Sitting of 9 May 1996

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

  PRIVATE BUSINESS
  BODMIN MOOR COMMONS BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Thursday 16 May.

Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Farmers (Paperwork)
    Mr. Dover: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he has taken to reduce the amount of paperwork required of farmers. [27456]
    The Minister for Rural Affairs (Mr. Tim Boswell): As part of the Government's war on waste initiative, we have recently conducted a comprehensive efficiency scrutiny on the burdens of paperwork on farmers. We included three working farmers in our team. The report is with Ministers, and we plan to publish it shortly for consultation.
    Mr. Dover: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his reply. May I ask him to do two things? First, will he recognise that, with the problems of bovine spongiform encephalopathy and the need for birth dates, sexes and mother-father records, he should ensure that the required amount of paperwork is again reviewed to ensure that a minimum burden is placed upon farmers? Secondly, will my hon. Friend ensure that the officials in the regional offices of his Ministry do not ask for an undue number of returns?
    Mr. Boswell: I think that I can give my hon. Friend those assurances. We shall be as helpful as we possibly can and we shall reduce the burdens wherever we can. I am sure that he will appreciate that rules are rules and that we cannot give carte blanche to suspend the rules of payment schemes. We shall, however, be as flexible as possible in our interpretation of them.

    Dairy Sector
    Sir David Knox: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will next meet the president of the National Farmers Union to discuss the dairy sector. [27485]
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I regularly have meetings with representatives of the agriculture industry, including the president of the National Farmers Union, to discuss issues of importance to them.
    Sir David Knox: Has my right hon. and learned Friend had any discussions with Agriculture Ministers in the European Union on the possibility of obtaining modifications to the milk quota regime, including cross-border arrangements?
    Mr. Hogg: We have raised the issue on a number of occasions. The concept of transferability, as across the frontiers of member states, is attractive to us and we have pressed for it. At present, the concept has not been accepted by the member states, but we shall continue to press for it.
    Mr. Alan Howarth: When the Minister next meets the president of the National Farmers Union, will he place on the agenda the prior options review of research? Will he report to his right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, who I understand is leading the review, the strongly held view of the NFU that it will be deeply damaging to prospects for the horticultural sector if Horticultural Research International, which has done everything that has been asked of it to a very high standard, is to be destabilised, whether through privatisation or withdrawal of public funding?
    Mr. Hogg: With regard to the prior options review, I am sure that we are right to ask ourselves several essential questions about the way in which we provide for research, and try to identify the areas of research and the capacities that we need to have directly within the ring fence of the public sector, and those that can be dealt with in some other way, whether by way of privatisation or by contractorisation. Those seem to me to be proper questions to be addressed.
    Mr. David Nicholson: I hope that, when my right hon. and learned Friend meets the president of the National Farmers Union, he will pass on the thanks of the Government and of Parliament for the enormous work that the president and his colleagues in the NFU have done to inform and help their many members, who have gone through a nightmarish six weeks with the bovine spongiform encephalopathy difficulty. That nightmare has affected many of their livelihoods and their futures. Will my right hon. and learned Friend and his colleagues ensure that the same quality and detailed information about the present culling process is coming from regional and area offices of the Ministry to the NFU and its members?
    Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is right when he says that the past eight weeks or so have been a period of great anxiety for the farming community. Farmers throughout the United Kingdom have acted with great responsibility and moderation in circumstances that must have been profoundly distressing to them. That also applies to the NFU and others who represent the industry. They have been extremely responsible and have served their members well. For our part, we are anxious to ensure that

    351
    the farming community has all the information it needs, which is one reason why there was a mail shot to every farmer last weekend.
    Mr. Tyler: With regard to the dairy herd, can the Minister confirm, as would seem to be the case from his letter to me following our exchanges last week, that contaminated feed appears to be only the main path for BSE infection? What other paths have been identified? Have those been discussed with the NFU, and does the Minister believe that his present cull programme will effectively eradicate them?
    Mr. Hogg: If we stand back and ask why we have had as many BSE—infected calves born after the ban as we have, I am sure that the answer lies in contaminated feeding stuffs. There is no doubt that, notwithstanding the ban that was put in place at the end of the 1980s, there was a continuous flow, either in the feed mills or in the farms, of—if I might use jargon rather than be precise—contaminated feedstuffs. That is why we imposed the prohibition in April to prevent the incorporation of any mammalian protein into any feed rations for any farm animal.
    Mr. Riddick: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, like beef exports, dairy sector exports have also been hard hit as a result of the BSE scare? This is the third time that I have raised this matter in the past week. If the Government believe that the worldwide ban is illegal, is it not now time for the Government to go out and actively promote the sale of British beef and dairy products to countries outside the European Union?
    Mr. Hogg: For these purposes, a distinction has to be drawn between dairy and beef products. We have succeeded in obtaining the lifting of a number of bans in respect of dairy products—for example, in Thailand, Malaysia, Egypt, Peru and Brazil—but we have greater difficulties with regard to beef and beef products because a number of long-standing bans are in place against their export. There are also, of course, many recently imposed national bans. It will be some time before we persuade those third countries to relax their national bans. It would be enormously helpful if the European Union would do that, because that would be an important example to third countries. That is one reason why we place such importance on achieving that objective.
    Dr. Strang: When the Minister meets the president of the NFU, will he explain to him why the Government are seeking to deny the House of Commons the opportunity to express its views on a proper motion in the agriculture debate next week? That debate will be of great importance to the dairy sector during the BSE crisis—the biggest crisis to hit our agriculture this century. Why is the Minister ignoring the recommendation of the Select Committee on European Legislation that there should be an early debate in the House rather than in European Standing Committee A? What is he afraid of?
    Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman knows that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will be making his business statement shortly. He will find, from what my
    352
    right hon. Friend says, that the House will have a full opportunity next week to discuss all the matters about which right hon. and hon. Members are concerned.
    Mr. Barry Field: In preparation for his next meeting with the president of the NFU, will my right hon. and learned Friend ask his officials to contact the Isle of Wight branch to listen to its members' worries about animal welfare during the present crisis? The matter was raised with me at a farmers' meeting on Saturday, and again on Tuesday.
    I strongly support the NFU's campaign for compulsory listing of ingredients on the labelling of feed when it is supplied to farmers. It is amazing that, after all that has happened during this crisis, farmers can still buy feed without knowing what is in it.
    Mr. Hogg: Animal welfare is indeed very important and the Parliamentary Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning), has been active in addressing it. If members of the Isle of Wight branch of the NFU have further points to make, we shall be pleased to hear from them.
    I note with interest what my hon. Friend said about labelling.

    Animal Slaughter
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has for changes in the arrangements for the protection of environmental and public health in connection with the slaughtering of animals. [27457]
    Mr. Boswell: We are always prepared to make any appropriate changes to our arrangements which are recommended on the basis of the best scientific advice in the interests of the environment and public health.
    Mr. Hughes: It follows from recent announcements by the Minister that in the next few months abattoirs will be called on to deal both with uninfected cattle—as in the normal course of events—and with infected cattle. What steps are being taken to reassure the proprietors of abattoirs and, more important, the public that there can and will be no risk of cross-infection while people are trying to do the difficult job of separating infected from uninfected cattle?
    Mr. Boswell: With respect, the hon. Gentleman has not expressed himself precisely. There is no question of infected cattle being treated in that way in abattoirs, because they will be destroyed by incineration. I fully understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, however. We have imposed the most stringent possible controls for the separation of the various types of material: for instance, all specified bovine material is being stained blue and all cattle being slaughtered under the 30-month scheme are being stained yellow. Regular checks and inspections will be carried out to ensure that those controls are followed rigorously and that the different materials are kept separate, and there are signs that abattoirs and the trade are co-operating fully.
    Mr. Nicholls: Has my hon. Friend considered the public health implications of the fact that BSE is considerably more rife on the Continent than is currently being admitted? I have already sent that information to my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister. Has my hon. Friend considered whether it is necessary to protect the British public by imposing a ban on products bought from abroad, given that conditions and safeguards abroad are nowhere near as good as ours? Indeed, has he considered imposing a worldwide ban on exports of such products from other European countries?
    Mr. Boswell: I note what my hon. Friend has said, and the representations that he has made to my right hon. and learned Friend. The question of a ban would be a matter for the Government's advisers, and no doubt it could appropriately be considered in due course.
    Mr. Garrett: Between 1988 and 1991, some 360 BSE-infected carcases were disposed of in a refuse tip in Norfolk. How general was that practice at the time, and what research has been carried out into the risk of leaching of infected matter from open refuse tips?
    Mr. Boswell: It is a matter of record that the rules governing the disposal of BSE-infected carcases have been progressively tightened. As I have told the House, a move was made at about that time to complete incineration of those carcases. As for any potential risk caused by carcases going into landfill, I have no evidence from the experts, including those at the Environment Agency, of any danger to the public. That is not surprising, as there is no evidence that the infectious organism persists in the soil.
    Lady Olga Maitland: While we are discussing health and safety, does my hon. Friend agree that unfounded scaremongering is downright disgraceful? Will he join me in welcoming the fact that Wimpy is now ignoring that scaremongering and is rightly returning British beef to its menus? We should all go straight into a Wimpy bar this weekend.
    Mr. Boswell: I should be delighted to engage in an excursion there in due course; perhaps my hon. Friend would care to join me. Wimpy has commendably recognised the scientific advice that is available to all such burger chains. It is a matter of considerable regret that one or two others, despite the advice that they acknowledge, have not yet seen fit to return to the entirely safe and sensible practice of buying and serving British beef.

