmental Pollution Reports
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the average length of time between the publication of reports I to 17 of the royal commission on environmental pollution and the publication of the Government's response to those reports. [26515]

  Mr. Clappison
  The average length of time between the publication of reports 1 to 17 of the royal commission on environmental pollution and the publication of the Government's response to those reports was about two years five months.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Coal Privatisation
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many hours to date N. M. Rothschild has worked on the contract to give advice on the privatisation of the coal industry; and when the contract is expected to conclude. [27797]

  Mr. Page
  N. M. Rothschild has, to date, worked approximately 37,800 hours on providing advice on the privatisation of the coal industry. The contract will end once the privatisation, including the non-mining activities, is complete.

  Atolls (Radioactivity)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to the answer of 3 April,Official Report, column 300, what progress has been made by the International Atomic Energy Agency in its assessment of the radiological situation of the atolls of Muroroa and Fangataufa. [27561]

  Mr. Page
  No formal progress report has yet been received from the International Atomic Energy Agency. We understand, however, that initial meetings have been held and that the necessary task groups and working groups have been established.

  Business Innovation Centres
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many business innovation centres are co-located with business links and which they are; what research his Department has commissioned on the relationship of business links to business innovation centres; and what is the remit of his research. [27189]

  Mr. Page
  [holding answer I May 1996]: My Department has recently commissioned research into the relationship between business links and business and innovation centres. The remit of this study is to identify the services provided by each business and innovation centre, define the degree of formal and informal integration business links and business innovation centres
  602
  and make recommendation on how collaboration could be further enhanced. Two business and innovation centres, in Sunderland and Stafford, are currently co-located with business links.

  Drug Alert
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what research he has(a) commissioned into and (b) evaluated on Drug Alert. [26780]

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 25 April 1996]: I have been asked to reply.

  The Government have not commissioned or evaluated any research on Drug Alert.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Justices of the Peace, Wales
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many new justices of the peace were appointed in Wales during 1995; and what is the political affiliation of the new appointees. [27019]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The total number of new justices of the peace appointed in Wales in 1995 was 112. Their political affiliation is as follows:

  Conservative: 30

  Labour: 46

  Liberal Democrat: 12

  Plaid Cymru: 12

  Independent/Other: 12

  County Court, Northampton
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much compensation for delay has been paid since the commencement of the current industrial action at the county court bulk issuing and summons production centres at Northampton. [26961]

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

  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mr. Stephen Timms, dated 2 May 1996:
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department has asked me to reply to your Question about the amount of compensation that has been paid since the commencement of industrial action at the County Court Bulk Issue Centre and the Summons Production Centre at Northampton.
  No compensation has been paid.

  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department which organisations have received compensation for delays arising from the current industrial action at the county court bulk issuing and summons production centres in Northampton. [26962]

  Mr. Evans
  The question concerns a specific operational matter on which the chief executive of the Court Service is best placed to provide an answer and I have accordingly asked the chief executive to reply direct.
  603
  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mr. Stephen Timms, dated 2 May 1996:
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department has asked me to reply to your Question about the compensation paid as a result of industrial action at the County Court Bulk Issue Centre and the Summons Production Centre at Northampton.
  No organisation has received compensation as a result of this industrial action.

HEALTH

  Oral Cancer
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans his Department has to introduce a co-ordinated national programme of education in the early identification of oral cancer; and if he will make a statement; [27016]

  (2) what steps are being taken by his Department to reduce the number of deaths from oral cancer; and if he will make a statement; [26982]

  (3) what plans he has to ensure that dental examinations include a systematic soft tissue screening for oral cancer; and if he will make a statement; [26984]

  (4) what steps are being taken by his Department to raise pubic awareness of oral cancer and its risk factors; and if he will make a statement; [27014]

  (5) what research his Department is currently funding into oral cancer; and if he will make a statement; [27017]

  (6) what plans he has to include oral cancer targets on the "The Health of the Nation" programme; and if he will make a statement. [27015]

  Mr. Horam
  All oral examinations include examination of both hard and soft tissue. Dentists are trained in the early recognition of abnormalities in the mouth. Oral cancer can result from excessive alcohol or tobacco consumption, the risks of which are widely publicised and recognised. There are no plans at present to introduce set targets for reducing oral cancer morbidity or mortality rates. The chief dental officer chairs the national advisory group on screening for oral cancer which was set up last October. The group co-ordinates the detecting and preventing of oral cancers. The national health service national cancer research and development programme commissioned in 1995 a systematic review of the early natural history of certain cancers, including oral cancer, where there was potential for screening to reduce mortality. This research item was one of 25 priority areas ratified by the NHS Central Research and Development Committee. The systematic review is being undertaken by the cancer screening evaluation unit based at the Institute of Cancer Research. It will take approximately one year.

  GP Lists
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the grounds on which a general practitioner can remove an NHS patient from their list. [27146]

  Mr. Malone
  Under his terms of service"a general practitioner may have any person removed from his list and is required to notify the health authority in writing that he wishes to have a person removed from his list."
  604
  Professional guidance issued by the General Medical Council in May 1992 states that
  "it is unacceptable to abuse the right to refuse to accept patients by applying criteria of access to the practice list which discriminate against groups of patients on grounds of their age, sex, sexual orientation, race, colour, religious belief, perceived economic worth or the amount of work they are likely to generate by virtue of their clinical condition."

  HIV Test
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the cost of retesting the 25,000 stored samples which had previously been tested for HIV using the faulty Abbot kit; and who will be responsible for meeting this cost. [27151]

  Mr. Horam
  It is too early to say yet what the costs of the retesting exercise are likely to have been but national health service trusts have been asked to keep a record of their costs and the Department is liaising with the NHS and public health laboratory service on this. Abbott Laboratories Ltd. has stated that it will pay the cost of retesting.

  East London and the City Health Authority
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give the budget of the East London and the City health authority in each year from 1994–95 to 1997–98. [27112]

  Mr. Malone
  For details of the 1994–95 final revenue cash limit and the 1995–96 initial revenue cash limit for East London and the City district health authority, I refer the hon. Member to the reply my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State (Mr. Horam) gave her on 11 December 1995,Official Report, column 520.

  The 1996–97 initial revenue cash limit for East London and the City health authority is £317, 616,000.

  Cash limits for 1997–98 have not yet been set.

  HIV and AIDS
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the changes from April in the system for commissioning national health promotion work on HIV and AIDS. [27176]

  Mr. Horam
  The Government's HIV-AIDS health promotion strategy1, published in November 1995, identifies the need for targeted and national campaigns and for greater voluntary sector involvement in this area. A contract to undertake a national campaign in the coming year has been awarded to the Health Education Authority. We are currently exploring the scope for greater voluntary sector involvement with targeted campaigns.

  1 "HIV and AIDS Health Promotion: an Evolving Strategy", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Elderly Patients
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many representations have been made to his Department about the practice of some general practitioners of removing elderly patients from their lists in each of the last four years; and what statistics he
  605
  collates which show the number of patients aged over 70 years who are removed from general practitioner lists against their will each year. [27245]

  Mr. Malone
  The Department has received several representations from members of the public and from hon. Members concerning the removal of patients from general practitioners' lists. Information by age category on the number of patients removed is not available centrally.

  Tuberculosis
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children were notified as having tuberculosis in each of the last five years; and how many in each year were from areas where health authorities stopped the school immunisation programme. [27441]

  Mr. Horam
  The number of notifications of all tuberculosis, excluding chemoprophylaxis, in children under 16 years old in England and Wales is shown below:

  1991:483

  1992:548

  1993:596

  1994:433

  1995:422 (provisional).

  BCG immunisation to protect against tuberculosis is recommended for children between the ages of 10 and 14. District health authorities are responsible for the programme in their own areas and information on this is not available centrally.

  Dental Provision
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made as to the adequacy of NHS dental provision; and if he will make a statement. [27418]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member of Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) on 16 April columns,Official Report, 475–76.

  Hospital Beds, Doncaster
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many private hospital beds registered with the Doncaster health authority there were within the Doncaster metropolitan borough in each year since 1979; and how many there are currently. [27430]

  Mr. Horam
  There were 42 beds registered with the Doncaster health authority in private hospitals or clinics within the boundaries of Doncaster metropolitan district in 1993–94 and 36 in 1994–95. Information is not available centrally for years before 1993–94.

  HIV
  Mr. Merchant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department is taking to keep the general population informed about the continuing risks from HIV. [27398]

  Mr. Horam
  The Health Education Authority has an on-going programme in this area, including its recent winter campaign aimed at young people.

  Factor 8
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what research his Department has commissioned into factor 8; where it is based; who does it; what it costs; and when it started; [27711]

  (2) what evidence he has evaluated based on research into factor 8 otherwise than in the United Kingdom. [27712]

  Mr. Horam
  The Department has not commissioned any current research on factor 8. Research findings from abroad, as well as from the United Kingdom, are kept under review when any relevant decision are taken by the Department.

  Breast Cancer
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he has issued on the recommended waiting time for breast cancer patients between surgery and the start of radiotherapy treatment; and what percentage of patients at the Yorkshire regional centre at Cookridge, Leeds begin within that time. [26490]

  Mr. Horam
  The Department has not issued guidance on a recommended waiting time for such treatment.

  Yorkshire Regional Centre, Cookridge
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many patients were treated at the Yorkshire regional centre in each of the financial years from 1991–92 to 1995–96; and what were the numbers who began their treatment in each three month period from April 1994 to April 1996; [26491]

  (2) what is the current waiting list for starting radiotherapy treatment at Cookridge; and what it was on (a) 1 April 1994, (b) 1 October 1994, (c) 1 April 1995 and (d) 1 October 1995; [26492]

  (3) how many linear accelerators for breast cancer radiotherapy treatment are available at the Yorkshire regional centre at Cookridge; [24693]

  (4) what assessment he has made of the number of additional staff necessary to match the present demands on the service at the Cookridge centre; and what plans he has to meet these needs. [24696]

  Mr. Horam
  These are matters for United Leeds Teaching Hospitals national health service trust. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. David Hall, chairman of the trust for details.

  Linear Accelerators
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average waiting time between the completion of a purchasing agreement for a linear accelerator and its commissioning after installation. [24694]

  Mr. Horam
  The average waiting time between the completion of the purchasing agreement for a linear accelerator and its commissioning after installation is not available centrally. However, factors which could affect the waiting time are the complexity of the particular linear accelerator under consideration and the availability of local scientific and technical expertise.
  607
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what requests from the Cookridge centre for linear accelerators are currently under consideration by Northern and Yorkshire Health and when is completion of the purchasing agreement is expected. [24695]

  Mr. Horam
  An outline business case has been submitted to the national health service executive's Northern and Yorkshire regional office from the United Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS trust for provision of two linear accelerators, one new simulator and associated building work at Cookridge hospital.

  Further consideration is now being given to the business case in the light of the recommendations of the Leeds acute services review, which was published recently.

  Xenotransplantation
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy that no xenotransplantation trials involving human recipients should proceed until an advisory committee on xenotransplantation has been set up. [27886]

  Mr. Horam
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health last year established an advisory group on the ethics of xenotransplantation, with the following terms of reference:"In the light of recent and potential developments in xenotransplantation, to review the acceptability of and ethical framework within which xenotransplantation may be undertaken and to make recommendations."

  The advisory group will report by summer 1996. My right hon. Friend will then consider its recommendations and the policy implications.

  Read Codes System
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the original proposed date and location of the launch of the Read codes system for coding and classification in the NHS; and what form the launch was planned to take. [27625]

  Mr. Horam
  The scheduled date for the launch was October 1995, to be held in London. The purpose was to announce the successful completion of the terms projects and to report early results from pilots.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has received from the project board running the Centre for Coding and Classification at Loughborough into the development of Read codes on the length of time it would take to produce a service strength product for use within the NHS; and if he will make a statement. [27626]

  Mr. Horam
  Version 2 of Read is already in widespread use. Version 3 will reach service strength at different dates for different application areas. For the majority of specialities in the acute sector, service strength is expected by the end of this year. The centre's supervisory board which meets quarterly receives regular reports on all developments and has approved the timetable.
  608
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each financial year the expenditure on capital and revenue on the development of Read codes; how many hospitals are participating in the pilot exercise and what their response has been to date; when he proposes to submit the project for independent evaluation; and if he will make a statement. [27829]

  Mr. Horam
  The cost of developing version 3 of the Read codes is as follows:

  Revenue

  Capital

  1992–93

  £1.1 million

  Nil

  1993–94

  £2.1 million

  Nil

  1994–95

  £0.5 million

  Nil

  Total

  £3.7 million

  The nature of the Read terms is that new terms are added regularly through a maintenance process. This aspect of developments costs:

  Revenue

  Capital

  1994–95

  £0.7 million

  Nil

  1995–96

  £0.7 million

  Nil

  Total

  £1.4 million

  The version 3 Read code partnership programme commenced in mid-1995 and involved 14 sites—a further 30 sites have expressed interest in participating in the programme. We are aware of an additional 15 non-partnership sites which are using or about to use version 3 of the Read codes. These assessments in use comprise evaluation. An evaluation beyond this is not planned.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the representations from other Government Departments in relation to the urgency of the re-evaluation of the Read codes system and the Centre for Coding and Classification in Loughborough. [27828]

  Mr. Horam
  Contacts with Government Departments in Scotland and Wales on Read codes are long standing and continuing.

  On 7 March, the Welsh Office expressed concerns about the project at Withybush hospital. Several meetings have since taken place and these concerns have been addressed. The project is continuing.

  EU Directives
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the directives which have affected his Department in each of the past three years and(a) the United Kingdom legislation introduced as a result of the directives, (b) the United Kingdom legislation which goes beyond the minimum standards set out in the directives and (c) the clauses within each piece of United Kingdom legislation which amplify the minimum standards set out in the directives. [27077]
  609
  Mr. Horam
  [holding answer 29 April 1996]In the last three years, three directives have affected this Department. These, and the implementing legislation, are as follows:

  Directive

  Implementing Legislation

  93–39 New Licensing system for human medicines

  The Medicines for Human Use (Marketing Authorisation etc.) Regulation 1994 (SI 1994 No 3144)

  93–42 Council Directive on Medical Devices

  Medical Devices Regulations 1995 (SI 1994 No 3017) The Active Implantable Medical Devices (Amendment and Transitional Provisions Regulations) (SI 1995 No 1671)

  93–43 Hygiene of foodstuffs

  Food safety (General Food Hygiene) Regulations 1995 (SI 1995 No 1763)

  None of the implementing legislation amplifies the minimum standards set in the directive.

  Abortion
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the change in the abortion rate since 18 October 1995. [27128]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  I have been asked to reply.

  Data to monitor abortion rates since October 1995 are currently being processed and are not available for release. The December 1995 quarterly monitor on legal abortions performed in England and Wales, which is

  Remploy Limited: Board appointments and tenure

  Name

  Title

  Start of contract

  End of contract

  David Heywood

  Chairman

  9 September 1993

  8 September 1996

  Anthony Withey

  Chief Executive

  15 October 1994

  4 October 1998

  Len Boulton

  Executive Director

  1 January 1996

  30 June 1999

  Raymond Fletcher

  Executive Director

  1 January 1996

  30 April 1999

  Kenneth Taylor

  Executive Director

  1 April 1996

  31 March 2000

  Derek Boothman

  Non-Executive Director

  10 September 1995

  9 September 1998

  Roy Jackson

  Non-Executive Director

  2 September 1995

  1 September 1998

  John Ramsay

  Non-Executive Director

  9 September 1995

  8 September 1998

  Ann Roberts

  Non-Executive Director

  21 August 1993

  20 August 1996

  David Winterbottom

  Non-Executive Director

  12 December 1994

  11 December 1997

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many of the directors of Remploy have a background or professional qualification in accountancy. [27409]

  Mr. Paice
  Four.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to alter the balance of membership of the board of directors of Remploy in order to increase the number of members with a trade union background. [27408]

  Mr. Paice
  None.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimates she has made of (i) the number of persons who will be disallowed jobseeker's allowance as a result of(a) voluntary
  610
  expected to be published on 27 June, will include new statistics on the number of abortions each month and also comparisons with previous years.

  Spongiform Encephalopathy Research
  Mr. Shore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what investigations he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated to establish whether the BSE infective agent can be transmitted directly from a cow to its calf; what was the conclusion of that research; and if he will make a statement. [24472]

  Mrs. Browning
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) on 25 April 1996, Official Report, column 274.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Remploy
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many of the directors of Remploy(a) have a trade union background and (b) were nominated by trade union bodies. [27404]

  Mr. Paice
  One

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when each of the directors of Remploy was appointed; and when their terms of appointment expire. [27405]

  Mr. Paice
  The information is as follows:

  unemployment and (b) failure to follow jobseeker's directions, (ii) the number of such persons who will receive reduced benefit and (iii) the number who will have no benefit entitlement in the first two weeks of a jobseeker's allowance sanction. [26439]

  Mr. Forth
  I have made no such estimates. Decisions on disallowance of jobseeker's allowance will be made by independent adjudication officers.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 29 April,Official Report, column 349, if the training provider companies named in the letter sent to regional offices all have the same parent company. [27845]
  611
  Mr. Paice
  The letter sent to regional offices included commercially sensitive information. It would be inappropriate for me to make any further comment on the contents of that letter.

  Modern Apprenticeships
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many people are presently on modern apprenticeships; and how many have successfully completed a modern apprenticeship since its inception; [27800]

  (2) if she will list for each TEC the number of people presently on modern apprenticeship courses; [27805]

  (3) how many people are presently studying for a modern apprenticeship for each occupational area; [27804]

  (4) if she will list the number of modern apprenticeships in each training and enterprise council for each occupational area. [27806]

  Mr. Paice
  As the reply will consist of a large amount of data, I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my reply in the Library.

  Tottenham B Jobcentre
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what are the implications of the inaccuracy of the April figures for vacancies at the Tottenham B jobcentre for estimates of employment trends in(a) the Tottenham Constituency and (b) nationally; [27881]

  (2) when accurate figures for vacancies at the Tottenham B jobcentre will be released; [27880]

  (3) what assessment she has made of the accuracy of the figures released on 17 April by the Central Statistical Office in respect of job vacancies at the Tottenham B jobcentre on 8 March; where the vacancies are; and what are the implications of the new computer system for the accuracy of the figures. [27879]

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

  Letter from Robert Home to Mr. Bernie Grant, dated 2 May 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me, in the absence on leave of the Chief Executive, to reply to your questions relating to the figure for Unfilled Vacancies at Tottenham "B" Jobcentre which was published in the Greater London "First Release" on 17 April 1996.
  During the changeover to the new Labour Market System (the new Employment Service system for client and vacancy records) an incorrect figure was generated for this office. Clearly the published figure of 1,062 is about 1,000 too high. It has not yet been possible to pinpoint the cause of the error but urgent steps are being taken to do this, and to prevent a similar occurrence in the future. I will write to you again with a fuller explanation when we have it.
  In the meantime I would like to apologise for the confusion which this must have caused.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  China
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to ensure that United Kingdom aid is not used to subsidise coerced abortion and sterilisation in China. [27088]

  Mr. Hanley
  All UK bilateral aid to China has clear objectives. Our projects aim to guarantee good water supplies, to strengthen transport infrastructure, to assist with China's severe environmental problems, to improve English language teaching and to promote good government. Projects are carefully designed and monitored to ensure that UK aid is used for the purposes intended. No bilateral aid gives any support to China's family planning programmes. Projects and programmes in China funded by the International Planned Parenthood Federation, IPPF, and the United Nations Fund for Population Activities, UNFPA, are subject to equally close supervision. Annual spending by IPPF and UNFPA in China is equivalent to less than 0.8 per cent. of the sum spent annually by China on its family planning programmes.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what specific steps he has taken to ensure that the financial, technical and management resources available through the United Nations Fund for Population Activities do not enable the Chinese authorities to enforce coercive population control programmes more vigorously; and if he will make a statement. [27009]

  Mr. Hanley
  We regularly discuss with, and advise, senior officials of the UNFPA on matters concerning its current activities and future plans in China. As a result of this dialogue, we are satisfied that the activities that UNFPA currently funds in China do not in any way encourage coercive practices, but have promoted the health and welfare of Chinese women and children, especially in poorer regions of the country. UNFPA's current programme is approaching completion. Any new UNFPA programme in China would be subject to approval by the fund's governing body. If necessary, the UK Government, in partnership with like-minded board members and observers, will use this additional mechanism to influence the outcome of a future decision relating to a new UNFPA programme in China and to ensure that any such programme is fuily consistent with the programme of action of the international conference on population and development agreed in Cairo in September 1994.

  Dr. Beko Ransome-Kuti
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received on the well-being of Dr. Beko Ransome-Kuti, president-elect of the Nigerian Medical Association; and whether he has made representations for his release from prison. [27091]

  Mr. Hanley
  We are aware of reports that Dr. Beko Ransome-Kuti's health is deteriorating in Katsina prison. Our high commission in Lagos is in regular contact with members of the Ransome-Kuti family and the Nigerian Medical Association. We have raised our concerns about
  613
  Dr. Ransome-Kuti, and other human rights activists in detention, with the Nigerian authorities and continue to press for their release.

  HIV-AIDS
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of the UK aid committed for reproductive health in the years 1994 and 1995 was allocated to HIV-AIDS projects in overseas countries. [27093]

  Mr. Hanley
  Some 21 per cent.—£39.3 million—of total UK aid commitments in 1994 and 1995 for improved reproductive health—£184 million—was allocated specifically for HIV-AIDS projects and programmes, including the provision of condoms. In addition, a significant number of reproductive health projects approved during this period include prevention of HIV transmission as one of several objectives.

SCOTLAND

  Cairngorm Funicular Railway
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the correspondence from the International Union for Conservation of Nature on the Cairngorm funicular; and if he will make a statement. [27090]

  Mr. Kynoch
  My right hon. Friend has received three letters from the International Union for Conservation of Nature on the proposal to construct a funicular railway on Cairngorm. He has advised them that the application is currently before Highland Council, as planning authority, but should the matter come before him for determination, their views would be taken into account.

  Dunblane School Inquiry
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will place in the Library the daily and weekly transcripts of evidence and copies of submissions made to the Dunblane school inquiry. [27150]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Transcripts of evidence prepared for, and submissions made to, the tribunal are provided for the purpose of assisting the chairman of and parties to the tribunal. It would not be appropriate to lodge these documents in the Library.

  Housing
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will list for each district and islands council the total number of dwelling completions in the categories of(a) housing association for rent, (b) housing association shared ownership, (c) housing association improvement for sale, (d) GRO grant for rent, (e) GRO grant for home ownership and (f) total approved development programme under the Scottish Homes approved development programme; [26538]

  (2) if he will detail for each district and islands council area for 1995–96 the total public expenditure within the Scottish Homes approved development programme on (a) housing association for rent, (b) housing association
  614
  shared ownership, (c) housing association improvement for sale, (d) GRO grant for rent, (e) GRO grant for home ownership and (f) total ADP. [26537]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The information requested is held by Scottish Homes. I have asked its chairman, Mr. John Ward, to write to the hon. Member.

  Travelling People
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 23 April,Official Report, column 124, if he will list the name or location of each private site, the number of pitches it provides and the district in which it is situated. [27638]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The pitches provided on private sites are located on farms, crofts and touring caravan sites and vary from time to time. I regret that detailed information about their location is not recorded centrally, but I understand that Highland council is currently considering whether to keep such a record.

  Mr. J. W. Steven
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland will receive a substantive reply to his letter dated 4 October 1995 to the Minister for Agriculture, Forestry and the Environment about the case of Mr. J. W. Steven of Philips Main farm, Mey. [27639]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State has asked his officials to examine very carefully the case to which the hon. Member refers. He will send a full reply as soon as this detailed consideration is complete, and hopes to be in a position to do so within the next fortnight.

  Oral Contraceptives
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he was consulted in his capacity as a member of the licensing authority prior to the issuing of a letter dated 18 October 1995 relating to oral contraceptives containing desogestrel and gestodene. [26575]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 25 April 1996]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Minister for Health on 25 April, Official Report, column 281, stating that disclosure of such information would be in breach of long-established convention.

TREASURY

  Prompt Payment Code
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which Government Departments have signed up to the Confederation of British Industry's prompt payment code and on what dates; and if he will make a statement. [26615]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The following Government Departments and agencies have signed up to the CBI prompt payment code to date:

  Agricultural Development Advisory Service

  Crown Prosecution Service

  Cabinet Office

  615

  Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency

  Central Office of Information

  Charity Commission

  Chessington Computer Centre

  Civil Service College

  Civil Service Occupational Health and Safety Agency

  HM Customs and Excise

  Defence Bills Agency (Ministry of Defence)

  Department for Education and Employment

  Department of the Environment

  Department of Health

  Department of National Heritage

  Department of Social Security

  Department of Trade and Industry

  Employment Service

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  Government Actuary's Department

  Government Property Lawyers

  Her Majesty's Stationery Office

  Health and Safety Executive

  Home Office

  Inland Revenue

  HM Land Registry

  Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  NHS Executive

  National Investment and Loans Office

  Department of National Savings

  Office of Electricity Regulation

  Office of Fair Trading

  Office of Gas Supply

  Paymaster Agency

  Office of Telecommunications

  Overseas Development Administration

  Property Advisers to the Civil Estate

  HM Prison Service

  Privy Council Office

  Recruitment and Assessment Services

  Royal Mint

  Scottish Office

  Security Facilities Executive

  Serious Fraud Office

  HM Treasury

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  United Kingdom Passport Agency

  Welsh Office

  The dates on which Departments signed up to the code are not held centrally.

  Late Payments
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of bills were paid late by his Department in 1995–96. [26125]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 24 April 1996]: This information is being collated by the Department of Trade and Industry and will be published by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade before the summer recess.

  Financial Services Act
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 12 March,Official Report, column 549, about section 47 of the Financial Services Act 1986, who, other than an investor, has a duty to inform the prosecuting authorities when they have identified a breach of section 47; and what policy he has adopted since 1988 to ensure that the Securities and Investments Board, is able to identify breaches of section 47. [26976]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  No one has a specific duty to give prosecuting authorities information of the kind described. The Securities and Investments Board has no power to prosecute offences under section 47. Any procedures it has for identifying breaches of that section are operational matters for SIB.

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what(a) treaty and (b) other obligations Her Majesty's Government have in respect of attaining the criteria for economic and monetary convergence under phase 2 of the plans for economic and monetary union; and which of those obligations would remain if the United Kingdom did not proceed to phase three of those plans when others did so. [27117]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The four criteria for economic and monetary convergence mentioned in article 109(j) of the EC treaty, and developed further in protocol No. 6 on the convergence criteria, do not prescribe legal obligations. The United Kingdom is under no treaty or other obligations to attain the criteria.

  Works of Art
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the membership of the Advisory Committee on Conditionally Exempt Works of Art. [27116]

  Mr. Jack
  There is no advisory committee on conditional exemption from inheritance tax for works of art. The Inland Revenue seek advice from the keepers and curators of the appropriate national collections about the suitability of any particular items for the purposes of the exemption.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Forman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the estimated full-year costs at 1996–97 income levels of introducing an income tax structure of two positive rates at 20 per cent. and at 40 per cent., assuming transferable personal allowances of £5,000 per person, existing tax threshold for each of the two positive rates, and the abolition of all other tax expenditures, exemptions and reliefs now allowable against income tax. [27233]

  Mr. Jack
  The estimated full-year cost of introducing two rates of 20 per cent. for taxable income up to £25,500 and 40 per cent. for taxable income over £25,500 at 1996–97 income levels would be about £3 billion, assuming a personal allowance of £5,000 transferable between spouses and the abolition of all other income tax allowances, and mortgage interest relief, tax relief on employee's contributions to occupational and personal pension
  617
  schemes, reliefs for tax-exempt special savings accounts, personal equity plans, TESSAs, PEPs and profit-related pay, national savings certificates, employee share schemes and charitable giving.

  This estimate does not take into account the substantial behavioural effects which might result from the introduction of such a change; nor does it allow for any subsequent changes to the tax system, such as changes to tax relief on employer's contributions to pension schemes or relief for investment income in pension funds.

  European Central Bank
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list each of the proposed responsibilities and functions of the European Central bank, indicating when these powers will enter into force; and if he will list the legal opportunities available to EU member state Governments or other EU institutions to change the statute of the ECB. [27347]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Article 105(1) of the EC treaty provides that the"primary objective of the ESCB"

  —The European system of central banks, consisting of the European central bank and participating national central banks—
  "shall be to maintain price stability".

  It also states that, without prejudice to this objective, the ESCB shall support other Community policies and objectives.

  Article 105(2) provides that the basic tasks of the ESCB shall be
  "to define and implement the monetary policy"

  of the single currency area,
  "to conduct foreign exchange operations … to hold and manage the official foreign reserves of member states",

  and
  "to promote the smooth operation of payment systems".

  Article 105(4) provides for the European central bank to be consulted and to submit opinions. Article 105(5) states that the ESCB shall
  "contribute to the smooth conduct of policies pursued by the competent authorities relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions and the stability of the financial system".

  The functions of the ECB in relation to banknotes and coins are prescribed by article 105a.

  The statute of the ESCB, forming protocol No. 3 to the EC treaty, makes further provision in relation to functions of the ECB.

  Article 1091 prescribes the process for the establishment of the ECB. the European Council in Madrid in December 1995 agreed a timetable for the introduction of the single currency which anticipates the ECB being set up during 1998, and carrying out preparatory work from that date, so that the ESCB can start to fulfil its tasks and meet its objectives from the start of the third stage of economic and monetary union on the date set out in the treaty of 1 January 1999.

  Article 41 of the statute of the ESCB provides for certain articles of the statute to be amended by the Council of Ministers, acting by a qualified majority on a unanimous recommendation from the governing council
  618
  of the ECB and after consulting the Commission, or acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the ECB. In either case, the assent of the European Parliament would be required. The articles in question deal in particular with the collection of statistical material, central bank accounts, monetary policy instruments and operations, banking and external operations, administration, and the allocation of monetary income and profits. Other changes to the statute would require amendment of the treaty.

  Multiple Births
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many sets of(a) twins, (b) triplets, (c) quadruplets, (d) quintuplets and (e) sextuplets were born in England and Wales in each year from 1990 to 1995; and if he will make a statement. [27416]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Available data requested are shown in the table. I will write to the hon. Member when figures for 1995 become available in late May or June.

  Maternities in England and Wales with multiple births

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Twins

  7,934

  8,160

  8,314

  8,302

  8,451

  Triplets

  201

  208

  202

  234

  260

  Quadruplets

  10

  10

  8

  12

  8

  Quintuplets

  —

  2

  1

  —

  —

  Sextuplets

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  The figures cover both live and stillborn children.

  No. 11 Downing Street
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what charges are made for the use of No. 11 Downing street for charitable or other fund-raising events; and what use is made of the catering and other facilities of No. 11 Downing street at such events. [27780]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  There is no charge for using No. 11 Downing street for charitable or other fundraising events. The costs of providing security cover are met by the Treasury for charitable events only if cover is deemed necessary.

  Event organisers are allowed to use the kitchen facilities for catering purposes, as well as the standard function facilities such as the state room, Soane dining room, and ground floor meeting room.

  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the rules governing the use of No. 11 Downing street for non-official purposes. [27779]

  Mr. Clarke
  Ministers in this and previous Governments have been allowed to hold non-official functions at No.11 Downing street at their own expense or at the expense of the event organisers. Appropriate arrangements are required for security clearance.

  Economic Growth
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his current estimate of the likely growth of the United Kingdom economy in 1996; what it
  619
  was before the release of the United Kingdom first quarter growth estimates; and if he will make a statement. [27795]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Government's last forecast was set out in the November "Financial Statement and Budget Report."

  The good performance of the UK economy is containing and output has risen in every quarter for the past four years. The Government's economic policies are delivering continuing growth, low inflation and rising prosperity.

  Commemorative Coins
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans her Majesty's Government have to issue new commemorative coins. [28163]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  To commemorate the 25th anniversary of decimalisation, the Royal Mint will issue 25, 000 sets of seven silver proof coins, up to and including the £1 coin. The coins will feature the 1996 designs and will be available as specially packaged sets.

  Education Trusts
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated annual increase in revenue from the decision to end tax relief for education trusts established to meet private school fees, from April 1997. [25584]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 19 April 1996]: The Charity Commission has been conducting an inquiry into certain education trusts which operate school fees schemes. It has concluded that the trusts are not truly charitable and proposes to remove them from the register of charities. Where the trusts lose their charitable status they will no longer be entitled to charitable tax reliefs. However, tax relief will not be withdrawn until 1 April 1997 and the Government are reviewing the implications of the change. The revenue yield at stake is likely to be negligible.

  Copyright
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress his Department has made towards obtaining a photocopying licence from the Copyright Licensing Agency to ensure compliance with copyright law. [26714]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 25 April 1996]: The Treasury is currently negotiating terms of the photocopying licence prepared by the Copyright Licensing Agency Ltd.

  Employment Statistics
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people were in employment in Great Britain in spring 1990; and how many were in employment in winter 1995.[27407]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 1 May 1996]: Information from the labour force survey shows that there were 26,421,000 people in employment in Great Britain at spring 1990. The corresponding number for winter 1995–96 is 25,680,000.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Elections
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he next expects to meet representatives of different political parties to discuss the forthcoming election. [26388]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) met representatives from the Progressive Unionist party last Friday and further preliminary consultations with the parties in Northern Ireland are currently being considered. We have undertaken to discuss issues relating to the negotiations and the deliberative forum with the relevant parties.

  Tourism
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate he has made of the number of tourists from the United States of America who visited Northern Ireland in 1995. [26391]

  Mr. Ancram
  The total number of tourists from the United States of America who visited Northern Ireland in 1995 was 83,000 which represents an increase of 54 per cent. on 1994. Within this total, the number of pure holiday visitors increased by 114 per cent. from 22,000 in 1994 to 47,000 in 1995.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what further steps he intends to take to deal with BSE in Northern Ireland. [26392]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  The Department of Agriculture will be working to ensure that the substantial schemes already put in place by Government start as soon as possible in Northern Ireland and that available funds reach farmers and meat plants as soon as possible.

  Family Policy
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on family policy in Northern Ireland. [26394]

  Mr. Moss
  The Department of Health and Social Services chairs an inter-departmental group on social policy issues in Northern Ireland, and part of its remit is to maximise the contribution of public policies to supporting family life. Specific policy initiatives have been taken in the areas of domestic violence and early years provision. Northern Ireland is represented on the Government's family law and administration working party.

  Peace Process
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the development of the peace process. [26395]

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on progress in the peace process. [26401]

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the proposed election process in Northern Ireland. [26383]
  621
  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  The Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc.) Bill received Royal Assent on 29 April. Later today I expect to make the order directing the holding of elections on 30 May in Northern Ireland which will lead directly to all-party negotiations on 10 June.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the opportunity for all adults in Northern Ireland to participate in the peace process. [26400]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  All adults who are eligible to vote may do so in the elections on 30 May. They will be able to vote for the party which they wish to represent them in the all-party negotiations and in the forum.

  Police White Paper
  Ms Church
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the Government intend to publish their White Paper on policing in Northern Ireland. [26397]

  Sir John Wheeler
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) earlier today.

  Examination Results
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many pupils in number and as a percentage of their age group achieved grades A to C in the general certificate of secondary education or 0-level(a) in the past year, (b) 10 and (c) 20 years ago; and if he will make a statement. [26399]

  Mr. Ancram
  In 1995–96,76.3 per cent.—19,263—of pupils in year 12 (aged 15 at the start of the school year) achieved grades A to C in GCSE. Comparable figures for 10 and 20 years ago are not available as the information on qualifications was collected only for school leavers. Comparisons on the qualifications of school leavers show that in 1994–95,75.5 per cent.—18,516—of school leavers achieved grades A to C at GCSE, 57.6 per cent.—15,468—achieved grades A to C at GCE O-level in 1985–86 and 45.3 per cent.—10,976—achieved grades A to C at GCE O-level in 1974–75.

  Marches
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he intends to take to minimise tensions between the two communities in Northern Ireland during the coming marching season. [26402]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The management of parades is a complex issue which requires much patience and hard work for all concerned.

  The routing of parades is an operational matter for the Chief Constable and I believe such decisions are best left to him. The RUC handle the issue of parades very well, focussing on negotiating with local residents' groups and parade organisers in an attempt to reach agreement.

  It should be remembered, however, that, in over 3,000 parades in 1995, in only a small handful was there disorder.

  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has to establish a mechanism which would seek community consent for the routing of traditional marches and parades. [26396]
  622
  Sir John Wheeler
  There are no plans to change present procedures under which the routing of parades is a matter for the police, where necessary after consultation with both march organisers and local people. It is worth remembering that in over 3,000 parades in 1995 only a few resulted in disorder.

  Flags
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his policy in respect of flying the Union Jack flag on Royal Ulster Constabulary police stations. [26403]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The Chief Constable of the RUCis responsible for regulations on the flying of the Union flag on RUCstations, contained in the RUCcode. The Government have no plans to change the policy on flying the Union flag on Government buildings.

  Special Housing
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what provision is made in the capital allowances for housing purposes in Northern Ireland for special facilities for elderly people and people with disabilities; and if he will make a statement. [26404]

  Mr. Moss
  The Northern Ireland Housing Executive assesses overall housing need each year, including the needs of the elderly and the disabled. New house building programmes and programmes to improve or adapt existing stock are then drawn up by the executive, and also by housing associations which have concentrated on special housing needs. It is estimated that in 1995–96, some £5 million was spent on capital expenditure for the disabled. In addition some £4 million was paid under the provisions of disabled facilities grant.