    Leather Industry
    Mr. David Marshall: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to assist hide and skin merchants and their employees who have been adversely affected by the bovine spongiform encephalopathy situation; and if he will make a statement. [27458]
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Angela Browning): The Government have taken a wide range of measures to rebuild consumer confidence and to get the
    354
    beef market moving again, which will assist all sectors associated with the beef industry. Supplies of hides from the 30-month slaughter scheme are now available to the hide and skin merchants. I hope that that will help the hon. Gentleman who is interested in this subject.
    Mr. Marshall: I am grateful for that reply, but I do not think that it deals with the situation. Is the Minister aware of the serious plight that faces companies such as Wescot Hides in my constituency? A ban has been placed on the export of controlled hides arising from the slaughter of cows over 30 months old. What measures does the Minister propose to protect and underpin the value of those hides?
    Mrs. Browning: I am aware that the hon. Gentleman is awaiting a reply, which I understand will soon be forthcoming from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to whom the hon. Gentleman has written about Wescot Hides and the effect on its business. We do not think that hides should be included in the worldwide ban. My right hon. Friend will address that point when he replies to the hon. Gentleman.
    Meetings have taken place between industry representatives and officials to arrange for hides to be taken at least to the wet, blue stage, which is the first stage in the tanning process, so that the industry does not lose out on the opportunity for more hides that will now become available in the domestic market.
    I realise that the industry has had a difficult time until now because of the short-term shortage, but I hope that what I have outlined will assist the industry and the hon. Gentleman's constituents. The supply that I have mentioned will be available, and we shall do all we can to restore the export market as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Viggers: My hon. Friend has been helpful in discussing the allied trade of beef head boning with me. She knows how highly specialised are firms in that trade. They tend to specialise only in that business and they have been wiped out. What plans has my hon. Friend to compensate such firms?
    Mrs. Browning: Yesterday I wrote to the solicitors representing the head boning industry who had been to see us. My hon. Friend will be aware that the Government's policy of putting public money into the industry generally has been targeted at restoring the movement of the beef trade from the farm to the abattoirs and slaughterhouses and then to the renderers. It has not been Government policy directly to compensate people who have lost money over this matter, and I regret to tell my hon. Friend that there is no offer of compensation for the head boning industry.

    Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
    Mr. Dowd: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met farmers' representatives to discuss bovine spongiform encephalopathy. [27459]
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: We meet frequently.
    Mr. Dowd: In those frequent meetings—I do not know how recent they are—have the farmers' representatives given the Minister any idea that they are now satisfied that the confusion and chaos surrounding the introduction of the 30-month culling programme last week have been overcome? If not, can the Minister give the House an absolute assurance that the programme is now working as it was intended to work? On the broader question of the international ban on beef products, is it not the case that if the Government had acted with dispatch and urgency, when the ban was first imposed by countries such as the United States and Australia, much of the pain, grief and hardship of the past eight weeks could have been avoided?
    Mr. Hogg: When I attend the Council, one of the problems I have to face is the fact that the remarks by some Opposition Members are always played back to me. We must not underestimate the ill effects of intemperate language by, for example, the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman). The hon. Gentleman asked about the 30-month slaughter policy. It is picking up and it is important that we get it running fully effectively. I hope that we shall shortly be able to slaughter at the rate of about 25,000 animals a week.
    Sir John Cope: Will my right hon. and learned Friend help our farmers' representatives to get across to their continental counterparts the fact that continental Governments' actions and statements during this difficult period have damaged their domestic beef markets more than our Government's statements and actions have damaged the market here? It is important for continental farmers and continental Ministers to realise that fact, because once they do they will have a much greater incentive to lift the beef ban and to take different action. The damage to their markets has been much greater, whereas our Government's actions have helped to protect the domestic beef market here, despite the scaremongering to which my right hon. and learned Friend referred.
    Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend makes an important point. It is true that beef consumption has fallen further in some member states than here. It is in those member states' interests that the ban should be lifted. The discussion and the argument surrounding the ban, always public at the time of the Agriculture Council and continuously in the newspapers both here and abroad, are not only unjustified, but positively damaging to the interests of member states and their agriculture, so I share my right hon. Friend's views.
    Mr. Salmond: What assessment does the Minister make of any Commission recommendation to lift the ban on beef by-products? Would he argue that that is an admission of the principle of the resumption of exports and could be the first step in leading all exports back on to European markets? If that is the position, is he prepared to argue the case for Scotland and Northern Ireland and our quality beef production, a case in which interest has been shown and for which sympathy has been expressed by many European farm Ministers?
    Finally, on the subject of loose tongues, will the Minister remind his Back Benchers and those who have been speculating about trade wars that, although the United Kingdom as a whole has a substantial deficit
    356
    with the rest of Europe, Scotland has a substantial surplus, and that in Scotland—and, I believe, in Northern Ireland—we are more interested in getting our beef back on to European markets than in the internal politics of the Conservative party?
    Mr. Hogg: The Commission proposals to relax the ban in relation to gelatine, tallow and semen, are justified by scientific evidence, and I hope that next week's standing veterinary committee meeting will endorse the Commission proposals. It is true that one could proceed step by step thereafter, leading, I hope, to a swift lifting of the ban entirely. In that context, we are considering the concept of establishing certification for mature herds, in terms both exempting them from the 30-month rule here and of constituting another step in the relaxation of the ban. Scotland and perhaps Northern Ireland in particular would benefit from that latter approach, so the scheme would be of particular value both to Scotland and to Northern Ireland.
    Sir Jim Spicer: My right hon. and learned Friend will know that the farming community has welcomed the letter he sent it last weekend, but can he give us any indication of when farmers will know when their cattle due for slaughter will be called forward? We are having a late spring, food stocks are appallingly low and farmers are worried stiff that they will have to keep cattle probably for another five or six weeks without knowing what is happening.
    Mr. Hogg: It is not within the capacity of MAFF to organise the prioritisation of cattle for slaughter. That can be done only between marts, abattoirs and farmers. The Ministry cannot determine a ranking system for that purpose. What is important, however, is to ensure that the rendering industry is capable of rendering to its maximum capacity as speedily as possible. My hon. Friend the Minister of State has recently had encouraging discussions with the rendering industry, especially yesterday. It is also important that we should try to increase the throughput of the slaughterhouses by providing, for example, cold storage facilities so that carcases which cannot at present be rendered can be taken into cold storage.
    Dr. Strang: Will the Minister confirm that it is the Government's objective to eliminate BSE from our cattle? He has made it clear this afternoon that the Government still believe that the cause of that terrible disease is contaminated feed. Has he had an opportunity to consider my request for an investigation into the fact that two thirds of the new cases of BSE are in cattle born after the feed ban, which came into operation eight years ago? Surely there could be great benefit in tracing the cause of those cases. What have we got to lose by trying to find out precisely how those animals came to eat contaminated feed?
    Mr. Hogg: I know of the hon. Gentleman's concern, which he has raised with me. I have today signed a letter to him setting out my considered conclusions. I am sorry that he has not yet received it. We are confident that the reason for the disease in calves born after the ban was contaminated feedstuffs. That is why in April we imposed a total prohibition on the incorporation of any mammalian

    357
    protein into food rations for any farm animals. By that step I think that we have removed the possibility of, in any sense, contaminated rations being fed to cattle. That is a step change which should lead to a steady eradication of the condition in the British herd.
    Mr. John Townend: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the British public are rapidly losing patience with the Europeans? If they continue to procrastinate over lifting the ban, despite the fact that the Agriculture Commissioner has said that there is nothing wrong with British beef, is not the time rapidly approaching when we should take retaliatory action? Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that this is a bigger problem in cost and overall effect on this country than when Argentina occupied the Falklands? If we had dilly-dallied then as we are now, the Falklands would still be occupied.
    Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is entirely right to say that public and political opinion are running out of patience with member states' refusal to lift the ban. That is entirely true. It is something that I impress on Agriculture Ministers whenever I meet them—for example, at the informal Council at the beginning of this week. When my hon. Friend talks about retaliation, I hope that he will ask himself whether whatever retaliation he has in mind would be more or less likely to advance our interests than the present policy of seeking to obtain by persuasion a relaxation of the ban. One should not do anything that would be positively injurious to our interests.