  Cancer
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many registered cases of cancer there were in Northern Ireland in(a) 1985, (b) 1989, (c) 1992 and (d) 1995; and if he will make a statement. [27031]

  Mr. Moss
  This information is not presently available. A major initiative by the Northern Ireland cancer registry is currently under way to produce reliable information on diagnosed cancer cases.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Taylor Report (Implementation)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list by division those football clubs which do not meet the requirements of the Taylor report together with the length of time dispensation has been granted and the target date for meeting the requirements. [26527]

  Mr. Sproat
  Of the recommendations of the Taylor report which were implemented by the Government, the only outstanding requirement which needs to be met by clubs relates to all-seater stadiums. In the premier league
  623
  Bolton do not meet the all-seater requirement and in the first division Stoke City, Port Vale, Reading, Sunderland and Portsmouth do not meet the requirement.

  The report recommended that clubs in the FA premier league and the division one of the football league should become all-seater by the start of the 1994 season. However, the Secretary of State is empowered to extend by one year at a time the date for clubs to meet the requirement following consultation with the Football Licensing Authority, which in turn consult the relevant local authorities. Sunderland and Portsmouth have been given two one-year extensions and have until the start of the 1996 season to comply.

  Clubs also have three years from the date of their promotion to the first division to develop all-seater stadiums. Consequently, Stoke City and Bolton were promoted in 1993, have until the start of the 1996 season to meet the requirements; and Port Vale and Reading, which were promoted in 1994, have until the start of the 1997 season.

  Playing Fields
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps the Government are taking to implement their commitment in "Raising the Game" to protect playing fields in relation to transferring unused British Coal recreational sites to the National Playing Fields Association. [27261]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Government's objective remains that British Coal land in active use for sport and recreation will be retained for those purposes. I understand that discussions are continuing with British Coal and the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation as to how this can be best achieved. Those discussions will be concluded as soon as possible.

  Government Procurement (Access)
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what were the results of her Department's review of the first quarter of 1996 into measures to facilitate access to appropriate areas of Government procurement in the light of best practice. [27514]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 1 May 1996]: My Department and its two agencies will shortly commence a monitoring exercise to establish both the number of small and medium businesses invited to tender, and their success rate. If found necessary, this information will allow us to identify measures we can take to ensure that small and medium businesses can fully compete, where appropriate, with large companies.

  Small and Medium Businesses
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what proportion of her Department's budget was spent on procurement from small and medium enterprises in 1995–96. [27526]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 1 May 1996]: Neither my Department nor its agencies kept a specific record of a suppliers' size during 1995–96. The information could therefore be obtained only by incurring disproportionate
  624
  cost. My Department will keep a record of information relating to the size of the companies that it deals with in future.

WALES

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what initiatives he has taken to assist small businesses in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [26823]

  Mr. Richards
  The Welsh Office supports small businesses directly and through the activities of a number of development agencies. The main programmes and associated funding in 1995–96 are:

  £ million

  Regional Enterprise Grants

  1.6

  SMART Scheme for innovation

  1.8

  SPUR Scheme

  1.0

  Business Growth and Start-Up Programme (operated by TECs)

  13.0

  The Department's overseas trade services branch also supported eight trade missions to 13 overseas markets in 1995–96, securing immediate orders worth £1.6 million and prospective orders worth £44 million. In addition, under the Department's simplified procedure for regional selective assistance, 53 grant offers to the value of £0.9 million were made to small firms.

  The Welsh Development Agency and the Development Board for Rural Wales operate a range of initiatives within their business services programmes which, in 1995–96, attracted estimated expenditure of £4.5 million.

  A most important recent initiative is business connect, launched in January by my right hon. Friend and which is designed specifically to help small firms access quickly and effectively the business support network.

  Organophosphate Poisoning
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans his Department has to fund a medical centre for Wales to carry out assessment of suspected organophosphate poisoning sufferers; and if he will make a statement. [26985]

  Mr. Richards
  There are no plans to fund such a centre.

  Assessments of suspected organophosphate poisoning can be carried out by general practitioners, who are able to obtain advice on diagnosis and treatment from the Welsh national poisons unit. It is also open to GPs to refer patients to hospital consultants.

  Sleeping Policemen
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his policy concerning sleeping policemen; and if he will make a statement. [26867]
  625
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Regulations covering the use of sleeping policemen are contained in the Highways (Road Humps) Regulations 1990, the Traffic Calming Act 1992 and the Highways (Traffic Calming) Regulations 1993. Local authorities may consider the use of road humps, where appropriate, along with other measures, when considering traffic calming schemes. The regulations are currently being reviewed to make them less onerous and to remove the need for special authorisation of non-standard road humps. Local authorities will equally need to consider any adverse implications for the local street scene and environment from the provision of humps and similar.

  Further Education Funding
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to allocate funding for pilot courses in areas related to public service for women in colleges of further education; and if he will make a statement. [27562]

  Mr. Hague
  The Further Education Funding Council for Wales is responsible for allocating funding to colleges of further education. For the current year, I have made £176 million available to the council.

  Wheelchairs
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the unresolved issues being considered in respect of extending provision for outdoor powered wheelchairs and a voucher scheme for manual chairs for severely disabled people in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [27374]

  Mr. Richards
  I am currently seeking to establish the financial and operational implications of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health's announcement on 23 February. I hope shortly to be in a position to consider options for improvements to the wheelchair service in Wales.

  Respite Care
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his policy on respite care consequent upon the reform of local government. [26968]

  Children of school age (5 to 15) killed or injured on Welsh roads

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Killed

  Injured

  Total casualties

  Killed

  Injured

  Total casualties

  Killed

  Injured

  Total casualties

  Clwyd

  Alyn and Deeside

  —

  52

  52

  —

  48

  48

  —

  65

  65

  Colwyn

  —

  47

  47

  —

  50

  50

  1

  50

  51

  Delyn

  —

  52

  52

  2

  39

  41

  —

  65

  65

  Glyndwr

  —

  40

  40

  —

  20

  20

  1

  29

  30

  Rhuddlan

  3

  48

  51

  —

  34

  34

  —

  58

  58

  Wreham Maelor

  —

  59

  59

  —

  158

  158

  —

  63

  63

  Clwyd total

  3

  298

  301

  2

  349

  351

  2

  330

  332

  Dyfed

  Carmarthen

  —

  37

  37

  —

  45

  45

  —

  28

  28

  Ceredigion

  1

  37

  38

  —

  45

  45

  1

  39

  40

  626
  Mr. Richards
  Our policy on respite care remains the same. It is for local authorities, health authorities and GP fundholders to determine and meet the needs for respite care in their areas.

  Nearly £150 million is available to Welsh local authorities for community care, including respite care, in 1996–97. It is for those authorities to manage their resources to provide the care their local people need.

  The chief nursing officer and chief medical officer are also leading an initiative to improve palliative health care in Wales. One of the aims of the initiative is to ensure that everybody in Wales has access to an equally high standard of palliative care, including respite care for both patients and carers.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 11 March to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd),Official Report, column 494, if he will now publish for each of the new unitary authorities and for Wales the (a) estimated council tax levels for each band per two-person household, (b) average council tax for each two-person household, (c) estimated revenue raised from council tax, (d) estimated revenue from all other sources and (e) column (c) expressed as a percentage of the total of columns (c) and (d). [27126]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I refer to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) on 11 March,Official Report, column 494, and my letter of 1 April providing the information requested. A copy of the letter has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Schoolchildren (Road Accidents)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many schoolchildren were(a) killed and (b) injured in road accidents in each of the last three years for which information is available, in each district and county council in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [27435]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is given in the following table. The data refer to personal injury road accidents reported to the police and forwarded to the Welsh Office.
  627

  Children of school age (5 to 15) killed or injured on Welsh roads

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Killed

  Injured

  Total casualties

  Killed

  Injured

  Total casualties

  Killed

  Injured

  Total casualties

  Dinefwr

  —

  20

  20

  1

  30

  31

  —

  26

  26

  Llanelli

  —

  42

  42

  —

  55

  55

  —

  48

  48

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  —

  26

  26

  1

  47

  48

  —

  33

  33

  South Pembrokeshire

  —

  95

  95

  —

  47

  47

  —

  29

  29

  Dyfed total

  1

  257

  258

  2

  269

  271

  1

  203

  204

  Gwent

  Blaenau Gwent

  —

  48

  48

  —

  46

  46

  —

  48

  48

  Islwyn

  —

  34

  34

  1

  35

  36

  —

  44

  44

  Monmouth

  —

  50

  50

  —

  59

  59

  —

  52

  52

  Newport

  —

  78

  78

  1

  88

  89

  2

  91

  93

  Torfaen

  1

  54

  55

  3

  41

  44

  —

  52

  52

  Gwent total

  1

  264

  265

  5

  269

  274

  2

  287

  289

  Gwynedd

  Aberconwy

  —

  41

  41

  —

  32

  32

  —

  32

  32

  Arfon

  1

  112

  113

  1

  36

  37

  —

  86

  86

  Dwyfor

  1

  12

  13

  —

  14

  14

  1

  20

  21

  Meirionydd

  —

  29

  29

  —

  39

  39

  —

  29

  29

  Ynys Mon

  —

  47

  47

  —

  33

  33

  —

  33

  33

  Gwynedd total

  2

  241

  243

  1

  154

  155

  1

  200

  201

  Mid Glamorgan

  Cynon Valley

  —

  31

  31

  —

  55

  55

  —

  31

  31

  Merthyr Tydfil

  1

  85

  86

  2

  87

  89

  1

  99

  100

  Ogwr

  —

  59

  59

  —

  79

  79

  1

  74

  75

  Rhondda

  1

  73

  74

  2

  58

  60

  —

  68

  68

  Rhymney Valley

  —

  62

  62

  1

  39

  40

  —

  66

  66

  Taff-Ely

  —

  36

  36

  —

  28

  28

  1

  33

  34

  Mid Glamorgan total

  2

  346

  348

  5

  346

  351

  3

  371

  374

  Powys

  Brecknock

  —

  32

  32

  —

  37

  37

  —

  26

  26

  Montgomeryshire

  —

  8

  8

  —

  13

  13

  —

  7

  7

  Radnorshire

  —

  18

  18

  —

  29

  29

  —

  26

  26

  Powys total

  —

  58

  58

  —

  79

  79

  —

  59

  59

  South Glamorgan

  Cardiff

  1

  189

  190

  1

  231

  232

  —

  187

  187

  Vale of Glamorgan

  2

  70

  72

  1

  63

  64

  —

  59

  59

  South Glamorgan total

  3

  259

  262

  2

  294

  296

  —

  246

  246

  West Glamorgan

  Port Talbot

  —

  34

  34

  —

  32

  32

  1

  27

  28

  Lliw Valley

  —

  40

  40

  1

  34

  35

  —

  32

  32

  Neath

  —

  47

  47

  —

  50

  50

  —

  41

  41

  Swansea

  —

  126

  126

  1

  125

  126

  —

  118

  118

  West Glamorgan total

  —

  247

  247

  2

  241

  243

  1

  218

  219

  Wales

  12

  1, 970

  1, 982

  19

  2, 001

  2, 020

  10

  1, 914

  1, 924

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he proposes to meet the leaders of each of the Welsh unitary authorities to discuss the impact of his financial settlement; and if he will make a statement. [28066]

  Mr. Hague
  Discussions of this sort are handled through the Welsh Local Government Association. On 22 April, the association announced it was not prepared 628
  to talk to me. On 24 April, it requested an early meeting to discuss the funding of local authorities in 1997–98. I will consider that request.

  Cancer Study
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when his Department received the report published in 1993 by the Health and Safety Executive "Toxicity Review 28, Cancer Epidemiology in Coal Tar Pitch Volatile Associated Industries"; when it was published;
  629
  and what action was taken in response to the conclusion about the risk of death from cancers among workers in those industries. [27782]

  Mr. Richards
  This review was undertaken by the Health and Safety Executive. I understand that it was completed in October 1992 and the report published in 1993. The Welsh Office was not involved in the review and any action in response to the report's conclusions is a matter for the Health and Safety Executive.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when his Department received the report, "Mortality Study of Workers at a Patent Fuel Plant" published by the Institute of Occupational Medicine in 1987 relating to the furnacite plant in Cwnboi; when it was published; what action was taken in response to the report; and if he will make a statement on the incidence of cancer among former employees in the coking industry. [27784]

  Mr. Richards
  This report was not commissioned by the Welsh Office, and the Department was not sent a copy at the time of its publication.

  Table 1: Claimants of pension age in receipt of Supplementary Benefit/Income Support 1970–1995

  Thousands

  Claimants by DSS Administrative Regions

  1970

  1971

  1972

  1973

  1974

  1975

  1976

  1977

  1978

  1979

  1980

  1981

  Northern

  n/a

  n/a

  149

  142

  132

  111

  109

  110

  112

  110

  109

  106

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  n/a

  n/a

  198

  186

  189

  167

  167

  174

  173

  168

  169

  173

  Anglia

  n/a

  n/a

  170

  160

  157

  146

  150

  158

  157

  154

  152

  160

  London North

  n/a

  n/a

  176

  169

  168

  163

  164

  171

  171

  166

  169

  172

  London South

  n/a

  n/a

  206

  206

  196

  191

  189

  195

  196

  195

  193

  192

  London West

  n/a

  n/a

  155

  150

  136

  127

  130

  135

  140

  141

  133

  141

  South Western

  n/a

  n/a

  125

  123

  131

  126

  130

  134

  131

  136

  130

  128

  West Midlands

  n/a

  n/a

  172

  166

  163

  156

  158

  160

  164

  166

  164

  171

  North Western (Manchester)

  n/a

  n/a

  132

  127

  134

  124

  124

  130

  128

  127

  125

  127

  North Western (Merseyside)

  n/a

  n/a

  127

  124

  119

  114

  112

  116

  115

  112

  111

  118

  Wales

  n/a

  118

  115

  108

  104

  95

  97

  98

  98

  98

  93

  98

  Scotland

  n/a

  185

  185

  182

  178

  159

  155

  156

  153

  151

  144

  152

  Northern Ireland

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  58

  56

  56

  56

  United Kingdom

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1, 795

  1, 779

  1, 750

  1, 794

  Thousands

  Claimants by DSS Administrative Regions

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  North Eastern

  277

  261

  266

  267

  264

  —

  216

  232

  208

  222

  London North

  299

  284

  285

  294

  288

  —

  233

  237

  224

  238

  London South

  273

  245

  257

  271

  256

  —

  214

  220

  215

  213

  South Western

  132

  128

  135

  139

  137

  —

  114

  123

  110

  107

  Midlands

  301

  263

  265

  270

  285

  —

  224

  242

  222

  238

  North Western

  253

  234

  231

  234

  238

  —

  203

  211

  207

  210

  Wales

  96

  93

  93

  94

  98

  91

  86

  89

  81

  87

  Scotland

  150

  143

  150

  147

  160

  157

  141

  149

  138

  143

  Northern Ireland

  56

  55

  54

  51

  53

  60

  56

  58

  n/a

  53

  United Kingdom

  1, 837

  1, 705

  1, 737

  1, 768

  1, 780

  1, 599

  1, 487

  1, 560

  n/a

  1, 511

  Thousands

  Income Support claimants by Government Standard Statistical Region

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  South East (Excluding London)

  222

  230

  232

  235

  London (inner and outer)

  178

  185

  187

  189

  North

  86

  96

  96

  97

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  145

  151

  154

  155

  630
  The Health and Safety Executive is responsible for securing the health, safety and welfare of persons at work. The Wales cancer registry does not hold data on the incidence of cancer among former employees in the coking industry.

  I understand that Bro Taf health authority has commissioned an investigation into cancer incidence amongst former employees of the furnacite plant.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefits (Pensioners)
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners claimed(a) income support, (b) housing benefit and (c) council tax benefit in each region of the United Kingdom and in each year since 1970. [20184]

  Mr. Heald
  The available information relates to recipients and is given in the tables.
  631

  Thousands

  Income Support claimants by Government Standard Statistical Region

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  East Midlands

  95

  100

  104

  104

  East Anglia

  51

  52

  52

  53

  South West

  106

  121

  121

  119

  West Midlands

  148

  157

  163

  164

  North West

  198

  212

  216

  218

  Wales

  87

  87

  90

  95

  Scotland

  143

  151

  153

  157

  Northern Ireland

  53

  58

  n/a

  n/a

  United Kingdom

  1, 511

  1, 599

  n/a

  n/a

  Table 2: Claimants of Pension Age in Receipt of Housing Benefit

  Thousands

  Housing Benefit Claimants by Government Standard Statistical Regions

  1992

  1993

  1994

  South East (Excluding London)

  280

  281

  282

  London (Inner + Outer)

  258

  263

  255

  North

  139

  133

  135

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  199

  210

  204

  East Midlands

  127

  129

  119

  East Anglia

  67

  67

  66

  South West

  122

  133

  126

  West Midlands

  189

  203

  187

  North West

  220

  220

  225

  Wales

  95

  92

  90

  Scotland

  247

  247

  243

  Northern Ireland

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  United Kingdom

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Table 3: Claimants of pension age in receipt of council tax benefit

  Thousands

  Council Tax Benefit Claimants by Government Standard Statistical Regions

  1992

  1993

  1994

  South East (Excluding London)

  466

  438

  426

  London (inner + outer)

  314

  297

  295

  North

  201

  182

  183

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  310

  303

  292

  East Midlands

  224

  204

  189

  East Anglia

  110

  101

  100

  South West

  222

  213

  209

  West Midlands

  330

  290

  299

  North West

  376

  349

  356

  Wales

  144

  134

  134

  Scotland

  334

  296

  299

  Northern Ireland

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  United Kingdom

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Notes:

  1. Supplementary benefit/income support data are not available for 1985 and 1988. Supplementary benefit information are not available by region prior to 1972. Supplementary benefit information for Northern Ireland is not available prior to 1978.

  2. Regions from 1970–1991 are DSS administrative. The boundaries for these regions changed in 1982. Data by Government standard statistical regions are available only from 1992.

  3. Housing benefit/community charge benefit is not available by region prior to 1992. Northern Ireland housing benefit/community charge benefit/council tax benefit data are not available.

  4. Income support replaced supplementary benefit in 1988.

  5. Community charge benefit was replaced by council tax benefit from April 1993.

  6. Pensioners have been defined as male claimants aged 65 or over and female claimants aged 60 or over for supplementary benefit/income support purposes. All claimants aged 60 or over have been treated as pensioners for housing benefit/council tax purposes.

  7. All numbers are rounded to the nearest thousand. Totals may not sum due to rounding.

  8. Housing benefit/council tax benefit figures exclude cases where entitlement was reduced to nil after a non-dependent deduction was made.

  Source:

  Supplementary benefits annual statistical inquiries 1970 to 1987, supplementary benefits (Northern Ireland) annual statistical inquiries 1978 to 1987, income support annual statistical inquiries May 1989 to 1993, income support quarterly statistical inquiries May 1994 and February 1995, income support annual statistical inquiries (Northern Ireland) 1988 to 1993, housing benefit management information system annual 1 per cent. sample May 1992 to 1994.
  632 633
  Sir Graham Bright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the benefits(a) monetary and (b) in kind that are available to old-age pensioners. [20746]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is as follows:

  Monetary Benefits (including non-social Security Benefits)

  There are various qualifying conditions for these benefits—details of which are in Departmental leaflets available from Benefits Agency and Contributions Agency offices and post offices.

  Attendance Allowance.

  Disability Living Allowance.

  Invalid Care Allowance.

  Disability Working Allowance.

  Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit.

  Reduced Earnings Allowance.

  Retirement Allowance.

  Workmen's Compensation Supplementation.

  Pneumoconiosis, byssinosis and miscellaneous disease benefits.

  Child Benefit.

  One Parent Benefit.

  Guardian's Allowance.

  Severe Disablement Allowance (SDA).

  Incapacity Benefit (I).

  Statutory Sick Pay (SAP).

  Housing Benefit.

  Council Tax Benefit (including CAB second Adult Rebates).

  Income Support (including higher premium rates for pensioners).

  Family Credit.

  The Social Fund.

  Unemployment Benefit.

  Retirement Pension.

  Widow's Benefit.

  War Pensions.

  Higher income tax allowances are available for pensioners.

  Pensioners Guaranteed Income Bond.

  Other help available

  Concessionary Travel Scheme.

  Free NHS eyesight test.

  Free NHS prescriptions.

  Free NHS dental treatment.

  Vouchers to help with the cost of glasses.

  Help with the cost of travelling to hospital for NHS treatment.

  Help with insulation costs through HEES.

  Meals on Wheels.

  Home Care Services.

  Day Care services.

  Provision of telephone from Social Services.

  Pensioner/pensioner households drawing income support/housing benefit/council tax benefit at May 1994

  Thousands

  Number

  Percentage of all pensioners

  Percentage of all pensioner households

  Pensioners

  4,297

  34

  —

  Pensioner households

  3,425

  —

  39

  634

  Special equipment and home adaptations.

  Special Housing.

  Laundry.

  A charge may be made for some of these services.

  Mr. Frank Field
  to ask the Secretary of State for Social security how many pensioners are currently claiming(a) income support only, (b) income support and housing benefit, (c) income support and council tax benefits, (d) income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit, (e) housing benefit only, (f) housing benefit and council tax benefit and (g) council tax benefit only. [27658]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The available information is in the table.

  Thousands

  Benefit

  Pensioner households

  Income Support (IS) only

  455

  Housing Benefit (HB) only

  130

  Council Tax Benefit (CTB) only

  640

  IS and HB

  30

  IS and CTB

  380

  IS, HB and CTB

  900

  HB and CTB

  890

  All cases

  3, 425

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest thousand. Due to rounding, totals may not sum.

  2. Pensioner households have been defined as benefit units—which may be a single person or a couple-where the claimant and/or partner is aged 60 or over.

  3. The number of pensioner households is based on the total number of benefit units.

  4. Housing benefit/council tax benefit figures exclude cases eligible for HB/CTB but whose entitlement was nil after non-dependant deductions were accounted for. CTB figures exclude second adult rebate cases.

  Source:

  1. Income support statistics quarterly inquiry May 1994.

  2. Housing benefit management information system annual 1 per cent. sample taken at the end of May 1994.

  3. Family resources survey 1994–95.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate in 1979 and at the latest available date the number of(a) pensioners and (b) pensioner households drawing either income support, or housing benefit—rent rebate or allowances—or council tax benefit—rate rebate; and if he will present these data for (a) and (b) as a percentage of (i) all pensioners and (ii) all pensioner households. [27660]

  Mr. Evans
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is set out in the table.
  635

  Pensioner/pensioner households drawing supplementary benefit/income support in November 1979 and May 1994

  Thousands

  Number

  Percentage of all pensioners

  Percentage of all pensioner households

  1979

  1994

  1979

  1994

  1979

  1994

  Pensioners

  2,139

  2,047

  20

  19

  —

  —

  Pensioner households

  1,787

  1,765

  —

  —

  n/a

  20

  Notes:

  1. Comparable data on housing benefit and council tax benefit are not available for 1979. Prior to 1983, financial assistance with domestic rents and rates was provided under two separate schemes—supplementary benefit and the local authority rent rebate allowance and rent rebate schemes. Data on the local authority schemes are not available.

  2. Figures are rounded to the nearest thousand. Due to rounding totals may not sum.

  3. Pensioner households have been defined as benefit units—which may be a single person or a couple—where the claimant and/or partner is aged 60 or over.

  4. Pensioners have been defined as the number of people in pensioner benefit units, which may include some people aged under 60—that is, where the partner is aged 60 or over.

  5. The number of pensioner households is based on the total number of benefit units.

  6. Housing benefit/council tax benefit figures exclude cases eligible for HB/CTB but whose entitlement was nil after non-dependent deductions were accounted for. CTB figures exclude second adult rebate cases.

  Source:

  1. Income support statistics quarterly inquiry May 1994.

  2. Housing benefit management information system annual 1 per cent. sample taken at the end of May 1994.

  3. Family resources survey 1994–95.

  4. Supplementary benefit statistics annual inquiry 1979.

  5. Office of Population Censuses and Surveys.

  n/a=not available.

  Serco Ltd.
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what contracts his Department and his agencies have with Serco Ltd.; what is the current cost; when each contract ends; what are the penalties involved should he seek early termination of the contract; and if he will make a statement. [26686]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not held centrally in the format requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The Department has many local budget holders who purchase services form contractors offering the best value for money and quality of service. There is no central record of purchases categorised by contractor. Such information as is available indicates that the Department has several contracts with Serco totalling between £5 million and £10 million.

  Estimated SERPS expenditure

  £ billion 1994–95 prices

  Year

  1994–95

  2000–01

  2010–11

  2020–21

  2030–31

  Pre-Social Security Act 1986 regime1

  1.8

  4.2

  12.0

  25.0

  41.0

  Pre-Pensions Act 1995 regime2

  1.8

  4.2

  9.2

  14.5

  18.7

  Post-Pensions Act 1995 regime2

  1.8

  4.2

  8.4

  10.9

  12.0

  1 Figures are approximations based on figures from the Social Security Bill 1986, report by the Government Actuary on the financial effects of the Bill on the national insurance fund, Cmnd 9711, allowing for an extra 5 million people contracted out in appropriate personal pensions, and the report by the Government Actuary on the financial effects of the Pensions Bill 1994 on the national insurance fund, Cm 2714. They assume price uprating of benefits and are in respect of retirement pensioners only.

  2 The figures are taken from the report by the Government Actuary on the financial effects of the Pensions Bill 1994 on the national insurance fund, Cm 2714, assuming price uprating of benefits and are in respect of retirement pensioners only.

  War Pensions Agency
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the steps taken by the War Pensions Agency to meet the conditions of its charter standard statement,
  636
  Departmental contracts contain a condition which deals with early termination. This allows, if appropriate, for contractors to be compensated for unavoidable costs arising from early termination, and for the Department to be similarly compensated if the termination is by the contractor. The costs would be wholly dependent on the particular circumstances and so no generally applicable cost can be given.

  Pensions
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 14 March,Official Report, column 758, what would have been public spending on the state earnings-related pension scheme, assuming the legislation of the early 1980s had remained in force, in 1994–95,2000–01, 2010–11, 2020–21 and 2030–31 at 1994 prices. [26448]

  Mr. Heald
  The table gives the estimated state earnings-related pension scheme expenditure assuming that the Social Security Acts of 1986 and 1995 had not been introduced. For comparison, the table also includes the current estimates of SERPS expenditure.

  with particular reference to the answering of calls to its telephone helpline. [26879]

  Mr. Heald
  This is a matter for Kevin Caldwell, the chief executive of the War Pensions Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.
  637
  Letter from K. C. Caldwell to Sir Cranley Onslow, dated I May 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the steps we are taking to meet the conditions of our Charter Standard Statement with particular reference to answering calls to our telephone Helpline.
  Our Charter Standard Statement states "If you phone our Helpline we will answer your call within 30 seconds". These standards were set when the number of calls being presented to the Helpline was in the region of 10 to 11,000 per week. Calls are now averaging over 20,000 per week and, in spite of the increase, are being answered within an average of 38 seconds.
  To cope with the increase, the answerphone facility (originally installed for messages to be left outside office hours) was expanded to run throughout the working day, for messages to be left when all lines were busy. The volume of messages on the answerphone machine however grew to an unacceptable level, resulting in Helpline advisors spending too much time making call-backs to pensioners rather than being free to answer incoming calls direct.
  The machine was being accessed over 800 times daily, but only 40% of callers actually left a message. We conducted a survey of a random sample of callers. A great majority said they would rather wait a little longer in the queuing system than leave a message. We therefore now limit the usage of the answerphone to peak times only during the working day as well as evenings and weekends.
  All calls to our Helpline are routed via an automatic call distribution system. The system provides statistical information, to enable Helpline management to measure performance against Charter Standards and to tune the service.
  We have recently re-assessed the levels and flow of calls presented to the Helpline, and the staffing required to answer the calls. As a result we are now in the process of recruiting further advisors—part-timers who will help cover the daily peaks. We have also had a technical review of the service performed by the

  DLA1

  DWA

  IB2

  AA1

  SDA

  Cardiff and Vale District

  15,100

  58

  17,300

  9,800

  3,185

  Eastern Valleys District

  21,400

  78

  34,706

  9,400

  3,222

  Gwent Borders District

  14,000

  56

  18,052

  6,500

  2,090

  Gwyneddigion Maldwyn District

  10,100

  94

  14,570

  7,400

  2,453

  Mid Glamorgan District

  21,700

  82

  32,358

  11,000

  3,294

  Swansea Bay District

  21,300

  92

  32,844

  13,700

  3,462

  West Wales District

  14,700

  97

  20,461

  9,300

  2,516

  Wrexham and North Wales Coast District

  19,600

  107

  23,731

  13,000

  4,108

  These Figures are Provisional and subject to change. Figures for DLA/DWA are as at 29 February 1996.

  Figures for IB, AA, and SDA are as at 31 March 1996.

  1Figures based on source 5 per cent. data (Analytical Services Division), DLA includes both mobility and care components.

  2Includes 1B short term (lower), IB short term (higher) and IB long term.

  Incomes
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what percentage of the United Kingdom population lives on less than 50 per cent. of the national average income; [27382]

  (2) what percentage of the United Kingdom population lives on below national average income. [27381]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  Statistics on patterns of household disposable income, for the United Kingdom as a whole, are provided in "Households Below Average Income 1979 to 1992–93", a copy of which is in the Library. The latest edition, published in June 1995 with minor revisions in October 1995, shows that, in 1992–93, 63 per cent. of the population had incomes below the national mean average, before housing costs and 62 per cent. had incomes below the mean, after housing costs. The 638
  Department's telecommunications experts. Several recommendations have already been implemented and we are considering whether when and how to implement others.
  We do regularly review the Helpline service, and as I have described, are making further changes to seek to improve it.
  I hope you find my reply helpful.

  Benefits (Disabled People)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in each Welsh constituency are currently in receipt of(a) disability allowance, (b) incapacity benefit, (c) attendance allowance, (d) invalid care allowance and (e) severe disablement allowance; and if he will make a statement. [27012]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, dated 1 May 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question asking how many people in each Welsh constituency are currently in receipt of (a) Disability Allowance (b) Incapacity Benefit (IB) (c) Attendance Allowance (AA) (d) Invalid Care Allowance (ICA) and (e) Severe Disablement Allowance (SDA); and if he will make a statement.
  The information is not available in the format requested. Statistics are not kept which are specific to Parliamentary Constituencies, but are kept for Benefit Agency (BA) Districts. The attached annex gives details for Disability Living Allowance (DLA), Disability Working Allowance (DWA), IB, AA and SDA for the BA Districts in Wales. Information for ICA could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  proportion of the population below 50 per cent. of the mean was 20 per cent. before housing costs and 25 per cent. after housing costs.

  Children (Poverty)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many children in the United Kingdom are classed as living in poverty. [27387]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  There is no simple meaningful way to define or measure poverty. Statistics on patterns of household disposable income for the United Kingdom are provided in "Households Below Average Income 1979 to 1992–93", published in June 1995 with minor revisions in October 1995, a copy of which is in the Library. However, income is not always an accurate guide to living standards, especially among households in the lowest income deciles.

  Child Support Agency
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what tendering exercises he plans to initiate in the next three years in relation to the Child Support Agency computer system. [26818]

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

  Letter from Miss Ann Chant to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 1 May 1996:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the Child Support Agency Computer System.
  The Agency is currently reviewing the information systems it uses. This includes an assessment of the potential impacts of the Departmental Change Programme. Once the whole review process has been concluded and the findings assessed, the Agency will be in a position to make decisions with regard to tendering exercises.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what changes are to be made to the Child Support Agency computer system in the next three years. [26856]

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

  Letter from Miss Ann Chant to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 1 May 1996:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the Child Support Agency Computer System.
  Current plans anticipate significant releases to make changes to the Child Support Computer System.
  The first will include the facility for automatic calculation of more of the maintenance assessment to speed up the assessment calculation process and assist in improving accuracy. Another will enable the maintenance assessment to be revised to reflect a Departure from the formula. In addition a planned enhancement to our accounting system will improve accuracy and provide our clients with more information about their maintenance accounts. These changes are scheduled to be introduced between now and April 1997.
  Plans for changes beyond that are not yet complete.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Income Support
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list for each month since 1994 the number of former income support recipients who no longer receive income support as a result of the maintenance assessment made by the Child Support Agency exceeding the amount of income support in payment. [26784]

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

  Letter from Miss Ann Chant to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 1 May 1996:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about Child Support Agency maintenance assessments.
  640
  The table attached shows the monthly breakdown since April 1994 of the volume of former Income Support recipients who no longer receive Income Support as a result of the maintenance assessment made by the Agency exceeding the amount of Income Support in payment.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Income Support Claims Ceasing as a Result of Maintenance Assessments

  Period

  Number of Cessations

  1994

  April

  288

  May

  111

  June

  666

  July

  533

  August

  347

  September

  423

  October

  263

  November

  823

  December

  406

  1995

  January

  458

  February

  539

  March

  360

  April

  248

  May

  196

  June

  161

  July

  194

  August

  172

  September

  171

  October

  195

  November

  204

  December

  126

  1996

  January

  163

  February

  140

  March

  116

  Total

  7,303

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the counter-fraud target for benefit savings each year since 1992; and what have been the outcome data for each of these years. [27659]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is in the table.

  £ million

  Fraud savings target

  Fraud savings achieved

  1991–92

  383

  446.6

  1992–93

  460

  558.1

  1993–94

  557

  654

  1994–95

  632.5

  717.6

  1995–961

  1,000

  1,048

  1 (to 29 February 1996)

  The information provided in relation to fraud savings in 1991–92 corrects that given by my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot), in a written answer to the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) on 18 May 1995, Official Report, column 329.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Serco Ltd.
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what contracts his Department and his agencies have with Serco Ltd.; what is the current cost; when each contract ends; what are the penalties involved should he seek early termination of the contract; and if he will make a statement. [26647]

  Mr. Boswell
  Centrally held records show that neither the Ministry nor any of its agencies hold contracts with Serco Ltd. However, between March 1994 and March 1996 the Ministry spent £24,801 with Serco on the supply of miscellaneous industrial goods. Consequently, there are no contract end dates or potential penalty fees. Fees for early discharge of contractual arrangements are a matter for negotiation between the Ministry and its suppliers.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has had in relation to BSE from the British Veterinary Association; what reply he is sending; what action he is taking; and if he will make a statement. [27141]

  Mrs. Browning
  Ministers and officials have had a number of contacts with the British Veterinary Association including a meeting chaired by my hon. Friend the Minister of State with the association and the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons on 25 April. That was a useful meeting and we have taken into account the points made to him by the association.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now develop the Narang test for same-day testing of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in the urine of living cattle and make it compulsory. [23453]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 28 March 1996]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Members for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) and for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) on 26 April 1996, Official Report, column 325.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture,642
  Fisheries and Food if he will commission research into the possibility of detecting BSE in cattle before they are slaughtered. [25894]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 23 April 1996]: A considerable amount of research into developing a test to detect BSE in cattle before they are slaughtered is already under way. A list of the research was provided in my answer to the hon. Members for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) and for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) on 1 May 1996.

  Slaughterhouse Waste
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his oral statement of 20 March,Official Report, columns 387–96, what research he (a) has commissioned and (b) plans to commission into the effects on the water supply of the disposal of (i) offal and (ii) other waste from slaughtered cattle on agricultural land. [23004]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 26 March 1996]: I refer the hon. Lady to the answer given to her on 16 April, Official Report, column 466.

  Food Hygiene
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many regulations involving food hygiene requirements and affecting(a) shops, (b) hotels and restaurants and (c) guest houses have been (i) repealed and (ii) simplified under the Government's deregulation initiative; and if he will make a statement on the efforts made to relax the regulatory regime on smaller-scale establishments. [26909]

  Mr. Horam
  I have been asked to reply.

  Most shops, hotels and restaurants and guest houses whose commercial activities include the preparation and sale of food are covered by the Food Safety (General Food Hygiene) Regulations 1995 SI 1763 and the Food Safety (Temperature Control) Regulations 1995 SI 2200. These two sets of regulations, which came into force in Great Britain on 15 September 1995, simplified and replaced 12 sets of hygiene regulations. These measures form part of the Government's comprehensive food law deregulation plan aimed at reducing the regulatory burdens on businesses at the same time as maintaining safeguards for consumers. Copies of the plan are available in the Library.