    Food Safety
    Mr. Khabra: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met consumer representatives to discuss Government policy on food safety. [27460]
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: Yesterday afternoon.
    Mr. Khabra: When the Minister met consumer representatives, did they tell him that there is still no confidence in the safety of British beef, that at least 48 per cent. of slaughterhouses were breaking the BSE controls last September and that 10 slaughterhouses were breaking the rules this March? What has the Minister told those representatives and what confidence has he given to them?
    Mr. Hogg: I had the pleasure of meeting representatives of consumer organisations yesterday. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's assertion that consumer confidence has not been restored; it is recovering. Consumption is moving upwards; some of the figures suggest that it is at about 80 per cent. There is a substantial recovery.
    It is true that during the latter part of last year there were examples of non-compliance with the controls in certain slaughterhouses, and that is worrying. That is why I have called in representatives of the industry on a number of separate occasions.
    The audits that we have been carrying out recently show an enormous improvement in compliance, which is reflected in the control report that the European Commission made to the Council.
    Mr. Nicholas Baker: Will my right hon. and learned Friend encourage, from that Dispatch Box, consumer representatives to ask retailers and restaurants throughout the United Kingdom to stock that safest of products, British beef? To that end, will he also do everything he can to speed up the implementation of the 30-month cull and to increase the flow of information from his Department to the beef industry?
    Mr. Hogg: It is probably true that the British beef industry is now the most heavily scrutinised and regulated in Europe, and we can say with absolute confidence that there is no beef industry in Europe with higher standards. As for speeding up the cull and improving the flow of information, again my hon. Friend is right. I am glad to say that the process of slaughtering the cull cows is speeding up, and I hope that about 25,000 will be slaughtered next week. We also need to ensure that the farming community is kept fully aware of all relevant information, and we shall seek to do so.
    Mr. Sheerman: Is the Minister not aware that consumer confidence in British beef was destroyed in America, Australia and Europe when the Secretary of State for Health and the Minister of Agriculture, ran into the Chamber to make statements that caused, or precipitated, the crisis in the first place? Then they said that they would do nothing about it. They did not even tell the House what they intended to do until the following Monday. Let us establish the truth: the crisis was brought about by the Government, and they have spent every moment since then blaming everybody else.
    Mr. Hogg: Let us analyse that question, if we may, and see what it amounts to: an assertion that the Government should have swept under the carpet and concealed the conclusions and recommendations of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee. That is a disgraceful suggestion.
    Mr. Garnier: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that one of the best places to acquire safe British food from British farm animals is Market Harborough cattle market? Will he confirm that E. A. Lane and Sons of Leicester, which is on the list attached to the letter dated 2 May from the Minister of State, is the company that runs Market Harborough cattle market, which is open for business and doing well?
    Mr. Hogg: My hon. and learned Friend can be reassured on that point. Another place in which to find very good British beef is the House of Commons Dining Room.
    Mrs. Golding: Did the Minister discuss with the consumer representatives the reasons why they are not represented on SEAC, as they are on other Government scientific committees such as the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes, the Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food and the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy? What would his explanation have been of the reasons why consumers are excluded from SEAC, the Government scientific committee discussing BSE? Does he not think that, if

    359
    there had been consumer representatives there, they would have had a better understanding and the public would have been better informed?
    Mr. Hogg: I discussed that very question with the Consumers Association, and I told it that SEAC is a specialist committee set up to give the Government specialist advice. It does not seem to me that appointing representatives of groups that do not possess the relevant expertise would assist in the formulation of the specialist advice. If we were to adopt the principle that the hon. Lady commends to me, we should have to follow it further and put representatives of other interest groups on SEAC—producers, renderers, hauliers, retailers and so forth. That would so dilute the nature of SEAC that it would not be able to serve the purposes for which it was established.

    Milk Quotas
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on milk quotas. [27461]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Tony Baldry): The Commission is planning to present the Council with options for reforming the dairy regime early next year. Meanwhile, we continue to press for an increase in milk quotas and a reduction in support prices.
    Mr. Winterton: What plans do the Government have to consult the dairy farming and processing industry with a view to submitting to the European Commission in the very near future proposals relating to future dairy support, particularly relating to milk quotas? That must be done in the next few years. It is vital that we increase quotas for our dairy farmers and make those quotas transferable and more flexible, because this country has the best climate and grass for milk production.
    Mr. Baldry: It is a great sadness that this country is not self-sufficient in milk products; that is because of the agricultural policies pursued by the last Labour Government. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have an excellent dairy farming industry and we need to ensure that any reforms of the EC dairy regime play to our strengths and acknowledge the competitiveness of the UK dairy industry. That is why we are pressing for increases in quotas combined with cuts in support prices. That will be good news for UK farmers and for UK consumers.
    Mr. Corbett: Is the Minister confident that the impact of the current BSE cull on the dairy industry will not jeopardise the ability of dairy farmers to produce up to the amount of the quota?
    Mr. Baldry: We estimate that the of the 30-month cull will reduce milk production by about 1.5 per cent., which can easily be made up by dairy farmers and is roughly equivalent to the super-levy amount this year. There will be no impact on milk production as a consequence of the 30-month scheme.
    Mr. John Greenway: Notwithstanding what my hon. Friend the Minister told my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), is it not the case that British milk production is hampered by the quota arrangements? We simply cannot go on producing only 80 to 85 per cent. of our milk requirements. Is not a consequence of that that there is a guarantee that we must import year on year? Is it not time that we had a quota that matched our consumption?
    Mr. Baldry: I do not think that anyone disagrees with my hon. Friend. I have explained that the reasons why we are not self-sufficient in milk can be laid firmly at the door of the last Labour Government. We want a reform of the EC dairy regime, an increase in quotas and a cut in support prices, but what we really want is the competitive advantage of the UK dairy industry played to the full. We are determined to achieve that.

    Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
    Mr. Barnes: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further assessment has been made by his Department of the research by Dr. Harash Narang into live tests for BSE; and if he will make a statement. [27462]
    Mrs. Browning: MAFF has recently responded positively to a request to collaborate in an assessment of the effectiveness of Dr. Narang's test. The experimental procedure to be used is currently being discussed.
    Mr. Barnes: Are not live tests the answer? If they work, we would be able to incinerate the cattle with the disease. The fact that Dr. Harash Narang's work is now being looked at seriously by MAFF is welcome, but why was it blocked for so long? Why was he refused a grant in 1990? Dr. Narang first discovered the filament linked with the brain disease in 1972.
    Mrs. Browning: The SEAC has invited Dr. Narang to make available to it his information on CJD, as has MAFF on BSE. He has always declined to make it available. He has also declined to publish his work in a recognised scientific journal. The hon. Gentleman is right; a live test would be very welcome. That is why the Government are co-operating. We are talking to Dr. Narang in the hope that one will be developed quickly.
    Mr. Morley: Given the importance of a live test because of its implications for cattle slaughter, we are pleased that the Minister is taking the matter seriously. Will she comment on reports that Dr. Narang is having difficulty getting brain samples from infected cattle to continue development?
    Mrs. Browning: The substance that Dr. Narang is asking for is bovine urine. We shall be as co-operative as we can on that.