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

Mr. Anthony Duncan
Lord De Freyne Lord De Freyne asked Her Majesty's Government:
What was the "fatal flaw" in the extradition documents presented to the Dublin courts in the attempt to extradite Mr. Anthony Duncan from Dublin to this country on Friday 12th April last.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, the reason the application was dismissed was that the original arrest warrant issued in this country was not produced to the Irish court at the hearing on Saturday 13th April; a photocopy was produced instead. There is a conflict of evidence as to how that came about. A fresh warrant was obtained and delivered the following morning to the Irish authorities.
Lord De Freyne: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for that reply. Is he aware that I received a photostat copy of a letter from the High Court in Dublin which states that the signature, which purports to be that of a magistrate, was not authenticated? That illustrates that the request for extradition was fatally flawed.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I was not aware that my noble friend had received such a letter. My understanding of the position is that the documents presented to the Irish court were in order save for this: instead of a principal, a photocopy was produced. These days photocopies are of a high quality and it is possible to make a mistake as to whether a document is an original or a photocopy. Exactly where the error occurred is a matter of conflict of evidence. The senior officer of the Metropolitan Police who took the documents to Ireland is of the view that what he took and handed over was the original. If that is the position, the error must lie with the Irish authorities. By the time the documents reached the Irish court, a photocopy rather than the original was produced. That is as far as I can take the matter. As I said, the senior officer of the Metropolitan Police believes that he took the original to Ireland.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that I hold a copy of the fax in my hand? With respect, my noble and learned friend is misinformed. The fax says, first, that the Irish Times reported the histoire about the copy being the reason. But the Dublin High Court says that that is incorrect. The fax states that the true reason—which was a good reason—was that the signature which purported to be of a magistrate was not authenticated. Does my noble and
1744
learned friend agree that that is a clear, just and wholly correct reason for refusing extradition? There appears to be a muddle about it.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, there is no doubt that my information suggests what is a perfectly good reason for refusing extradition until the original copy arrived. I do not possess a copy of the fax to which my noble friend refers, but what I am saying is perfectly consistent with what he narrated as being stated in the fax. If it was a photocopy, then it was not the original signature of the magistrate. I am not suggesting and have never suggested that that was not a perfectly good reason for the Dublin court to refuse to grant an extradition warrant. The question is how that error arose. I have explained as far as I can the conflict of evidence that surrounds the matter.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, though we cannot go back in time, is it not important that, whatever the problem was, it is not repeated in the future?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is highly desirable that the fault is not repeated. However, there are not many infallible human beings around.
A noble Lord: My Lords, there are a few.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the noble Lord says that there are a few; I believe I know where they are not.
The situation is that this was obviously a human error. Somebody confused the original with a rather good photostat. That was a sad and unfortunate error. I am sure that those involved will do their best to see that it does not happen again. Nothing makes one so careful as something having gone wrong in a specific way. I am sure that everybody will do their best to prevent the error recurring.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, does the Lord Chancellor realise that, over the years, those on the ground in Northern Ireland have suffered something like 3,000 deaths and do not find the matter amusing? Which Minister's job is it to make sure that this situation does not arise again? It has happened before.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I do not find it amusing in the sense that very important matters depend upon this, but I do find it extremely difficult to give your Lordships an infallible method of ensuring that something of this kind does not happen from time to time. Every effort is made to see that it does not happen. In this particular case a new warrant was immediately sent out and no adverse consequences have arisen.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that there seems to be an extraordinary record of human error relating to requests for extradition for alleged terrorists from the Republic of Ireland? Can he say whether any other country finds that our officials are so frequently guilty of human error in these matters?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am only really aware in detail of the circumstances of this case, but those are circumstances which I think your Lordships could well understand. I am not aware of the extent to which this type of difficulty has arisen before, either in relation to the Republic of Ireland or in relation to other countries. My noble friend will know that the procedures in relation to the Republic of Ireland are different in certain respects because its own internal law governing extradition is different from that of many other countries.
Lord Lowry: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack aware, as I am, that a very large number of errors have been made both in Northern Ireland and in this jurisdiction in connection with preparing the documentation to allow law officers to apply for extradition in Dublin? Secondly, would it not be a good idea if my noble and learned friend's department were to ask the department from which the information came whether he was in fact correctly or incorrectly informed as to the cause of the breakdown in this case?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am certainly aware that over the years mistakes have been made in relation to extradition documents, as my noble and learned friend Lord Lowry says. I am not aware of any reason to doubt the information on which I am basing my answers to your Lordships. So far as I can see it is a perfectly possible explanation of the difficulties that arose in this case, although, as I explained, new documents were quickly obtained and transmitted to the Irish authorities.

Better English Campaign
3.17 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are providing assistance to the Better English Campaign and, if so, whether their assistance extends throughout the United Kingdom.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, the Government are providing initial funding for the Better English Campaign for a period of two years. Because of the territorial limits of my right honourable friend's responsibilities, the campaign is primarily concerned with England. But it has already attracted the support of a number of national organisations and I am sure that it will be happy to work with a variety of partners on activities in different parts of the United Kingdom.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply. Is it the intention to improve spoken English; for example, by reducing casual use of the words "sort of" before almost every verb and vague communication by grunt? As English is now the language most employed in the world and therefore a valuable asset for Britain, will the Government continue to support its articulate use?
1746
As regards Scotland, is my noble friend aware that, although estuary English is little known there, firth English tends to be also casual and ungrammatical at times but that those whose first language is Gaelic usually speak English impeccably?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am limited in the number of those I know whose first language is Gaelic, but I shall take my noble friend's word for it. I am sure that those whose first language is Welsh also speak absolutely impeccable English just as a great many of those whose first language is English manage to speak fairly impeccable English. The purpose behind the campaign is quite rightly to promote good spoken and, to some extent, good written English. It is very important that young people should be able to communicate and communicate properly.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that he is right when he says that English is spoken accurately and clearly in Wales? Is he further aware that the Better Welsh Campaign is going well?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I regret to say that I did not know about the Better Welsh Campaign, but I am very grateful to the noble Lord for bringing it to the attention of the House. I am sure that all noble Lords will have taken on board what he had to say.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, does the Minister agree that even if his office extended to being able to provide better English in Scotland or in Wales, it would be a grotesque misuse of public funds in view of the admirable English spoken west of Shrewsbury and north of the Border? Does the Minister further agree that the Better English Campaign, so admirably led by Mr. Trevor McDonald, would do well to concentrate its attention on English in a relatively public role—I am not thinking of radio and television but of railway station announcements and telephonists responding to outside calls whether in hospitals, police stations or, indeed, in government departments? Would it not be a marvellous achievement if someone telephoning the DFEE did not have to ask for the response to be repeated because the initial response sounded both uneducated and unemployable?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I apologise if the noble Lord had some problems in ringing my own department. As regards the main part of his question, it is a matter for Mr. Trevor McDonald as to how he develops the Better English Campaign. I am sure he will take note of some of the very helpful suggestions that the noble Lord has put forward. If he cares to know more of what the campaign is proposing I can send him a copy of the original press release which Mr. McDonald issued, giving some idea of the initiatives he intends to pursue.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the campaign will deal not only with unnecessary words but also with unnecessary and undesirable pronunciation such as the glottal stop?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the campaign is designed to promote good spoken English. As I made clear earlier, it is for Mr. McDonald to decide on his priorities. Again, I am sure that he will take note of what the noble Lord said.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that for those responsible for this admirable campaign, government literature should offer them a very happy hunting ground?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I always find that most government literature is written with the most admirable clarity. I certainly notice that my noble friend Lord Peyton seems to have little difficulty in understanding it, especially when he brings it before this House.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, is it not a fact that Mr. Trevor McDonald said publicly that he was astounded at reports that some universities had to run remedial training classes in English for undergraduates? Is the Minister aware that many of us who have been connected with universities were by no means astounded—indeed, we were distinctly underwhelmed—since such remedial classes were common in universities throughout the 1980s, even for those with good grade A-levels in English who had been admitted to read for a degree in English? Can the Minister tell the House what steps the Better English Campaign is taking, or will be encouraged to take, to ameliorate this very regrettable situation?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the Better English Campaign is just one part of our efforts to raise standards. The raising of those standards has been at the heart of all the reforms we have pursued in terms of the national curriculum, national tests, teacher assessment and performance tables. I could go on. Our aim is to raise the standard of spoken and written English. We shall continue to pursue those reforms, probably with the opposition of the Opposition.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is a handicap to this admirable campaign when the University of Oxford appoints to the Murdoch Chair of Communications a lady who does not believe in the importance of correct English and who is then brought forward by the BBC as an appropriate Reith lecturer?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I understand that my noble friend is a great believer in academic freedom. As a result, I believe he will accept that I am not responsible for the decisions of Oxford University.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Lord give the House an assurance—
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I know that this subject excites a great deal of interest in your Lordships' House, and rightly so. I observe, however, that two more Questions remain. Your Lordships may feel that the time has come to move on.

Developing Countries: Debt Burden
3.25 p.m.
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made by the G7 group of states towards the alleviation of the debt burden in developing countries.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, at last week's meetings of the IMF and the World Bank, there was agreement that the burden of debt is unsustainable for a number of heavily indebted poor countries, and that action is needed to reduce it so as not to put at risk their reform efforts. Ministers, led by my right honourable friend the Chancellor, agreed that the IMF and the World Bank will move swiftly to make specific proposals to enable agreement to be reached at the institution's annual meetings.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that encouraging reply. Will he accept that he has the full support of this side of the House in all that the Government can do to encourage speed in restructuring the debts of the poorest countries? Does he not agree that one severe handicap at the moment is the reluctance of the International Monetary Fund to play its part? Can the Minister assure the House that at the G7 summit in June all possible pressure will be mobilised to persuade the IMF to restructure its enhanced structural adjustment programme with more concessional terms, perhaps financed by the sale of some of the gold stocks at the disposal of the IMF?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for his support. He gave it to me when we last addressed this matter. We would like to see far quicker progress than we have made so far, but it takes time to reach agreement between the members of the IMF. We are pressing for a resolution of the debt problem. The fund's managing director and most other members of the IMF support this move. They want that body to make a real contribution to a solution in the context of a continuing, enhanced structural adjustment facility. A few members of the fund, regrettably, still oppose the modest sale of IMF gold which we and the managing director have proposed as a means of financing this project. We shall continue to work on this matter and to press for some form of agreement to be obtained in the autumn.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I congratulate the Chancellor on the initiative he has taken on debt relief, which I welcome. Does the Minister agree that the six-year time lag which some countries will have to face before they qualify for debt relief may be seen to be too long?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, it depends on the position of each individual country. With regard to the countries most seriously affected by their very large debt overhang, the sooner they have a solution to the problem the quicker they can get on with trying to restore their economies and bringing some

1749
prosperity to their peoples. I can assure the noble Lord that we are taking all the steps we can, as we have been doing for some time, to move the multinational institutions to take action.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, does the Minister agree that in dealing with this problem time is of the essence? Further, is he aware that for less than what is currently being spent by some of the poorer countries on debt repayment it would be possible by the end of the century, through social investment, to save the lives of around 21 million African children and provide 90 million girls with primary education? Therefore, will the Government undertake to continue this pressure until a speedy solution is found to this problem, which is so desperately needed?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Baroness very graphically underlines the problem, which can be helped greatly by a resolution of the debt problems in the poorest countries in the world. I can only underline what I have already said; namely, that as regards multilateral debt, we are doing our very best to bring to a successful conclusion the plans brought forward and supported by Kenneth Clarke to sell some gold, invest it in resources which will generate interest and use that to reduce the burden of debt on the poorest countries.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, will my noble friend ensure that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer recognises that two issues are involved in relation to debt: the relief of interest on the debt and the cancellation of some of the debt which, frankly, will never be repaid by some of the less developed countries?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my noble friend has a point. Indeed, on bilateral aid, the United Kingdom has "forgiven", as the jargon puts it, over £1 billion-worth of aid loans. All our new aid to the very poorest countries has been on grant terms for many years in order to get round the problem to which my noble friend rightly draws our attention.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, when will the Government institute in relation to poor people in this country similar policies to those which they apply with regard to poor countries? What plans does the Chancellor of the Exchequer have to alleviate the debt burden that is faced by some of the poorest members of our community?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am not entirely sure whether the noble Lord has got this Question mixed up with the next Question. I do not think that there is any comparison between the poorest people in the countries that we are now considering and the least well off people in our own country.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is wasting the British taxpayer's money to channel aid to those countries which have no chance of regenerating their economies unless the debt burden is relieved?
1750
Therefore, will the Minister assure the House that in the Government's strategy there is a determination to bring together both bilateral and multilateral measures because, unless there is a comprehensive approach, there is no way in which this issue can be resolved?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct. It is not just a question of multilateral debt, but of bilateral debt also. This country has given something like 15 countries a debt reduction of up to the limit of the 67 per cent. agreed under the so-called Naples Terms. My right honourable friend the Chancellor indicated last week that we would be prepared to go as far as 80 per cent., as did some other Ministers. We have to follow a twin-track approach of trying to help with multilateral debt through the IMF and other organisations, and of trying to help with bilateral debt also.

Child Benefit
3.32 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will resist proposals for cutbacks in child benefit.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Yes, my Lords. Child benefit is the cornerstone of our policy for all families with children. We have a manifesto commitment to pay child benefit for all families in respect of all children, including 16 and 17 year-olds in non-advanced education. We have honoured that commitment.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I welcome that Answer. The Minister will know—he has told me so—that 25 per cent. of our children live in households which are on income support. Does he therefore agree that child benefit may be a vital part of the family budget? In particular, does he agree that it may be extremely important to a child's opportunity to stay on at school and that, however desirable improvements in education may be, funding them by raiding the social security budget may risk giving the appearance of starving Peter to teach Paul?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I agree with the noble Earl that for people on income support or with low wages child benefit is an important factor in the family income, especially as it goes directly to the mother. We have seen a considerable improvement in the past 15 years in the number of youngsters staying on at school, especially in the number of children from unskilled families who stay on in education after the age of 16. I believe that the proposal, which I gather the Opposition favour, of removing child benefit from 16 and 17 year-olds who stay on at school would damage the excellent progress that we have made since 1979.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that that is really a reallocation of public expenditure? Should we not be told what further, if any,

1751
reallocation of public expenditure will occur in order to fulfil the many promises which the Labour Party has made? Does my noble friend agree that if there are not to be more reallocations of public expenditure, taxes and public sector borrowing must rise?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. Indeed, I have said from this Dispatch Box on many occasions that there is a direct link between public spending and tax reforms. If one wants to increase public spending, one must explain from where the extra taxes will come. In this case the most important point is that the money will be taken from youngsters who stay on at school—something I thought everyone in this country wanted to encourage—and used elsewhere in the public spending budget. I cannot put the point any better than the noble Earl did at the end of his supplementary question.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord did not intend to look at these Benches when he referred to the removal of child benefit from 16 to 18 year-olds because we have never collaborated in any way in that highly undesirable practice. While I am on my feet, and as the noble Lord clearly understands the importance of child benefit for youngsters aged 16 to 18, will he ask his right honourable and honourable friends at the Home Office to make sure that such benefit goes to the children whom we are considering under the Asylum and Immigration Bill?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the latter part of that question is another matter to which I suspect that we shall return next week. I am thinking about children whose parents and families live in this country perfectly legally, have been here for many years, pay their taxes and so on. It seems unfair to remove child benefit from such youngsters just when they become extremely expensive. Your Lordships will recognise that a 16 year-old boy begins to look like a food-consuming machine on legs, if not on wheels. Just at the point when we hope that such families will keep their children on at school, if at all possible, it seems unfair to take away from them between £500 and £600 a year, which is exactly what the proposal of the party opposite would bring about.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, as the Minister is supportive of child benefit, will he explain why, since 1979, the Government have frozen the benefit for three years and raised it by less than inflation in a further five years? Does the Minister agree that that might explain why in 1979 one child in 10 in this country was in poverty whereas today the proportion is one child in three? Is it not deeply worrying that the person most likely to be poor in today's Britain is a child?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we can congratulate the noble Baroness on her diversionary tactic. If she actually believes any of the things she has said, she ought to be ensuring that her party does not remove child benefit from 16 and 17 year-olds who stay on at school and that it does not endanger the considerable increase that we have seen during the term
1752
of office of this Government in the number of youngsters who remain at school, take advantage of further education, improve their qualifications and go on to university. All of those things have increased hugely since this Government took office in 1979.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, instead of blustering, will the Minister please answer my question?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I have answered the question, but, as the noble Baroness has brought me to my feet again, perhaps I should say that I have not heard an answer to the question of whether the party opposite is really going to remove child benefit from those youngsters.

Housing Bill
3.37 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Licensing (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
National Health Service (Residual Liabilities) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Civil Aviation (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Report received.

Asylum and Immigration Bill
3.39 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMIIEES in the Chair.]
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Power of arrest and search warrants]:
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): I must inform the Committee that if Amendment No. 69 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 70.
[Amendment No. 69 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 5, line 14, leave out ("has reasonable grounds for suspecting") and insert ("knows").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 70 is less wide-ranging in its implications than Amendment No. 69, but it is still of considerable importance. This part of Clause 7 deals with arrests without warrant. The Bill provides that a constable or immigration officer may arrest without warrant anyone whom he has reasonable grounds to suspect has committed an offence to which the clause applies.
The clause covers a wide range of offences under Section 24(1) of the 1971 Act. It covers those aspects which are already the subject of criminal legislation: illegal entry; remaining beyond time limited leave; and failure to observe conditions of leave to remain in the country. The Bill now adds to Section 24(1) the new offence of entering or remaining by deception. There is a wide range of offences to which the clause refers. The law, as it exists under the 1971 Act, has been found adequate for the purpose of dealing with them. The trouble with saying that anyone shall be subject to arrest without warrant if there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that he has committed these offences is not that it is always wrong to arrest without warrant when there are such reasonable grounds, but that these offences are capable of misinterpretation very readily by the police. For example, naturalised British citizens who have a perfect right to be in this country will in many cases be identifiable to the police by the colour of their skin or accents. If the police are engaged in a search for illegal entrants or those who are in this country without leave, they will be only too easily tempted to apprehend them if they believe that something may be wrong.
The police do not necessarily understand immigration status. With the best will in the world, on a number of occasions the police unnecessarily arrest and detain people from abroad who have a right to be in this country. I would not dream of saying that in general the police abuse their powers. However, it is well known to your Lordships who read newspaper reports of arrests—sometimes wrongful arrests which may attract compensation—that there are policemen and women in this country who take a certain view of people with different accents and a different colour of skin from those whom they assume to be of indigenous origin.
We do not want to take out the whole of Clause 7(1) and the power to arrest without warrant when that may be necessary in pursuit of the law. We do not wish to weaken the will and capacity of the police to enforce the law. But we believe that "reasonable grounds for suspecting" will in practice very often be interpreted too widely. In those circumstances, it is preferable to say that a constable or immigration officer may arrest without warrant anyone whom he knows to have committed an offence to which the clause applies. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I do not see how the Government can accept this amendment. The noble Lord suggests that a police officer, who may not be a very senior one, should be placed in the position of having to obtain evidence,
1754
such as it is, against the accused, find evidence in favour of the accused and reach a decision of the kind which eventually a court has to make having heard all the evidence and the cross-examination of various witnesses. That is a fantastic situation, especially when one considers the offences set out in Clause 7(4): illegal entry; obtaining leave to enter or remain by deception; and remaining beyond time limited by leave or failing to observe condition of leave. The police officer would have to find out before arresting the person—there might be good reason for making the arrest—what the limited time was, what the conditions were, how complicated or otherwise they were and whether or not they had been complied with. With deep respect to the noble Lord, with whose amendments I often have great sympathy, I believe that this is an unacceptable amendment.
3.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: If the powers in this clause are as essential as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has argued, I wonder how the police got on so long without them.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I will be very short. As my noble friend Lord Renton has just said, it is a fantastic amendment. Just examine it for one moment. Let us consider the words "a constable knows". How will the constable know about all of the matters in subsection (4) to which my noble friend has referred? The only way in which he can know is if somebody else can tell him, or somebody else can hand him a document. Therefore, he can know only what he is told by somebody else. The whole structure is totally fantastic. I know of no other provision in any other statute cast in this form. The way in which it is cast at the moment seems to be fairly workable from an administrative point of view. If it were accepted, the amendment would throw the whole administration and make a total nonsense of it.
The Lord Bishop of Chester: I have great sympathy with the problem raised by this matter. Frankly, I believe that the amendment goes too far. I am worried by how "reasonable grounds" can be defined. Perhaps the Minister could look at that at Report stage.
I have in mind the particular case of a black man born in London who went to a police station to report the theft of items from his girlfriend's car. Instead of pursuing the theft, the duty police officer questioned him about his immigration status. When he said that he was British he was accused of lying and arrested on suspicion of an immigration offence. He was taken to his home in handcuffs so that his British passport and birth certificate could be inspected. In total, he was detained for three and a half hours. Obviously, there may be other surrounding circumstances in this case of which I am not aware. It appears that the noble Baroness is aware of them.
Nonetheless, there is a real fear that the colour of a person's skin may appear to be "reasonable grounds", particularly if there is some aggression in the case. I should like the Minister to look again at the words

1755
"reasonable grounds", or to define those words in some way, so that wrongful arrests of this kind do not take place.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: With great respect to the right reverend Prelate, that will not do. First, we are discussing the amendment which states "knows". In order to know a thing it must, first, be true—in fact, objectively as a fact; and, secondly, one has to have the knowledge that it is a fact. It is the first point which makes the amendment unacceptable.
As regards the colour of skin, and all that, I think that most of us would agree that what is reasonable and what is not reasonable is a question of fact. But a tribunal must be expected to have a little common sense. It would be wrong for a tribunal to find as a fact that the colour of a man's or woman's skin was a reasonable ground for thinking that they had committed an offence. It might be some reason for making further inquiries, but it could not be a reasonable ground for thinking that the person has committed an offence. There must be evidence that the person did commit the offence.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I had not intended to speak again before the Minister responded, but having had three speakers from the Government Benches so fundamentally misunderstand the amendment, I have to come back. This subsection of Clause 7 relates only to arrest without warrant. There is perfectly good provision under subsection (2) for an arrest with a warrant from a justice of the peace, where there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that a person who is liable to be arrested can be found on premises. There are perfectly good procedures for a constable or an immigration officer to seek a warrant where there are reasonable grounds for suspecting.
Where there is less awareness of the potential for an offence to have been committed, the proper procedure is to apply for a warrant. All we are considering now is an amendment to the subsection which deals with an arrest without warrant.
Lord Renton: Is the noble Lord aware, as I think he should be, that there are scores of examples in our legislation, and in the common law, where a police officer may arrest without warrant without having to claim that he knows that the offence has been committed?
Lord Avebury: I am worried about the clause for a reason with which the Minister will be familiar, because she put it into my mind on the last occasion when we were discussing the Bill. She claims that an illegal entrant remains of that status, no matter how long before he is given leave to remain in the UK; but once a person has entered unlawfully he retains that status for the rest of his life. That is what the Minister said. She said in relation to a particular individual that he is and was an illegal entrant.
Later the clause provides that one of the offences to which that power will apply is illegal entry. I am afraid that the power which is conferred on police officers under subsection (1) will extend to people who entered through one of our ports of entry with improper
1756
documentation, for the reasons we have discussed ad nauseam in debates on earlier clauses, and with which the Minister is familiar. Having been forced to enter this country with papers that were not in order because of difficulties in the country of origin, the Minister will label such a person an illegal entrant for ever afterwards. For the rest of his life such a person will be liable to arrest without warrant under this clause. That worries me greatly, particularly as I read what others have said about the dangers of the police abusing their powers under the existing legislation in relation to people belonging to ethnic minorities.
As I understand it, the example given by the right reverend Prelate is one of a number which have been brought to the attention of the CRE. If the CRE has those anxieties—no doubt it has conveyed them to the Government just as it has to the right reverend Prelate and Members of the Committee—surely that is a matter that should be taken into consideration. If the Minister does not like the particular words of the amendment, she should at least say that the Government will consider the anxieties which have been expressed on all sides of the Committee by those who have had something to do with ethnic minorities, and by the bodies outside whose duty it is to safeguard the interests of ethnic minorities in our society.
Lord Hylton: On the assumption that the general principle of the first subsection is acceptable, will the Minister consider whether the wording "he reasonably suspects" would be preferable to "has reasonable grounds for suspecting"? The Minister may not feel like replying instantly, but perhaps she could let me know later.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Perhaps I may deal with the concerns of the right reverend Prelate, which he suggested that my noble friend the Minister should consider on Report. It is the question of the colour of the skin which was largely dealt with by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham a moment ago. Perhaps I may suggest to the right reverend Prelate that what cannot be done is to have a different regime depending upon the colour of a man's skin. So how on earth does he expect my noble friend the Minister to deal with his concerns?
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: It is interesting that everyone seems to talk about immigration as if it were merely an issue of colour. An Australian journalist recently told me that there are over 40,000 illegal Australian immigrants in this country, and that they are constantly in fear of having a motor accident or something similar which will reveal their status. It is not just an issue of colour. On the point raised by the right reverend Prelate when someone was told that he had to prove that he was British, and so on, I am a great believer in identity cards. If we had them, that person would have had it on him and he would not have gone through that problem.
Earl Russell: The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, makes a fair point which I take on board. I am aware that this type of situation may affect Australians.

1757
But different situations arise and we know of a great many cases of black British being stopped for being illegal immigrants. Does the noble Baroness know of any case of a white British person being stopped on suspicion of being an Australian?
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Perhaps if they were heard to speak.
The Lord Bishop of Chester: Perhaps I may reply to the point. My observation did not concern the colour of the skin; it was a question of reasonable grounds. Colour of the skin was an illustration of that. I wanted to ask: what are reasonable grounds? The fear in the community is that that can be abused in the heat of the argument, the excitement of the chase, or with the police officer going further than he should. Even if later the matter is not upheld by a tribunal, the damage to the person is considerable. Although I cannot support the amendment because I believe that it goes too far, I want to plead for "reasonable grounds", or something somehow to be spelt out, with more protection than there is at the moment.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Perhaps I may say to the right reverend Prelate that the clause as drafted puts on the person arresting without warrant the burden of proving that he had reasonable grounds. The difficulty which the right reverend Prelate feels is felt by the constable before he makes the arrest.
4 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Mackay of Drumadoon): I have received so much support in opposing the amendment that it may not be necessary to say very much. I rise to challenge the amendment and to remind Members of the Committee of what was provided when Parliament enacted the Immigration Act 1971. Section 24(2) provides that:
"A constable or immigration officer may arrest without warrant anyone who has, or whom he, with reasonable cause, suspects to have, committed or attempted to commit an offence under this section other than an offence under subsection (1)(d) above".
Section 25(3) is in similar terms. It states that,
"an immigration officer may arrest without warrant anyone who has, or whom he, with reasonable cause, suspects to have, committed an offence under subsection (1) above".
That illustrates the points raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, and the noble Lords, Lord Renton and Lord Campbell of Alloway, that throughout statute law there are numerous examples of provisions in such terms being enacted by Parliament. It would be a serious mistake to depart upon a novel basis for setting into statutory form provisions for arrest without warrant.
Clearly, concerns have been raised about issues such as the colour of skin, a particular type of accent, and so forth. Those matters require to be in the forefront of the arresting officer's mind, whether he be a police constable or an immigration officer, before he invokes the power that Parliament has given him. In the light of the concerns that are raised, undoubtedly police training will take account of them. But the fact that there may
1758
have been isolated incidents in which wrongful arrests have taken place does not justify the radical departure that is suggested.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester raised a particular case. Without further information about the person concerned it would be wrong to respond to that case in Committee. If the right reverend Prelate wishes to write to me with further details I shall ensure that a substantive response is given.
The amendment is an example of a number that have been tabled with a view to making more difficult the establishment of greater coherence of immigration control, which this Bill is all about. For those reasons, I invite the Committee to reject the amendment.
Lord Renton: Would my noble and learned friend care to set at rest the mind of the right reverend Prelate by confirming that when we use the expression "reasonable grounds" in our statute law we scarcely ever define or qualify them because they must depend on the circumstances of each case?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I am happy to confirm that and to say in addition that it is a serious mistake to seek to define them because then one becomes involved in obtuse arguments in court as to whether a particular specificity set out has been met. The courts are well used to dealing with situations in which reasonable grounds fall to be construed. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, reminded the Committee that that construction requires to be applied to the particular facts of the particular case. It is my submission to the Committee that the courts would have no difficulty whatever in deciding whether any invoking of the power by a constable was well founded.
Earl Russell: A distinction arises as regards the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. Suspicion may and should arise from the circumstances of the case. What is different about this matter is that suspicion arises simply from looking at the person and not from anything he or she has done. If we had lived in the days when physiognomy was taken seriously and bushy eyebrows were taken to be proof of a criminal character I believe that I should have been suspected more than any other noble Lord, save the noble Lord, Lord Healey.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I do not accept that merely looking at someone would provide reasonable grounds. There would need to be something about a person's background, information that had come to hand, and other knowledge. It may well be that some aspect of the circumstances in which the constable came front to front with the individual had some bearing on it. If the individual immediately turned and ran away that might be an adminicle of evidence which linked with other adminicles of evidence to justify forming the view that there were reasonable grounds for suspecting that the particular individual had committed a particular offence to which the section applies. I suggest that merely looking at someone would not be enough.
Earl Russell: I thank the noble and learned Lord for that reply. I was not suggesting that he thought anything else. I was merely telling him what happens on the ground.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: If the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate is saying that reasonable grounds for suspicion do not include someone's appearance or accent but only the circumstances in which a person is found and that those circumstances are positively an indication of the likelihood of an offence having been committed, that would go a good deal of the way towards calming my fears. In moving my amendment it certainly was not my intention in any way to damage the coherence of the law relating to illegal immigration. The clause provides a considerable extension of the powers of the police and immigration officers in relation to illegal immigrants in this country. Surely it is incumbent on the Government to show why increased powers are required rather than making charges of an attack on the coherence of the provision that is made.
The noble and learned Lord had a large part of a good point when he referred to the wording of the Immigration Act 1971 but I notice that even there the wording is different. The wording is,
"has, or whom he, with reasonable cause, suspects to have".
That is different from the wording in the Bill, which is,
"reasonable grounds for suspecting".
I do not know why it is different or whether there is any significance in the difference. However, in so far as this is not apparently a significant change in the law, which has generally found to be adequate, it is right that I should beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 71 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 5, line 18, after ("a") insert ("named").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 72 and 73 are probing amendments with which I can deal briefly because I want only a simple explanation from the Government. I understand that:
"If … a justice of the peace is by written information on oath satisfied that there is reasonable ground for suspecting that a person who is liable to be arrested … is to be found on any premises",
the written information on oath would have to be that of a named person and not just any person who might be found on those premises. I should be grateful for confirmation that that is the practice.
I also understand that when a warrant authorises a constable to enter if need be by force, the common law requires that that force should be reasonable or consistent with the needs of the occasion and that there is no change in the omission of the word "reasonable" which appears in the 1971 Act.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I believe that I am in a position to give the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, the reassurance that he seeks. Amendment No. 72 would unnecessarily restrict matters in so far as it would make
1760
it absolutely necessary to have the correct and full name of the individual. As I am sure the noble Lord will well recognise, although it may be understood who the individual is and some part of his name may be known, his full details may not be available at the time at which the warrant is sought, either from the justice of the peace or, in Scotland, from the sheriff.
I am happy to give the Committee the assurance that it is not intended that search warrants will be sought on some speculative basis; for example, searching premises for anybody who might be there, whether or not he is known in any sense to the immigration authorities. I hope that on the basis of that assurance, the noble Lord will withdraw Amendment No. 72.
In relation to Amendment No. 73, again I am happy to give an assurance that no change to the application of the common law is intended. Again, the style used is that used on numerous other occasions. Officers, whether police officers or immigration officers, will be expected to behave reasonably having regard to the particular circumstances which they confront when they seek to execute the warrant.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am most grateful for that explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 73 to 76 not moved.]
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby Baroness Williams of Crosby moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 5, line 27, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Baroness said: With this amendment we come to the heart of the clause and to a subsection of the clause which most troubles me and, I believe, other Members of the Committee. I begin by saying that I wish to put this amendment in a slightly wider context. I believe that it is the responsibility of a democratic country which cares very deeply about civil liberties to strike a balance between the very powerful arguments of law and order and the equally powerful arguments of the liberty of its citizens.
In my view, subsection (3), by raising a whole range of immigration offences to the level of serious criminal offences—the same level as crimes like murder, treason, rape and other significant offences with which any country has to deal—is treating those offences disproportionately in ways which could undermine the balance between law and order and liberty in our country.
I say very clearly, because I do not wish for one moment to be misunderstood on this matter, that in saying this I am not attempting to support the argument that illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay in this country. I wish to say in advance that I shall have every reason to feel extremely offended if that argument is used against this amendment.
I have been in the Home Office and have held the same position as the Minister. I am well aware that there are illegal immigrants and that there are rackets in

1761
illegal immigration. I am well aware also that there are genuine cases of people who seek asylum; that there are men and women all over the world who have stood up for democracy in the most difficult situations in their own countries and who, not only through no fault of their own but because their principles are outstanding, find themselves obliged to flee for the lives of their families and themselves.
It is in striking the balance between dealing with illegal immigrants on the one side and recognising the genuine nature of asylum seekers on the other that the wisdom of this Chamber is to be found. In my view, subsection (3) pushes the scales too far against the genuine asylum seeker.
It has been pointed out in this Chamber time and again from the Cross Benches, from the Benches opposite and from all sides of the Chamber that that is so. It has been pointed out that in some cases the situation of asylum seekers is so desperate that the only way in which they can leave their country is by using false papers. I must repeat that in some cases deception is due to force majeure. It is far beyond the capacity of those people fleeing not to use false papers. Nigeria is not in the habit of issuing true papers for people who try to leave the country because their lives are at risk as opponents of a terrible, tyrannical government. We now see such action being treated as a criminal offence on the same scale as murder. I consider that to be disproportionate.
I take the argument one stage further. In a long life in politics, I have learned to respect Home Secretaries on both sides of the House. I have learned also to have grave doubts about some Home Secretaries on both sides of the House. The noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, the noble Lord, Lord Carr, and many years ago, Mr. Herbert Morrison, when Home Secretary, understood the balance between law and order and liberty in a way which I believe was greatly to the credit of this country and enhanced the actions of Her Majesty's Government. I am afraid that I must say that in supporting subsection (3) the present Home Secretary has failed to understand the profound necessity of protecting individual liberties as well as protecting law and order. I repeat that it is that balance which lies at the very heart of individual freedom and democracy.
By raising these offences to the level that it does, subsection (3) carries with it penalties on a scale which in my view are, not in every case but in the broad group of cases, disproportionate. For example, there is no qualification to the use of the phrase "by force". It is not a question of hypothesis because we have seen, sadly, one or two cases where the force has been such that it has led to the death of the person involved. The case of Joy Gardner springs to mind. We have seen cases where, no doubt under the kind of pressure to which the right reverend Prelate referred, police officers have been pushed or gone beyond what should be their own levels of self restraint.
What frightens me about the clause is that even the qualifications made in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act a few years ago that force should be reasonable and, more than that, that attempts to search places should be
1762
made at reasonable hours unless there are strong reasons why they should not be, have been dropped as safeguards in this subsection.
In some cases, the people of whom we are talking have the most profound reason to fear a knock at the door at 3 a.m. I worked in central Europe—in Czechoslovakia, Poland and Romania—among people who know what it is to suddenly find their houses searched without warrant, not by our police, no, but by police in other countries. Some of those people are today refugees in this country. They live in an atmosphere of extreme fear. This subsection feeds that atmosphere in ways that are not justified.
I repeat that I see no argument at all for not retaining all the safeguards in the 1971 Immigration Act. They are set out clearly. They are fairly draconian. They include the right to arrest and to search and, in some cases, to arrest without warrant. They give power to search on the written statement of the justice of the peace. But they do not attempt to raise such matters as illegal over-staying to the level of murder and treason.
I believe that the Home Secretary will have reason to rue this subsection. I believe that he is creating criminals where there are no criminal intentions. That is an extremely unwise measure for a democratic government to take. I beg all Members of the Committee on all sides to consider very carefully indeed whether we should not do grave damage to our constitutional traditions and inheritance if we allowed this subsection to stand in Clause 7. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: I should like to express my support for the amendment moved by the noble Baroness. Indeed, the noble Baroness spoke in most powerful terms of the effect of the clause. I should like to read an extract from a report of the Glidewell Panel of inquiry to which reference has already been made several times in this Chamber. It is an independent panel chaired by a recently retired Lord Justice of Appeal, Sir lain Glidewell. It considered all the clauses in the Bill and, in relation to Clause 7, it said, among other things:
"We are seriously concerned about the draconian nature of the powers given to police and immigration officers under clause 7. We consider these quite inappropriate for the type of offences indicated".
I should like to press the Minister on the matter of serious arrestable offences. I fail to understand why offences under this legislation should be placed in the same category as those offences to which the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, made reference; for example, murder, rape, kidnapping, treason, offences which result in death or very serious injury, and so on. The offences about which we are talking are, of course, real offences. Like the noble Baroness, I hold no brief for illegal immigrants. I believe that they should not be in this country. Indeed, I believe that so strongly that, as the Minister knows, I have been in touch with a member of her staff about a particular illegal immigrant who I felt should not be here.
However, that does not mean to say that I regard such offences as being in anything like the same category as those which are at present regarded as serious arrestable

1763
offences. I believe that I am right in saying that the offences under the Bill are triable only in a magistrates' court, and that there are maximum sentences which are at present six months' imprisonment or a suitable fine. Therefore, they are of an entirely different order from the offences that I have already mentioned. It seems to me to be quite illogical that the offences under the Bill should be placed in the same category.
Under subsection (3) the police are able to obtain a search warrant and then search premises in order to seize and retain anything for which the search is authorised. Once they are on the premises, they can seize anything related to the offence or, indeed, anything which is evidence of any other offence. I suppose that they could be searching for wage slips which might indicate the name of a particular person who is employed in some way; they might be searching for lists of people present at a youth club or at some sort of meeting; or they might be searching for membership lists or personal correspondence.
In pursuance of their search for such material, the police could he entering a wide variety of premises. I have in mind not just premises occupied by someone who may be under suspicion but also premises occupied by someone who is not under suspicion. For example, such premises could include the homes of relatives or friends, social clubs, places of work, schools or colleges, community centres and places of worship.
Under Amendment No. 79, which is tabled in my name, I have set out an exclusion which would mean that a particular group of buildings, including hospitals, schools and places of worship, would be excluded from the provisions of the Bill. Indeed, I shall speak to that amendment in due course. However, in relation to the general issue now before the Committee, all sorts of premises could be entered.
I believe that we must return to the matter of race. Although I hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, says, people who are likely to be regarded as committing immigration offences are often from Africa or the Indian subcontinent. Indeed, the kind of places to which I referred—that is, places where social gatherings take place—are more likely to be targeted if it is believed that there are people present there from Africa or India who may conceivably have offended under the Bill. It is quite possible that such places are likely to experience the arrival of the police at anti-social hours, brandishing their warrants. That will be perceived as having something to do with the fact that people from Africa or India are present in such places. Inevitably a sense of targeting will be felt. That, in turn, is bound to have some effect on race relations.
Effective policing depends upon trust and confidence between the police and members of the community. The implication of this particular subsection is that members of communities, where there are likely to be those who have offended under the legislation, cannot be trusted to assist the police in their inquiries and that, therefore, it is necessary to adopt such exceptional powers which at present are only reserved for the very gravest offences. As I said, there is an implication of distrust. The
1764
adoption of those greater powers must surely undermine to some extent relationships between the police and communities, not least ethnic minority communities.
In my view, the Government have not demonstrated that that exceptional power is necessary for the Bill. In the past, Parliament has been very reluctant to grant such powers to the police. For such regulatory crimes—that is, crimes which involve no victim and which are of a much lower level than the very serious ones which at present fall within the scope of serious arrestable offences—I believe that the Government should do much more to indicate why such a power is necessary.
Lord Avebury: I should like to draw attention briefly to the views expressed by the Immigration Advisory Service, the head of which is Mr. Keith Best, a former colleague of mine in another place. For that reason alone, I believe that those views should be seriously considered. Mr. Best says that the deterioration in the relationships between the police and immigrant groups is a matter of anxiety and that the many reports about mistaken arrests and about the use of powers to search are one of the reasons for that exacerbation. He says, in particular, that the consequence of searches on premises cause great resentment. So he has underlined that particular factor as regards Clause 7.
There would be no point in having subsection (3) in Clause 7 if it did not mean that there was going to be an increase in the number of searches of the kind that we are now discussing. Therefore, inevitably, if the subsection remains in the legislation, we shall see more police raids on premises which are occupied predominantly, for example, by members of ethnic minority groups. That will have a harmful and deleterious effect, especially on relations between the police and those communities. For that reason alone, I believe that we should pause before allowing that provision to be incorporated into the Bill.
I believe also that we should consider the costs involved in terms of the secondary factors which we were discussing the other day. If there are to be worsening relationships between the police and ethnic minority communities, what effect will that have on policing as a whole within those areas? Further, what effect will that have on the environment in which those searches are likely to cause the relationships to deteriorate? Indeed, the duties of the local authorities in those areas might be affected by the worsening of such relationships. The ramifications of such changes are so enormous that I believe we should have a much better idea of the extent to which those powers might be exercised before we allow the clause to go through.
However, it is possible that the Minister will be able to help us in that respect. If we are only talking about one or two cases during the course of a year, then we might be able to accept that that will not be terribly important. The noble Baroness has already said that it is not the intention to go on fishing expeditions, but we shall not be in a position to judge that very easily once the Bill becomes law. Therefore, if, as we suspect, the presence of the clause in the legislation means that there might be fairly widespread trawls, and the consequences

1765
cause the harmful effects that we envisage, we shall then all regret not having given the provision a great deal more attention.
Lord Renton: The matter is not as simple as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has indicated. As to the question of costs—and I believe that the noble Lord is thinking in particular of police costs—if we make it too difficult for the law to be enforced so that we get many more illegal immigrants than we already have, then, because of the laxity of our legislation, we might have to have more police to enforce such provisions. So his argument is a self-defeating one. I say that with deep respect to him.
As to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, her deep sincerity seems to have misled her into depriving magistrates of the power that they need to authorise the police to enter premises where it is thought that an illegal, or possible illegal, immigrant has entered. Surely, there is no justification for that.
The amendment of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon concerns circumstances where a potential illegal immigrant, or a suspected illegal immigrant may enter a hospital, like St. Thomas' across the river, or an educational establishment such as University College, Gower Street, with its spacious courtyards, or any church, chapel, mosque or temple. The amendment would mean that as soon as an illegal immigrant sees a police officer whom he fears may seek to arrest him, he can dart into any one of those premises and be free from arrest and, he must hope, free from prosecution. In ancient times the Christian Churches were regarded as sanctuary; that was accepted. They had to feed and look after the people who sought sanctuary and allow them to sleep in the church. If those people ever came out they could be arrested if they had committed an offence or were suspected of having done so. I say, with deep respect to the sincerity of the noble Baroness and the right reverend Prelate, that I really think that the amendments are self-defeating and unacceptable.
4.30 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: I support the amendment of the noble Baroness. I shall try not to raise the emotional temperature. I wish to return to the note of sincerity, which began with the noble Baroness. The amendment is a warning to the Government as regards their policy of restraint towards asylum seekers. I believe this to be a deterrent Bill, not a curative Bill. I shall explain why.
I have several misgivings about the Bill and the absurdity of having a published designated list which can only be a source of friction in our foreign policy. I reserve my remarks today for Clause 7(3) which deals with the new offences.
The Government have crossed the line of reasonable restraint. I recognise that increased numbers have created a problem and that public opinion requires a tightening of the rules in line with our European allies. I can see the European dimension both as regards improved examination of the existing caseload and in sending a signal to prospective asylum seekers. I see
1766
the problem, but I also see the dangers of the measures prescribed. The right reverend Prelate mentioned the Glidewell Panel. That represents a range of organisations, many of which I have worked with personally. They have expressed concern that the Government are going beyond reasonable bounds in tightening up legislation. Their main point is that the Government risk a deterioration in our race relations. Sir Iain Glidewell's panel expressed anxiety about the sweeping powers available to the police under Clause 7 and the danger that this would lead to increased tension between the police and minority communities.
Clause 7 puts the immigration offences into the category of serious arrestable offences. Given the powers the police already have under the 1971 Act, surely this clause is entirely unnecessary and could have a damaging effect on our race relations. As we have heard, the powers are only available for offences such as kidnapping, murder and rape. They have been hitherto unjustified by government statements. They will have a harmful effect on local police community relations. We heard a great deal about those relations in the debate on the police yesterday. We heard how good those relations have become. As someone who worked in Brixton during the 1980s as well as in communities abroad and as someone whose father served as a Conservative Member in another place for many years, I remind the Government of what the Prime Minister said on 15th November,
"While I lead it, the instincts of my party will not be to play race at any time, in any way, on any occasion or upon any provocation. That will not be our policy".—[Official Report, Commons, 15/11/95; col. 39.]
I submit that Clause 7, and especially the subsection we are discussing, constitutes such an occasion and such a policy. I urge the Government not to take risks with immigration and asylum and not to allow it to become an election issue as that could backfire on the Government and is not in keeping with the spirit of the 1951 convention. I urge the Government to follow the tradition of liberal Conservatism and win the respect of the wider electorate, not the more restless sections of the party who are moving towards a preventive deterrent policy.
Viscount Brentford: I endorse entirely, as I am sure does every Member of the Committee, what the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said about the difficult balance to be retained between the liberty of the individual and law and order. I have two or three questions arising from the amendment which seems to me to be important. I was interested to learn that there are some 40,000 illegal Australian immigrants in this country. I should like to be given an assurance that the police will make as much effort to chase them up as they will illegal immigrants from other countries. That is important. It does not matter what colour someone's skin is. We need to treat people as individuals. All are created in the image of God, whatever the colour of one's skin. I hope that I shall be given that assurance.

1767
I am slightly puzzled by Clause 7(3)(a) in the light of what I have read about it, and also as regards what has been said about it. Unfortunately, I have not consulted the Police and Criminal Evidence Act but the wording of the subsection refers to introducing the,
"power of justice to authorise entry and search of premises".
That seems remarkably mild in comparison with all that has been said about it. I should be grateful for an explanation of how it introduces the draconian laws which—I agree—sound rather horrendous. The right reverend Prelate quoted from the report of the Glidewell Panel. The report states on page 26,
"We are persuaded that sufficient administrative powers already exist under the 1971 Immigration Act".
I should be grateful if my noble friend the Minister would explain why the powers already incorporated in that Act are not sufficient and why the extra powers in Clause 7(3) are needed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, in his response to an earlier amendment, talked quite properly about the coherence of the powers of the law in criminal proceedings in matters of illegal immigration. I can confirm that on this amendment, as on other amendments, our intention is not in any way to attack the coherence of the power to institute and pursue criminal proceedings in cases of illegal immigration. It is not, and never has been, our intention to support illegal immigration.
Subsection (3) of Clause 7 adds incoherence rather than coherence to the meaning of the clause. By reference to Section 8 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, and the comparable Northern Ireland order, it reads as though these immigration offences are serious arrestable offences under the terms of Section 8(1) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act.
To what does subsection (1) of that Act refer? It refers to powers of arrest and, in particular, search warrants. However, Clause 7(2) of the Asylum and Immigration Bill covers search warrants. Although we have not yet voted on clause stand part we have already implicitly agreed that. Clause 7(2) states:
"If a justice of the peace is by written information on oath satisfied that there is reasonable ground for suspecting that a person who is liable to be arrested …is to be found on any premises … he may grant a warrant authorising any constable to enter, if need be by force, the premises named in the warrant for the purposes of searching for and arresting that person".
Section 8(1) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act simply adds the power to search premises on warrant for the purpose of obtaining material related to the arrest. That power could perfectly well be provided explicitly without bringing in, by this extraordinarily roundabout route, the comparison between illegal immigration and serious arrestable offences such as treason, murder, manslaughter, rape, kidnapping, and so on, which are capable of punishment on indictment by sentences of life, or 15 years or more. That is the offensive aspect: to compare immigration offences with treason, rape and murder. Those are far more serious offences as regards the sentences they can carry.
1768
The provision is quite unnecessary. We simply need to amend subsection (2) of Clause 7 to ensure that there are powers of entry to search for evidence as well as to find and arrest the individual. To do it as the Bill proposes is gratuitously offensive and misrepresents the degree of seriousness of illegal immigration offences. I support the amendment.
Baroness Rawlings: Can I ask the Lord Advocate whether these powers are the same as those which exist already in a previous Act? Noble Lords who support the amendment seem to think they have changed. Do these powers apply to the two new offences already agreed?
Earl Russell: When the noble Baroness or the noble and learned Lord replies, perhaps the Committee can be assisted by some picture of where these offences come on the scale compared with some other offences? Is illegal immigration more or less serious than, say, burglary, breaking and entering, pickpocketing, shoplifting or mugging? When we know how it ranks in comparison with those offences, it may be easier for us to discuss whether or not the gravity given to it is proper.
I make one point in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Renton. Where the English common law has dealt with suspicion, it has often related to cases such as theft where it is known that an offence has been committed. The question is: who committed the offence? The difference between those cases and illegal immigration is that until one catches the person one does not even know that an offence has been committed. That makes vague suspicion a far more shotgun scatter type of approach than the more focused suspicion when one is dealing with a specific, known offence. That is a point of importance.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Menuhin: I believe that no amount of most worthy amendments can save the clause or, in fact, the Bill. The great tradition of this country has been not to cross the t's and dot the i's. But these problems are in the highest, most intense, way personal problems which have to be faced by individuals, each case being different. One cannot legislate for matters which cannot be legislated for. We live in a world of growing violence. We must be on our guard not to slip into easy formulations which suit police states rather better than this country. I believe that we should be able to trust the individual. If we can trust the Secretary of State we can trust a well founded, well grounded, well educated individual.
For my part I would rather err on the side of humanity than inhumanity. I would rather see one person saved from torture by not being sent back, and having 10 persons living where they choose to live and perhaps contributing to the community. Those are my strong convictions.
Baroness Seccombe: Does the Minister agree that the courts will decide on the importance and seriousness of the offences? Their penalty may reflect that.
The Earl of Balfour: I am intrigued that subsection (3) of Clause 7 specifically refers to the first part of

1769
Section 8 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and paragraph (1) of Article 10 of the Northern Ireland order.
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 barely applies to Scotland. Article 10 does not apply to Scotland. Between now and Report stage, will my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate consider whether there should be specific reference in the Bill to Scottish legislation, perhaps in the criminal procedure legislation or some such measure? I am not sufficiently familiar with this part of the law to know whether or not that is necessary.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I am happy to accept the invitation to re-examine the law in Scotland on this matter. I understand that there are sufficient powers to apply to the sheriff for a warrant under the criminal procedure legislation which would enable evidence to be recovered.
It is instructive to bear in mind the effect of the subsection. In moving and supporting Amendment No. 77, Members of the Committee have sought to suggest that, whether or not the Government are resorting to any reference to race, they are seeking to incorporate for all purposes offences under this Bill and the 1971 Act with other offences which meet the definition in the 1984 Act of serious arrestable offences. The general purpose of the clause is to set out, by adopting provisions in the 1984 Act and the 1989 order, a procedure for the seizure of evidence. Clause 7(2) sets out a procedure for seeking and obtaining a warrant for the purposes of searching for and arresting a person. The clause is concerned with the procedure for searching for and seizing evidence. As Members of the Committee have discussed in recent months, it is important for the police, either before or after arresting an individual, if they have reasonable grounds for suspecting that he has committed an offence, to search for evidence which can help the police and the courts to establish one way or another whether the person accused is guilty of the offence for which he has been arrested and is brought before the court. On that basis alone, the offences fall to be treated as serious arrestable offences under Section 8 of the 1984 Act. There is no intention to incorporate them for the purposes of the procedure under which such persons should be prosecuted or, more important, for the penalties which are appropriate if guilt is established.
Perhaps it would help to remind the Committee of what Section 8 provides. It sets out a procedure which enables a constable to apply to the justice of the peace. The justice of the peace must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing, first:
"that a serious arrestable offence has been committed";
and, secondly,
"that there is material on premises specified in the application which is likely to be of substantial value (whether by itself or together with other material) to the investigation of the offence".
That bears out the point which I made that the seizure of evidence is relevant to investigating an offence and whether the arrested person is guilty of it. The section provides, thirdly, that the material is likely to be relevant
1770
evidence; fourthly, that it is not subject to legal privilege; and, fifthly, that one of a number of conditions applies. Those conditions are as follows:
"that it is not practicable to communicate with any person entitled to grant entry to the premises; … that it is practicable to communicate with a person entitled to grant entry but it is not practicable to communicate with any person entitled to grant access to the evidence; … that entry to the premises will not be granted unless a warrant is produced; … that the purpose of a search may be frustrated or seriously prejudiced unless a constable arriving at the premises can secure immediate entry to them".
That procedure was set down in 1984. The police have now had over 10 years' experience of working with it. The courts have had 10 years' experience of applying it. In my submission, it is entirely sensible for the Government to bring forward, for reasons to which I shall turn in a moment, a procedure which is well established, well practised and well understood by police officers and the court, to deal with a situation under subsection (2). That subsection deals with the application for a warrant for arrest, and subsection (3) deals with the application for a warrant to seize the evidence.
Members of the Committee have raised the question of whether the power is required or whether a similar or identical existing power is to be found in the 1971 Act. The answer is no. There is no appropriate power in England and Northern Ireland for searching for and seizing evidence relevant to the issues of whether people are guilty of offences under the 1971 Act and the additional offences which the Bill would introduce. For that reason alone the provision set out in subsection (3) is brought forward.
In seeking to enforce the existing offences, the immigration authorities have experienced difficulty through not having a power to search for evidence. It is in order to overcome that difficulty that the procedure is brought forward.
It is a matter of regret that various parties outside your Lordships' House and some Members of the Committee who have spoken have sought to suggest that the Government are treating offences under the 1971 Act as equivalent to the more serious offences of murder, rape and other crimes which are also covered by Section 8. There is no intention to do that. The intention is quite straightforward. It is to set out a laid down procedure which is already known to the police, in which they have been trained and which the courts understand. We do that in the hope that it is the best way forward rather than involving a different procedure which would give rise to confusion and misunderstanding.
From what Members of the Committee said, I know that they have concerns that individual police officers may abuse the powers. I am happy to give the Committee the assurance that the Government will keep on reminding chief constables and those responsible for training police officers of the importance of applying the law in the manner intended. They should remember the importance of discretion in exercising the powers open to police officers. I readily accept that the sensible use of discretion by police officers is a valuable aid to good race relations in the same way as the sensible use of discretion by prosecutors. Among my other duties, I have responsibility for prosecutions in Scotland.

1771
Discretion is an important part of the role of a prosecutor. Whether we are dealing with these statutory provisions or with prosecutions, there is no reason to believe that discretion will not be used as appropriate.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, mentioned the Joy Gardner case. With the greatest respect, I do not believe that it arises directly from this subsection. Undoubtedly it was a tragic incident, but the powers set out in subsection (2) would have given the power to enter the premises concerned to search for and arrest the lady. Therefore, I do not begin to understand how it provides in any sense a valid objection which would prevent Members of the Committee being persuaded that this is a sensible statutory provision to adopt.
Accusations have been made that the legislation will fuel an atmosphere of bad race relations and fly in the face of a sensible immigration policy. With respect to those who have spoken, many of whom I know feel strongly about the issues, such a problem is not in any sense a necessary consequence of passing the subsection. For those reasons, and with respect to those who have spoken, I hope that the Committee will not be persuaded that those are valid reasons for supporting the amendment.
I believe that I have dealt with most of the questions raised. I shall try to deal with those that remain. With regard to how often the power would be invoked, an issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, it is impossible to suggest that I or any Minister would be in a position to answer that. It is a problem which the immigration authorities have faced in the past and undoubtedly the power will be used. However, when and how often it will be used is fruitless speculation at present.
Trespassing on Amendment No. 79, which has not yet been moved, there was a question as to whether it was appropriate to enforce warrants in places such as hospitals, educational establishments, youth clubs, places of worship and the like where people tend to congregate. I shall have more to say about that in due course when we reach Amendment No. 79, but it would be a great mistake to identify particular types of premises to which the law would not apply. It would encourage people to congregate there for invalid and illegal purposes. I do not understand how that would support the cause of good race relations.
So far as Australian illegal immigrants are concerned, I am happy to give the Committee an assurance that the Government would wish the immigration authorities to apply the law in so far as it relates to illegal immigration completely without any discrimination against any category of person, whether positively in that person's favour or negatively against that person. For that reason, I hope the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, is reassured.
I believe I have dealt with all the points that I managed to note. If not, I shall no doubt be helpfully reminded by Members of the Committee.
5 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister confirmed my interpretation of subsection (3). He confirmed that it simply adds the power of search for
1772
material evidence. If that is the case, surely the drafting of this clause is not only virtually incomprehensible (it took me a long time going through three different Acts to discover the meaning) but quite unnecessarily offensive.
I remind the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate what is meant by a "serious arrestable offence". As was said, it is treason, murder, manslaughter, rape, kidnapping and various sexual offences against children. It is also an offence that would have a consequence as specified in subsection (6) of Section 116:
"serious harm to the security of the State or to public order … serious interference with the administration of justice … the death of any person … serious injury to any person … substantial financial gain to any person; and … serious financial loss to any person".
Those criteria, like the crimes themselves that are listed as serious arrestable offences, are simply not appropriate to immigration law. They ought not to be in this Bill. If the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, pursues this amendment to a Division, I shall support her, and I shall undertake to introduce at the next stage a suitable amendment to subsection (2) of Clause 7 which will provide the power to search for evidence. That would be a much better way of dealing with this matter.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for his reply, and in particular for the very full explanation he gave of subsection (2). When he turned to subsection (3), I have to say that I found his clear statement that the Government would not accept the amendment not tantamount to an argument against it. I am still not satisfied that the amendment is other than in perfectly good order. I believe it makes perfectly good sense.
The nub of the whole argument, as the Committee knows, is whether it is appropriate, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, that immigration offences should be treated as if they were equivalent to serious offences of the most extreme kind. I think it has been the express view of the Committee in this debate that that argument simply will not hold water.
I thank very much those noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. An extremely serious point was raised by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, on the impact of all this on race relations. With respect, it was not addressed by the Minister when he replied. It is an extremely important point and has concerned many Members in this place. The noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, raised similar concerns. Again, I fear that they have not so far been adequately considered.
To turn to the police, I believe that the British record on policing is one of the great glories of this country. However, I am also well aware that some of the most distinguished commissioners, not least of the Metropolitan Police, and including the present commissioner, have themselves been deeply concerned at some incidents of racism among the police. It does not help their own case—which they have made with such strength and imagination—to pretend that there is no problem of this kind, since they themselves admit that there is. It is the duty of this place to help support commissioners of police in their attempt to try to make sure that all citizens of this country are treated alike.

1773
I thank very much the noble Lord, Lord Menuhin. He has made a tremendous contribution to this country. He came here under the very terms and generosity of previous Acts. He has been one of the most significant artistic contributors to this country of anybody in this place that I can name. I am most grateful to him for coming in to speak.
Finally, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for his kind remarks. I am grateful to him for regarding me as speaking with sincerity. I assure him that it is not sincerity that primarily motivates me. I do not want to delay the proceedings of the Committee, but let me just tell a very short story.
Some years ago I was travelling in Romania with my family on holiday. We stopped at a remote hotel in the Carpathian Mountains. It was made of concrete but was shabby and cheap. It was the only hotel to be found in that remote village. I handed over my passport, on which my occupation at that time (it was the old passport) was recorded as "Member of Parliament". The man behind the desk said to me: "Magna Carta liberorum". It is that response that has always filled me with a great sense of pride in my country—the "great charter of the free". I fear that measures such as this go a long way to undermine that reputation. It is because I wish to see that reputation upheld that I now ask the Committee to express its opinion on this amendment.
5.5 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 77) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 112; Not-Contents, 131.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Fitt,L.

Addington, L.

Gallacher, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Avebury, L.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Barnett,L.

Grey.E.

Bath,M.

Halsbury, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hamwee, B.

Berkeley, L.

Hanworth, V.

Blackstone, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Borrie, L.

Haskel, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Hayman, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Healey, L.

Carter, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Chester, Bp.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Chichester, Bp.

Hollick, L.

Clancarty, E

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

David, B.

Hughes, L.

Desai.L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L

Hylton, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Drogheda,E

Jeger, B.

Dubs, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Ezra, L.

Judd, L.

Falkender, B.

Kennet, L.

Falkland, V.

Kilbracken, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Kissin, L.

1774

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Sandwich, E

Lockwood, B.

Scanlon, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Seear, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Serota, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Shepherd, L.

McNair.L.

Simon, V,

McNally, L.

Smith, L.

Mayhew, L.

Stedman,B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Meston, L.

Strafford,E

Mishcon, L.

Tenby, V.

Monkswell, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L

Thurso, V.

Nathan, L.

Tope, L.

Nicol, B.

Tordoff, L.

Ogmore.L.

Turner of Camden,B.

Oxford, Bp.

Wallace of Coslany.L.

Peston, L.

Walpole, L.

Rea, L.

Warnock, B.

Redesdale L.

Wedderbum of Charlton, L.

Richard, L.

White, B.

Ripon, Bp.

Wigoder, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Williams of Crosby, B. [Teller.]

Rochester, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Runcie, L.

Winston, L.

Russell, E

Wright of Richmond, L.

St John of Bletso, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Geddes, L.

Ailsa,M.

Gisborough, L.

Aldington, L.

Goschen, V.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Haddington, E.

Allenby of Megiddo,V.

Haig,E.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Hardwicke, E.

Balfour.E

Harlech, L.

Bauer, L.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hemphill, L.

Blaker.L.

Henley, L.

Blatch, B.

Holdemess, L.

Boardman.L.

Hooper, B.

Bowness, L.

Hothfield, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Howe, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Brigstocke, B.

Ilchester, E.

Butterwoith, L.

Inglewood, L.

Cadman, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Kimball, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Kingsland, L.

Carnock, L.

Leigh, L.

Chalker of Wallasey.B.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E

Chelmsford, V.

Liverpool, E.

Chesham, L. [Teller]

Long, V.

Clanwilliam, E.

Lucas, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Coleridge, L.

Lyell, L.

Courtown, E.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Cranbome, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Mackay of Clashfem, L. [Lord Chancellor]

Dacre of Glanton, L.

DeL'Isle,V.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Marlesford, L.

Denton of Wakefield.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Dilhorne, V.

Merrivale, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Mersey, V.

Eden of Winton, L

Miller of Hendon,B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Milverton, L.

Elton, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Monson, L.

Gainford, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Gainsborough, E.

Mottistone, L.

Gardner of Parkes.B.

Mountgarret, V.

1775

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Seccombe, B.

Moyne, L.

Selbome, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Nelson, E.

Sherfield, L.

Newall.L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Northesk,E.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Stewartby, L.

Oxfuird,V.

Stockton, E.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Strange, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Pender, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Sudeley, L.

Pym, L.

Swinfen, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Teviot, L.

Rawlings, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Rees, L.

Trumpington, B.

Rennell, L.

Vivian, L.

Renton, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Renwick, L.

Wise, L.

Saltoun of Abemethy, Ly.

Wynford, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.15 p.m.
[Amendment No. 78 not moved.]
The Lord Bishop of Ripon The Lord Bishop of Ripon moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 5, line 43, at end insert ("and "premises" has the same meaning as in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, save that it does not include a hospital (as defined in section 128 of the National Health Service Act 1977), bona fide educational establishment or place of worship").
The right reverend Prelate said: Amendment No. 79 seeks to limit the meaning of the word "premises". The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has already commented that two powers are given under Clause 7; that is, the power to enter and arrest and the power to enter and search.
The institutions mentioned in the amendment are of a specific kind. I was moved by the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Menuhin, on the debate on Amendment No. 77 and by what he said about this country being a country of humane behaviour. Each of the institutions mentioned in the amendment—a hospital, a bone fide educational establishment and a place of worship—have specific uses. A hospital is a place of healing; a bona fide educational establishment is a place of learning; and a place of worship speaks for itself. Those activities are such that they do not sit easily with the intrusive powers given under Clause 7. Those powers are not only intrusive; they may also be violent.
One of the powers is the power of arrest. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, conjured up a picture of somebody walking along a street, realising that he is about to be arrested and fleeing into one of those institutions. I find it difficult to see how that could happen in practice and, indeed, how the institution would receive him. If a man fled into a place of worship, would not the act of worship come to an end and those taking part in due course leave? The place of worship, in many cases, may be locked up for the night. I find it difficult to see how refuge could be sought by anybody for more than a momentary period.
The power of search also is not appropriate. Again one must ask what kind of evidence is being searched for. What could one be looking for in a place of worship? Other than lists of members, what could one find in a place of worship? What could one be looking for in a hospital, other than medical records? Those institutions are such that their activities sit uneasily with the powers afforded by the clause.
It is because I have that sense of uneasiness about the activities of entering, searching and arresting taking place that I tabled the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I rise briefly to support the amendment. I hope that the Government will consider carefully whether they might yield on this relatively limited provision. I have said already and say again that I fear that if Clause 7 is accepted unamended, we in this Chamber will live to rue the day. I hope that the Government will consider whether they can concede on the matter.
Churches have been places of asylum and safety throughout history, even in countries which have records of dictatorships. It would be a great shame if in this country places of worship did not retain that reputation of not being like other places—places of asylum, places of peace and places where people may go from the rush and conflict of the world. I very much hope that the Government will consider yielding on this amendment and coming back at Report stage with appropriate wording. I support the right reverend Prelate.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I oppose the amendment. We had the debate on this point when we discussed the previous amendment. No matter how emotional we might feel about a church as a place of asylum—I agree with that—the amendment, apart from perhaps filling those empty churches again, would have a dangerous effect. It would mean that anyone could exploit what would not be a small loophole but a huge loophole. These premises could cover an almost unlimited number of people. Just to pop inside one of those places and then find yourself completely protected from the Act is in terms of practicality just not on. I oppose the amendment.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I oppose the amendment. I am a communicant member of the Church of England. I think it most extraordinary that the right reverend Prelate should have moved an amendment which might have the effect of making churches, some of which are open all night and into which people go for prayer and meditation, into refuges for those who wish to evade the police or conceal evidence. That is an extraordinary thing and would be a great disservice to organised religion.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am not a communicant member of the Church of England or any Church, but the noble and learned Lord in his capacity

1777
as a communicant member should recognise that not under common law but under canon law churches are places of sanctuary for all crimes.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: They ought not to be.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: They are.
Viscount Brentford: My concern about the amendment is that it is too far-ranging. I hope that my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate might consider whether, having won the Division on the previous amendment, he could not revise the wording so as to retain the power of search but remove before Report stage what was offensive to many of us—the draconian powers. I would much rather him be prepared to consider that than to accept the amendment, which would create an enormous number of refuges scattered around the country which would be very difficult to handle.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: As a church warden of a small but very lovely church in Hampshire, I would be very upset indeed at the idea of that church being used as a shelter for criminal articles or articles required by the criminal law. Therefore, I very much hope that the Committee will emphatically reject the amendment.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: As a contemporary of two of the previous speakers—we are three of the oldest in the House—and also a communicant of the Church of England, I am strongly in favour of churches retaining what they have always had, which is to be places of refuge. That does not mean that other institutions should have the same right.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: As we are all disclosing our ecclesiastical antecedents, perhaps I should indicate that I am not a member of the Church of England. My father was a seventh generation minister in Scotland and my great-uncle was James Moffatt, who translated the Bible.
I genuinely suggest that the amendment would be entirely counterproductive for the purposes of generating good race relations in this country. No doubt from time to time those who are liable to be arrested in terms of the provisions of the Bill and of the 1971 Act will have to go to hospitals, educational establishments and places of worship for entirely bona fide purposes. But all these institutions are ones where people can come and go at will. The idea that the legislation should in some way encourage them to go there and to remain there for purposes which are not bona fide is one which I invite the Committee to resist.
As with all the provisions of the Bill, the police will have to exercise their powers with moderation. There have been cases where they have not and the courts have required chief constables to pay the price for that. During the Division the right reverend Prelate who mentioned the case of A informed me that A had successfully sued for damages. There is no reason to believe that chief constables would allow, let alone
1778
encourage, their officers in any sense to misuse, abuse or recklessly employ the powers which the Bill seeks to give them. But if large institutions such as hospitals, educational establishments and some churches could allow people to go there, keep belongings there and stay there for reasons which are not bona fide, I suggest that that would not assist the cause which, from a different perspective, we are all seeking to achieve—better race relations in this country. For those reasons I sincerely hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: I am grateful to those noble Lords who have spoken in this brief debate. I am a little sorry that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, and the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, whose wisdom I respect enormously, should not have a little more sense of the tradition of the Church. Churches are, as other noble Lords have said, not simply places of beauty but also of justice. The tradition of refuge is a long and honourable one. I find some of the pictures conjured up by noble Lords a little improbable—hordes of people rushing to the enclave of a church to live indefinitely there. I find it difficult to see how they would be supported, how they could continue there or what kind of life it would be if they were to remain there. I find the whole picture very improbable. I believe that some noble Lords have not sufficiently taken on board the point I made about the mismatch between the activities which take place in these institutions and the intrusion and violence which are involved in the clauses of the Bill. However, I was grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for his statement that moderation will always be used. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 7 shall stand part of the Bill?
Earl Russell: I should like first to say something entirely non-partisan. It is dangerously easy in politics in any century to impute to people who are doing things the motives that one would have had oneself if one had done those things. That is of course not the case because other people do not have the same assessment of facts as we do. So when they do things, they very often do not do them for the motives for which we would have done them had we done such things.
I heard what the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, had to say about the Prime Minister. I agree with it. I remember the Prime Minister on "Breakfast with Frost" during the Conservative leadership election saying that the Conservative Party is a party of tolerance. I take off my hat to him for saying that at that moment. I have never said that this Bill is an attempt to play the race card. What I do say is that, on my assessment of the facts, I believe the Bill has a racist effect. But I do not in any way credit the Government or their supporters with intending that effect because I accept that they do not believe it is the effect.
It is also inevitable in the course of opposing the Question that Clause 7 stand part that I shall have to make some remarks which appear critical of the police.

1779
I agree with everything my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby said about the standard of British policing. It is for a very large part of the time admirable, and I take off my hat to it. On the police, I say not a word more or less than Sir Paul Condon has said. He said:
"Every effort was made during the recruitment process to weed out those with racist tendencies. However, we are made up of a wide cross-section of people and in any force of 28,000 people there will be officers who slip through the net".
That is all I am saying. All the examples I shall give are intended to illustrate no more than that proposition.
I am concerned about the temptation which this clause will give to those officers and the amount of reciprocal fear, anger and suspicion that will be generated in the black community in particular by the exercise of those powers. Those of us who take a liberal view of these matters are occasionally reproached in the press for living in leafy suburbs and knowing nothing whatever about the subject. I do not live in a leafy suburb. I live in the London Borough of Brent which, I believe, has the highest concentration of ethnic minorities of any local authority area in Britain.
I do know a little about what I am saying. I am concerned with the way in which powers are being exercised already. The power to arrest on suspicion is a fairly draconian power. Some Members of the Committee may remember what happened in Brixton in 1981 and the comments made on that in the Scarman Report. It seems that the troubles arose very largely from the operation of the old "sus" laws—the power to arrest on suspicion. I do not want to see that happen again.
We should look at the figures given by Mr. David Maclean in a Written Answer and supplied to me by the Library. As regards police searches—that is, stopping and searching people in the street—in the Metropolitan Police area in 1994–95 there were 189,928 searches of white persons and 112,763 searches of non-white persons. Our non-white population is not such a high proportion of the population of the metropolitan area. I have not worked out the figures, but I believe that the disproportion will be admitted on all sides.
In my local papers, the Kilburn Times and the Willesden and Brent Chronicle, articles on 4th March gave figures supplied by the police themselves. For searches, 1,598 white suspects were stopped by the police in Kilburn—that is 24 out of every 1,000 people—while 2,334 black people were stopped or 99 out of every 1,000. That is a considerable disproportion. I do not believe that the white population of Kilburn is so utterly law abiding as to justify that sort of discrepancy.
It is in that context that I feel very considerable apprehension about conferring on the police—not just on the large majority of good and trustworthy officers but on all police—the power to arrest on suspicion. That power has been used in some fairly extreme ways. Perhaps I may give one example of a pregnant Nigerian woman. She was arrested and taken to the police station. She was a British subject. When the Home Office immigration officer arrived and
1780
confirmed that she was perfectly legally in this country and that there was no problem at all, the constable, in explaining why he arrested her, said, "She appeared not to be native English horn".
The Bill uses the word "immigrant". I am not one of those who go in for making gibes about ministerial cars. Ministers have to get about and I know how heavy those boxes may be on occasions. But it is a pity that they do not hear the great British taxi driver nearly as often as we do, because in his ears the word "immigrant" means "black". So if the police are authorised to stop and search on suspicion, it will be very widely taken as the power to stop and search blacks. That is the point.
Another example is that of the police who raided a house early one morning, acting on suspicion that illegal entrants might live there. The person they found was naturalised, was granted indefinite leave to remain and had a Home Office letter authorising him to be here. He also had a British passport application. The police recognised none of those documents. It is the usual problem that the police are not competent on immigration status. The man worked on a night shift. He was taken to the police station and held during the hours when he should have been working. He begged the police to inform his employer, whom he was afraid might sack him, why he was not at work. The police did not do so.
There has been talk about fear. I entirely accept that the Joy Gardner case does not come within the terms of this clause, but what does is the reaction that that case has produced within the black community. In April 1994 there was the case of Kwanela Siziba who died after falling from the 12th floor of her block of flats. She thought that the police had come to her home to arrest her on immigration issues. She told her sister that she thought she would receive the same treatment as Joy Gardner. In fact, the police were accompanying a bailiff, and not on an immigration issue at all.
The Minister may say that that was an irrational fear, but we are dealing with human beings who occasionally have irrational fears, especially if there is a headline case of that kind, which may seem to justify them. Inevitably, the police will act on "information received", as the phrase goes. That means that the police will, on occasion, be acting at the instigation of an informer. There are certain people in this country, some of them members of the British National Party or other such unpleasant organisations, who are capable of giving such information maliciously. Of those cases where the police have acted on the information of an informer, only 18 per cent. in the past year have turned out to be genuine. I ask the noble Baroness this question: is that one of the Home Secretary's policing objectives and, if not, should we be concentrating more police time on things which are, and which must be, part of the policing objectives of the Home Office such as the prevention of burglary?
This is not the first time that such a provision allowing informers free rein against a particular group of people has been allowed. When the heresy laws

1781
were revived by Mary Tudor in 1554, she set up a procedure whereby a great deal of the work was done locally, instigated through informers, and carried through by the local justices of the peace. Mary Tudor herself—and we have this under her own hand—intended only to burn a few learned heretics as an example to the others. However, once public suspicion and public hatred had got the information network going, the web of suspicion inflamed, together with the idea that it was open season on Protestants. As a result she acquired the nickname "Bloody Mary" which, on her own record, she did not deserve.
Yet again, just a few years later, when Queen Elizabeth I passed a new witchcraft statute, it again worked by the operation of informers. That is how the word "witchhunt" came to be proverbial—it relied on informers in neighbourhood feuds. In one case a woman was accused of being a witch by her next-door neighbour who said, "She is making a witch's circle underneath my window". The defendant's response was, "I am not making a witch's circle; I am making a shitting house". At once, all became clear.
There are innumerable garden-fence hatreds. If we allow those to waste police time in the hunt for illegal immigrants when perhaps no offence has been committed, we shall have another witch hunt. The Government do not want that any more than I do, but if they keep this clause in the Bill I believe that that is what they will get. I oppose the Question that Clause 7 stand part of the Bill.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I believe that the clause should stand part of the Bill. I do not think that I need to trouble the Committee by going through its terms in detail because they have already been debated at some length. I bow to the noble Earl's knowledge of history, which may include knowledge of one of my ecclesiastical ancestors, Donald Sage, who preached his last sermon in a church in Strathnaver before he and his parishioners were cleared out and the church burned on the instructions of a Member of your Lordships' House. I do not believe that reference to that incident should cause me any fear about what might happen to the church at which my father served in Edinburgh before he died.
There is a slight danger in using such analogies and saying that they have some application to the legislation, and in particular to this clause which the Government seek to include in the Bill, and in suggesting that, whatever the Government's motives, the practical effect of the legislation will be racist because the proposed measures are draconian. We all have to be careful about the terms that we use in supporting or criticising this legislation. I invite the Committee to recognise that the provisions of the clause do no more than set down in perfectly clear terms, which are well understood by police officers, lawyers, and those who preside over courts of law, how warrants for arrest should be obtained and how warrants to search for evidence should be obtained and enforced.
1782
There have no doubt been occasions when officers have slipped through the net and become members of a force when one would rather that they had not. No doubt there are officers who, during the course of their career, do things they ought not to do. However, all chief constables throughout the United Kingdom, and particularly in the metropolitan area of London, are well aware of the importance of having codes of practice and disciplinary procedures and of providing regular guidance to officers on the way in which that part of their duties should be performed. Unfortunate incidents have occurred from time to time and no doubt they fall to be further investigated. Where people have erred, they ought to be disciplined, and damages are occasionally awarded. However, it is dangerous to suggest that because there have been such incidents there should not be any law to arrest people even where there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence has been committed; and it is dangerous to suggest that there should be no law on the seizing of evidence which may help to establish one way or another whether a person is guilty of the offence as charged.
That is all part of the firm and fair immigration policy which the Government seek to promote for the benefit of those who have the right to be here, who are genuine asylum seekers, and who are entitled to remain in this country. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Earl Russell: I think that I was offering rather more than an analogy. I was offering the invocation and the use of informers against a certain marked and denigrated proportion of the population of this country. That has taken place in the discussion of this Bill—not all of it in Parliament, some of it in the press. But it has most undoubtedly taken place. The process which is operating is an identical process. That is all I wanted to say.
I accept that the police must be able to get evidence. However, to give them the power to arrest on suspicion when there are so many cases where that power has been misused is extremely unwise. The noble and learned Lord said on the previous amendment that there have been cases where the police have not behaved as they should. I think that there are more of those cases than he thinks. Such cases create a reaction within the black community and have a multiplier effect. It is like ripples on a pond which get bigger because there is a wind which whips them up. So even one incident—even if it is small, and even if it did not actually happen—is dangerous. Let us take, for example, the alleged violence to Mr. Wayne Douglas in the police station in Brixton fairly recently which, it seems, did not take place. Anything which inflames suspicion is likely to get us into a very dangerous situation. I have read the Scarman Report on the Brixton troubles. I do not want to see anything like that happen again. That is why I oppose Clause 7.
5.46 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 7 shall stand part of the Bill:
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 132; Not-Contents, 64.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Kingsland, L.