    Common Fisheries Policy
    Mr. Steen: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to renegotiate the common fisheries policy; and if he will make a statement. [27463]
    Mr. Baldry: I am taking forward a number of sensible initiatives to reform the common fisheries policy.
    Mr. Steen: While we realise that my hon. Friend the Minister will do his best to win back the 20 per cent. quota that Spanish flags of convenience have stolen from British fishermen, is he aware that it is not Europe, but his officials, who have closed down an oyster plant in my constituency by gold-plating a European directive about clean water which has been so vociferously and actively pursued that even my local environmental health officer says that MAFF officials are wrong? He has closed down an inshore fishery even though it has for eight years been run as a first-rate fishery.
    Madam Speaker: Order. An Adjournment debate is the answer to that one.
    Mr. Baldry: The business to which my hon. Friend refers has been closed because of clear advice from the fish diseases laboratory at Weymouth that the purification practice operated by the business posed an unacceptable risk to human health. If he wishes to examine the evidence, I shall be glad to take him through it.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Matthew Banks: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 May. [27486]
    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. Banks: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government's policies, especially on child benefit, the youth training programme and the lack of a minimum wage, give the youth of this country tremendous opportunities? Does he also agree that, given that it wants to abolish child benefit and the youth training programme and impose a minimum wage, Labour has nothing to offer Britain's youth?
    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The Opposition have illustrated the case by their actions over the past few days. Today, they are going to try to retain child benefit for people coming from abroad at precisely the same moment that the shadow Chancellor is trying to abolish it for every family in this country whose child is taking A-levels. Frankly, I find that inexplicable.
    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister recall saying that, if the provisional allegations of the district auditor in respect of Westminster city council were confirmed, he would condemn those involved absolutely and unreservedly? The provisional allegations have been confirmed. Will he now condemn those involved unreservedly, as he promised that he would?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is misquoting. Let me make three points. First, both I and my party are in favour of the highest possible standards in public life. I condemn wrongdoing in any quarter.
    362
    Secondly—I am surprised that I have to say this to a distinguished lawyer—I believe in justice. As the auditor's report makes clear, the individuals have the right to appeal against the auditor's decision. I understand that they vehemently contest the auditor's report and that they have said that they will take the matter to court. In the face of such a clear-cut protestation of innocence, I think that any sensible and cautious person would be wise to await the outcome before making a judgment.
    Thirdly, with the trail of waste, inefficiency and corruption in Labour councils up and down the country, the right hon. Gentleman is in no position to lecture anyone.
    Mr. Blair: He said that, if the provisional allegations were confirmed, he would condemn those involved, and now he fails to do so. May I point out that of course they have the right of appeal—for heaven's sake, the Home Secretary is in the appeal courts most days of the week. I also remind the Prime Minister that some of us remember how he stood at the Dispatch Box and condemned the Monklands council of my late right hon. and learned Friend, and predecessor, John Smith in the middle of an inquiry when the allegations were then dispatched.
    Does the Prime Minister not recall that the allegations are about putting homeless people into asbestos-ridden flats and appalling bed-and-breakfast accommodation? Will he not take this opportunity to fulfil his promise as Prime Minister and now condemn what any reasonable person would condemn?
    The Prime Minister: I am quite prepared to condemn cases of proven malpractice and those who have been found guilty in a court of law. I saw no condemnation from the right hon. Gentleman after Lambeth was found guilty of malpractice. I saw no condemnation when it was thought that between 400 and 500 officers in Lambeth were receiving fraudulent payments. The right hon. Gentleman knows well that the matter must go to the courts. The people challenged in this matter have declared their innocence in very clear-cut terms. I am surprised, in the face of that, that a lawyer would decide before the matter has gone to court to make a judgment about the outcome of that matter. I think that that is a contemptible way for the right hon. Gentleman to behave.
    Mr. Blair: I believe that what is contemptible is what we have just heard from the Prime Minister. As for saying that the allegations are not proven, they have been proven—that is precisely what the district auditor has proved under legislation set up by this Government. Is not the Prime Minister's real problem that this was not a maverick group of obscure local councillors, but the flagship Conservative council? They carried on their activities with the knowledge and approval of the Conservative party. If the Prime Minister fails now to condemn what has been described as disgraceful and improper conduct, will it not be crystal clear to the British people that there are no depths to which the Conservative party will not stoop to gain re-election to any office that it holds?
    The Prime Minister: I suppose that it was only a matter of time before the Leader of the Opposition tried to widen the smears that his party has been making.

    363
    We have learnt that Labour Members take a smear, spread a smear and hope that it will stick. That is what the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have been doing for the past two or three years.
    If the right hon. Gentleman is so pious, will he tell us whether he condemns his colleague, who sits on the Labour Benches, who is a surcharged councillor? Will he tell us why he appointed to his shadow Treasury team someone who encouraged people not to pay the council tax, against the law? Will he tell us whether he agrees with the comments of his deputy leader? He said:
    "In a local authority situation you obey the law or not obey the law. We"—
    presumably that is the Labour party—
    "don't have any firm principles in the Party of how we might deal with the problem."
    Against that background and the record of his party and his party's councils, I shall take no charges from him about a matter that must go to court and is not yet proven.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the great majority of my constituents would wish to mark Europe day by suspending all our net contributions to the European Union—which cost the taxpayers of this country £4 billion last year—until such time as all threats to our historic position as an international trading nation have been withdrawn?
    The Prime Minister: I know that my hon. Friend is concerned about the supremacy of British courts, but I must tell him that, if we decided to withhold payments to the European Union, that decision would be struck down in the British courts and not in the European Court of Justice. I must also tell him that, because the net under-payment in the European Union this year will be less than the net payment by this country, there is unlikely to be the draconian effect that some of my hon. Friends anticipate.
    I believe that it is right for us to press, in the European Union, for this matter to be speedily resolved. That is what we intend to do, and that is what I intend to press day after day. I want a solution to the problem, not an institutionalising of the problem so that beef farmers suffer longer, or no solution is reached.
    Mr. Risley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 May. [27487]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Illsley: Given the Prime Minister's refusal to condemn certain Westminster councillors for their corrupt conduct, will he take this opportunity unreservedly to condemn those Conservative Members who have failed to register their parliamentary incomes of millions of pounds?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman should be aware of what Madam Speaker said about this problem. She said that, if an hon. Member has a complaint about the registration of interests by any hon. Member, he should write to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and not raise it on the Floor of the House. That is not my view; it is the ruling of the Chair.
    Mr. Dover: Does my right hon. Friend remember that the Leader of the Opposition stated that one of the Opposition's few policy decisions was that they would allow homosexuals into the armed services? If it is true that the Opposition are today allowing a free vote on that issue, does not that smack of very poor leadership and lack of direction?
    The Prime Minister: That is a matter for the Leader of the Opposition. We will discover the views of every hon. Member later today.
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 May. [27488]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Pike: The Prime Minister will recall that, on 21 February 1991, he said:
    "We should be happy to have Dame Shirley's advice".—[Official Report, 21 February 1991; Vol. 186, c. 432.]
    In view of the condemnation of the six councillors named as guilty in the report that was published today, will he recognise that there was advice from the policy unit at No. 10 Downing street, and from the Department of the Environment, on the turning of a blind eye when Westminster council was committing those illegal and disgraceful acts? When will he condemn those who were guilty? When will heads roll—or will he bite the dust as Prime Minister and fall at the general election before this sordid affair is sorted out?
    The Prime Minister: Everything the hon. Gentleman has said is nonsense. Not only is it nonsense, but, as it happens, the quotation he has just given the House is entirely out of context, to make a dishonest point. If he had read the question, hon. Members would know that my reply related specifically to Westminster's success in holding down local taxation. That is in sharp contrast to the performance of Labour councillors. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will now do me the courtesy of reading the quotation and placing an apology and a correction in Hansard.
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 May. [27489]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hughes: On my right hon. Friend's visit to Scotland, will he take with him the message that establishing a Parliament in Scotland, but still allowing Scottish Members of Parliament to vote on English and Welsh matters, would be deeply resented by English and Welsh people and that allowing Scottish Members of Parliament that double set of rights would be gerrymandering on a very large scale?
    The Prime Minister: It most certainly would. My hon. Friend highlights a fatal flaw in the Labour party's plans. Labour Members have no idea how they would answer the question first posed by the hon. Member for West Lothian,

    365
    now Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). The position of Scottish Members in this House would be untenable. That is the view once set out clearly by the shadow Foreign Secretary.
    The reality is that I cannot imagine that the Labour party has properly thought through or understood what it seeks to do in establishing a tax-raising assembly in Scotland, which would provide a staging post for the leader of the Scottish National party to try to take Scotland out of the Union. I oppose that, although it is not in my party's interest to do so, because it is against the interests of Scotland and against the interests of the United Kingdom. Opposition Members support it because they see it as being in their own party, partisan interest.
    Mr. Radice: On Europe day, will the Prime Minister put the case for British membership of the European Union?
    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman cares to read the speech that I made to the Institute of Directors a week or so ago, he will see the case put clearly. I have made it clear from the Dispatch Box time and time again that it is in the interests of this country to be in the European Union, arguing for the sort of European Union that is good for this country. That is my position, it remains my position and it will remain my party's position. What is not my party's position is that, as a result of that, we agree, and slavishly follow, the views of each and every one of our European Union partners. It is not our view that we will "never be isolated" in Europe and will therefore follow the caravan wherever it might lead. If Europe goes in a direction that is not suitable for this country, we shall reject that direction and not follow Europe.