Addison, V.

Kinnoull,E.

Ailsa,M.

Leigh, L.

Aldington, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Liverpool, E.

Ashboume, L.

Long, V.

Astor of Hever, L.

Lucas, L.

Balfour, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Bauer, L.

Lyell, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L

Blaker, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Blatch, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.].

Boardman, L.

Bowness, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Merrivale, L.

Brentford, V.

Mersey, V.

Cadman, L.

Miller of Hendon,B.

Caithness, E.

Milverton, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Campbell of Croy.L.

Monson, L.

Camock, L.

Mottistone, L.

Chalker of Wallasey.B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Murton of Lindisfame, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Nelson, E.

Clanwilliam, E.

Newall, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Nome, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Northesk,E.

Coleridge, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Courtown, E.

Oxfuird,V.

Craig of Radley, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Cranbome, V. [LordPrivy Seal]

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Peel, E.

Cumberlege, B.

Plumb, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Prior, L.

DeL'Isle,V.

Pym, L.

Demon of Wakefield,B.

Quinton, L.

Dilhome, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Rawlings, B.

Eden of Winton, L.

Rees, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Rennell, L.

Elton, L.

Renton, L.

Rather, B.

Renwick, L.

Fraser of Carmy Ilie, L.

Rodney, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Saint Albans, D.

Gisborough, L.

Saltoun of Abemethy, Ly.

Goschen, V.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Hacking, L.

Seccombe, B.

Haddington, E

Selbome, E

Haig, E.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Sherfield, L.

Halsbury.E.

Simon, V.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Skelmersdale.L.

Harlech, L.

Smith, L.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L

Harvington, L.

Stewartby, L.

Hemphill, L.

Strange, B.

Henley, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Holdemess, L.

Hooper, B.

Sudeley, L.

Howe, E.

Swinfen L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Inglewood L.

Thurlow, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Trumpington, B.

1784

Vivian, L.

Wilcox, B.

Wamock, B.

Wise, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Wynford, L

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Lockwood, B.

Avebmy, L.

Longford, E.

Bath,M.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

McNair, L.

Berkeley, L.

Mayhew, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Meston, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Monkswell, L.

Chester, Bp.

Nicol, B.

Chichester, Bp.

Ogmore, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Oxford, Bp.

David, B.

Rea, L.

Desai, L.

Redesdale, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Ripon, Bp.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Ezra, L.

Rochester, L.

Falkland, V.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Runcie, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Russell, E [Teller]

Grey, E.

Sandwich, E.

Hamwee, B.

Seear, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Shepherd, L.

Hayman, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Healey, L.

Thurso, V.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Tope, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Tordoff, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hughes, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Walpole, L.

Hylton, L.

White, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wigoder, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Williams of Crosby, B. [Teller]

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 7 agreed to accordingly.
5.55 p.m.
Clause 8 [Restrictions on employment]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 6, line 3, leave out from ("employs") to ("the") in line 4 and insert ("a person ("the employee") who has attained the age of 16 and who requires leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom under the Immigration Act 1971 and who does not have either such leave or some other permission enabling him to take up the employment in question,").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 80, I speak also to Amendment No. 82. Clause 8 is concerned with the prevention of illegal working. The issue here is the creation of a new criminal offence of employing an, illegal immigrant. Before I come to the very serious deficiencies of the clause in terms of its content, I protest in the strongest possible terms—in other words, in the form of this amendment—against the use of the word "immigrant" in this clause, in Clauses 9 and 10 and in the definition in Clause 12. I remind the Committee that Clause 12(2) defines an immigrant 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)".
In other words, for the purposes of this Bill "immigrant" includes people who have a perfect right to be in this country and may well have a perfect right to work in

1785
this country. It is a principle of our law that those who have a right to be in this country are subject to the same law as those born here or who have hereditary links. For the purposes of legislation, to define a person differently from others because he requires leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, even though he has that leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, is profoundly offensive. It is also extremely confusing. If one turns back to Clause 8 and looks at "immigrant" in the second line on page 6, one finds that the clause provides:
"… an immigrant ('the employee') who has attained the age of 16 and is not one to whom subsection (2) below applies, the employer shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) This subsection applies to an immigrant if either—

(a) he has been granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, and the leave is valid and subsisting and is not subject to a condition precluding him from taking up the employment in question; or

(b) he satisfies such other conditions as may be specified in an order made by the Secretary of State".

That defines "immigrant", in the terms of Clause 12, as a person who may well have a right to be in this country and to work in this country. The situation is changed by subsection (2), which provides that the person may be subject to a condition—it is all in the negative, just to make things worse—that precludes him from taking up employment. It goes on to compound the confusion by referring to other conditions that may be specified in an order made by the Secretary of State. I remind your Lordships that this clause is to be the basis upon which employers have to decide whether or not a person whom they employ is entitled to be employed by them. If they make the wrong judgment they will be guilty of a criminal offence. That criminal offence will cost them up to £5,000 in fines (level 5 on the standard scale). It applies not only to the employer as an organisation but, under subsections (5) and (6), to directors, managers, secretaries or others who act on behalf of the employer. It is an extremely serious matter for an employer if he makes a wrong judgment or a mistake in defining whom he is entitled to employ. Yet the Bill as drafted defines an immigrant in that broad way. It then says that the person is an employee who has attained the age of 16, which is not something that was in the original definition. The clause then provides that it does not apply to two categories of people. The first is someone who:
"is not subject to a condition precluding him from taking up the employment".
The clause then introduces the further conclusion of an order made by the Secretary of State, which we have not yet seen.
So in every way the clause is drafted in order to make it as difficult as possible for an employer to understand it and apply it effectively. Its drafting is profoundly wrong, and it is profoundly wrong in principle, because as soon as we start to describe as immigrants people who have the right to be here and may have the right to work here we are starting to say that there are two different kinds of people in this country and two different kinds of law applying to them.
The CRE has estimated that on the definition in Clause 12 about a quarter of the people who belong to ethnic minority groups in this country will fall within the category of immigrants. What will employers do to avoid trouble? First, they will stop interviewing them, and then they will stop employing them. That is the easy, safe way out of the complications which the Bill is placing on them.
No, we should not have the word "immigrant". We do not need the word "immigrant". Amendment No. 80 gives a good definition of what is intended by the clause without in any way changing the meaning of the clause. It states that the person is an employee:
"who has attained the age of 16 and who requires leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom under the Immigration Act 1971 and who does not have either such leave or some other permission enabling him to take up the employment in question".
Every employer can understand that. Few employers will understand the complex, paradoxical, and self-contradictory formulation which the Government have chosen in the Bill. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): I should remind the Committee that if this amendment should be agreed to I shall be unable to call Amendment No. 81.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I am pleased to support the amendment. I should like to add one or two arguments to those which the noble Lord has so ably put before the Committee. The first argument is that this clause as it stands, without amendment, puts employers in an almost hopeless position. Let us assume that employers intend fully to carry out the law as it stands. With one voice the law tells employers that they have an obligation to treat people of all races equally: to offer equal opportunities, indeed that they will themselves be in breach of the law if they do not offer those equal opportunities. Employers—I give credit to them—have in many ways led the attempt to get good race relations in this country. There are some outstanding examples of fine employers who have done their very best to promote men and women from the ethnic minorities to positions of responsibility and trust. Many of them have had a great deal of good service from those very same people.
The race relations law and the law of equal opportunities have served this country well. Many employers, especially small ones, are under such pressure that they cannot be expected to go in great detail through complex administrative forms. We are now telling employers that if they inadvertently employ someone who says to them that he or she has every right to be employed, and is in fact a black or Asian Briton, who then turns out not to be legally in this country, they will not be committing a civil offence—that is something I would understand—but a criminal offence. By this clause, we are criminalising decent employers.
Again, as I said on the last clause, I do not understand why we are so widening the reach of criminality to men and women who are decent citizens. It is a foolish thing to do. It turns away from support of the Government

1787
and the state men and women whose intentions are to obey the law. First, we put employers in this impossible position. They are asked to obey two laws which are, to a great extent, in conflict, because, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, if we look closely at the Bill and the schedules we will find the requirements laid upon employers to determine what it is to be beyond one's leave to remain; to be outwith the conditions laid down; to be, in that sense, out of line with immigration law. It will require a highly sophisticated person to be able to interpret those provisions. It is always bad to produce laws which are hard for people to obey because they are hard for them to understand. That is the first part of my case in support of the noble Lord.
The second part of my case is that the great threat to good race relations in this country comes, above all, from the levels of unemployment among young black and Asian men and women. That level of unemployment is broadly twice that of the white community. For young Caribbean men, it approaches 20 per cent. That means that many a young lad who comes out of school seeking a job—sadly many are seeking only unskilled or semi-skilled work—with every intention of leading a decent and law-abiding life, who already finds it difficult to obtain a job, will find it very much harder to obtain a job if the clause goes through unamended, because, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, many employers—I do not wish to suggest any bad intentions—will play safe by not employing someone who happens to have a different coloured skin. One cannot blame them when they run the risk of facing a serious criminal charge if they happen to employ that person.
My final point was made eloquently by the noble Lord. Sooner or later we shall have to move away from the term "immigrant" when used in relation to our black and Asian fellow citizens. They are our fellow citizens. Some of them are Members of this place and another place. Some of them play a distinguished part on the appointed bodies of this country. Unless we get out of our minds, and the minds of many of our fellow citizens, the idea that someone who has lived in this country for a generation, two generations or more is somehow alien because of the colour of their skin, we shall never be a successful multi-faith, multi-racial society, and it is important that we should be.
I conclude with the thought that that is not important for our country only, though it matters a great deal. It is important because one of the areas where this country still wields a great deal of influence is within the Commonwealth. Many citizens of Commonwealth countries have different coloured skins from those in our country. Countries such as South Africa, Zambia, India, Sri Lanka, and others, which look upon our country with friendship and wish to maintain close relations with us, will regard the way in which we treat race relations in this country as the acid test of our relations with them. Much more than our own country is at stake. It is our country's reputation, its relationship with the rest of the
1788
world, and its influence on the rest of the world that I believe are being jeopardised by what seems to me to be unnecessary and foolish clauses.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I shall speak against the amendment, although I have sympathy with the point made. I do not know how many other Members of this place are, like me, immigrants as defined under Clause 12. I rather like being known as an immigrant. I often use that term about myself. However, I understand the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that people have sensitivities about it. If we are going to mix up legal and illegal immigrants, there may be cause for the Government to look at that again. The next two amendments may he even more relevant.
I believe that it is important to have employment as a condition. I sit on an industrial tribunal and a few weeks ago I was amazed by a case that came before it. The applicant did not appear and I thought that there must be a good reason for that. The employer had the case heard in the applicant's absence and he told us that the man had presented for employment under one name but a week later had said that that was not his name and gave another name. He said that he would like to work under a work permit in yet a third name. The employer said, "Of course, I always have someone working in the name on that work permit. They have always been different faces and different people but the work permit has always been used".
The employer could not use that as a defence under the provisions of Clause 8 because he must have known that the documents were false if they were used by different people. Therefore, it is important to have proper restrictions on employers. I repeat that if we all had identity cards, we would have no problem because we would have only one identity and that would be the end of the matter.
I believe that there is serious exploitation of illegal immigrants who work almost on a slave basis for low wages. The clause would not allow people to get away with treating others as they do. Some people, because of their illegal status, are willing to work for anything and there is no sanction against the employer. The clause would provide a sanction against the employer because he must ensure that the employee has a proper work permit and works under good and fair conditions. In many cases that is not so, but we never see those employees in the industrial tribunals because they are in illegal employment.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, mentioned the age limit of 16 and that reminded me of another case that I heard in the industrial tribunal. We would have found in favour of the applicant because the case concerned a boy working under age and unable to be considered under employment law—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. I did not mention the age of 16; it appears in the Bill. Nothing in my amendment changes any of the powers in the Bill. It is

1789
entirely a drafting amendment designed to remove confusion and to correct an unnecessary and divisive label.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I thank the noble Lord. I leave the Government to decide whether the amendment is appropriate. I am emphasising the extreme importance of having proper employment restrictions in the Bill. It should be a criminal offence to employ someone illegally. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, mentioned the age of 16 and said that it had not appeared in other Bills.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Perhaps I misunderstood. I thought that he said that reference has not previously been made to the age of 16. One cannot have employment law relating to people under the age of 16 because they are not employable. Good employment protection would mean that people must abide by the law, which would be to our advantage.
I conclude by saying that I am proud to be an immigrant, but I can understand that people may have different reactions and I take the noble Lord's point.
Lord Avebury: As regards the age criterion in the clause, presumably it would be a defence for an employer charged under the Bill to say that he thought the employee was under 16. He would then be caught by other legislation but not by this Bill. He would be fined, or otherwise penalised, for employing the person under the permitted age, but he would escape from the penalties provided in the Bill for taking on someone who is illegally present or who is legally present but without leave to take employment.
I share the view expressed by my noble friend that to have the word "immigrant" on the face of an Act of Parliament is highly offensive to many people in this country and it should be avoided if at all possible. If the Government had put their minds to the matter it would have been feasible to have chosen a totally different way of catching the evil at which we are looking. I refer to the deliberate employment of people illegally in this country and sometimes at extremely low wages. Some employers are unscrupulous and employ such people, in some cases, virtually as slave labour. No one is condoning that or seeking to prevent the Government assuming adequate powers to stop employers exploiting such people in the way that has been described.
When one looks at the ways in which employers must comply with the provisions of the clause it is difficult to see why that could not have been spelt out on the face of the Bill. In the consultation document we read that the most straightforward check is that of a national insurance number. A P.45, which has a national insurance number on it, would provide an employer with an absolute defence against a charge under this clause. If we provided that, on taking on a new employee, every employer must see a P.45 on which there is a valid national insurance number, we would be putting the
1790
condition that is to be imposed under the consultation document on the face of the Bill and we would be avoiding the necessity of referring to "immigrant".
It would mean that employers must look at the P.45 of every employee to see whether it contains a valid national insurance number. The cost of compliance with the provisions of the clause are estimated in the Home Office document, Prevention of Illegal Working: Compliance Cost Assessment, at £13.5 million initially and £11.5 million in recurrent costs. If we are looking at the absolute defence of checking a national insurance number I do not see that that is an onerous requirement to place on a potential employer—
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Of course, one has a P.45 only if one has had previous employment. School leavers are given an equivalent document but those newly arrived in the country do not have national insurance numbers—I did not when I arrived in this country—and it takes some time to obtain one. Therefore, I am not sure that the case is exactly as the noble Lord believes it to be.
Lord Avebury: I was about to turn to that point. If someone has moved from one job to another he will have a P.45. Until now there has been no obligation on a previous employer to enter the national insurance number on that document. However, there will be such an obligation and once that is done it will be an absolute defence to a charge against an employer that he has taken on an illegal entrant or someone not qualified under the clause to say that he looked at that document and it appeared to contain a valid national insurance number.
I leave aside the issue on which the Minister may wish to comment in replying to the amendment because it was covered at length in the other place. It was that there are in circulation in the system many fraudulent national insurance numbers. I understand that an employer has no obligation to check with the Department of Social Security to see that the number on the P.45 is not fraudulent. The presence of the number on the form is an absolute defence.
But if the person was not in previous employment then, as the noble Baroness pointed out correctly, he has no national insurance number and has to present another document. Those documents are specified in the prevention of illegal working compliance costs assessment document as being a British birth certificate or passport showing the holder to be a British citizen, a European Economic Area passport, a passport or other travel document endorsed to show that the person is settled in the United Kingdom or a certificate of registration or naturalisation as a British citizen.
Therefore, I am suggesting that if we spelt out the presentation of those documents within the clause or within a redrafted Clause 8, we should not need to use the word "immigrant" at all. Employers would have to demand that they see one or more of those documents—the primary document being the P.45 with a national insurance number on it—but in default of the presentation of that document, any one of the four other documents specified by the Home Office.

1791
If that is done, it would remove many of the anxieties which are present in the minds of employers. On reading the Bill, many of them will ask how they are supposed to satisfy themselves that a person asking for a job falls within the terms of the Bill.
It also gets round the danger that employers may be tempted to employ preferentially people who look as though they are born here because they have a white skin. If an employer is told that in every single case that he must look for such proof as is mentioned in the Prevention of Illegal Working document then there would be no discrimination at all. The employer asks first for the P.45 and if that is not presented, whether the person is black, white or any other colour he will say, "Let me see your birth certificate". That is not an onerous requirement to place on employers or jobseekers. If the person is born here and lived here all his life, he will have no difficulty in producing his birth certificate. If he comes from another European country, he will be able to produce a European Economic Area identity document, and so on.
In all those cases, the employer is asked to look at a single piece of paper and the job applicant must present one of those documents. I believe that we should delete the whole of Clause 8 and incorporate the definition of illegal working criteria on the face of the Bill. We should not then need to define the word "immigrant", and we should not need to have any of the fears of racism which have been spoken about. Employers would be happy because they would know precisely what was required of them and employees would know exactly which documents to produce.
The Earl of Balfour: I am intrigued by the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, because I have the impression that it would exclude overseas students on a student visa from being allowed to obtain any employment in this country at all.
Baroness Blatch: No. There is no problem for somebody with a bona fide reason for being here, whether he has a student visa or whatever, so long as he has a right to work here. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, spoke specifically to his amendment which deals with the sensitive and difficult issue of the word "immigrant". I wish to address the import of that amendment.
We are aware that unease has been expressed about the use of the word "immigrant" in this Bill. Strictly speaking, it is a perfectly neutral word, as my noble friend said, and it has been used simply as a way of referring to a person who is subject to immigration control. The use of this term does not in any way affect anyone's immigration status. In particular, contrary to one criticism which has been expressed, there is nothing in the Bill which affects the immigration status of people who are settled here; in other words, those who have indefinite leave to remain.
However, we now accept, in the light of the debate which has taken place both in this Chamber and elsewhere that, however irrationally, the word "immigrant" is perceived by some as having a pejorative
1792
connotation. It has been suggested that its use could give rise to anxieties among minority communities. That is the last thing we wish to happen.
We recognise also that the term might be seen by the layman as referring to anyone who has come here from abroad to live, rather than only to a person who requires leave to enter or remain under the 1971 Immigration Act. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary and I met recently the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon, who is not at present in his place. The right reverend Prelate set out his concerns about a number of aspects of the Bill, including the use of the term "immigrant". On reflection we have found the right reverend Prelate's argument on this point compelling. We have also taken account of the representations which the Commission for Racial Equality has made to us. I shall reflect also on what has been said in this debate.
We therefore intend to bring forward on Report government amendments which will remove the term "immigrant" from it and replace it with a term which avoids giving rise to the concerns which have been expressed.
Amendments Nos. 81, 82 and 83 are defective, and if the Committee wishes me to, I can point out some of the problems.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: In the light of what the Minister has said—which is most welcome—I shall clearly not press the amendments. If she wishes to humiliate me by pointing out the defects, she is welcome to do so.
Baroness Blatch: No, that is the last thing that I want to do. The government amendments will address references to the word "immigrant" in Clauses 9, 10 and 12 in addition to Clause 8. Although Amendments Nos. 81 and 83 are not grouped with these amendments, my response to them would be the same. The Government will respond to Amendments Nos. 81, 82 and 83 on Report. I hope that in the light of that, the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is extremely good news. In his absence, I congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon on contributing to that change of heart. The Minister will have to make alterations to the Long Title of the Bill as well as to Clause 12.
I hope that from that will come the possibility of achieving the other object of the amendment; namely, to simplify the guidance or the law to be imposed on employers. As I made clear, it is not just a matter of the use of the word "immigrant". It is the fact that the word "immigrant" is defined in Clause 12, defined more narrowly in Clause 8 and redefined more narrowly in a different way—in other words, leaving it to the discretion of the Secretary of State—in Clauses 9 and 10. Therefore, the Government will need to do more than merely change the use of the word "immigrant" if the second intended benefit of my amendment is to be achieved; namely, to simplify the way in which the law is presented to employers.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, first, I shall reflect carefully on what the noble Lord has said in the course

1793
of this debate. It may be that he has particular suggestions to make to me on this matter between now and Report. I believe that the noble Lord said that he does not wish to change the substance of any part of the Bill in that respect. We shall address that and we shall look at the drafting in the course of that. I hope that I can inform by letter all interested Members of the Committee what is to be the import of the government amendments to be moved on Report. But I shall certainly reflect on the drafting.
Finally, we are concerned about the way in which employers are expected to understand the importance of Clause 8. We shall produce guidance to make it as clear as possible. We want both the legislation and the guidance to be clear so that this Act does not add to burdens on employers.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Hylton: Would it not be helpful to set out the acceptable and relevant documents in a schedule to the Bill?
Baroness Blatch: My understanding is that we shall be setting them out in an order.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: Perhaps I may speak on behalf of my colleague the Lord Bishop of Ripon who has been in the Chamber until recently and will be returning very shortly. I should like to thank the Minister on his behalf, and on behalf of many people outside this place who are concerned about the matter, for being so receptive. She has indeed given us very good news.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I should also like to express my thanks to the Minister. However, I have one further request to make as regards the administration of this part of the clause. Will the Minister consider the possibility of undertaking a certain amount of study when the Bill has become enacted after, say, a year of its operation, to ascertain whether the advice has been understood by employers and whether they believe the legislation is working well; and, indeed, whether it is clear as to who can and who cannot be accepted safely?
As the Minister knows, there has not been a great deal of study and research on the matter. There has, of course, been a little by the Institute for Public Policy Research, but there has been a great deal more in the United States, some of which has been quite disturbing in terms of employers' fear of such legislation. It would be most helpful if the Minister could at least consider the possibility of some research being carried out by the Home Office on the matter when the legislation has had a chance to operate for a while.
Baroness Blatch: I am attracted to the request made by the noble Baroness, although I cannot at present commit the Government to very specific research. However, I can tell the noble Baroness that we certainly wish to monitor the legislation because we know that there are anxieties about it. Indeed, it represents a new
1794
burden on employers and we want to be certain that it is not too burdensome for them and that it is well understood; and understood for good reason.
However, if the legislation is not working, we shall very soon become aware of that fact. Indeed, employers will certainly be fairly vocal in articulating just how it is not working if that proves to be the case. Certainly, in principle, we shall want to monitor the situation but I shall have to come back to the noble Baroness on the matter of specific research. Nevertheless, it is an interesting request.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I confirm that I shall not press the amendment. I am grateful to the Minister not only for her original response but also for her offer to consider the matter between now and the next stage. I shall seek an opportunity to meet and speak with her if that is possible. However, I must repeat that we are only discussing drafting amendments here; we are not talking about the content of the clause. Indeed, we shall still have to press ahead with our amendments in that respect. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 81 to 83 not moved.]
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton moved Amendment No. 84:
Page 6, line 10, after ("question;") insert—
("(aa) he was employed as a domestic worker and a police officer, doctor or solicitor has certified that he has previously suffered substantial physical abuse or deprivation, or serious economic exploitation, arising from previous bonded employment;").
The noble Lord said: I am glad that the Bill gives us an opportunity to do something to protect a most vulnerable, abused and exploited group, nearly all of whom are women and concentrated mostly in Greater London. I refer to bonded domestic workers, admitted to this country outside the Immigration Rules under the Home Office concession of 1981 (the year in which work permits were abolished for domestics). Those people are tied to a single named employer and normally accompany him when he comes to England for a visit or a longer stay. If the worker leaves the employer, for whatever reason, he or she very soon becomes an illicit overstayer and liable to immediate deportation.
Such employers, who are usually wealthy, in the main come from Middle Eastern countries, though sometimes from further away. I regret to have to say that many of those employers have not hesitated to abuse their position in most disgraceful ways. There have been many cases where the employer had two, three or more domestics while in the Middle East, but only brings one to London and then expects that one domestic to do the work previously shared among several. Low wages and non-payment of wages, sometimes for periods of years, are common. Working 16 to 18 hours per day, with no weekly day off, is quite normal. Holidays and time to attend religious services are frequently refused. Domestics are not always provided with beds and sometimes have to sleep in passages, kitchens or bathrooms. In addition to such intolerable conditions,

1795
bonded domestic workers have often been subjected to brutal and degrading verbal, physical and sexual violence and exploitation.
Over the past 15 years, a small handful of such employers have been convicted of criminal offences and fined or imprisoned. Somewhat more often, successful civil cases have been brought. The highest award, to my knowledge, was £300,000 in exemplary damages awarded to a Mrs. Swami who had suffered severely at the hands of two Kuwaiti princesses.
Legal sanctions alone have not stopped those evil practices and are most unlikely to do so in future. Therefore, Government action has been and still remains necessary. Following representations, information leaflets were introduced in 1991. These were supposed to be given to employers and employees before they left to come to Britain. Employees were also supposed to be interviewed by consular officials so that their rights on arrival in Britain could be explained to them. I am sorry to say that those measures have not proved very effective. In the past four years, some 1,000 domestics escaped from abusive employers and were then seen by the Commission for Filipino Migrant Workers. Only 165 cases had received the information leaflet, and sometimes even that had been confiscated by the employer.
In December 1994, after more complaints, Her Majesty's Government brought in new arrangements including a model form of contract. The commission already mentioned has monitored the results. In the seven months from July 1995 to February this year, there were 126 cases. In only 42 of them had the domestic signed the contract, but in only 10 of them had the domestic been able to retain a copy of it. In the other cases, the employer kept all the copies as, indeed, they often keep, quite illegally, the passports of their workers. Many workers had signed the contract without reading it, and in all 126 cases the terms of the contract had not been honoured. Once again, we see a non-effective safeguard.
Those who have worked on and studied such problems over the years have come to the conclusion that the only worthwhile remedy is to untie those domestic workers from the moment of their arrival. That is the objective towards which I believe we should continue to strive, if Britain is to continue to enjoy the benefits brought by rich overseas visitors.
However, the present amendment does not go anything like so far. It would merely allow a bonded worker who provided credible prima facie evidence of,
"substantial physical abuse or deprivation, or serious economic exploitation",
to take a new second job without running the risk of deportation. I submit that that would be a worthwhile safeguard. Its existence would become known to employers, and could be pointed out to them by means of leaflets or otherwise. It would materially help the workers, most of whom are not able to pay for tickets to return to their home countries. In any case, when they are paid, they are usually sending money to their countries of origin in order to support relatives and families who themselves are often in desperate poverty.
Therefore, this is a modest amendment which is designed to mitigate conditions of domestic slavery, which have been allowed to develop in a country which we are proud to claim to be a free one. The drafting is the best I have been able to find with, I should add, the invaluable help of the Public Bill Office. It would not surprise me if it were in some way inadequate. I may say, however, to the Minister that she has an immediate escape route. She knows I am always trying to be helpful. On Tuesday I offered her successively a lifebelt and an olive branch. The escape route in this case lies in Clause 8(3). If the Minister will undertake that abused and exploited domestic workers will be specified in an order to be made by the Secretary of State, I will happily withdraw the amendment. Meanwhile, as Parliament exists for the redress of grievances, I beg to move.
Baroness Seear: I support the amendment. We have all seen evidence of this problem and the noble Lord has spoken of the people affected by it. There is no doubt that the proposals put forward by the noble Lord will alleviate the position considerably. In particular it is important that these women who are so badly treated by their employers should be free to obtain other employment. They are tied to a particular employer and if they leave that employer they then become illegal immigrants. That binds them in a situation which it is no exaggeration to say—sometimes the word is used loosely—constitutes slavery. We should give them the right not to become illegal immigrants if they leave that bonded employment. They should be free to seek other employment. After all, this is not the kind of employment for which people queue up. These people are domestic servants who do the kind of work which is not sought after by a great many people in this country. It would make a great deal of difference if this change could be brought about.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I support the spirit behind the amendment but I doubt whether it achieves what the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, wants it to achieve because it does not give anyone the right to be employed. It simply excludes them from the reporting conditions in Clause 8. I am sure that, if not the wording, certainly the position of the amendment will have to be re-thought. However, the nobility of spirit behind the noble Lord's moving speech and the way in which he has pursued this humanitarian issue for a number of years deserve the highest praise.
Baroness Rawlings: This amendment—like several previous amendments from the other day—points to a confused understanding regarding genuine victims, who I believe, are protected by our law. I quite understand why the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, is concerned about the matter. In an ideal world his suggestions make absolute sense. However, we have a law to deal with the situation where such a domestic worker is maltreated. Some of these workers appear with great ease to sell their stories to the tabloids. However, it would surely be wrong if one of these foreign employees abused a special concession under our law. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. If these people have a genuine case—which they often do—it would make sense to

1797
allow them to change employment. However, if that were written into the Bill, it would create a loophole which could then be easily abused. I urge the Committee not to support the amendment.
6.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: The point the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, makes—that these people enjoy the protection of our law—is of course quite fair, and in an ideal world they might be able to take advantage of it. However, what emerges in court over and over again when these cases are heard is that the victims of this type of treatment did not dare ask for the protection of our laws for fear they might be found to be illegal immigrants. Here again we are in the area we discussed on Clause 7; namely, the question of what priority should be given to the chasing of illegal immigrants. We all agree that it is an offence, and we all agree that something should be done about it. However, I think that the sort of cases described by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, constitute a far worse offence than that of the victims being illegal immigrants. The offences in effect amount to wrongful imprisonment, often malnutrition, physical cruelty, and exploitation sometimes of a quite gross sort. One of the reasons I am worried about the matter is that if a greater pressure is applied against illegal working, that would close up the only loophole by which these people can escape. They are sometimes employed in the most unsavoury ways.
A case was reported in the newspapers on 9th March. The offending man has since been sentenced to three-and-a-half years' imprisonment. For once I have some sympathy with the Home Secretary's desire for longer sentences. This person brought over women from northern Brazil—a remote and not particularly well informed area of Brazil. Many of them believed that they were being recruited for child minding. What in fact they were being recruited for was work in prostitution. The man took their passports and papers, locked those documents in his safe and took away all their earnings except £20 a week. He levied on them the most exorbitant charges for food and rent and for many other items which I shall not mention now. That is the sort of thing we mean when we talk about exploitation. We must stop it, and we should not allow the fear of being prosecuted as an illegal immigrant to prevent people in this position from making the escape they richly deserve.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I have great sympathy with the amendment. We all feel sad about the people who are in this terrible position. However, I take the point my noble friend made that the amendment might create a loophole. There must be some other answer. I ask the Government to try to find it. Perhaps these people could be given the right to stay for a certain period or given a work permit for a certain period. There may be ways around the problem. It is a problem we should genuinely try to solve. However, we do not want to create the loophole to which my noble friend referred because that could become a means whereby people came over here and tried to establish themselves. I ask
1798
my noble friend the Minister to try to find some way to resolve the problem mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, without creating some new problem.
I do not know what the legal position is. If, as the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, said, these people are bonded servants, I do not know whether under our law they are tied in some way to their employers and whether we can help them. I have great sympathy with the motivation behind the amendment. Certainly, I have every sympathy with the people—as has been said, they are mainly women—who have suffered such ill treatment. I should like to think that the Government will consider some way of trying to solve the problem.
Lord Avebury: I am delighted to agree with the noble Baroness in her suggestion that another answer should be found to a problem so well highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. That answer was contained in his speech. I do not quite understand why he did not go further and put it before the Committee. If we abolished the permit-free employment which was introduced in 1981, none of these problems would arise. I ask the Government whether they will not take the opportunity of this Bill to do just that, bearing in mind the other objectives which are sought to be achieved.
We are saying that we do not want people to be employed in sweatshops at sub-standard wages by unscrupulous employers. We are even taking measures to criminalise that kind of behaviour by employers. However, at the same time we have selected this particular group of immigrants—if I may use that term without causing any offence—to be completely exempt from all the regulations that apply to employment. We are saying that they may come here as domestic servants of persons who are otherwise granted leave to remain. They do not need any permission. They can come here at will, at the whim of the employer who proposes to use them as domestic workers. In many circumstances they are worse off than the people who are employed in the sweatshops we heard about earlier in our proceedings. There is no protection under the employment laws or any other sanctions except, as the noble Baroness pointed out, the criminal law. But those individuals have to have the ability to use that criminal law. Many do not speak English. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, will recall a case, for example, where a woman fled in desperation from a house and fortuitously came across someone who spoke her own language. She appealed to that person to save her from the ordeals that she was undergoing as a domestic slave.
Many years ago, an Eritrean woman rushed out of the house late at night after being severely ill-treated by her employer. By providence she ran into a fellow Eritrean in the street and appealed to her to save her from the situation. The lady to whom she appealed took her immediately to the police station and the matter was dealt with under the criminal law. She did not speak a word of English; she was extremely lucky to come across a fellow countrywoman who was able to put her in touch with the agencies of law and order. That would not happen often.