Westminster (District Auditor's Report)
3.32 pm
Mr. Peter Brooke(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the district auditor's report on Westminster city council published today.
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Gummer): The appointed auditor for Westminster city council, Mr. John Magill, has today published his findings in relation to the objections to the accounts of Westminster city council, in the form of a "public interest report", made under section 15(3) of the Local Government Finance Act 1982. He has at the same time published a "statement of reasons" on which his decisions are based.
This case is still subject to the due process of law. In these circumstances, it is appropriate for me to inform the House about the auditor's decisions, but not to comment on them. [Laughter.] In that, I am following the traditions of the House.
The auditor's decisions are as follows: he has issued a certificate in the sum of £31,677,064 to each of Mr. Graham England, Mr. Peter Hartley, Mr. Paul Hayler, Mr. Bill Phillips, Dame Shirley Porter and Councillor David Weeks, under section 20 of the 1982 Act. They are jointly and severally liable for that amount. He has decided not to uphold the objections in respect of Councillor Judith Warner, my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr. Legg) and Mr. Robert Lewis.
The auditor has now issued his certificate. Those surcharged have 28 days from the date they receive the auditor's statement of reasons to appeal against his decision to the High Court. I understand that they intend to do so.
I have made it clear that I would condemn utterly any failure to meet the highest standards of propriety, whenever it is found and whoever is found guilty.
If the decisions in respect of Westminster are upheld by the courts, I shall not hesitate to condemn those responsible as in any similar case, but neither the Government nor the House nor I should prejudge the findings of the courts.
Mr. Brooke: While no subject is higher than the law, will my right hon. Friend confirm, first, that those accused are also subject to the protection of the law until due legal process has been concluded, especially under a somewhat hybrid procedure and when the number of people being investigated has risen as well as fallen during the course of the investigation?
Secondly, although I have never criticised the district auditor—contrary to what has been said by those on the Opposition Front Bench—as the case has now continued for eight years and is not yet concluded, does my right hon. Friend believe that, when it has been concluded, it would be sensible to revisit the procedure because of the strain that it imposes, not only on those investigated and their families but on the district auditor?
Mr. Gummer: I have to say to my right hon. Friend that one of the greatest difficulties in politics is to uphold the integrity of the law while making it clear that, when the law has made its final decision, we must abide by that decision, and that, in all circumstances, however close or distant we may be from those who are condemned, we must condemn them, too. However, that demands of us the reticence of not judging people who still have a case to put. I have not prejudged any case in which Labour councillors have been involved, nor will I until the courts have found. Then I shall join in any rumbustious argument that anyone wants to have.
As to my right hon. Friend's second point, I do not believe that it is right during such a process to comment on the nature of the process or to suggest that perhaps a different process would be better. I have no doubt that people will discuss that afterwards, but this is not the moment to make a decision.
Mr. Frank Dobson: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the procedure being followed by the auditor in this case was laid down by an Act of Parliament passed by the present Government?
Why will he not condemn the Westminster Tory councillors who have been found guilty of using £32 million of public funds to help a Tory election campaign at the expense of homeless families? Why will he not acknowledge that the scandal was not caused by a few maverick councillors in Westminster, but involved the entire Tory party from top to bottom, including people at Tory central office and 10 Downing street?
Does he accept that Tory Members, including—sadly, as far as I am concerned—the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the right hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr. Legg) and the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Sir P. Beresford) were all involved to a greater or lesser extent?
Does the Secretary of State accept that the huge sum of £32 million wasted by those Tories exceeds the annual budgets of no fewer than 272 local councils in England, including places such as Basildon, Milton Keynes, Peterborough, the Wrekin and Plymouth? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that that sum of money would have built 600 new homes for the homeless or 10 new schools, or would have paid for 1,200 much-needed teachers in the inner cities?
Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that, in the 1980s, he personally helped to rig the Government grant to help Westminster council to keep down its poll tax—or, as the Prime Minister just described it, local taxation? In view of this scandal, the scandal of homeless families being put by the same Westminster councillors into asbestos-ridden blocks, and the scandal of the Government continuing to rig the grants system in Westminster, will the right hon. Gentleman set up a public inquiry into this Tory Government's squalid relations with Tory Westminster over the last 10 years?
Will the Secretary of State take my word for it that, if this cowardly Tory Government will not set up that public inquiry, the incoming Labour Government will do so?
Mr. Gummer: The public will now see how the legal processes would be treated by the Labour party. The public will now understand that Labour will leave nothing unused for party political advantage. Having heard the shameful betrayal of the legal system by the Leader of the Opposition, I was not surprised to hear what was said by the right hon. Gentleman's sidekick and soon-to-be-sacked spokesman on the subject.
One reason that we were given parliamentary privilege was to defend the innocent and to speak up for people who could not otherwise make their case. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has used parliamentary privilege to smear a whole series of my right hon. and hon. Friends. He proved that by his use of the words
"to a greater or lesser extent"—
to be able to say afterwards, when those people have been shown not to be guilty of that which the hon. Gentleman claims, that he meant that they were covered by the word "lesser".
The only honourable way to deal with an issue of this kind is to say that, if someone is found by the courts of law to be guilty, one condemns unreservedly and without question—whoever that person is, however close one is to them, and for whatever party they happen to stand. Until that time, every person in Her Majesty's domains has the right to put his case—whether he is rich or poor, elected or unelected.
Mr. Eric Pickles: Is my right hon. Friend, in resisting commenting on the issue, aware that, if he had not resisted that temptation and condemned the councillors named in the district auditor's provisional report, he would have condemned people who have been exonerated by that report? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that the councillors named in the report took legal advice, and followed it to the letter? Does my right hon. Friend share my belief that people in this country are entitled to be presumed innocent until judged to be guilty?
Mr. Gummer: I think that it is true that Labour Members who jump to condemn on the basis of the interim report must now explain to themselves how it was that they condemned a number of people who are not now under condemnation. It would be good for all of us to be reticent in the way that we approach this report—or the internal report in, for example, Islington, or reports from Hackney or any other boroughs or councils that are, in one way or another, under investigation.
There is no reason for any of us to jump to judgment. What we have to do is to allow the courts to decide and to be clear from the beginning that we will judge everybody equally without fear or favour. That is why I shall make no comment at all about whether people followed the legal advice. That would be to enter the areas that only the courts can, in the end, discuss and decide.
As to my hon. Friend's last point, I suggest simply that the way in which one judges people is whether they stand up for the rights of people they dislike, not whether they stand up for the rights of people they love.
Mr. David Rendel: Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that, whatever the legal position is in relation to the six who have been surcharged, the position of the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West
370
(Mr. Legg) is unlikely to be subject to appeal, and the findings are likely to stand? Those findings, as I understand them, are that the hon. Gentleman knew that gerrymandering was going on and decided not to take any action to ensure that it stopped.
Does the Secretary of State accept that the hon. Gentleman was, in effect, condoning gerrymandering, and that that brings into question his membership of the House? Does the Secretary of State further accept that, if the hon. Member does not resign and the Prime Minister and he himself do not take any action in the matter, they are also condoning gerrymandering?
Mr. Gummer: I say to the hon. Gentleman that I hope that he is never in the position of having to accept the words of someone outside on which he cannot speak for himself. I have no intention of removing from people the right to make their cases and put their positions in whatever legal way they can. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would not fall into his party's usual trap of condemning anybody whether the proof is there or not.
Mr. James Couchman: While I understand my right hon. Friend's reluctance to revisit the process by which this judgment has been made, does he agree that it is a matter for grave concern for one person to act as investigator, prosecutor, judge, jury and hangman, and to have the power to exact an unlimited fine in penalty? Will my right hon. Friend, when this case is finished, revisit this process and consider introducing a much fairer process, which would be in accordance with natural law?
Mr. Gummer: In the origination of this law, which was indeed passed by the House and proposed by the Government, it was clearly envisaged that those affected had the right of appeal to a court. That is what the law expected, and the very nature of the structure and the system must lead any fair-minded person to accept that people should be able to appeal to the courts, and that—until that appeal has been heard and the courts have judged—it is not proper, right or decent to condemn them. [Interruption.] The seated interventions of the hon. Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong) show, as usual, an atavistic desire to condemn those with whom she disagrees and a refusal to uphold the principle that people are innocent until proved, in a court, guilty.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Secretary of State aware that, 24 years ago, a Labour council—as opposed to a Tory flagship council—refused as a matter of principle to put up council house rents in line with the Housing Finance Act 1972? The Clay Cross councillors were incessantly condemned for their actions, day in and day out, by Tory Members of Parliament and Ministers in the House.
The councillors appealed against surcharge and—contrary to the way in which the present matter has been handled, with help from the Government for the Westminster councillors—the Clay Cross councillors were put on a fast track. Within two years, the court procedures had been finished and the councillors were condemned and kicked out of government, not because they took any money or did any gerrymandering, but because they acted on principle.