1799
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and my noble friend Lord Russell, referred to cases which probably form the tip of the iceberg. We do not know how many tales of misery and dejection lie behind locked doors of houses in which the fat cat employers are enjoying their opulent existence at the expense of these wretched women.
I appeal to the Government to go that extra mile beyond the suggestion in the amendment. Let us abolish permit-free employment and make the people who wish to bring in domestic servants comply with the ordinary employment law of the United Kingdom.
Baroness Blatch: There is a great deal of misunderstanding here. However, I wish to say from the outset that this is a very sensitive issue. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, knows that we have discussed this issue on many occasions. The Government have done a great deal to ease the passage of people coming into this country on this concessional scheme, to which the noble Lord referred.
The amendment would add to the list of those categories of immigrants in respect of whom an offence could not be committed by an employer. One effect of the amendment would be to exempt the employer. Another effect would be to give free licence to someone who came in under a specific scheme to work for someone else. It would be implicit that he would have a permit to work, a permit to stay and a permit to be here legally. That is a very real loophole, as my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes mentioned. The new category would be those employed as domestic workers where a police officer, doctor or solicitor has certified that the person had suffered substantial physical abuse or deprivation, or serious economic exploitation as a result of what is described in the amendment as "previous bonded employment".
The amendment would therefore allow abused or exploited domestic workers to be employed in a domestic capacity by another employer without the new employer being liable for employing a person not permitted to undertake the work in question.
However, it would not affect the position of the employee, who would not have permission to work for the new employer. In undertaking such employment, the employee would therefore either be in breach of their immigration conditions or an overstayer. I know that it is the domestic workers themselves about whom some noble Lords are, in fact, particularly concerned.
The Government deplore the fact that there are cases where overseas domestic workers have been abused or exploited. However I can assure the Committee that the scheme for admitting domestic workers with their employers generally works well and to the benefit of the workers who would otherwise lose their jobs. We do not believe that the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, is an appropriate response to the cases of abuse that do occur.
As the Committee is aware, the current arrangements for the entry of domestic workers to the United Kingdom, which operate as a concession for those accompanying their existing employer, are designed to minimise the scope for abuse. Domestic
1800
workers are required to apply abroad for entry clearance and, if they have not been interviewed before, to attend for an interview. That is an obligation. If the noble Lord says that those interviews do not take place, that is an abuse of the process. Domestic workers should be available for interview. The interview is communicated in their own language and in their own country. This enables the entry clearance officer to check the bona fides of each case—including whether adequate arrangements have been made for the servant's maintenance and accommodation in the United Kingdom.
The entry clearance officer also ensures that the domestic worker receives and understands a leaflet explaining his or her rights in the United Kingdom including where to go for advice or help. A copy of the leaflet is also given to the employer under cover of a note making it clear that overseas domestics have full rights under our criminal and employment laws.
We do not accept that this type of employment amounts to bonded labour. The entry clearance procedures are designed to ensure that we only admit domestic workers who freely undertake employment.
We sympathise with the situation of domestic workers who have been abused. There will always be a risk of abuse. But we are satisfied that the procedures we have set in hand guard against abuse so far as possible. As I have said, any domestic worker in the United Kingdom who is the victim of criminal activity has the full protection—as do all citizens—of the criminal law. Where serious criminal offences are committed, it is right that heavy penalties should be available to the courts.
But I should make it clear that no other overseas national coming to the United Kingdom for employment, whether under the work permit scheme or in a permit free category, or under any other concessionary arrangement, is allowed to change employers as of right.
It would not be in the interests of a firm and fair immigration control to allow overseas domestic workers to take up alternative employment here while their stay is subject to conditions as a matter of right, even in those cases where there has been significant abuse. We do, of course, consider individual applications in the light of any compelling compassionate circumstances.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, raised the point of slave labour. Genuine domestic servants, as opposed to what is described as slave labour, have the protection of employment legislation. The example given by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, would not be caught by the amendment on the domestic worker scheme because the employment was clearly illegal, not for immigration reasons but because of the general criminal law. Again, criminal law and employment law would apply to these people. Slavery has been illegal in this country since the 18th century. If slavery is the issue, that is clearly caught by the law.
The real effect of the amendment would be to license easy immigration into the country—not only for an individual to come here, but to stay and to work here. That is a loophole that we could not allow. We shall continue to consider ways of eliminating and dealing

1801
with abuses which I know are of particular concern to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton—a concern I believe shared by the whole Committee.
Lord Hylton: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the last sentence of her reply. Perhaps I may inject a little urgency into the continuing search for better safeguards. What I said earlier may have indicated that some of the safeguards have so far proved remarkably ineffective.
I thank all other noble Lords and noble Baronesses who have spoken in the short debate. I am very appreciative of the high level of support for at least the spirit and intention of my amendment.
The word "loophole" has been used. This particular loophole has been created by the Government in their own immigration procedures. There are two reasons why the normal legal protections, both in criminal and employment law, are so extremely difficult to apply. The first is because while the initial employment lasts, in many cases the domestic worker is physically locked up on his or her employer's premises and cannot get out. He or she therefore has no access to normal legal remedies. Once the employment has been lost or abandoned, the worker becomes liable for deportation and is therefore hesitant about embarking on any legal proceedings.
The Minister mentioned being able to change employment as of right. That is the key to the problem and I hope that further consideration will include that point. Meanwhile, I should like to study everything that has been said, particularly by the Government, on the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it for the time being, with the proviso that I may come back to the matter at Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Courtown: I beg to move that the House be now resumed. In moving the Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Elections (Northern Ireland) Order 1996
7 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Baroness Denton of Wakefield)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Baroness Denton of Wakefield) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 29th April be approved [18th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the draft order sets out the technical detail of the arrangements for the elections that are to be held under the Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc) Act.
The key features of the election are all prescribed in the Act itself. The order fills out the framework with what I fear is necessarily a substantial volume of technical detail. We considered carefully the form in
1802
which this should be presented in order to be most readily understood by those who will have to operate it. It has been suggested that we might have set out, in full, a comprehensive new code. While we saw the attractions of this approach, there are also substantial drawbacks. It would have created an order of very great length, which we believe would have been difficult to apply.
What we have sought to do so far as possible is to apply existing legislation that will be familiar to those involved in electoral matters. Hence the election will be conducted essentially on the basis of the existing law relating to parliamentary elections, with the minimum necessary modifications. Those modifications are set out in the body of the order and the schedules. The order sets out in what respects different provision will be made for this election. We believe that proceeding in this way makes the legislation simpler to understand and apply.
I turn now to a few of the detailed arrangements for the elections. We have been conscious that the electoral system to be used on 30th May will be new and unfamiliar to the electorate, and that a substantial education effort is required. We have already distributed almost 600,000 leaflets, one to every household, drawing attention to arrangements for absent voting, explaining the franchise and reminding voters of the need at Northern Ireland elections to have available one of the specified identity documents. A second leaflet, to be circulated shortly in the same volume, explains how to vote on this occasion and how the electoral system will work. In addition there will be television and radio advertisements during the campaign encouraging people to use their vote.
For these elections, which are different from those we are used to, we have decided that the restrictions on broadcasting in Section 93 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 should not apply. The unusual nature of these elections, involving votes for parties rather than individual candidates, means that the application of Section 93 might cause problems in distinguishing the campaign in a particular constituency from that across Northern Ireland as a whole. It will be important to avoid potential for disputes between the parties and the broadcasters. We understand that broadcasters share our view that these important elections should be given balanced and fair coverage that reflects the inclusive nature of the approach we have taken.
In view of the discussion yesterday in another place when this order was considered, I should like to emphasise a point about the names of parties, on which it is important that there is no misunderstanding. The names of parties for the purposes of the election are those set out in the Bill. That has long been made clear; it was stressed in the consultation paper published in Northern Ireland at the beginning of April. This is an important part of the scheme of the Bill, and if it were not the case, there would be a great deal of scope for confusion and for the use of "spoiling" names by those who might seek to subvert the electoral process. The names in the Bill will therefore appear on the ballot paper, and it is in those names also that the lists of the parties should be submitted. There is provision by which

1803
the lists might be rejected otherwise. That is clearly an eventuality that must be avoided, and that is why it is important that the names prescribed in the Bill are used.
These are the main features of the draft order. As I have said, it embodies much complex and technical provision. That is inevitable in provision for any election, because there has developed over the years a very large body of law for the regulation of elections. We believe, on reflection, that the order represents the most sensible and helpful approach to establishing the legal framework for the elections, and I therefore commend the order to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 29th April be approved [18th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Denton of Wakefield.)
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her exposition. The timetable is lamentable. As she said, the order was laid on 29th April, and today is 2nd May. The elections are only a matter of a few weeks away. This order was considered in another place yesterday evening. We are not doing our work properly because we are not being given the opportunity to do so. That is, of course, in no sense a criticism of the Minister, but I think it is an objective criticism of the timetable which ought to be sustained. In this order there are 30 pages of detailed, close, dense material which it is simply not possible to scrutinise properly in the time available, particularly bearing in mind that another place sat into the evening yesterday to raise questions and possible amendments.
The Member for North Down in another place, Mr. Robert McCartney, made the point well. He has 20 years' experience as a senior counsel and he found it difficult to deal with all the material.
The Minister mentioned the names of parties and that each party must stick to the formula by way of description within the schedule to the Act. Is that really fair? Mr. McCartney's party will have his name included, the Reverend Paisley will not. It is said that there will be opportunity for mischief and confusion, but that could easily have been attended to by a sieve, worked by the Secretary of State. It does not seem to me to be fair that one party will have the name of its leader on the ballot and another will not. I see no intellectual consistency there at all.
Perhaps I may ask one or two distinct questions of which I have given notice to the Minister. On page 13, paragraph (2C) states:
"Where the election court determines that the election of a delegate or delegates of a particular party was void but that the election as a whole in the constituency to which the petition relates was not void, the return of delegates under paragraph 14 of Part I of Schedule 1 to the 1996 Act shall be calculated again and the votes given for that party in that constituency shall be disregarded".
As I read that, if a single candidate in a constituency acted in such a way as to make his or her election void, then the other successful delegates who would have been elected on that party ticket would be ineligible to sit. That seems a strange consequence, if I have read the section correctly.
1804
Perhaps the Minister can help the House as to the purpose of the reference to overseas electors on page 2 at paragraph 3(6)(c). How are expenses to he dealt with? I realise that there is a formula in respect of expenses for each constituency; but are there to be any limits on the expenses spent by parties generally throughout Northern Ireland? Will there be any opportunity for party political broadcasts? If so, how is equal time to be allocated? I was most heartened that the Minister was able to tell us that a good deal of publicity by way of publicly funded advertising and leaflet drops has been undertaken. That suggestion was put forward by both the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, and myself on an earlier occasion. I am sure that the noble Lord will be as pleased as I am to know that the Government acted upon it.
Have the Government been able to put their mind to the question of alternative mechanisms for parallel decommissioning? I regret to reiterate my fear that if the alternative menu is not available and not fully thought out before 10th June, these negotiations will be abortive.
Yet again we are in the position of saying that these are exceptional circumstances and therefore we are not able to carry out our work of scrutiny correctly or as our duty requires. These "exceptional circumstances" are becoming more the norm than the exception. I direct no criticism at the Minister, who always treats us with every courtesy and consideration, but the time is far too short to scrutinise this bulk of material with any degree of sense.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness for her presentation of the order. However, in doing so I share the misgivings of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, in relation to the condensed schedule with which we have been presented throughout the Act, of which this order is now the necessary consequence. It is quite right that you cannot will the ends of an election without willing the means; namely, the order that we are discussing. However, given that the electoral system was effectively determined 10 days before Easter, the whole process has been unnecessarily condensed. The department should look to its procedures so that Parliament is not treated in this way.
As the noble Baroness knows, I remain critical of the choice of electoral system. She was right to say that minimum modification to parliamentary procedure should be sought in order to minimise the strangeness of this election. That would not have been necessary had the single transferable vote been used. However, having expressed criticism, may I say how glad I am—as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, surmised I would be; I share his pleasure in the fact that the Government are to use radio and television to promote this election. It is vitally important that people participate and that they see the connection between their vote and the peace process; otherwise, these elections will have been for nothing. I also think that it is wise of the Government to release the corsets of the broadcasters in order to make it possible for them, in their own way, to arrive at a balanced and fair coverage between the enormously long list of parties fighting the election.

1805
In that regard, will the Minister tell the House (the noble Lord, Lord Williams, also asked this) how the limit will apply to parties across the whole of Northern Ireland? Is she satisfied in regard to the smaller parties? I instance merely the parties connected with the former loyalist paramilitaries. Can we really be sure that parties are getting enough help in kind, so that those relatively indigent parties can still fight a decent campaign?
What provision is being made for election addresses? For instance, will some sort of government-sponsored newsletter be distributed in which parties can put their case? Having said that, and in supporting the order, I hope that the Government will take a hands-on attitude to the election. Voters will make their own choice; but nobody should be left in any doubt that this is an important election and it matters a great deal in Northern Ireland.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene, and do so only because of a remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. He suggested that it was unfair that Mr. Robert McCartney's name should appear on the ballot paper whereas Dr. Paisley's does not. I have to say, I disagree with him. The DUP has been in existence for a very long time. Most people throughout Northern Ireland are well aware of that party, what it represents and who leads it; namely, Dr. Paisley. In contrast, Mr. McCartney's party has been in existence only a very short time. He is now quite well known in the constituency of North Down, but not elsewhere. It seems not unreasonable that his name should be attached to his party label so as to avoid confusion, above all with the official Unionist Party.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contribution to the debate. I understand their concern at the speed with which this legislation has been brought before them.
I stress the special circumstances in Northern Ireland at the moment. Once we have been able to bring about a commitment to elections, I fear that the necessary speed of the process is not something that we would want any more than, as noble Lords made very plain, they would. The Government are more usually criticised for their slowness, and have often been criticised for such during this process of trying to build a peaceful future in Northern Ireland.
I am very fortunate in this House in that those who participate in these debates have knowledge of the situation in Northern Ireland. I am well aware and very conscious of the quality of the lawyer who sits opposite me. Therefore I have some confidence in the scrutiny that applies even in a short time. I thank noble Lords for their courtesy in indicating where their concerns lie.
The issue of names has been a major point in bringing forward this election legislation. I stress again that there was much discussion and consultation in another place as to what would be fair and appropriate. Having had that discussion and consultation and having voted on the
1806
matter, we are now saying in this order that it is important that that is abided by for the benefit of ensuring that all the votes cast in Northern Ireland are valid and represent the wishes of the people.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, raised the issue of what would happen under the Petition. That matter also concerned the honourable Member for South Down in another place. I should like to clear up the fact that it is not the intention of the legislation that all a party's candidates in a constituency would be declared void as a result of the activities of one of its candidates. It is only in the calculation of the regional delegates, which Section 144(2C) makes clear is carried out under paragraph 14 of Schedule 1 to the main Act, that the relevant party's vote in the constituency concerned is disregarded. Votes for constituency delegates are calculated under paragraphs 8 to 11 of the Act. The remaining candidates on that party's list for that constituency are therefore unaffected in so far as they keep their seats. But their votes, while they are being elected, will not contribute to the overall vote of the party. We believe that to be in keeping with the principles of the party list system, punishing, as it does, both the individual wrongdoer and the party on a regional basis.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, also expressed concern as to the position on overseas voters. The elections that are to take place on 30th May are regional elections, taking place in Northern Ireland only. They are being held to elect delegates to a forum convened to discuss Northern Ireland matters. It was therefore decided that it would be more appropriate to use a local government franchise and thereby retain the local nature of the elections. The local government franchise excludes overseas voters, to which Article 3(6)(c) of the order refers. However, it includes Peers and European Union citizens resident in Northern Ireland. I am sure that my colleagues in the House will be grateful that they can not only voice their concerns in words but also in practice. That is something about which we are very pleased. In terms of numbers, there is little difference. The parliamentary franchise produces around 70 more voters.
The question of election expenses and the position of the small parties in this situation was raised by both the noble Lords, Lord Williams and Lord Holme of Cheltenham. The amount of media coverage of the elections is already helping people to register who are newcomers to the election process. Election expenses will be calculated for each party in Northern Ireland as a whole. The limit depends on the number of constituencies a party contests.
There will be no special financial aid for parties in the system, no matter what their size. But we have taken that into account and endeavoured to assist small parties on this occasion by providing for unaddressed labels for election campaign material, which is much cheaper, and by doing away with the usual Post Office requirement for a constituency name to head election materials, thereby saving on printing costs. We have tried to recognise that there are people for whom the process will be entirely new; this may be their first entry into a system on which they can build in future years. The allocation of equal time on party political broadcasts will be a matter for agreement between the parties and the broadcasters.

1807
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked about the position of alternative action plans for decommissioning. I can assure him that those are under considerable scrutiny and discussion at the moment. His earlier concerns in that area came through loud and clear.
I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, is now participating in these debates. I thank him for his contribution on the question of names.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. I sensed that she was approaching the end of what she had to say and I wish to clarify something before she sits down. I am not sure that I heard correctly. I believe she said that allocation of time for party election broadcasts would be a matter for agreement between the parties and the broadcasters. Perhaps I can remind her that difficulty is already experienced among the relatively few parties at Westminster when they have to sort out that question. The prospect of that alphabet soup of parties sitting amicably round a table and agreeing with each other and the broadcasters on the allocation of time seems a little improbable.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I suppose I could reply that we are a deregulatory government. But that would not be very satisfactory. I did not guarantee "amicable" but the discussions around the table must be between the parties and the broadcasters. It is recognised both in the broadcasting situation and the media coverage that these elections are unique. It is a first; we hope that they work successfully. The broadcasters have taken a responsible attitude. The commitment to the Province from everyone involved that the elections should be made to work will allow for better discussions on this occasion. I hope that I prove to be right and not the noble Lord, although I understand his concerns.
Again, with the understanding that we have asked that this legislation be considered speedily, I commend the order to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill
Report received.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.25 to 8 p.m.]

Asylum and Immigration Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 8.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 84A:
Page 6, line 13, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (3A) below,").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 89ZA. The Government gave notice of their intention to table amendments to this effect in another place. It has become clear that as Clause 8 is drafted an employer could rely on one of the specified documents to provide him with a statutory defence even if he knew from the outset that an employee was not entitled to work in the United Kingdom or had been told by immigration and nationality directorate staff subsequent to recruitment that the employee was not in fact entitled to work.
This is a loophole which could be exploited by racketeers and unscrupulous employers. We therefore believe that the clause must be amended to make clear that an employer will not have a defence if he knows—I emphasise the word "knows"—that the employee does not have permission to work.
If Clause 8 is not amended in this way it is likely that it will not be possible to prosecute successfully at least some of the employers known to employ illegal workers on a regular basis. That point was made on an earlier amendment by my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes. There would therefore be a risk that the effectiveness of the new offence could be limited in the cases of some of those employers about whom we are particularly concerned.
I stress that the amendment will not in any way increase the burden on legitimate employers. Employers will be additionally liable only if they have specific knowledge which renders the defence invalid. It would be for the prosecution to prove that the employer had such knowledge. Those attempting to comply with the legislation in good faith will never have that knowledge and so will be able to have complete confidence that they have established a satisfactory defence. We will make sure that the guidance we issue makes the position abundantly clear.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, was kind enough to convey to me a concern which I know was shared by the CBI. Indeed, I had been aware that there were concerns about how the amendment would work. First, we believe that the concern about a potential additional burden on employers is unfounded. The defence is only disapplied if the employer can be shown by the prosecution to have known that the employee was not entitled to work. It does not therefore involve any additional duty to check.
One of the worries was that if an employee comes along and presents either a national insurance number or one of the specified documents, somehow or other that document must be checked in order to prove it is bona fide. That is not the case. If a national insurance number is proffered by a potential employee or if one of the specified documents is proffered and recorded by the employer, the employer's liability and duty under this part of the Bill ends. If the employer knows that the employee is illegal and is colluding with him and they are between them party to this racket, that is what the amendment is about. But if the employer takes in good faith one of the specified documents, it is not incumbent on him to check with the national insurance office or with the passport office. But he will record it either by

1809
photocopying it or putting it on computer. If subsequently the national insurance number is found to be wrong, or if subsequently the document is found to be incorrect in some way, the culpability will be on the individual who proffered the incorrect information, the incorrect number, the fraudulent passport or whatever it may be. But the employer will have a complete defence if he sought to secure one of those documents and record that he had seen it.
The CBI wanted the Government to make it absolutely clear that the Bill would not add to the burdens on employers. We believe that the racketeer-type employer does exist. That is why we believe we should not allow this loophole to continue. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: These are absolutely extraordinary amendments. As the Committee knows, when the Bill first came before Parliament the major employers' organisations, including not just the Federation of Small Businesses but also the CBI and the Institute of Directors, expressed grave concern about the imposition on employers of the terms of this clause. They said clearly that it was not the job of employers to do the work of government in controlling illegal working. With the exception of the Federation of Small Businesses, which still holds the same view, the CBI and the Institute of Directors in particular were persuaded by the Government that their objections should be toned down or even removed by the suggestion which Ministers made that in practice it would be relatively easy by documentation to prove whether or not an employee was an illegal immigrant and therefore came within the scope of the clause. In particular, it was suggested that a national insurance number would be adequate evidence that an employee was not an illegal immigrant. Indeed, that is contained in the draft document order which has been made available. That is despite the fact that the consultation document on illegal working pointed out the considerable difficulties in using the national insurance number as the piece of evidence.
Now we have an amendment which says,"Regardless of what documentation is produced, the defences on which the employers' organisations and employers relied to exempt them from the terms of the clause and therefore from criminal prosecution are no longer to have effect where the employer knows that his employment of the employee would constitute an offence under the clause." We know the difference between "knows" and "has reasonable cause to suspect". I was sorely tempted to put down a late amendment to say "has reasonable cause to suspect", except, of course, as the Minister knows, it would have worked in the wrong direction and it would have reduced still further the effect of subsection (3) of Clause 8 which sets out the possible defences.
What is the effect of the amendment now, even allowing for the fact that "know" is a very strict test? First, it is said that none of these documents, in particular the national insurance number, will necessarily establish the entitlement of the employee to
1810
take up the job. That is fine, and it is almost certainly true that national insurance numbers are not an adequate protection against illegal working. That was the basis on which this clause was sold to the CBI and the Institute of Directors. They will have a few things to say when they find that reliance is no longer to be placed on it.
Secondly, that significantly increases the burden on the employer. What does "know" mean? If in a large company a shop foreman who has no responsibility for recruitment or personnel matters, knows about someone, is that knowledge by the employer? Subsections (5) and (6) of the clause extend the responsibility from the employer as a corporate organisation to individuals with the company. Does "know" apply to all those individuals, and if an individual knows is that knowledge by the company? If that is not the case and knowledge by an individual is not knowledge by the company, how can responsibility by an individual for a breach of this clause be a responsibility of the company? The Government must decide which side they are on because they cannot have it both ways.
Thirdly, this amendment confirms that this is no longer simple documentary procedure. Now we have the employer performing immigration control functions. So all the reassurances made to employers and their organisations that it would be a simple function of checking documents is no longer true. The checking of documents is not enough; there has to be knowledge based on whatever other information is available to the employer.
What is going to happen if an employer has a suspicion that a document is a forgery? Will he be responsible for checking whether it is a forgery and, if so, how? The idea is inconceivable. It represents a gross increase in the responsibilities of employers. How can the employer demonstrate that he did not know, particularly if he is giving evidence on oath, and feels obliged to acknowledge that he had some suspicion?
Finally—I could go on forever, but I shall not—surely employers will see this matter as a responsibility which increases the burden on them and adds to the uncertainty of the position, because in all this the Government are reducing the defences which are available to employers because they make certain specified checks. This clause cannot work unless there is a clear indication of what checks will exempt employers from this criminal responsibility. I am glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is in his place because what is now being introduced into this clause is mens rea. Not only has the employer to perform a series of specified acts, but he has also now to make a judgment. He has to know or not know whether something is the case and whether or not it is shown by the documentation. I shall not vote against the amendment at this time of night, but this clause will cause havoc among employers' organisations. When they see what is now proposed the very qualified support they have given it to date will evaporate.
Baroness Blatch: I really must come back on this point. The noble Lord has taken an extremely exaggerated view and, at times, a very wrong view. Under this Act an employer does absolutely no more

1811
than is required of him with or without this amendment. He needs to secure one of the specified documents from a potential employee. That document is both seen and recorded and that is an end to it. It is an absolute defence for the employer.
I really have to pose this question to the noble Lord: is he happy that an employer colludes with illegal immigrants, employs them, and, very often, exploits them, as my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes said earlier, for very low pay and long hours and keeps them hidden away from the authorities in order to carry out his business? That is the kind of person who will be caught by this amendment. The employer has to know that he has colluded with an illegal entrant to employ him. If the employer simply sees a potential employee, seeks one of these specified documents and simply records having seen it, either by photocopying it or putting it into the company records, or however he wishes to do it—and we shall give guidance on that—the employer has a total and complete defence under this Act.
But where an employer knows—and I use that word precisely in this context for the benefit of my noble friend Lord Renton because earlier we talked about "knowing" or "suspects"—that the employee before him has no right to work in this country, then the employer knowingly employs that person. As I have said, there are a very few unscrupulous employers who are taking on employees knowing that they are illegal entrants, and doing so to cut company costs. It is that kind of ruthless, unscrupulous racketeer that this amendment is meant to catch. All other employers need not worry because there is no extra burden on them whatsoever.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That confirms what we have just been saying and also what we said at Second Reading. This clause is simply not going to be effective against unscrupulous lawyers—employers. My noble friend Lord Cocks picks up an entirely innocent slip of the tongue in this case. I did not mean "lawyers", but "employers". The kind of people who will employ illegal immigrants are those who are going to break other employment legislation. That is another reason why this clause is not going to be effective, but damaging.
8.15 p.m.
Earl Russell: On behalf of the CBI I would like to thank the noble Baroness warmly for what she said about there being no need to verify documents. That was the key point of anxiety. Not every employer is able to identify a fake Liechtenstein passport at first sight. So if that point is clear it is a very great relief.
It is a pity that there was not time for this matter to be dealt with by consultation, but at least the point has now been dealt with sensibly. However, I am not quite so happy about the burden of proof. I heard what the noble Baroness said and I warmly welcome it. But it was my understanding that this was a strict liability offence and therefore its effect would be to put the burden of proof on to the employer to show that he did not know that a person was not entitled to work. It is important to have that as firmly on the record as we can with the case of Pepper v. Hart in mind.
1812
I believe that it was the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who said, as regards an earlier amendment, that to prove that one knows something is very difficult indeed. There are two types of proof. First, one needs to prove that the employer knows about the actual history of the employee. Secondly—and perhaps this is rather more difficult—one needs to prove that the employer is aware of some extremely complicated technicalities in the regulations and so forth. Not every employer understands every detail of immigration law: the police, many of us, and people working in the field do not understand it either. Getting the burden of proof clear makes a tremendous difference to how the word "know" is going to operate. Indeed, if the burden of proof is on the prosecution, I shall be very interested to know how the noble Baroness thinks that the prosecution is going to prove that the employer knew that the person was an illegal immigrant.
We are all agreed that we have to deal with illegal working. The question, raised many times during the passage of this Bill, is that of priority. The question is how many nuts one cracks with one stroke of the hammer. I wonder whether there really is evidence that the problem is on quite as alarming a scale as the noble Baroness suggests because we have to weigh a potential good against a potential mischief. Can she give us any indication of the scale of illegal working?
Baroness Blatch: I cannot do so offhand. I do know that there are employers in this country who almost "trade" in giving illegal entrants work. I hope that it will help if I confirm to the noble Lord that if an employer claims that he has done what he is supposed to do under the provisions—that is, that he has secured one of the specified documents—it is for the prosecution to prove that an offence has been committed. The burden of proof lies on the prosecution. The prosecution must prove that when the employer employed the person concerned he knew that that person had no right to work here.
Lord Avebury: Perhaps I may return to a point that I made on the previous amendment to which the noble Baroness did not have the time to reply. Instead of the obligation being expressed as it is in the clause, would it not be better to require the employer to see one of the specified documents under the order which is to be made by the Secretary of State? We could then deal with the possibility which the Minister has envisaged by saying that the employer would be guilty of an offence if he knew that any of those documents was fraudulent. If we are saying that it is an absolute proof of a person's eligibility for work that he possesses, say, a national insurance document or one of the other three documents mentioned in the briefing, and given that the Minister has confirmed that the employer does not have to go "behind" those documents, if I may put it like that, to check whether they are genuine, if the employer was guilty of the offence of knowingly employing a person who is not entitled to work here, ipso facto he would be aware that the document being presented to him was not genuine.
I am suggesting that the obligation on the employer should be that he must see one or other of the documents specified in the order. I suggest that the point of

1813
Amendment No. 84 can be dealt with by providing that, if the employer knew that any document being presented to him was fraudulent, he would be committing an offence. It seems to me that we would then arrive at exactly the same result, but by specifying a more objective test for the employer. The employer would be required only to look at one or other of the documents and not know that that document was fraudulent. If the employer satisfied that test, he would be exempt from prosecution under the Bill.
That seems to me to be a way of getting round the objection mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. It is difficult to satisfy the test of knowledge of not only the employer, but all his staff. The extent to which an employer was aware of the details of the immigration regulations might be a matter of controversy in court. However, if we say only that an employer has to check that a document exists—and if we do not specify that he must not have any knowledge as to its fraudulence—we are placing a totally objective test on the shoulders of that employer, a test which I think would satisfy the CBI. Of course, I have not had the opportunity to consult the CBI, but I think that such provisions would meet the need.
Baroness Blatch: I think that what the noble Lord is suggesting would place an onerous obligation on an employer. We are saying that when a potential employee comes along, the employer must ask for evidence of one of a specified range of documents. The employer will take that document in good faith. The noble Lord gave an example of an employer who knows that a document being presented to him is fraudulent in some way. One hopes that any good employer would then ask for another of the specified documents. The noble Lord used the word "know". If an employer knows that a document is fraudulent, he should say, "We know that that is a fraudulent document. You must bring us other proof that you have a bona fide right to be here".
We are operating on the basis that the employer takes the specified document in good faith and at face value. We are not requiring employers to carry out all sorts of checks to ascertain whether documents are genuine. The assumption and the presumption is that the document is one of the specified documents and that it is genuine. If that subsequently turns out not to be the case and the employer has performed his duty under the Bill, culpability will rest with the individual who proffered the false national insurance number, the fraudulent passport or any other fraudulent specified document. However, if the employer accepted such a fraudulent document knowingly, he would be guilty of giving that person work knowing that the information which was provided to him did not prove that that person had a bona fide right to be here.
We know that employers are tied into marriage rackets and other rackets which help people into this country. The provisions of paragraphs (b) and (c) of Clause 5(1) create two new offences to cover that. We are concerned not only with those who help people to enter the country, but with those who help them to stay in this country by getting them work with a friend down
1814
the road. It is a case of "No names, no pack drill". Such employers not only provide illegal entrants with work, but often exploit them most dreadfully. We are hoping to catch such employers by this amendment. However, we want to place the lightest possible burden on employers. What the noble Lord is suggesting would give employers rather more work.
Lord Avebury: Perhaps I may come back for just a moment. I do not understand what the noble Baroness is saying. The circumstance envisaged in Amendment No. 89ZA is that an employer has looked at a document and satisfied himself that all is as it appears and that there is, for example, a national insurance number on the P.45. The noble Baroness is trying to catch the employer who nevertheless knows that that person is not entitled to work here; ipso facto the national insurance number or the passport or the stamp on the passport must have been obtained by fraudulent means. The evidence that that person had permission to work in this country must have been obtained fraudulently. If an employer knows that an employee is not entitled to work here, he must know that the document that was presented to him, which shows that that person is entitled to work here, is not genuine.
I am saying that we should not ask the employer to look behind the document. We should ask the employer to look at the document and to satisfy himself that it complies with the order which the Secretary of State is to make. If the employer knows that the person obtained that document in some improper manner, the employer will be guilty of an offence under the Bill. It seems quite simple.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord is confusing two things. If an employer knows that the person before him is here illegally, it is incumbent on the employer not to employ that person. We are saying that it is an offence to employ somebody illegally—and certainly to do so knowingly.
However, we do not want to turn employers into immigration officers. We do not want our employers to feel that it is incumbent on them to check national insurance numbers and passports to ascertain whether they are correct. If an employer has been proffered a passport that looks like a passport or a national insurance number that looks genuine, we are not requiring that employer to check whether that document is correct—
Lord Avebury: No.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord is suggesting that. If the employee is known to be an illegal immigrant, the employer has a duty not to employ him. If the employer does so knowingly, he would be caught by the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Nobody denies that the Government's objective in trying to deal with rogue employers who knowingly employ illegal immigrants is a proper objective. Nobody is saying that there is anything wrong with that. However, that is not what the amendments provide. The amendments apply to all

1815
employers. They must apply to all employers. There is no other way around it. The amendments seek to qualify the exceptions, the defences, which employers can use when arguing that they have carried out the checks that are necessary under the Bill. The basis of agreement with the employers' organisations was that those checks would be sufficient. The Minister has confirmed that this evening. If that is the case, how will anybody know that the employer knew something when he adequately performed the checks that are set out for him? The Government are hopelessly entangled in these provisions. They are trying to deal with a specific and almost certainly a very small number of employers by a general means which will not work.
Baroness Seear: I find this whole approach to the employment of immigrants extraordinary and unreal. There is an air of cloud cuckoo land about the whole thing. If the Government must make this an offence, I very much hope that they will consider making it a civil rather than a criminal offence. It seems totally inappropriate to make it a criminal offence to take on an illegal immigrant. I find it odd that a government who have been so eager to remove burdens from businesses should be imposing this burden on them, and that a government who have resisted the social chapter should be so desperately concerned that some employers may treat immigrant labour badly. I am concerned about the unreality of it. Where one has a well set up, proper personnel department the employer will do all of these things. However, has the noble Baroness given thought to what happens at a place like a building site where these people will go? A site foreman will be surrounded by machinery and probably items will fall on his head a good deal of the time. Will he go through all of these procedures? It is totally unreal. Here we are thrashing away at the details of a fairy tale approach to the employment of people.
Building sites are very good places for people who are trying to hide, as I well know. It is the place to which you send offenders to get jobs because no one asks any questions. They will also go to hotels to do washing up. Can one see the supervisor of kitchens going through all of these procedures? It is a nonsense. Can the Government at least give thought to making it a civil instead of a criminal offence?
8.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: I did not intend to take part in this debate. However, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, drew me into it by referring to mens rea, about which I will say more in a moment. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, also drew me into it by referring to the burden of proof. With the deepest respect, I believe that all noble Lords and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, who have spoken on this subject, have made unnecessarily heavy weather of the whole matter. It is very simple. In Clause 8 the Government have done justice by enabling an employer to raise a defence to show that he is innocent as far as subsection (3) goes. Perhaps, as an afterthought, although a very necessary one, it has to be considered whether the employer might have known that the employment of the employee would constitute an offence. It is only right to spell that out in the Bill.
1816
If I may have the attention of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, mens rea in our criminal law is a matter of which we should be proud. It means that no person can be convicted of an offence unless a guilty intent has been proved. That is absolutely vital and not a matter to be despised. That will have to be proved in an alleged offence under this clause. So far as concerns the burden of proof, the noble Earl is right that there must be proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases. In civil cases the burden of proof is on a balance of probabilities, which is different. But the onus remains on the prosecution in all criminal cases from beginning to end, except that where a particular type of defence is raised the burden can shift. It is then for the court to decide ultimately whether or not the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. If there is a reasonable doubt on any of the issues raised in the case, the accused person has to be acquitted. It is as plain as that. The clause does justice in necessary circumstances.
From time to time during Committee stage there have been implications that noble Lords opposite are absolutely wonderful in having no colour prejudice. I have no colour prejudice. Some of my close friends happen to be Indians. Only today I took 11 South Koreans round the Palace of Westminster. The leader of the delegation, which came from one of the largest cities in South Korea, was kind enough to give me a badge signifying membership of his city. I totally deny that noble Lords opposite are in a different position from any of us on these Benches, or the right reverend Prelate, on the issue of colour prejudice. I hope that that will he borne in mind during the remaining debates on the Bill.
Baroness Seear: Will the noble Lord tell the Committee what has been said to lead him to make that comment? I have no recollection of any suggestion that those on the other side of the Chamber have colour prejudice. What has been said that moves the noble Lord to make that statement?
Lord Renton: I do not want to embarrass noble Lords by referring back to previous speeches. But from time to time there has been the clearest implication that their arguments are supported by a lack of colour prejudice and that anything which resists them involves it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Does the noble Lord suggest that of me?
Earl Russell: I have not for one moment hinted at colour prejudice anywhere in this Chamber. The only references I have made to its existence have related to the country outside where, regrettably, it is not unknown. I am entirely happy to accept everything the noble Lord says on the subject. I am extremely sorry if inadvertently I have said anything which led him to say what he did say. If inadvertently I have given any such impression, I unreservedly offer to apologise.
For some time I have asked the noble Baroness to confirm that suspicion does not constitute proof. That is clear enough. The noble Baroness shakes her head, which I hope will go on the record. I thank her warmly. Another matter which gives me concern is that the

1817
Home Office has no quantitative evidence on the point. I appreciate the difficulty of obtaining quantitative evidence of any illegal activity. In any crime statistics there are always duff figures. However, even for those employer organisations which do not contest the clause—although they do not give it a particularly excited welcome—it will inevitably mean a burden. One wants to know that there is some quantifiable evidence of mischief, even if one does not know that it is the whole mischief, before the need for the clause is accepted. The Department of Social Security used to say that it did not introduce policy based upon anecdotal evidence. That was a good restraint. One wonders whether the Home Office should accept a similar restraint. If the noble Baroness has any pulk of evidence which led the Home Office to decide that the clause is necessary, I would listen to it with a great deal of interest.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I should like the noble Baroness to confirm or deny one matter. Having carefully read the research which I believe was carried out by the Institute of Public Policy, my understanding is that in 1994 there were 12 cases involving illegal working. That research provided no later figures. Given that the estimate of the cost of this exercise is approximately £11 million recurring, at nearly £1 million per prosecution, it seems awfully expensive.
Baroness Blatch: I do not know about the cost of £1 million per prosecution, if that is what the noble Baroness suggests. If an employer is found to have been giving work to an illegal immigrant, that seems to be an extraordinary estimate of the cost.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: Perhaps I should try to put it more clearly. I agree with the noble Baroness completely. My understanding—I may be wrong—from reading that research quite carefully is that in that year in the entire country there were 12 prosecutions—they were not even successful prosecutions—brought for illegal working. If that is correct and the cost of this method of dealing with the problem will run at about £11 million a year—that understanding may or may not be correct, although that is what all of the research indicates—and the initial cost is some £30 million, does the noble Baroness agree that it is an awfully expensive way of going about it?
Baroness Blatch: I now know how the noble Baroness arrived at those figures. I have been at the Home Office since the middle of 1994, and I happen to know that more people than the noble Baroness mentioned have been rounded up in searches in the London area; for example, while cleaning offices during the night and working at airports. There was a lively scheme going at airports. People stepped off aeroplanes wearing coats and carrying buckets and brooms and changed places with others. That happened in greater numbers than the noble Baroness said. It can be a problem.
1818
We want to see all employers taking the normal documents, recording them and putting them away. I believe that it costs something like 65p per employee to record that document. It may be part of the other information that employees have to give to an employer when they are accepted for employment. For some employers it will cost no more. It is part of their normal system for employing people.
I have just been handed some information which may help. Any estimate of the extent of illegal immigration, including people working in breach of their immigration conditions, of its nature can be no more than speculation. So we do not have specific estimates, but we know that in 1994 over 10,000 people were detected by the Immigration Service working while here illegally or while prohibited from working. In 1988, the comparable figure was 4,000. That is a large number of people who we know could be working for employers in this country. We know that a large proportion of those people will be working for employers who do not know that they are illegally in the country. There will be some employers who are part of the marriage racket and other organised rackets where they are the end of the chain. People having come in for payment—often for extortion—those employers will give people employment. In such cases it would be different.
8.42 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 84A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 46; Not-Contents, 21.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Howe, E.