371
The truth is that there are double standards. There is one set of standards for Labour councillors and another for Tory councillors. Will the right hon. Gentleman withdraw his statements about not coming to judgment? Labour councillors were attacked day in and day out. The right hon. Gentleman is defending Westminster councillors because the Government have connived with them throughout eight years, a period longer than the second world war. The Government are as guilty as the six over at Westminster.
Mr. Gummer: I would condemn anyone of any party, tendency or attitude who broke the law. I condemn the Clay Cross councillors, who were found in a court of law to be guilty. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, who has excused those councillors throughout—he has said that, as they acted on principle, it did not matter if they broke the law, just as the deputy leader of the Labour party says that the Labour party has not made up its mind whether councils should or should not keep the law in such circumstances—I have made up my mind: all councils in all circumstances should obey the law. If they are found guilty, whatever their political views, they should earn the condemnation of the House, and specifically and particularly the condemnation of those who share their political views.
Mr. William Cash: Does my right hon. Friend note that my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr. Legg) has been exonerated by the inquiry, contrary to some of the disgraceful remarks of Opposition Members? Will he accept that there is something fundamentally unjust and immoral in requiring someone to pay enormous costs without means of redress when he has been exonerated by such a tribunal? Will my right hon. Friend congratulate my hon. Friend on the fact that he has been exonerated?
Mr. Gummer: It is to rush to judgment to say that our hon. Friend does not have recourse in the courts. That will be a matter for him to consider and decide upon. It behoves everyone to be extremely careful in using the privileges of Parliament to pursue party political attacks. There are many people who have been innocent and who have, on both sides of the House, been accused under the privileges of Parliament. They have not been able to answer.
That is why I say to the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) that I can think of a prominent Liberal who was, under the privileges of Parliament, attacked by Labour Members. In many ways, he was destroyed, because he had no way of responding to what others were able to do under parliamentary privilege. It ill behoves the Labour party, which I understood was created in part to defend those who could not defend themselves, to condemn before others have been found guilty.
Mr. Harry Barnes: The privileges of the House were used to condemn Clay Cross councillors, who had not reached a final position within the courts. They were attacked viciously within the House. The second lot of Clay Cross councillors, after the first lot was debarred, was surcharged severally for £2,000. For that £2,000, the councillors were then debarred from
372
office. They were kept out of office for five years before they could return. I am talking about school caretakers and other such people, not the sort of person who is involved in the Westminster case. It is not unreasonable that we should be interested—
Madam Speaker: Order. I must have a question. I have not heard one yet.
Mr. Barnes: Is it not therefore reasonable that constituents in Clay Cross, people who were hit in that way, should be looking with interest at what has occurred here? If it is said that they are after a pound of flesh, they are not; they are after £31 million-worth of flesh.
Mr. Gummer: The House will have noticed that the hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest—although I hope that he did not—that we should have more concern for the rights of a school caretaker than of someone who happens to be better off. I happen to take the view that the business of equality means that everyone—everyone—is equal before the law, and that we should behave in that way.
I also say to the hon. Gentleman very simply this. I have been prepared to condemn wrongdoing by anyone in any circumstances. I merely remind the House that the Labour party is still claiming that the Clay Cross councillors, who were found guilty in a court, were in fact not guilty, but were acting under the pressure of principle. I hope that the country outside recognises that the Labour party believes that Tories who have not been found guilty must be condemned, but that socialists who have been found guilty must be excused.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Does my right hon. Friend recall the practice of municipalisation whereby the Labour-controlled Greater London council used millions of pounds of ratepayers' money to purchase houses for Labour voters in marginal Tory wards?
Mr. Gummer: What I may or may not recall is not a matter for today. What is a matter for today is for the House to live up to its reputation of the one place above all others where people can expect to be upheld until they are found guilty.
Mr. John Gunnell: As a former member of the Audit Commission, appointed by the present Deputy Prime Minister, I was present when section 15 reports about Liverpool city council and Lambeth council were read. Those reports were acted on. The people paid the surcharge that was due.
Why should that not happen in this case, where a far greater sum is involved, where gerrymandering is involved, which the district auditor, a private sector auditor from Touche Ross, described as disgraceful, and when the district auditor has given an account of how various people on the council thwarted his investigation?
That is why the proceedings have taken so long: people destroyed the papers. Can we not condemn the fact that the people involved delayed the proceedings by destroying the evidence? Is that not a matter that we can condemn, without having to come to a judgment about the judgment that the district auditor has reached?
Mr. Gummer: There is no doubt that, if the courts find that what the district auditor has said is true, those people will be condemned, and they will have to pay the money which is charged. But I say to the hon. Gentleman simply this. I have been in the position, as I am sure he has, of hearing one side of a case and thinking how clearly it points to the innocence or guilt of a particular party. It is only in the next day's newspaper that I read the alternative, and I say to myself, "That's interesting." A final decision can be made only by the court, and I have no doubt that the court will make that decision.
Again, I shall only take lessons from the Opposition when they say unreservedly that, in all circumstances, including the case of the Clay Cross councillors—including the case of a surcharged councillor who sits on their Benches today, including the case of an Opposition Treasury spokesman who asked people not to pay their poll tax, including the case of a deputy leader of the Labour party who said that the Labour party was ambivalent about whether councils should obey the law—they condemn breaking the law. When they do that, they will have some reason to speak.
Mr. Walter Sweeney: Given that the district auditor has cleared my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr. Legg) of any misconduct, will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning all Opposition Members who, under the cloak of parliamentary privilege, have attacked my hon. Friend and damaged his reputation in the eyes of the public? Will my right hon. Friend urge those Opposition Members to apologise, and to make clear their support for my hon. Friend?
Mr. Gummer: It seems to me that it is for Labour Members to bear it in mind that, in rushing to judgment on the interim report, they have found themselves making a blanket condemnation which turns out to be, at the very least, variable. They should recognise that they need to be reticent today as well.
One of the properties of parliamentary privilege is that it is a privilege, and privileges need to be respected. I think that the public will recognise that Labour Members—including those who have spoken from a sedentary position—do not respect parliamentary privilege as a privilege, but use it as a mechanism for party political advantage.
Mr. John McWilliam: Does the Secretary of State accept from a former commissioner for local authority accounts in Scotland that, if Westminster had been in Scotland, the case would not have dragged on for so long, and there would have been no interim report? There would have been one report, and the Secretary of State would have had a duty to implement it.
Does the right hon. Gentleman also accept that, during the Committee stage of the Bill that became the Local Government Finance Act 1982, the Government opposed amendments tabled by Opposition Members, including me, that would have made it clear that those investigating the matter—the district auditor and his staff—were responsible for producing a report to which the Secretary of State would have had a duty to reply? The Government, however, amended the Bill to provide for an appeal to the court. Would not someone in Scotland who did what is
374
alleged to have been done in Westminster have been surcharged long ago? The Government have weakened the legislation.
Mr. Gummer: I thought it better to be consistent in not discussing whether the process could be improved. I do not think that it would be proper to do that while the matter was being investigated, for obvious reasons.
I cannot claim to be an expert on the details of the Scottish procedures, but I think that most people would agree that, when we are dealing with a clear statement from someone who, in this context, has been able to act as judge and jury, it is not unreasonable for an appeal to take place. That appeal has been granted by the House, and I feel that the House owes it to itself—let alone anyone else—to respect the procedures it has created, and to allow those concerned to proceed to court—with the clear undertaking that, if they are found guilty, they will be condemned by all of us, irrespective of the party to which we belong.
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that Mr. Magill, whose report we are considering, is an accountant, not a lawyer, and that his proper duty was to examine the financial aspects of the case, rather than seeking to make inflammatory statements in judging those involved?
Will he please look into the issue of the inordinate length of the proceedings? That placed appalling pressure on officers and elected members, which led to the suicide of an elected member whose death has been shown to be unnecessary—in the sense that he left a suicide note saying that this matter was the cause of his suicide. Opposition Members are gloating, but we should remember the pressures that these people were under.
Mr. Gummer: The allegations against these individuals are extremely serious. If they are found guilty, they will be guilty of serious misdemeanours. These matters take time, and I am not one of those who immediately rushes to judgment, even on the terms and the time that has been taken by the auditor. It will be for the courts to decide on this matter. However, I agree with my hon. Friend that, in such circumstances, we all ought to pay a little heed to the fact that to attack those who are later found innocent is to undermine our standing with the public in general.
Mr. Clive Betts: May I take the Secretary of State back to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and ask him to reflect on the Government's knowledge and involvement in this matter? First, will he confirm that, throughout the time that Westminster council operated its homes sales policy, each year a housing investment programme statement containing details of that policy would have been submitted to the then Secretary of State and his officials for consideration and consultation? Therefore, the Government knew all about the policy.
Secondly, will he confirm that certain aspects of the designated sales policy would have needed—and, indeed, received—the civic approval of the Secretary of State at the time? Therefore is it not true that Ministers are also up to their ears in this sorry and sordid mess?
Mr. Gummer: I know of no circumstances that would cause a difference between the treatment of Westminster and that of any other council of any other political kind. I notice that the Labour party is busy trying to spread a smear as widely as it can on grounds that are self-evidently nonsense. The hon. Gentleman, with his experience in Sheffield and his dealings there, should be ashamed of himself.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. This matter must now be brought to a close and we must move to our next item of business.

Business of the House
4.6 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 13 MAY—Opposition Day [12th allotted day]. Until about 7 o'clock, there will be a debate on the Northern Ireland economy on a motion in the name of the Ulster Unionists. That will be followed by a debate on the Government's cattle disposal scheme, on a motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats.
TUESDAY 14 MAY—Opposition Day [13th allotted day]. There will be a debate on standards in education, on an Opposition motion. That will be followed by 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—From 9.30 until 10.30 and from 1 o'clock until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House. That will be followed in the afternoon by a debate on the common agricultural policy and other agricultural issues on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. That debate will be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 16 May. Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
FRIDAY 17 MAY—Debate on education and training of 16 to 19-year-olds, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The provisional business for the following week will be as follows:
MONDAY 20 MAY—Remaining stages of the Reserve Forces Bill [Lords].
TUESDAY 21 MAY—Second Reading of the Defamation Bill [Lords], followed by proceedings on the following Bills, which are consolidation measures: the Police Bill [Lords], the Industrial Tribunals Bill [Lords], and the Employment Rights Bill [Lords].
The Chairman of Ways and Means is expected to name opposed private business for consideration at 7 o'clock.
WEDNESDAY 22 MAY—Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House. That includes the three-hour pre-recess debate with which the House is now familiar.
In the afternoon, until 7 o'clock, debate on developments in the Civil Service. Motion on the Council Tax Limitation (England) (Maximum Amounts) Order. The House may also be asked to consider any Lords messages that may be received.
The House will rise for the spring Adjournment on Wednesday 22 May until Tuesday 4 June.
The House will also wish to know that the following European Standing Committees will meet at 10.30 am on Wednesday 15 May to consider European Community Documents as follows:
European Standing Committee A: There will be a debate on agricultural prices for 1996–97 and supplementary payment to sheep producers n Ireland.

377
European Standing Committee B: There will be a debate on fraud. 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 22 May there will be a debate on transport pricing in European Standing Committee A.
Finally, the House may wish to be reminded that it will rise for the Spring Adjournment on Wednesday 22 May until Tuesday 4 June.
[Wednesday 15 May:
European Standing Committee A—European Community documents: 5215/96, Agricultural Price Proposals 1996–97; unnumbered, Supplementary payment to sheep producers of the island of Ireland. Relevant European Legislation Committee Report: HC 51-xiv (1995–96) and HC 5 I-xviii (1995–96).
European Standing Committee B—European Community Document: 4512/96, Detection of Fraud and Irregularities. Relevant European Legislation Committee Report: HC 51 xv (1995–96) and HC 51-xviii (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 1 of 29 February 1996; Council Document 5215/96 ADD 2, Volume ll of 7 March 1996; Council Document 5215/96 ADD 3, Volume 111 of 18 March 1996; Explanatory Memorandum 5215/96 ADD 1 & 2, Volumes 1 & 11 of 12 March 1996; Explanatory Memorandum 5215/96 ADD 3, Volume 111 of 12 March 1996 and the Commons Select Committee Report on Explanatory Memoranda 5215/96 ADD 1, 2 & 3 and Volumes 1, 11 & 111 of 27 March 1996 concerning agricultural prices for 1996/97 and Agriculture in the UK 1995.
Wednesday 22 May:
European Standing Committee A—European Community Document: 5179/96, Transport Pricing. Relevant European Legislation Committee Report: HC 51-xiv (1995–96).]
Mrs. Taylor: The Leader of the House has confirmed that the debate on Wednesday and Thursday on the European Union's common agricultural policy will be on a motion for the Adjournment rather than a substantive motion that could be amended. He must know that there is widespread dissatisfaction, across the Chamber and outside, with the CAP's workings. Surely the turmoil in the Government's party should not be used as an excuse to dodge that issue. What is the justification for making the CAP debate a two-day debate? If the reason is the importance of the issues involved, surely that proves the need for an amendable motion on which the House can vote.
Will the Leader of the House shed any light on what happened in the Committee considering the Wildlife Bill yesterday, when the parliamentary private secretary to the Minister of State, Department of the Environment talked out a Bill supported by the Secretary of State for the Environment? Is there any co-ordination between Ministers in this Administration? Was that incompetence on an alarming scale or an act of premeditated vandalism? What does the Leader of the House intend to do to ensure that that Bill, which has all-party support, makes progress?
378
On a different issue, the Leader of the House will be aware that it is just over a year since we last discussed the future of Hong Kong. As barely 14 months remain before the handover, would it not be appropriate to have a debate in the near future to provide an opportunity for the House to examine recent developments in Hong Kong, and the Government's proposals for ensuring that the present elected members of the Legislative Council are able to continue in office after 30 June next year?
Finally, in view of the today's report from the district auditor following his eight-year investigation into Westminster city council, which has highlighted the biggest ever scandal in local government, I had intended to ask the Leader of the House whether we could have debate in Government time on what went wrong and on that report.
However, I must tell him and the whole House—I apologise for this unusual step—that, in view of the staggering and sanctimonious complacency of the Secretary of State for the Environment, and the outrageous attitude of the Prime Minister at Question Time in trying to protect and to excuse his political friends, despite the report, the Opposition have now decided to postpone the education debate due on Tuesday. There will instead be a debate in Opposition time on the scandals of Westminster city council.
Mr. Newton: I rarely say this about the hon. Lady, but I thought that the tone and content of the last part of her remarks bordered on the disgraceful. I am astonished that she has joined her right hon. and hon. Friends in seeking to deny people the proper right to take their case to a court, which is what we understand will take place in this instance.
I note what she has said about the debate with somewhat less than complete surprise. It struck me that it was mad for the Labour party to have a debate on education, given the shambles that the shadow Chancellor and others are in about child benefit for 16 to 18-year-olds. No doubt it is as good a reason for getting out of that debate as the hon. Lady has been able to think of.
Returning to my more naturally emollient style, I note the constructive and reasonable request for a debate on Hong Kong, which I shall certainly bear in mind.
On the Wildlife Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Banks), together with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and others, have constructively sought to ensure that the Bill is workable and consistent with our and the Nature Conservancy Council's efforts to build constructive relationships with landowners and land managers, and we shall continue to approach it in that spirit. It has not been talked out. It will continue in Committee, and I hope that that constructive process will go on.
The hon. Lady asked about the agriculture debate. I do not think that I can add much to what I said in my response to her last week and wrote in my letter to the Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee, who, I am glad to say, has responded with a thoughtful and constructive letter saying that it would be helpful for the documents that have been referred for debate to be tagged on the Order Paper on the motion for the Adjournment of the House—a request to which I have responded in my statement today.