Balfour, E

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Kingsland, L.

Blaker, L.

Long, V.

Blatch, B.

Lucas, L.

Bowness, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lyell, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Carnock, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Chesham, L.[Teller.]

Marlesford, L.

Courtown, E.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Cumberlege, B.

Monk Bretton, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Northesk, E

Dixon-Smith, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Elton, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Rawlings, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Renton, L.

Geddes, L.

Seccombe, B.

Glenarthur, L.

Stewartby, L.

Goschen, V.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller]

Harris of Peckham, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hemphill, L.

Wilcox, B.

Henley, L.

Wynford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Craigavon, V.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Avebury, L.

Dubs, L.

Berkeley, L.

Falkland, V.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

1819

Haskel, L. [Teller.]

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Kilbracken, L.

Sandwich, E.

Lawrence, L.

Seear, B.

Weatherill, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

White, B.

Monkswell, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
8.50 p.m.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 85:
Page 6, line 14, leave out ("before the employment began") and insert ("within 2 months of the commencement of the employment").
The noble Lord said: What will be the situation when a small employer wishes to recruit an individual for his workforce? Let us suppose that as a result of an advertisement a potential employee arrives on the scene, and when the employer says to him, "I need to check some of your documents" he says, "I haven't brought them with me. I didn't know that I had to. I don't know where they are". The employer will then be faced with the choice of keeping the job open while the prospective employee looks for the documents or risk being prosecuted for employing someone without documents. Either way, the small businessman will lose out. Surely it cannot be the Government's wish to penalise small businessmen in that way.
The merit of the amendment is that an employer could take on an employee provided that the documentation demanded by the Government under the Bill is produced within two months. If that were done, it would be proper for the employer to have the applicant working for him during that two-month period. If by the end of that period the employee cannot produce the documents, the employer will be obliged by law to terminate the employment.
The amendment does not seek to undermine what the Government purport to do. We seek to make the procedure more workable because in the real world small businessmen have to take on people quickly as they cannot afford to run their businesses with a vacancy. They cannot afford to leave a post unfilled while an employee is obtaining documentation.
I wish to raise another important aspect which has already been mentioned. If an employer has three people applying for the same job but two have difficulty in finding their documents he will naturally go for the person who already has the proper documents. In the real world some employers would say to a black applicant, "No, if you do not have the documentation I am not prepared to wait and take a chance". Therefore, the effect of the provision would be discriminatory against black people. If rumours are correct, that was the fear in Cabinet when the matter was discussed.
We are suggesting a very simple change which reflects the way in which small employers wish to do business and to fill vacancies quickly. They would have a period of time during which the employee could
1820
produce the necessary documentation. The proposal is simple and straightforward and would help small employers a great deal. I beg to move.
Baroness Seear: I support the amendment because it brings into the proceedings an air of reality which has been totally lacking in most of the previous discussions on employment.
Baroness Seccombe: I have two difficulties with the amendment, which has nothing to do with whether one is black or white. I sit as a lay magistrate and know that often people are asked to bring their driving licences. They never appear to have a sense of urgency but it is amazing how, if they are told that the case will be adjourned until the next day, they turn up with the licence. To allow a period of two months would be a stupid way in which to operate.
My second difficulty is that by having any delay one is playing into the hands of an employer who, perhaps for the wrong reasons, will say, "I shall employ you for one month and 29 days", and then employs someone else. That is not what any of us want and I cannot support the amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, with interest; but there was an air of unreality and of times past. Even in the world of small employers I am not aware of people who openly advertise a job and have only one applicant whom they feel they must employ. In the present state of the labour market—which is better than it used to be—it is not the situation that some people would desire.
In 1961 or 1962 when unemployment was at only 2 or 3 per cent. perhaps there would have been some validity in the argument that is being advanced. However, in the current climate it is completely unreal. For the life of me, I am unable to understand why a request from a potential employer to produce some documentation to show that a valid application is being made is not entirely reasonable. That applies to any employee; it is not a matter of prejudice. I cannot support the amendment.
Lord Renton: Surely it is fairer that an employer should be alerted by statute to the fact that he must make sure in advance that he will not be committing an offence by employing someone who is an illegal immigrant than that he should speculatively take a chance in the hope that nothing will come to light, at any rate for two months, which might make it an offence. That is not only fair but it is common sense and I hope that the Government will resist the amendment.
Baroness Rawlings: Is this not a case in which, as we heard earlier from my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes, there would be more simplicity and less opportunity for error if we held identity cards? They are gaining support from the general law-abiding public, and I believe that the Government are considering them. That might be an answer for the noble Lord, Lord Dubs.
Earl Russell: The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, tempts me to a memory of an occasion when one member of my family lost his identity card. Such things happen and they can cause a great deal of trouble.

1821
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, raised a question that is worth thinking about. I agree that two months may be a long time; but, on the other hand, not every immigrant applying for a job, and not every person applying for a job who knows that he is not an immigrant because he was British-born, knows that an employer will ask him for documents and will necessarily have all the right documents with him on the day he turns up. Would it help the noble Lord, Lord Renton, if we were to specify "on the first day of employment"? By then the applicant could be given a specification of exactly what documents he needed and could go home and get them. I do not believe that everyone will know what they are meant to have with them—
Lord Renton: I listened carefully to the noble Earl. If a person applies for a job and the employer has reason to believe that he may be an illegal immigrant and asks, "Where are your documents? I want to make sure about the situation"—which under the law he will be required to do—he would also be entitled to say to the immigrant, "Look here, if you say you have got documents, how soon can you bring them? Tomorrow, the day after or next Monday? If you bring them then, I shall carefully consider employing you".
9 p.m.
Earl Russell: That is a concession for which I am extremely grateful and to which I hope the Government will listen. But the noble Lord tempts me also to ask one of the crucial questions in relation to this clause. He says, "If the employer has reason to suspect that the person may be an illegal immigrant". What would be such a reason?
Baroness Blatch: The explanation given by my noble friend Lord Renton is not a concession but is the fact. If someone comes forward for a job and the employer asks for documentation and the person says, "Well, I do not have it with me but I can produce it", on producing it, that is an end to it. The person may then take up the job.
Amendment No. 85 would provide an employer with a defence if he could show that one of the specified documents had been produced to him within two months of the employment starting. At present the clause specifies that the document should have been produced to the employer before the employment began.
The suggestion that there should be a period of grace allowed to employers within which they could establish their defence was put forward by a small number of those who responded to our consultation document on the prevention of illegal working. I understand that those who have advocated a period of grace have had a number of different objectives in mind.
One is that a period of grace would benefit those sectors of the economy where a significant proportion of employments currently have fairly informal recruitment procedures and often involve immediate, and perhaps very short time, hire. I believe that the licensed trade and the hospitality and catering sector more generally
1822
have expressed some support for a period of grace on this basis. The noble Baroness referred to that on an earlier amendment.
Another is that a period of grace would prevent the introduction of potential delays into the recruitment process while documentation was requested. I know that this has been a concern to some employers.
I can understand why some employers have found the idea of a period of grace attractive—although the suggested two months does represent an unduly long time to establish a defence. However, it is clear that a period of grace would seriously weaken the impact of Clause 8. Even a very short period would do that. It would provide a loophole which could be used by unscrupulous racketeers trying to evade the impact of the clause. If the bill were amended in this way, there would be nothing to stop racketeers moving employees between jobs for short-term periods, so that they always worked for fewer than two months at a time and never had to produce any documentation. My noble friend Lady Seccombe made that point.
A period of grace would also, in our view, effectively exclude from the terms of the offence all genuine short-term employments and a lot of casual work. Immigration Service experience suggests that a significant proportion of illegal working occurs in such employments. This amendment would therefore considerably reduce the effectiveness of the clause.
While I can understand the concerns of those who seek a period of grace, it is not unreasonable to assume that the new requirement will have an effect on the recruitment process. At present there is no need for a person to carry certain documentation when seeking employment unless it has specifically been asked for. As a result, it will therefore rarely be available. However, our expectation will be that such documentation will be readily available in many more cases because it will be understood that the offer of employment may be dependent on its production.
I believe that Amendment No. 88 is intended to relate quite directly to Amendment No. 85 as it would attempt to retain a requirement on employers to have considered the question of whether employment of an individual would constitute an offence before the employment began. However, we will be considering that amendment separately in due course. I urge the Committee to reject this amendment.
Earl Russell: I listened with care to the Minister. Again, she is becoming extremely alarmed about unscrupulous employers. Again, it makes me wants to ask about the question of priorities which has been worrying me throughout the debates on this clause. We all agree that we must prevent illegal working and we all agree that we must avoid placing unnecessary burdens on business. The question is as to the comparative weight which we give to those two factors.
When the noble Baroness talks about unscrupulous employers, she sounds a little as though she were discussing the spread of the plague of bacillus. She makes it sound extremely dangerous and exciting. Why

1823
is it such an immediate and desperately grave danger that it has a higher priority than other things in which we all believe?
Baroness Blatch: The noble Earl has just made an ingenuous comment. I am not over-excited and this matter has not been given any greater priority than anything else in the Bill. We believe that it is part of a package of measures needed to tackle a problem.
Secondly, I said earlier that we know that in 1994 more than 10,000 people were working here illegally. That is 10,000 jobs which were denied to people who are here in a bona fide manner and who could have taken up those jobs. Every job that is taken by somebody who is illegally in this country is denied to a person who is legally in this country and looking for work. Therefore, we do regard this as an important matter. We believe that the period of grace would produce a loophole and would allow the practice to continue. It is our job and our intention that that should be stopped. But we are not putting that at the top of the agenda; it is part of a complete package. That package consists of providing more money to tackle the problem; to have more people working within the system; to have more technology to speed up the system; and to introduce legal measures which will combat the problem from all angles.
We hope that that will make way for two benefits. First, it will continue to improve race relations in this country. And, also, it will allow genuine asylum seekers to be processed more quickly.
Earl Russell: I am very sorry that the noble Baroness should think that I was making an ingenuous comment. I asked that question in very genuine puzzlement and I have been puzzled throughout the debate on this and on the previous clause. I badly wanted an answer and I have not received one. Of course we are agreed that those 10,000 people should not have been working and that in many cases, they are taking jobs from other people. My recollection—and it is only a recollection because I have not found the relevant page in my papers—is that the cost of the clause to business is estimated at being around —11 million. That is a rather expensive way of buying jobs. If a proposal to buy jobs in that way had come from this side of the Committee, I cannot help wondering whether the Government would have described them as "bogus" jobs.
A very high priority is being given here to the prevention of illegal immigration. Granted that there are many ills which this country faces—and that is one of them—we believe that the Bill is making it rather more important than all the rest. I genuinely do not understand why that is so, but I would like to.
Lord Avebury: I should like to ask a question which arises out of something said by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, when he referred to the employer having reason to suspect that a person coming before him as an applicant for a job was an illegal entrant. The employer has no way of knowing whether the person presenting himself for a job is an immigrant or someone who is native to this country. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, said earlier that she thought
1824
that the level of illegal immigration among Australians was very high. Indeed, we all know Australians whose use of the Queen's English is virtually indistinguishable from someone who is a native of this country.
I should point out that my noble friend sitting in front of me knows the person whom I have in mind; indeed, he is a mutual friend. If noble Lords met him and listened to him speaking they would certainly not be aware that he came from Melbourne. Therefore, if he presented himself to an employer, the latter would have to play safe and assume that he may be an immigrant and thus demand production of the relevant documents.
I am saying that the employer does not only have to make a prior judgment as to whether or not the person applying for a job may be an immigrant and therefore request sight of his national insurance number on his P.45. He will have to demand the P.45, or the equivalent document, from every single person whom he interviews. I should like the Minister to confirm that fact. I believe that that is an important burden upon employers and one which not all of them may realise. If there are only 10,000 illegal entrants, they may think that that represents a tiny fraction of potential employees and that they will easily be able to identify them by some para-psychological means. However, that situation only applies if, as we suspect, the employer takes into consideration the colour of the person's skin. We are not suggesting any one is racist in that connection. We are just saying that, on balance, if a person with a black skin comes before an employer to apply for a job, then it is more likely that he will be an immigrant than someone with a white skin, even though there are many immigrants with white skins who may not be so readily identifiable.
Therefore, to be on the safe side, the employer will have to check the documentation and record it in respect of every single person who enters his firm. Employers should be wise to that fact and not think that they will only have to deal with a tiny minority. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, put his finger on a point which has not really emerged during the course of our debates thus far.
Lord Renton: If I may say so, there is a simple answer for the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. There are all kinds of things which may cause the employer to wonder whether the person is a local resident, whatever the colour of his skin. I shall give Members of the Committee one example. Let us suppose that a man comes along seeking a job dressed obviously in Asian clothing, speaking very broken English and looking bewildered. The employer may ask him where he was last employed and the man has to say that he has never been employed before. The employer will then ask, "How long have you been here?" and the answer may well be, "Some weeks". That response may raise doubts in the employer's mind. I do not want to detain

1825
Members of the Committee at this late hour by enumerating more examples, but I believe that that is a very clear and obvious one.
Earl Russell: Does not the noble Lord, Lord Renton, realise that in everything except the time mentioned in that example the person he described might perfectly well have been born and bred in Bradford?
Baroness Blatch: Of course, that is absolutely true. That is why the securing of a document would actually make that fact obvious and would be a defence for the employer. In our guidance to employers we intend to suggest that, whatever their recruitment policy, they apply it right across all employees. It is also fair to say that about 90 per cent. of companies in this country—and that is a very high percentage—employ five or fewer employees. Indeed, it is only a very small percentage of companies that have 100 or fewer employees and even a smaller percentage, a tiny percentage, which have more than 100 employees.
Therefore, we can say that employers should apply the policy fairly. Further—and I shall not use my noble friend's example for the purpose of what I have to say—if an employer was simply applying the policy to someone with a black face, or someone with an accent or, indeed, someone whom he thought fell into the ethnic minority mould, then the Race Relations Act would apply. That would be a clear case of discrimination and would be caught by the race relations legislation; and quite rightly so. We believe that that should be fairly applied.
Of course, under this legislation it is open to an employer to carry out no checks, and not to avail himself of a defence. He can take the risk that someone may be picked up because he is so sure that his employment policies and recruitment policies are such that he does not have to do anything more. Many employers will have to do nothing more because what they do more than covers the requirements under this legislation. My own view is that if employers, simply as a routine measure, ask for national insurance numbers, P.45 numbers and some documentation that is specified, they have an absolute defence, with the exception of knowing that the people concerned were acting illegally in the first place. I think that Members of the Committee are seeing much more in this than there is. The amendment is neither desirable nor necessary.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Dubs: I have listened with interest to the many interesting contributions on this amendment. Having listened to the arguments, I concede that two months may be too long a period. If the Minister had suggested that perhaps a month or two weeks would be an appropriate period, I would have accepted that that appeared to meet my main concern. I repeat that I accept that two months is too long a period. But having said that, the argument for some period of grace seems to me to be as strong as ever. I am not persuaded by the arguments I have heard. I shall develop that further. The Minister talked about unscrupulous employers. No one
1826
condones them. There are, of course, some unscrupulous employers, but there are also many scrupulous employers who want to do the right thing. I fear that they are the ones who will be caught by these measures.
I have discussed the Bill with small employers. They are concerned about how to tackle the detailed requirements they are asked to meet. Therefore it is not an idle statement to say that I am worried about the good employers who will find life much more difficult.
The Minister also referred to a situation where an employer may wish to employ a number of people, some of whom have the right documents but others of whom do not. Given what has been said this evening, and given the Government's policy, it is almost inevitable that an employer would say, "I shall choose to fill the vacancy, or vacancies, from among those people who have one of the documents." That makes sense, does it not? If it so happens that the people without documents are black and the people with the documents are white, there would be a basis for saying—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Dubs: I said, if it so happened. The Minister cannot say no to that. That is a bit of speculation on my part. How can the Minister contradict that? I give way.
Baroness Blatch: If the noble Lord will allow me to say so, the distinguishing feature would not be whether they were black, white or green, but whether they had the right documentation or whether they did not. That is what would distinguish them. The fact that they may be Ukrainian, Afro-Caribbean or whatever would be an incidental factor. I have said that if employers discriminate on the grounds of colour, they would be caught by the Race Relations Act.
Lord Dubs: I had not finished the sentence that started with "If". I was going to say that if it happened, in the hypothetical example I am putting forward, that potential employees who are without documents are black, I do not suppose there would be a case for racial discrimination because the employer could defend himself from such an accusation by saying that he chose from among people who produced the relevant documents. That is, I think, almost self-evident. However, the problem is that by making it more difficult for employers, they will inevitably choose to employ those individuals whom it is easier to employ. Having looked with interest at the draft statutory instrument—that is to say, the specified documents as regards employment restrictions, which have been made generally available—I contend that it is more likely that black people will have difficulties in arriving with the relevant documents than will white people.
Baroness Blatch: Why?
Lord Dubs: The Minister asks why that is so. I am about to explain that. They may have more difficulty because if, for example, they are asylum seekers and have been in this country for six months, after which they are normally allowed to take employment, the papers they need to obtain from the Home Office to

1827
confirm that fact are not all that easy to assess. In my experience at the Refugee Council the documentation that was produced was sometimes not clear either to potential employers, or indeed to DSS offices. There have been difficulties with such documents. The matter is not that clear-cut. Certainly, if the Minister were to look at some of those documents I believe she would understand that an employer who is not experienced in this matter would find them more difficult to assess than if, for example, he were given a birth certificate issued in the United Kingdom. That is one example of why there may be difficulties.
I shall give the Minister another example that does not concern a black person at all. It is perfectly possible for someone to have arrived from Ireland who would not need to have any of the documents we are discussing. Such a person would be in this country quite legitimately and would be entitled to work quite legitimately. However, he would not be able to produce the documentation we have been discussing because he simply would not have it.
I give the Minister a further example. Let us take the case of a school-leaver who is seeking a job and is willing to accept a fairly casual job in the catering industry, or in an industry of that sort. The school-leaver might have no documentation—at least, not the documentation specified in the schedule. The school-leaver might have a report (or some such document) from his or her school as evidence of education. That would not be evidence within the schedule. Therefore, such a school-leaver might have more difficulty.
This measure is called the Asylum and Immigration Bill. It would not be surprising if the effect of the provision were to make employers more reluctant to employ black people. If we give a short period of grace, I think that that would help matters along. We argue that it would make it easier for employers to do the right thing: to take someone on and to use, let us say, the two week period of grace to check the documentation and establish that the employer, in employing the person, was within the law.
I had hoped to have a further response from the Minister, but in the absence of such a response, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 86 and 87 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 88:
Page 6, line 22, at end insert ("and
(c) having regard to the nature of the employment or of the employer, all reasonable steps were taken before the employment began to establish that the employment of the employee would not constitute an offence under this section.").
The noble Lord said: This has to be a probing amendment because it is difficult to find the right words to provide what we seek: to persuade the Government that there has to be a degree of flexibility in the clause for small employers and short-term employment. I do not claim for a moment that we have the right phrasing by using the words,
"having regard to the nature of the employment or of the employer".
1828
The Government will know from the results of their consultation that the concern expressed about the clause has not been from large, well-established employers. On the whole they have reasonably formal recruitment procedures. They would expect to examine some document in any case and would have no difficulty with the implementation of the clause.
The problem is as regards small employers. I do not even know the right definition of a small employer. Does it apply to an employer with 10 or 20 employees? I do not know. I have spent 30 years of my life as an employer, starting with only one employee and ending up after 30 years—the Committee might not consider it a great success—with something like 40 employees. Nevertheless, I have been through all the stages of employment of small numbers as an employer. When I first started as an employer in the 1960s formalities now imposed on employers—I had to suffer them in the early 1990s—would have driven me crazy. I have got used to them after a number of years, but I do not know whether at the beginning I could have survived the degree of regulation imposed on small businesses in the 1980s and 1990s.
I do not ask the Government to accept the wording of the amendment but to understand the purpose underlying it. Let us take an extreme case. A self-employed person may wish to employ another person for a short period for a certain purpose. That is exactly the kind of job creation of which the Government claim to be in favour in all their propaganda. However, this provision will be an obstacle to such short-term, part-time or casual employment. From the point of view of someone's career, it may not be ideal employment. But it is an addition to employment. Under the clause as drafted, small employers and employers of short-term labour will find themselves in exactly the same position with no concessions whatsoever, as large, formalised employers with employment departments, human resource management departments, personnel departments, and so on.
I do not insist on the wording. However, I beg the Government to pay some attention to the needs of small employers and specific forms of short-term, part-time employment. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: One other point which I think needs making is well within the terms of the amendment. It is the difficulty some people experience, when they have not previously been employed, in obtaining national insurance numbers. There are many cases of the Benefits Agency saying, "Come back when you have a job". I appreciate that the noble Baroness is in no position to answer immediately and without warning for the Department of Social Security. However, if the clause is to go through, before we are through the Report stage we need a fairly tightly worded assurance from the Department of Social Security that it will do something about the situation, especially for school-leavers who have never had previous work experience. If the school-leavers can get the national insurance number before they have done any work, it will assist matters.

1829
In passing, perhaps I may say that the department is unjustly maligned as to the alleged 20,000 national insurance numbers floating loose. I have read its replies to the Select Committee and I find them convincing. Many of the cases relate to people who are dead but whose dependants still receive pensions based on their contributions or to people who have been abroad, as I have, and might need the number again when they come back. I was grateful that mine had not been destroyed. If the point is raised later in the debate, as it may well be, I shall defend the department on it. But I should like to see it take action on people who cannot get a national insurance number until they have a job. Without that, the clause will be a misery for young school-leavers.
Baroness Blatch: I am not sure that the noble Earl's remarks relate specifically to this amendment. I understand from the way in which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, introduced the amendment that I should assume that it is taken separately from Amendment No. 85. If so, it would require that for the defence to be established under subsection (3), the employer would need to be able to show that he had taken all reasonable steps before the employment began to establish that the employment would not constitute an offence, as well as having seen and copied a relevant document. What constituted "all reasonable steps" would depend, under the terms of the amendment, on the nature of the employment or the employer.
I initially believed that Amendment No. 88 was intended to relate quite directly to Amendment No. 85 in an attempt to retain a requirement on employers to have considered the question of whether the employment of an individual would constitute an offence before the employment began. Either way, taken together those amendments would have meant that in order to establish a defence an employer would need to have been able to show that he had taken all reasonable steps before the employment began to establish that the employment would not constitute an offence. However, the employer would have two months, if we take this amendment with Amendment No. 85, from the commencement of the employment in order to obtain documentary evidence showing that the employment did not constitute an offence.
I should certainly be unhappy about the introduction of the concept of reasonableness into the defence we intend to provide under Clause 8. As the clause is drafted, an employer could be certain whether he had a defence. We think certainty is important to employers; they do not wish to leave it to subjective judgment on reasonableness. Under this proposal, the employer could need to enter into argument about whether actions taken before the employment began were reasonable in his circumstances. That would introduce an element of confusion and doubt.
A key point made by a number of respondents to our consultation document was the importance of it being clear to employers what they will need to do to establish
1830
a defence. The amendment would not enable us to provide employers with that clarity. I urge the Committee to reject the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister's response was in large part based on her assumption that the amendment was intended to be linked with Amendment No. 85. That is not the case, and to that extent, therefore, her response is not relevant. As I admitted at the beginning she has a point. I do not think the wording is adequate to the purpose that we intend to achieve. In particular, looking again at the wording of the amendment, I see that we have linked (b) and (c) with "and". Clearly that would be inappropriate. It would have been our intention in ideal circumstances to have said "or". Then we should have had to go back and change the relationship between (a) and (b). So technically the amendment is defective.
However, I take note of the fact and place it on record that, even allowing for the inefficiencies of our amendments, the Minister has failed to pay attention to the needs of small businesses and short-term casual or part-time labour. Nothing in this clause allows that sort of flexibility, which is essential for employers who are not experienced in this kind of form filling.
I do not know whether the Minister has ever been in the position, as I have been, of establishing a company without an immediate intention of trading. Within a week or two, you receive from the Inland Revenue an enormous quantity of documentation—it can be 50 centimetres high—on the assumption that you will be employing people and will be involved in the PAYE system. That kind of thing, together with VAT returns, is the most abominable burden in the eyes of small employers.
What is proposed here is an additional burden for small employers. There is no "tempering the wind to the shorn lamb". There is no provision for those who might be encouraged to provide employment on a short-term basis or a casual basis. They know now that there are to be no special concessions.
I made no strong claim for the wording of my amendments and the Minister knows that. But she, in turn, has made no concessions whatsoever to the needs of small employers. That will be noted. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.30 p.m.
Viscount Addison Viscount Addison moved Amendment No. 89:
Page 6, line 22, at end insert ("; or
(c) the employment was of such a casual and short-term nature, and the number of employees was such that it was not reasonably practicable for the employer to obtain such a document from the employee.").
The noble Viscount said: This amendment is concerned with a serious practical problem of compliance with the duties envisaged by the Government under Clause 8 that will be faced by employers of short-term casual workers in the agricultural and horticultural industries. Rather than

1831
declaring an interest, perhaps I should say that I have had some 25 years' experience of farming in Lincolnshire.
Employers commit an offence if they employ illegal immigrants. But in many parts of the countryside, such as East Anglia and Kent, where the crops grown require the employment of significant numbers of casual labour to harvest them, employers will be faced with a major practical difficulty.
Casual workers are engaged by the hour or day, and can come and go as they wish. They are paid at the end of each day or at the time they decide to leave work. Typically, these workers either make their own travel arrangements or a vehicle is dispatched to the nearest town: the workers are picked up, transported to the field, pick the crop and are paid in cash. When they arrive at work they will be under the supervision of a chargehand who may himself be employed only on a temporary basis.
Most casual workers do not carry documentation with them, and do not know their NI number. In many cases, the work is out in the fields, many miles from the farm or the farm office. So the photocopying of any documents they do have is out of the question.
There is often a questionmark, too, in relation to who is the employer. In many cases the workers will not be recruited by the farmer but by a gangmaster who also transports them to and from work. Sometimes a farmer pays the gangmaster; others may pay the workers directly. In some cases, depending on the nature of the work, the status of the worker is also questionable. Some could be held to be self-employed. The numbers of casuals involved in a single operation could run into hundreds each day.
In such circumstances other government departments—the DSS and the Inland Revenue—already accept that it is impossible for the employer to identify individual workers, and therefore special tax and national insurance arrangements apply to them.
Amendment No. 89 extends the defences available to an employer prosecuted under Clause 8. As an alternative to the employer showing that he had obtained the relevant document from the employee, he would be able to defend himself upon the basis that it was "not reasonably practicable" for him to obtain such documents from a large number of casual, short-term employees.
Coming, as the Minister does, from East Anglia, I am sure that she will have seen large gangs of casual employees at work harvesting the crops, whether they be flowers, fruit or potatoes, and will therefore understand the case I have made. I hope that she will give it her sympathetic attention. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: As a native of Kent and now living in East Anglia, I remember in my youth seeing the hop-pickers and fruit-pickers who came from the East End of London in groups. Now in Huntingdonshire for some years, all potato harvesting on a large scale has been done by contract hands and it is rare that a gang is employed for more than one week at a time. Amendment No. 89 deserves some consideration from
1832
the Minister. It may be that the Government can find a better solution; but the one put forward by my noble friend Lord Addison is worthy of consideration.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I look forward to hearing what my noble friend the Minister says in response to this amendment. I am another East Anglian. I am no longer involved in the business of employing casual labour for the picking of vegetables, potatoes or fruit. But this is not exclusively an agricultural problem and I shall return to that in a moment.
Short-term employment is not unknown, as has already been mentioned this evening by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, in the construction industry where not least of the problems is identifying who the prime employer is. Is it the prime contract holder who has responsibility—dealing for the moment with the construction industry—for the total site, the design and the construction of the total project? Or, as is so often the case, is it a subcontractor who is being employed in order to plaster the walls or to put the wiring into the building? He may have a deadline to finish the work by Saturday night and decide to take on three extra people to complete the work. In that instance I would hope to hear from my noble friend that the prime contractor is exonerated and that it is the responsibility of the subcontractor to ensure that the workers comply with the responsibility required by the law.
If one comes back to the agricultural situation and draws a parallel example, one may have a situation where a landowner employs a gangmaster who provides the labour. It is quite clear that the gangmaster is in the position of the subcontracting employer and should properly be held responsible for the bona fides of those he brings onto the landowner's field. The other side of the argument is that if the landowner himself owns an old banger of a bus which he drives around the local villages, filling it with various local people, then the responsibility lies in his hands.
This form of employment is already well recognised and well known to the DSS, who have been trying to deal with the scores of people who are here today and gone tomorrow. Although it is somewhat unusual at the moment in East Anglia, occasionally it rains and it is not possible to work. This is therefore a real problem and I hope that the Minister can give a somewhat sympathetic response to the specific difficulties of this rather irrational, illogical but nonetheless essential type of employment.
Lord Renton: Before my noble friend sits down, I think he may wish to make it clear that in the context of this clause it is the gangmaster and not the farmer with whom the gangmaster contracts who is the employer.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I hoped I had made that point clear. If not, I would have been guilty of imprecise language.
Baroness Seear: Having made a similar point on a previous amendment, I very much wish to support this amendment.
Lord Dubs: I wish to support the amendment as well. I do not have any direct experience of farming but

1833
I wonder whether there are all these gangmasters about. From what I understand of some of the employment in East Anglia and Kent, it seems that there are not gangmasters. Casual workers arrive and hope to get jobs, perhaps on a daily basis. There is no one there but the farmer who may well be employing the casual workers on a seasonal basis to harvest crops. The tradition of Londoners going hop picking in Kent is a long established one.
We have a similar difficulty in the construction industry. There may be gangmasters there—I do not know—but there is still that type of problem. Surely the Government do not want to make it impossible for people to be employed on a casual basis when that is the way in which that type of employment works best. It seems to me that there is a point here. The National Farmers Union accepts the point. I hope the Minister will make some concession.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I hoped I had made my point perfectly plain, but I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, was listening. I thought I said that where a farmer undertook this responsibility for himself he carried the responsibility himself.
The Earl of Balfour: Perhaps I may add a few words. In Scotland a substantial number of people from southern Ireland are employed on the casual basis just described. They never seem to possess any papers about anything.
Lord Dubs: I thank the noble Earl for supporting the point I made in relation to an earlier amendment. Perhaps I may turn to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. I can assure him that I was listening. He said that it was the farmer's responsibility. My point is that when a farmer in Kent takes on a casual worker to harvest crops it is very difficult to expect the farmer to go through the processes required by the Bill. If labour is taken on in that casual way it will be difficult to impose on the farmer the burden of dealing with the documentation that is required. Whether it is the farmer or the gangmaster, the strength of the criticism of the Government's proposal in relation to this matter stands.
Baroness Blatch: The amendment would provide an additional defence in some circumstances for those employing people on a casual and short-term basis. Under its terms an employer would not be guilty of an offence under Clause 8 if he could prove that the employment concerned was of a casual and short-term nature and that the number of employees involved was such that it was not reasonably practicable for the employer to obtain a document from the employee concerned.
The amendment introduces a degree of uncertainty into what would otherwise be a clear-cut matter. Employers would be required to weigh the reasonableness and the practicability of making checks in the light of the number of employees involved in casual and short-term employment. Having done so, they could still not be sure that in seeking to rely on the
1834
new defence provided in the amendment they would not be guilty of an offence, given the subjective nature of the test to be applied.
It would also weaken the impact of Clause 8 by potentially removing from its ambit a significant number of casual and short-term employments where the employer judged it impracticable to make the necessary checks. It would provide a loophole which could be readily exploited by unscrupulous racketeers trying to evade the impact of the clause. All they would have to do would be to engage sufficiently large numbers of those not entitled to work and make sure that they worked on a casual basis. We believe that employers must have clear and objective guidance if what is required of them under Clause 8 is to be kept to a minimum. The amendment would not enable us to provide such guidance.
The Government recognise the difficulties faced by the agricultural and horticultural industries in particular in securing sufficient casual workers who are legally entitled to do such work. The seasonal agricultural workers' scheme, which enables overseas students to work on farms from May to November each year as part of a youth mobility scheme, provides such a source. But we accept that the present quota of 5,550 falls short of the industry's needs despite efforts to improve recruitment from the resident labour force. We have therefore decided that from the 1997 season that quota will be increased to 10,000, which represents a rise of more than 80 per cent. We believe that that will substantially increase the number of people legally entitled to do seasonal agricultural work and as such will significantly reduce the industry's problems in making checks on casual workers. In the circumstances I hope that, with that concession, my noble friend will not wish to press the amendment.
9.45 p.m.
Viscount Addison: I thank my noble friend for that reply and all Members of the Committee for their contributions. I am very pleased that the few crumbs of comfort that I thought I might have have turned into something more desirable. However, I am rather worried that 10,000 Australian illegal immigrants may turn up in East Anglia. That does not seem to be very many when we consider the figures we heard earlier. Will there be any flexibility? Will my noble friend give me a little more comfort in possibly increasing that number if there is a need?
Baroness Blatch: My noble friend knows a good deal about Kent and my noble friend Lord Renton and I know a good deal about East Anglia. There will be constraints in East Anglia because horticulture in particular is a very hard-pressed industry. The likelihood of it taking one single employee more than it can afford on to its books is a very remote possibility indeed. It is an industry which runs on very tight profit margins, if any. That will be a very real constraint on the numbers that can be employed. So if 10,000 Australians turn up in East Anglia they will be disappointed. However, I can say to my noble friend that the NFU has made representations to us. This is a steep increase on the

1835
present quota of 5,550. We want to see how that goes. It does not require an order in Parliament to increase the number as it is an administrative issue. Therefore, we would consider later representations, but we wish to see how this particular increase works and the degree to which it satisfies the needs of the farmers who particularly employ seasonal labour.
Viscount Addison: My noble friend has been most helpful. On that basis, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 89ZA:
Page 6, line 22, at end insert—
("(3A) The defence afforded by subsection (3) above shall not be available in any case where the employer knew that his employment of the employee would constitute an offence under this section.").
The noble Baroness said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 84A. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Williams of Crosby Baroness Williams of Crosby moved Amendment No. 89A:
Page 6, line 24, leave out ("5") and insert ("3").
The noble Baroness said: At this late hour I shall move this amendment briefly. The point of it is to reduce the level of fines implied by offences under this clause. Because I am still far from clear whether employers will know exactly what they are required to do to protect themselves from a charge being laid against them for employing an illegal immigrant knowingly or unknowingly, I suggest that the fines implied by level 5 are extremely crushing. Under that level the fine is £5,000 and under level 3 it is £1,000, which is a very big difference. Under the Criminal Justice Act 1991 the fines at each level were substantially increased. My understanding is that as well as a fine of £5,000, an employer can be sent to prison for up to six months for level 5 offences. That seems to be a very ponderous and heavy burden for someone to bear.
In a sense there is a balance in what the noble Baroness said at an earlier stage about the clarity that will be laid down as to what employers are expected to do in order to protect themselves. However, I was a little troubled that she felt unable to accept any of the amendments in the last group moved by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, which were an attempt to pursue a much clearer set of indications about what the employers are supposed to do.
I hope that noble Lords who are concerned about this clause and its possible effect on employers will consider supporting the amendment. I think that a penalty as heavy as level 5—that is, of up to —5,000 or up to six months' imprisonment—is a substantial penalty to impose on an employer who may well be unclear about exactly what he is supposed to do and about whether he has been through all the proper documents. The noble Viscount, Lord Addison, has just given an example of how difficult it is for employers in some industries to get the necessary documents.
I must confess that I am troubled by the provisions. I do not really understand why the Home Secretary feels obliged to increase the fines to level 5 for this offence. Although I recognise that there are some bad cases, it will be a tremendously heavy fine for most employers. I am troubled by the fact that once again as we have argued repeatedly from these Benches, and as has been argued from the Cross-Benches and from the Benches of the Lords Spiritual, rather than face that level of fine many employers will decide not to employ anybody who might conceivably be defined as an "immigrant" for the purposes of this clause. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I am afraid that this clause would be incomplete without these two subsections. An employer can be either an individual, a partnership, a corporation or a company—
Baroness Williams of Crosby: Perhaps I may intervene. I was speaking to Amendment No. 89A, the sole purpose of which is to reduce the maximum penalty attracted by an offence under this clause. I believe that the noble Lord is addressing the next amendment.
Lord Renton: I apologise to the noble Baroness and to the Committee.
Earl Russell: This amendment raises a question about priorities to which I have been trying to get an answer for some time. There is no argument between us about whether there should be a fine. The question relates to the level of the fine. It might help if we could have a comparative scale of fines. Let us take an example which is more extreme than anything that we are arguing here. It would cause us a certain amount of surprise to find people being imprisoned for being drunk and disorderly if there had been no threat to life.
Perhaps we could be told what are the fines on employers who are found guilty of unfair dismissal. What are the fines on employers who keep people working for longer than is allowed without a meal break? What are the fines on employers for using dangerous and unguarded machinery? What are the fines on employers for polluting rivers, as happens from time to time? We need to know that comparative information. We need to put this offence on a comparative scale with other offences. We then need to consider whether the gravity which has been given to this particular offence is proportionate to the offence. That is a real question. I should like to have some material to help to answer it.
Baroness Blatch: There really is a misunderstanding on this part of the Bill. The amendment would set the maximum penalty for the new offence at level 3—currently £1,000—rather than at level 5—currently £5,000. Both of those figures are maximum figures. There are no powers whatever in Clause 8 to imprison anybody, so imprisonment is not an alternative to the fines.
In setting the maximum penalty for the new offence, the most important consideration is, as always, to ensure that the courts will be able to sentence appropriately the most serious examples of the offence. Within that

1837
maximum penalty, it is then for the courts to set the penalty in individual cases taking account of the seriousness of the particular offence and the financial circumstances of the offender.
We do not believe that a maximum penalty of just £1,000 would allow the courts adequately to deal with, for example, the deliberately exploitative employer who employs people he knows, or suspects, to be working illegally simply because he can pay them lower wages. We believe that a maximum penalty of £5,000 would allow the courts to deal with such offenders in an appropriate fashion. We are setting a level within which there can be proper reflection of the seriousness or otherwise of the offence. Obviously, in the examples given by the noble Baroness it will operate at the lower end of the level 5 fine of £5,000, and for the most serious offences that I have referred to a fine of up to £5,000 can be imposed on an employer.
Earl Russell: The noble Baroness has still not addressed the comparative point which exercises me quite considerably. To take another comparative figure, last Tuesday night we discussed carriers' liability. In that case the fine is a maximum of £2,000. This is more than twice the fine that is imposed upon carriers. Why is this a much more serious offence?
Baroness Blatch: I understand that in the case of carriers' liability it is a flat £2,000. It is not a question of the fine going up to anything; it is a £2,000 levy, charge or whatever which is being considered. I am afraid that I am unable to provide the levels of fines in cases of unfair dismissal, working with unguarded machinery and so on. Sometimes industrial tribunals set their own penalties to be imposed on employers. If the noble Earl wishes me to write to him about it I shall do so. For the more serious exploitative examples of employing illegal immigrants, we take the view that £1,000 is too low and that a fine of up to £5,000 will allow the seriousness of the offence to be reflected in the fine. Of course, for less serious cases we expect it to operate at a much lower level than £5,000 but within that range.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: As I understand it, under Clause 8(1) an offence is committed if an employer employs a person who is an illegal immigrant. Therefore, the fine is for an offence which relates to a single employee or immigrant. If an employer employs five or ten at a time the maximum fine can be £5,000 times five or ten. I do not say that the maximum fine will always be imposed. The Minister is right about that. However, it is a specific offence which relates to a single employee. Therefore, the fines multiply as the number of employees multiplies.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord has got me on that technical question. My understanding is that if the police are concerned about a particular employer whose workforce is made up entirely of illegal immigrants the employer will be prosecuted for employing illegal
1838
entrants. I am not sure that the fine would be £5,000 times the number of persons employed. I would need to take advice on that. I do not know.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Bill is very clear. Subsection (1) reads:
"Subject to subsection (3) below, if any person (`the employer') employs an immigrant ('the employee') … the employer shall be guilty of an offence".
Subsection (4) provides:
"A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale".
There is no doubt what the Bill says.
Baroness Blatch: If they are separate offences the fine may be £1,000 in each case, as long as it is within the £5,000. The fine may be £500 in each case. It is a matter for the court to determine the right fine to impose on the employer who is guilty of that particular offence. The noble Lord is absolutely right in his definition of the offence. If an employer employs a person without availing himself of a defence, he will be guilty of an offence and it will be for the court to determine the matter.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I found that a fascinating exchange. I am not completely clear what kind of fine can be levied against what employer for employing what number of employees. This is a point that we may wish to clear up. If the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is right, the following example jumps to my mind. Let us suppose that a farmer, perhaps in East Anglia, employs a family that wants to work on the harvest. He employs five people. Let us assume that he is a relatively small farmer. If the ultimate amount that he has to pay for employing those five people, who turn out to be here without proper papers, is £25,000, such a fine could break a small farmer. It is an important point to clear up. Let me say right away that I do not know the answer, but it is an important point to clarify.
At this late hour I do not want to keep the Committee up for ever, but perhaps I can say just one other thing. A great deal turns on the issue of the level of fine and how clear we can be with employers about what is required. There must be a balance between the two. The debate has not clarified for me what documents will be needed for this extremely difficult set of conditions that employees might be in breach of.
I wonder whether the Minister would consider the simple test that my noble friend Lord Avebury mentioned earlier; that is to say, a national insurance card, or, failing that, a birth certificate. The more complex the documents, substitute documents or copy documents required, the greater the danger of some employer of good will being caught by a substantial fine. I believe I have talked long enough for the Minister to find the answer to the question. If not, I fully understand that she may come back to me in correspondence or on Report.
10 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: One piece of information that I cannot ascertain at the moment is whether more than one offence is committed if there is more than one illegal employee. I shall take advice. First, there is an assumption that the £5,000 maximum would be levied in every case. That is a matter for the courts. The seriousness would be reflected in the amount of fine determined by the courts.
The two pieces of documentation that the noble Baroness mentioned would be an absolute defence for the employer. Once an employer has noted and recorded a national insurance number, or any of the documents specified, which include a birth certificate, then of course the employer would avail himself of the defence and there would be no offence committed. It is for people who do not avail themselves of a defence who would be guilty of an offence.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I thank the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 90 not moved.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 6, line 36, at end insert—
("() There shall be included in an order by the Secretary of State under this section a requirement that where for purposes of subsection (3)(a) an employer inspects a document prior to his employment of any person he shall inspect a document in respect of each person prior to employing him.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that every employee who applies for a job is asked by the employer to produce the necessary documents. It is intended to ensure that there is no discrimination by the employer who might otherwise be tempted to say to his white employees who sound as if they are British, "We will take you on", but to a potential employee who happens to be black, or clearly from some other country, perhaps Bosnia, "I want documents." That would be discriminatory.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that where documentation is asked for, it is asked of all potential employees regardless of race, background or origin. In that way we have at least some assurance that everyone has a chance of being considered for a job and that no further discrimination is brought into the system through the provisions of Clause 8. I beg to move.
Lord Avebury: It is not quite the right approach, but I am in full agreement with the spirit of the amendment. It satisfies the condition I proposed earlier; that we would not make it an offence for an employer to take on an immigrant who did not satisfy the test but would make it an offence for the employer not to have the documentation presented to him at the time he took on the new worker. That would make matters even across the board. Earlier today we established the fact that an employer who did not require such documentation from a potential worker was putting himself at risk. Under the terms of the Bill an employer is not obliged to ask for a national insurance document or for any of the other papers which may be specified in the order. However, if
1840
he fails to do so, he will run the risk of being prosecuted. Therefore, in effect and in practice he will demand such documentation from every worker who presents himself.
I believe that the intention of the amendment is that it should be spelt out on the face of the Bill that the employer will demand such documentation. I support that and would go further by providing that the offence should be one of failing to ask for the documentation or of wilfully employing somebody who the employer knows is presenting false documentation. When I tried to make that point earlier the Minister suggested that I was putting an enormous additional burden on employers. I wish to refute that suggestion and to ensure that anyone who reads Hansard will be aware that my proposal would not place an additional burden on employers but spells out clearly the employers' obligation in an objective way. The employer must look at the documentation and must be without knowledge of any fraudulence on the part of the applicant.
Compliance with the Bill is a very simple matter. The employer simply has to look at the national insurance number on whatever the document and to record the fact that it has been presented to him. Perhaps he could take a photocopy of the national insurance number on the P.45 or whatever other document, such as a passport, is presented to him. Once he has done that he has extinguished his liability under the Bill. The system would then be uniform for any employee who presents himself. There would be no possibility of racial discrimination, which was mentioned in regard to earlier amendments, and everybody would know where they stood. The employee would bring along the document, the employer would examine it, that would be recorded and it would be the end of the matter unless it was subsequently alleged that the employer knowingly accepted a document that was fraudulent. That would be the only other condition that must be satisfied and it would be the equivalent to the provisions in the Minister's Amendment No. 89ZA.
We have the germ of an amendment to the clause which would not only enable us to remove the term "immigrant", which the Minister has promised to do, but would spell out on the face of the Bill precisely what the employer must do in terms which are unambiguous, plain and cause the least amount of work on the part of the employer.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: The Minister will remember that this was one of the matters raised in our meeting with the Home Secretary. The noble Baroness then made it clear that her expectation was that all employers will inspect a document. She has repeated that in the Chamber tonight. If that is the case, how will employers know that that is the expectation?
Perhaps I may apologise to the Minister for being absent at an earlier stage in the Committee when she made the welcome concession about the word "immigrant", and I thank her for that.
Baroness Blatch: The amendment would place on the face of the Bill a requirement that where an employer chooses to establish a defence in respect of any new employee he must do so in respect of all new

1841
employees. Implicit in the amendment is the intention that employers should not simply direct their checks at people from the ethnic minorities. Under the formulation it would be made clear in Clause 8 that any employer who opts to make checks will be required by order to make checks on all new employees. In that way an employer would both be able to avoid conviction under Clause 8 and be more likely to avoid challenge under the Race Relations Act 1976.
We have made clear all along that employers will need to treat all new employees in the same way. Indeed, this was set out in our consultation document. I should explain to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that a consultation document has been issued on the subject. We intend to issue guidance. I understand the point the noble Lord makes. It is extremely difficult to understand anything by reading the "legalese" of a statute. Therefore, we believe that the best way to inform employers, in particular smaller employers, of their responsibilities under this Act is to put it in proper guidance in plain English. We intend to do that.
This does not mean that employers will be required to make checks in all cases. Employers will be free to take the risk that they may be employing people not entitled to work if they choose not to make checks. However, given the straightforwardness of the checks we expect that most employers will choose to make them.
We have also made clear all along that this legislation is positively not a licence to discriminate. Indeed it has been clear to us that in practice employers will need to check all employees—if they choose to check any—in order to comply with the Race Relations Act. However, it is not clear that there is anything to be gained by having this on the face of the Bill rather than simply explained in the guidelines which will be made available to all employers. Either way the remedy available if employers do not treat all new employees equally would be by way of a complaint under the Race Relations Act. This amendment would not alter the position in any way.
We have made clear from the outset that we will be providing guidance to employers. In part this will explain to them what they will need to do to establish a defence. It will also provide advice which will help them to ensure that their selection processes are fair and lawful and do not breach the race relations legislation. The need to treat all new employees in the same way will clearly be a key part of that guidance.
I believe that the Government's intentions are clear and that employers will be in no doubt as to what is required of them. The amendment would not add anything to the clause. I therefore urge the Committee to reject it.
Earl Russell: The noble Baroness says that this clause is not a licence to discriminate. I welcome that, and I accept entirely the sincerity of the Minister's intention. The question is about the effect.
I am reminded of a remark by Archbishop Laud. He was reading through a form of service for reconciling to Christianity those who, while captive and in slavery in
1842
Algiers, had been with a degree of coercion converted to Islam. He said that the service laid down that they were to stand in a church porch in a white sheet doing penance throughout a day. Seeing that, Laud wrote in the margin: "Memorandum. Small boys not to gather to laugh at them." I cannot help wondering whether one hope is just about as likely to be realised as the other.
Baroness Blatch: I am always interested and sometimes amused by the noble Earl's references back into the annals of history and his incredible font of true-life references in our debates. If there is that kind of open discrimination, we believe that the Race Relations Act is the proper way to deal with it. We believe that employers will act fairly. My noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate mentioned to me a few moments ago that if the person seeking work has lived next door to the company and has known the people there since he was born, it would be entirely proper for an employer not to seek a defence in the case of that particular person. However, if the applicants who came along had strange accents or were of a colour which made the employer say, "My goodness, this must be an illegal immigrant" that situation is caught by the race relations legislation.
We trust employers to be sensible and not to discriminate on the basis of race, colour or creed. We believe that to put this provision on the face of the Bill would impose an unnecessary burden on employers. They should be free to avail themselves of the defence if they need to. Having said that, as I said to the right reverend Prelate, we have an expectation that the provision will be applied fairly and universally because that is the best possible defence for any employer.
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Seear: Before the Minister concludes her response, can she say whether this will apply to domestic employment? I am not trying to be facetious in any way but, for example, if a housewife takes on a cleaning lady—that is, if she is lucky enough to find one—does it mean that she will have to go through the process, or is there a domestic exemption in that respect? I ask that because there have been some domestic exemptions.
Baroness Blatch: We have already discussed domestic employees this evening. We have said that people must be careful that they are not employing illegal immigrants. Indeed, I believe that there probably are quite a number of illegal immigrants employed in that way. It is the responsibility of employers to assure themselves that the potential employee is not an illegal immigrant.
Baroness Seccombe: Before my noble friend the Minister sits down, can she take note of the fact that we are all most grateful to the many Asians who run corner shops and mini supermarkets? If guidance is to be sent

1843
out in clear English, perhaps their needs could also be taken into account and, if necessary, translations provided.
Baroness Blatch: I can assure my noble friend that that point will be taken into account.
Earl Russell: If the Minister will forgive me, I have one further question. Will additional staff in the Home Office be given the task of answering questions from employers about the operation of the clause? Moreover, where telephone advice is given, will there be written confirmation of it? That could be extremely helpful to a number of small employers, such as those mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe. Indeed, I agree with her in that respect.
Baroness Blatch: We want to keep the burden on employers as light as possible. We also want to be as helpful to them as possible and to explain in the simplest possible way how they can avail themselves of the defence against committing an offence under the Bill. We shall certainly do all that we can in that respect. Indeed, we work very well and very constructively through the employers' federations. With regard to the information that goes out to new employers—that is, people who become employers—we shall certainly find ways and means of ensuring that they understand their obligations under the legislation. As I said, we shall do what we can. I am not sure that we intend to employ new people at the Home Office to tackle the task. But clearly we do not want to make the process so complicated that employers would feel the need to keep telephoning us on a regular basis.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I had not intended to intervene in the debate, but the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, raised a point which might strike home so far as I am concerned in that I could well be an employer of an illegal immigrant for all I know: a cleaning lady. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will publicise the new requirements as fully as possible. Otherwise there may be many people who may find themselves in an extremely embarrassing position.
Baroness Blatch: If I may say so, I believe that a fairly senior person—namely, the President of the United States—found himself in rather a difficult position for that very offence.
Lord Dubs: Perhaps I may point out that two potential Members of the Cabinet in Washington failed their hearings precisely on that point. Therefore, the noble Lord's concerns are well placed. However, I think that they go slightly wide of the amendment. I believe that I understood correctly what the Minister said in her original response, but perhaps she will be kind enough to confirm my understanding.
The Minister said that the Government's intention was that there should be no discrimination by employers. She said that she would put into the guidelines the sentiments contained in the amendment, so that employers would treat all people equally. However, the Minister also said that she would not accept the amendment because she felt that all
1844
employers ought to be free not to have to make checks. I find that a little puzzling. The Minister said that employers should have the freedom not to make checks, yet she accepted the spirit of the amendment and said that she would put it in the guidelines. I do not understand whether or not the Minister wants the provision.
It seems to me that if the amendment is technically defective, then all the Minister has to do is to say so. However, if employers are to know how to behave on the basis suggested and if the Minister agrees with the content of the amendment, I cannot understand why she will not accept it. It seems to me to be counter to that spirit to say that employers ought to be free not to make checks. In other words, I am still puzzled in that respect.
Baroness Blatch: It will be an offence—offences have been created in this Bill—to employ an illegal immigrant. We have provided a defence for employers, which they are free to avail themselves of, or not to avail themselves of. We believe that whatever practice they adopt, that should certainly be a fair practice. We also believe that, in practice, it would be better to apply it universally so that any new people entering a company should be checked according to these rules. We are saying that if an employer believes that his recruitment policies are such that he does not wish to avail himself of the defence, he is free to do that. But I have to say that, if subsequently he is found to be employing an illegal immigrant, he will not have a defence against the offence of employing one.
Lord Dubs: I thank the Minister for those comments. The amendment states that,
"where for purposes of subsection (3)(a) an employer inspects a document … he shall inspect a document in respect"
of each employee. The amendment does not even say that the employer has to inspect all employees' documents at all times. However, if he adopts a practice of inspecting documents, he must do so for each employee prior to employing him. It is late and I do not wish to press this matter. Perhaps I can withdraw my amendment on the basis that the guidelines will be clear and unambiguous along the lines of what the Minister has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 92:
Page 6, line 36, at end insert—
("() Before making any order under subsection (3), the Secretary of State shall consult such organisations as appear to him to be representative of employers and employees and the Commission for Racial Equality.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 92, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 94. I rather think that these can be probing amendments because the Minister has referred to the intention of the Government to produce a document containing details of the provisions of the order in response to a number of previous amendments. I welcome that. The need for Amendment No. 92 is heightened by the amendments which the Minister has already persuaded the Committee—by force of votes—should be added to the

1845
Bill, and therefore subtracted from the defences available to employers in proceedings under this part of the Bill.
This will inevitably be an enormously complicated series of instructions to employers. The measure comprises statutory obligations which we have been debating tonight. It will comprise the contents of orders under subsections (2)(b), (3)(a) and (3)(b). It will comprise guidance which does not even have the status of orders. It will be enormously difficult for employers to understand what is proposed by the provisions of this clause. We think therefore that it is necessary for there to be two safeguards. The first is the safeguard contained in Amendment No. 92 which states,
"Before making any order under subsection (3)"—
those are the two orders relating to documents and to the retention of documents—the Secretary of State should consult employers' organisations, employees' organisations (I take it that would be the trade unions) and the Commission for Racial Equality which has been closely observing and commenting on the Bill. Before the final decision is taken to bring this measure into effect—that is, the whole of this clause—
"the Secretary of State shall take reasonable steps to circulate to employers a document containing details of the provisions of the order".
I think that the Minister has already said that. The Secretary of State shall also provide,
"facsimile representations of any documents an employee can produce".
It is necessary to do this graphically as well as in words. This evening we have had difficulty understanding the provisions of the clause. I hesitate to suggest this but I think that Ministers must have had some difficulty—as they were being briefed and as they were presenting the clause to us—in understanding the provisions of the clause. I do not think that the whole thing is self-evident and clear in the way that it would have to be for employers. I suggest to Ministers that it would be to their advantage and in no way detract from the effectiveness of the clause if they were to take account of the two stages of consultation proposed in Amendments Nos. 92 and 94. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: The amendments seek to promote consultation and to ensure that employers are properly informed about what will be required of them because of this clause. However, neither amendment is necessary. I hope that I can explain why.
Amendment No. 92 would require the Home Secretary to consult the Commission for Racial Equality and organisations chosen by him as being representative of employers and employees before making any order under subsection (3).
While the Government have made clear their commitment to proper consultation with employers and others to ensure that the implementation of Clause 8 is as straightforward as possible, we cannot agree that there should be a statutory requirement to undertake such consultation on each and every occasion the order-making power is to be used. Such a requirement is
1846
in our view unnecessary. There could well be occasions where such consultation would achieve nothing except an unhelpful delay.
Consultation will take place where it will be helpful. As part of the consultation on the guidance that the Home Office will be providing for employers—and which we made abundantly clear in our consultation document would take place—I would expect that we will circulate a copy of any draft statutory instrument then available.
If any substantive comments were to be made at that stage then we would consider amending the statutory instrument. But given the purpose and likely content of the statutory instrument, we would anticipate that such comments would be unlikely. It is for Parliament to decide which documents should provide a defence for employers under this provision.
The key will, in our view, be keeping employers and others informed about government policy in this area—and giving employers time to prepare for any changes. These will clearly be the essential ingredients.
The same applies to the second of these amendments. Indeed, it is because we have already made clear our commitment to providing all necessary guidance to employers that this amendment is not necessary. It simply seeks to require us to do something that we have already made abundantly clear will be provided.
Employers would certainly have reason to complain if we had not made every effort to make available to them information which will enable them to be certain of what they need to do to ensure that they are not liable to prosecution. This would include information about immigration stamps and what they mean about a person's entitlement to work; it would include a list of EEA countries; it would include advice on how employers could ensure that they did not breach the Race Relations Act; and it would also include any other information that we established, through consultation, would be helpful to employers.
Baroness Seear: The Minister states that she will make information available to all employers. A few moments ago she told us that the provision applies to every housewife in the country who might wish to employ a cleaning lady. How will the Government get this information over? Does the Minister believe that everyone reads all the pieces of paper lying about all over the place? Whatever efforts are made, a vast number of people will know nothing about the provision.
Baroness Blatch: I remind the noble Baroness that every housewife in this country is subject to a great deal of statutory law which is not read in any detail, day in, day out, throughout their lives. We do not send them great screeds on every piece of legislation, but considerable publicity will be given to the Act as it comes into force. Housewives who employ people now

1847
are subject to complicated employment law: rules to do with the Inland Revenue, employment conditions and so on. I trust—
Baroness Seear: Can they really apply it?
Baroness Blatch: I am making a serious point, housewives are already, as are husbands, subject to massive statutory obligations. They do not have every single statute in their homes; we do not send them everything. But the Act will be given publicity. Employers will be informed of their obligations under the Act, just as they are under any other Act such as the Criminal Justice Act and the Education Act. They lay obligations on people and as much publicity is given to them as possible. As the noble Baroness knows, ignorance is no defence under the law. People who employ cleaning ladies, domestic servants, waiters, home helps, whatever they are, will know that they have an obligation as an employer. One of the new obligations will be that they should not employ an illegal immigrant.
We will do our best to let employers know but, to take the point made by the noble Baroness, if we put the provision on the face of the Bill, we would be in difficulty with informing however many million housewives there are who may at some time employ someone. There has never been any intention other than that guidance should be made available so far as possible to all employers, or that it should be made available to them before the clause and any order under it come into effect. That is simply a question of common sense. I cannot advise that the amendments should be agreed to. I accept the principle and the importance of consultation, but I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
10.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: I do not believe that it is ever superfluous to require a government to consult, entirely independent of which party may be in office at the time. Governments instinctively leave things to the last moment and then do everything in a rush; and we are left to fit in with it as best we can. That has always been true and it probably always will be true.
I recall an occasion in 1993 when I believe the noble Baroness was at the Dispatch Box during the passage of the Education Bill. There were quite strong exchanges with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford who had been trying to get a response out of the Department for Education, as it then was. He said: "The problem is not that the Government will not meet our concerns; it is that we cannot make them understand that this is our concern". The noble Baroness was not in any way at fault and did everything she could to put it right. If she remembers that incident, she will understand why a requirement to consult may on occasions save a great deal of trouble.
She is also reluctant to have requirements placed on government. There again, we hear a voice, the voice of the Executive, absolutely regardless of party, time, place or anything else. The Executive is always ready to place
1848
requirements on the rest of us: employers, employees, parents, children, young, old, whatever. But when an attempt is made in Parliament to place requirements on the Executive itself, it always resists it with the utmost vehemence.
One cannot help occasionally feeling a real sense of incongruity about this. I hope that the noble Baroness will understand why I feel that sense of incongruity. Cannot she go just a little way to meet this?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: Before the Minister replies, does the Committee feel, in view of the remarks made by the mover of the amendment, that my noble friend has answered basically the same question three, if not four, times this evening? We are going round exactly the same circle as we did two nights previously when the same question to my noble friend was addressed from different angles and she gave almost the same answer. It is abundantly clear what the answer is. Would it not be in the Committee's best interests to study the answers in the intervening period? If any matter remains unknown or unaccepted, Members of the Committee would have the opportunity, at perhaps a more reasonable hour of the night, to readdress the question.
Baroness Blatch: My noble friend reminds me of how repetitive the debate is, but it is my job to answer the questions. I have been in local and national government for a long time. I do not believe that I have ever known so much information made public, so much open government for parents and citizens through the Citizen's Charter programmes: from the health service to citizens, from the education service to citizens, from the Home Office to citizens, in information leaflets and in all manner of ways. Consultation is certainly a very big part of the work that I do.
If we have fallen down on the consultation we have done so far on this particular Bill or if we fall down on the consultation we have promised during the course of it and, subsequently, when it becomes law, then I should rightly feel guilty about the question that has been posed. The particular resistance to putting this on the face of the Bill relates to being so prescriptive. There will be occasions when we shall want to do something helpfully and quickly. Then we should be bound by a requirement on the face of the Bill to go through a particular process that would be decidedly unhelpful. It is better to have flexibility, and to take on trust that this Government are more open than any previous government have ever been. I hope that that will continue.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not accuse the Government on this occasion of any unwillingness to communicate with employers about the effects of this clause. I never have done. I accept that the Minister has acknowledged the necessity in particular for the kind of communication that is called for in Amendment No. 94. To that extent (I do not know whether she is familiar with the phrase that we use in the Labour Party) "warm words" are comparatively welcome.
The Minister made clear in her response to the amendment—that is why I do not apologise, even to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, for moving an amendment which he believes is repetitive—the amount

1849
of information that it will be necessary to communicate to employers in order to enable them to comply with the conditions of this clause. The amount of information and illustration that will be necessary for employers—large and small, individual and corporate, partnerships, employers of casual labour, part-time labour, and short-term labour—is grotesque. All of them are caught by the provision. No attempt that has been made by the Opposition or from any Benches in this Chamber to try to restrict the obligations to smaller employers and employers of casual labour has found any favour with the Government.
In order to avoid saying it on clause stand part, I say now that I am in two minds about this clause. I am sorry for the employers who will have to comply with it. But it will not have any significant effect on the employment of illegal immigrants; and it will cause a huge wave of anger among employers, large and small, at the additional impositions that the Government are placing on them. I wish the Government luck with the implications both in electoral terms and in terms of the argument that will ensue from the enactment of this clause. They are welcome to it. It will cause them only pain if they allow it to go through as it is now proposed. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 93 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 93A:
Page 6, line 39, at end insert—
("(8) In this section—
"contract of employment" means a contract of service or apprenticeship, whether express or implied, and (if it is express) whether it is oral or in writing;
"employ" means employ under a contract of employment and "employment" shall be construed accordingly.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment will introduce into Clause 8 a definition of the term "employ". That definition will make clear that employment means employment under a contract of service or apprenticeship. The intention is to make clear that the employed, but not the self-employed, should come within the scope of Clause 8.
As the Committee will know, Clause 8 will make it an offence to employ a person aged 16 or over who does not have permission to live and work in the United Kingdom. However, the term "employ" is not defined. That is consistent with the approach taken in the Immigration Act 1971 and in the Immigration Rules, where no attempt is made to define what is meant by "employment". The appellate authorities have not felt bound to consider whether people are, strictly speaking, employed having ruled, for example, that providing childcare for a sister and brother-in-law constituted employment.
If we did not define what we meant by "employ" in Clause 8, it would finally be for magistrates' courts to decide the scope of that term for the purposes of Clause 8. A number of respondents to our consultation document made the point that we ought to define in the Bill what is meant by the term "employ".
Having considered the matter, we agree that it would be helpful to have such a definition. It would make it easier to give clear guidance to employers about the nature of their obligations.
The term is, of course, defined in other legislation affecting employment. The most common definition, and the one which seems to us most appropriate to use in the context of this new offence, relates to employment under a contract of service or of apprenticeship. This is a well-established term and there is a considerable body of case law which explores the circumstances in which such a contract will be taken to exist. A person who is self-employed works under a contract for services and would quite properly not be covered by the terms of Clause 8. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: This only confirms what I was saying on the last amendment. I do not know whether to laugh or cry when I see these amendments. The Minister is right: it is necessary to define "employment". She is probably right too in saying that it is necessary to define it in terms of a contract of employment or apprenticeship. But what will be the effect of that? All the rogue employers she describes—those who employ illegal immigrants—will immediately say, "I am not employing you. You are self-employed." Sometimes they will be what are called "gangmasters" or employers of "lump" labour, but more often people will actually be self-employed.
In order to provide for this nonsensical attempt at control of illegal immigration—I am not against the control of illegal immigration; I am against the way it is proposed in this Bill—the Government will drive large numbers of legal workers in this country into self-employment and outwith the protections of employment legislation. As I say, I do not know whether to laugh or cry.
Earl Russell: I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, if I have been repeating myself. So far as I know, I have only one question to which I have yet to receive an answer where I see the same mischief arising under several different parts of the Bill.
I agree entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said. The trend to self-employment is already in progress for a great variety of reasons. It has the effect of depriving people of the protection of employment legislation. It has the effect also of depriving government revenue of national insurance contributions.
We are faced with a real problem which is worrying the Chancellor of the Exchequer considerably; that is, falling tax takes of various sorts. I cannot help wondering whether this measure will give a further twist to that process and make the problem of putting right the public sector borrowing requirement even more serious. I hope that that point will receive thought and that there will be consultation with the Treasury about it.
Baroness Seear: Referring back to the construction industry, about which I seem to have spoken a great deal this evening, this provision means that a vast proportion of people will go on what is known as the "lump" in that industry; and I wish everyone luck with it.

1851
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 94 not moved.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 95:
Page 6, line 39, at end insert—
("() Within 18 months of this section coming into force, the Secretary of State shall lay before both Houses of Parliament a report estimating the costs to business of implementing this section during its first year of operation.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 95, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 96, both amendments being in my name and that of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey.
These amendments take the situation forward after the Bill has come into force, although I hope that it will not be passed as it is presently drafted. Amendment No. 95 seeks to establish that,
"Within 18 months of this section coming into force, the Secretary of State shall lay before both Houses of Parliament a report estimating the costs to business of implementing this section during its first year of operation".
We believe that to implement Clause 8 will put a significant additional burden on to businesses; and we think it right and proper, as the Government deny that proposition, that within a certain period after the Bill comes into force there should be an assessment of the cost to business.
Some figures have already been put forward as to what the cost might be. I am not sure that they are worth quoting because all the matters involved may not have been considered. I shall give the Committee one or two examples of what costs might be incurred. Some employers will have to train staff to operate the new system. Personnel departments will need to know what the legislation says and how they must conduct themselves. Employers may have to develop new systems for keeping records and for monitoring their employment practices.
The cost to employers might be raised in another way. Foreign nationals are increasingly required to present their original documents to, or leave them with, a number of agencies, particularly the Home Office. From June this year they will have to leave certain documents with the Home Office when making particular applications. The Home Office often sits on those documents. While the Home Office has the documents, the employee cannot show them to the employer. This applies not only to the Home Office, lest the Minister thinks that I am picking unfairly on her department. It may be the embassy of the country from which the individual comes; it may be educational establishments; it may be health authorities; it may be the DSS, local authorities or others. Such agencies may require the same documents that the Government require should be shown to employers.
There will be an extra burden on employers because they will have to know how to cope with the situation when an employee says, "I have a passport. It says that I am allowed to stay here and to take work, but it happens to be with the Home Office". We all know that it takes quite some time for the Home Office to process these documents. Employers can, as the Minister said, take people on without the documents on the strength
1852
of the assurance that the potential employee gives. This represents an extra burden on employers. It is one of the reasons why we should like an amendment to be accepted which ensures that there will be some assessment of how the system works.
Amendment No. 96 concerns whether the effect of the legislation will be to discriminate against the black and ethnic minority communities of this country. I fear that it will be. I said earlier—I do not mind repeating it—that I understand that the Cabinet itself was divided on precisely this issue when considering whether to bring forward the Bill. The Commission for Racial Equality, the TUC and others fear that the effect of the provision will be discriminatory. The Government say that it will not be. The amendment deals with that dilemma or that difference of opinion.
The amendment will ensure that the Secretary of State lays before Parliament after two years of this section coming into force a report on the effects on the employment of members of ethnic minorities. We know that unemployment among black and ethnic minority people is higher than among their white equivalents. Afro-Caribbean men suffer a much higher level of unemployment than their white contemporaries. If there is any basis for our fear on this side of the Committee that the measure will add to the discrimination against those minorities, it is right that that should come out in the open.
I put the amendment to the Minister in the hope that she will accept it because it will at least resolve the issue of whether there is discrimination as a result of these measures. I beg to move.
Baroness Rawlings: I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, is so worried that this clause will place such a heavy burden of costs on business. I wonder why he and his party are not opposing the terrible costs that the Social Chapter would impose on business.
Earl Russell: The noble Baroness invites us to repeat ourselves, but I shall not.
Baroness Blatch: Touché! These amendments would place statutory requirements on the Home Secretary to assess the early effects of Clause 8 on business costs and the employment of people from the ethnic minorities.
It is right that these areas should be of particular interest. But I should say at the outset that we do not think it would be necessary or helpful to have statutory requirements of the kind proposed. I expect that it will be helpful to review the operation of the whole scheme, including the costs to business and the impact on employment opportunities, at some point in the future. But the Government's view is that it would be preferable not to put detailed requirements in statutory form.
Let me turn to the first of these amendments. It would place a statutory requirement on the Secretary of State to make an estimate of the cost to business of implementing Clause 8 during the first 12 months of its operation; and to lay a report before Parliament detailing those costs within 18 months of the clause coming into force.

1853
One of the prime considerations in developing the proposals currently contained in Clause 8 was to ensure that the burdens on business were kept to the minimum. That reflects this Government's strong long-term commitment to supporting business.
A compliance cost assessment for Clause 8 was made available to interested parties. It was sent out to all those who were sent or asked for a copy of our consultation document and has, I understand, become widely available. In our compliance cost assessment we estimated that the total non-recurrent compliance costs would be £13.5 million, representing less than £11.30 for each employer; and that total recurrent compliance costs would be £11.5 million, representing less than £10 per employer per year.
We are currently considering whether that assessment may require some amendment in the light of comments received from business. Some responses forecasted minimal compliance costs, whereas others were less optimistic. It may well be that the different views expressed were the result of the different recruitment practices currently adopted by employers. We will make a revised assessment available during the passage of the Bill.
We accept, of course, that making an assessment of compliance costs before a provision is implemented will never be an exact science. It will clearly be important to listen to anything that employers have to say once the proposal is implemented, including comments on actual costs. If a formal estimate of costs to business seems called for at an early stage we will make one, but we do not need a statutory provision to this effect.
On the second amendment here, I understand the very genuine anxiety which lies behind it, which is that the provision might adversely affect the employment opportunities of people from the ethnic minorities. We have, however, provided reassurances on this point and have given a commitment to provide clear guidance to employers on the operation of this clause, which must be fair.
At the outset I would like to make clear again the great importance which we attach and place on maintaining and developing good race relations in this country and to ensuring that all groups are treated equally.
We would be concerned if we thought that employers would pick out any particular group for discriminatory treatment on the basis of their colour or race simply because of this clause. We have considered this aspect very carefully indeed. But we do not share the fears which have been expressed. We believe that ethnic minorities will be able to compete for jobs on merit alone, and that our proposals will not affect this.
We have, however, acknowledged that it will be crucially important to ensure that employers have available appropriate guidance and advice about what they might need to do under the arrangements proposed
1854
in Clause 8. An important part of that advice will clearly concern the avoidance of recruitment practices which are discriminatory, or which might appear to be so. We are already consulting the Commission for Racial Equality and others to make sure that the advice we provide will give employers any help they may need on this point.
There will undoubtedly be research undertaken on the effect of Clause 8 on employment opportunities for those from the ethnic minorities. It is right that that should be the case, but it does not mean that a statutory requirement to this effect is necessary. We understand the intentions behind these amendments and believe them to be rather narrow. I hope that they will not be pressed.
Lord Dubs: Perhaps I may respond briefly to the Minister's comments. There is a clear difference of opinion about whether the provisions will be discriminatory in their effect. Perhaps I may give a couple of quotations. Mr. Adair Turner of the CBI said recently:
"The proposed legislation will do nothing to improve equal opportunities and may undermine employers' commitment to implement equal opportunities policies".
If that was not clear enough, in a joint letter to The Times the TUC joined with the Institute of Directors, the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, the Federation of Small Businesses, the Institute of Management and the Institute of Personnel and Development in saying:
"As well as placing an unjustifiable burden on employers, the proposal threatens to damage race relations. There would be every incentive not to hire black staff or people with foreign sounding names; and to concentrate checks on ethnic minority employees".
I understand what the Minister said and that the Government are anxious that the effect of the provisions should not be discriminatory. I welcome the advice that is to be given to employers. I hope that the Government will feel that they have a responsibility to assess the workings of the legislation because it is only proper that new measures should be assessed to see how well they are working. To that extent, I hope that, in an informal sense, the Minister accepts the amendments in spirit as something that the Government will have to keep under review. However, I draw comfort from the fact that this Government will not be in office when that day comes. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 96 not moved.]
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
The Earl of Courtown: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at three minutes before eleven o'clock.

  Secure Training Centres: Tenders
  Secure Training Centres: Tenders
  Prisons: Education Provision
  Prisons: Education Provision
  Prevention of Terrorism Legislation: Searches
  Prevention of Terrorism Legislation: Searches
  Dr. Beko Ransome-Kuti
  Dr. Beko Ransome-Kuti
  Outer Space Treaty
  Outer Space Treaty
  UN Register of Conventional Arms
  UN Register of Conventional Arms
  EU Council: Forthcoming Business
  EU Council: Forthcoming Business
  Department of Transport
  Department of Transport
  EU Fishing (Moroccan Waters)
  EU Fishing (Moroccan Waters)
  Chocolate Directive
  Chocolate Directive
  Specified Bovine Material Handling: Surveillance
  Specified Bovine Material Handling: Surveillance