379
If the hon. Lady wants to know why we have decided to extend the debate to two days, I must tell her that it is a confirmation of what I said last week, when I indicated that there was wide-ranging interest in agricultural issues, going well beyond CAP price fixing. I have received a significant number of requests, especially from my hon. Friends, asking for a two-day debate, and I thought it right to respond.
Sir Norman Fowler: Can we have a debate on Government policy relating to the electricity industry, and can we be told why the Government have overruled a merger between Midlands Electricity and PowerGen, in spite of the recommendation to the contrary from the Monopolies and Mergers Commission? Will the Government take the opportunity of setting out in the House their policy towards electricity and such mergers, so that everyone knows exactly where they stand?
Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend will no doubt be aware that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is due to be in the House answering questions next Wednesday. I will ensure that he is aware of my right hon. Friend's point before he gets here.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: May I return to the debate on the common agricultural policy? I welcome the fact that we now have an extra day in which to discuss these important and wide-ranging subjects. However, it seems highly unsatisfactory that the Government have not acceded to the House's request—there are views about this on both sides of the House—that it would be much more comfortable to have an amendable motion, as we have always had in the past. The Leader of the House has not persuaded me that there are circumstances which mean that we should change the convention on this occasion.
Mr. Newton: The fact that I have not convinced the hon. Gentleman does not mean that I am wrong and he is right. In fact, I think that I am right and he is wrong. As well as the debate in the House, there is a full scrutiny debate in Standing Committee, with the opportunity to cross-question Ministers for an hour. That is a significant advantage of that process, and I think that many hon. Members agree with me.
With those two debates, we are providing nearly two and a half days for the debating of agricultural matters, instead of either half a day in Committee or a full day in the House. Any hon. Member can attend and speak in the Standing Committee debate. That is the sensible way to proceed.
Sir Jim Spicer: Does my right hon. Friend accept that most hon. Members will welcome the addition of another day for the agriculture debate? He clearly said that the debate could be wide-ranging; will he make it absolutely clear that, in view of the gravity of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy situation, and of the concern felt by all our farming communities, there will be no bar to extending the debate to domestic matters such as BSE and the progress that is being made?
Mr. Newton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for confirming that there is a widespread interest in such matters at this time. Precisely for that reason, the debate is listed as being
380
"on the common agricultural policy and other agricultural issues".
It could not be wider-ranging than that.
Mr. Tony Banks: Not many people know this, but the 12-starred badge that I am wearing in my lapel for Europe day is not the flag of the European Union but the flag of the Council of Europe, which has somehow been expropriated by the EU. That notwithstanding, could we have a debate on how to deal with Europe day in future? Does the right hon. Gentleman remember when we used to celebrate Empire day in school, and get dressed up in various costumes? Why do we not now celebrate Europe day in schools—or, if we cannot do that, why not have a public holiday? Perhaps we could change the anthem to "Ode to Joy". I am sure that that would please many Members of Parliament.
Mr. Newton: I am beginning to think that, although he does not look it, the hon. Gentleman must be older than I am, because I do not have those memories. As for me, I have felt it most appropriate to wear today what I might call the flag of the British Red Cross Society, and I am proud to do so.
Mr. James Pawsey: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that two days next week will be devoted to debating the common agricultural policy, and does he believe that two days will be long enough for Labour Members to put right all the damage they have done to the British beef industry in the past two months?
Mr. Newton: I agree with my hon. Friend that that would take rather longer than two days, but I hope that we shall at least hear them acknowledge the damage done by the initial responses of the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman).
Ms Glenda Jackson: I am sure that the Leader of the House is aware that the one voice lacking in the exchanges about the scandalous behaviour of Westminster council is that of the thousands of people whose lives the council's gerrymandering tactics have destroyed—not least a family in my constituency who were bribed out of their tenancy by Westminster council and put on an estate outside London. The council subsidised their rent there by more than £100 a week, but because of racial harassment the family had to leave the estate, the family broke up and Westminster refused to house them, so they are now in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Grave damage has been done to that family.
I cannot believe that the Leader of the House would really criticise the shadow Leader of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) for using one of the Opposition days to debate the issue. Indeed, does it not behove the Government to add an extra day to that debate, so that we can really examine in detail over two days the gross damage that that gerrymandering has wreaked on so many people's lives?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Lady would not expect me to add to what my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Prime Minister have said within the past hour or so, and I shall not attempt to do so; nor do I wish to subtract from what I said about the words of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs.Taylor).
Mr. Harry Greenway: May I ask for a debate next week on the serious anger of many of my constituents at the corrupt action of a Labour councillor who sought to insist in a letter to the chairman of housing that he put Labour voters into a ward in my constituency for the specific purpose of securing Labour's majority in that ward? Have we not heard a great deal of humbug from the Labour and Liberal parties today, and would it not be better if Labour Members examined what their own party is doing, which they have not condemned in Ealing?
Mr. Newton: I am somewhat inclined to agree that we have heard a great deal of humbug, and perhaps worse, but my hon. Friend may accept that, in the spirit of what I have said in the past few minutes, and of what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment said earlier, I would not want to make further specific comment on specific cases.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Will the Leader of the House confirm that the whole of Thursday's business will be on agriculture, and that the debate will not last only until 7 o'clock? Will the debate therefore last for two whole days, and not a day and a half?
Mr. Newton indicated assent.
Mr. Spearing: I see that the right hon. Gentleman nods. Is there not an anomaly in having about 12 hours of debate on agriculture without an amendable motion, as distinct from having just two and a half hours in Standing Committee, where an amendable motion could be moved? Could not that motion then be taken on the Floor forthwith? Can the right hon. Gentleman not combine the two? If not, he might be accused of not giving the House a good crack at the issue.
Mr. Newton: I hardly think that devoting two and a half days to the subject—two on the Floor and half a day in Standing Committee—can be described as not giving Members a fair crack of the whip.
Mr. Spearing: I was referring to an amendable motion.
Mr. Newton: I heard what the hon. Gentleman said. I repeat what I said last week. I believe that our procedures for Standing Committees—which we use for the overwhelming majority of scrutiny these days—are more effectively geared for the kind of scrutiny necessary for such a matter. Members can question the Minister for an hour, and the matter can then be debated for an hour and a half, with any Member able to take part. It is sensible to have both procedures on this occasion, and that is what I have provided for.
Mr. Tony Marlow: My right hon. Friend will be aware that agriculture policy is largely a matter for our masters in Brussels, and is to a much lesser extent a matter for this House. Is he aware that many of his right hon. and hon. Friends may vote on Thursday to pass judgment on our masters in Brussels, rather than on the Government's agriculture policies? In that case, it is possible that the House may vote not to adjourn. What would be the implications for the Government's business and policies of such a result?
Mr. Newton: Such a result would simply mean that the half-hour Adjournment debate would not take place.
Ms Janet Anderson: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 855 in the name of myself and my hon. Friends, which refers to the thousands of people whose lives are blighted every year by stalking?
[That this House notes that thousands of people's lives are blighted by stalking each year, and that there is currently no effective method for either the police or victim to combat this social menace; recognises there is massive public support for the introduction of a criminal offence of stalking; commends the Daily Mirror for its campaign calling for such an offence; considers that such an important issue of public safety should be above party politics; believes that the Stalking Bill merits the close scrutiny and consideration of a Standing Committee; and hopes it will receive an unopposed Second Reading on Friday 10th May.]
Does he agree that there is a demand for the introduction of a criminal offence of stalking? Will he assure me that the Government will not obstruct the Second Reading of my Stalking Bill tomorrow? Will he join me in congratulating the Daily Mirror on its excellent campaign in support of my Bill?
Mr. Newton: I, and indeed the Government, very much understand and sympathise with what the hon. Lady is trying to achieve with her Bill, and we will certainly consider its merits against that background. We are examining what new measures might be introduced to combat stalking.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the largest industries in my constituency are agriculture and associated activities? He will be aware that those industries are facing their biggest crisis since the war, and many employees do not know what their future will be. I warmly welcome the fact that we will have a two-day debate, which the subject justly deserves.
Irrespective of the present crisis, the reform of the CAP is vital to every person in this country. Will my right hon. Friend note that the official Opposition wanted to curtail debate on this important subject? During that debate, I hope that the Opposition will do their best to restore the reputation of British agriculture, and stress the fact that our beef is the safest in the world to eat.
Mr. Newton: I endorse the latter part of my hon. Friend's comments, and I am grateful for his support for the course that I have adopted.
Mr. George Foulkes: Those of us who represent large rural constituencies—and, I believe, Opposition Front Benchers—welcome the fact that we will have a two-day debate. The debate will give us an opportunity to get rid of the crazy notion that my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) caused the BSE crisis—it was the dithering incompetence of the Government that caused it.
I have been here for 17 years last Friday, and I think that, on almost every occasion on which we have discussed agricultural prices, there has been a vote.

383
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) and my hon. Friends the Members for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) and for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing)—and now myself—have told the Leader of the House that we should have a vote next week. Will he change his mind, as he is heavily outnumbered on the matter? Is he afraid to do so because, last December, the Government lost a vote on the common fisheries policy?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman may have been here for 17 years, but I have been here for 22, and in many matters, the ways in which the House scrutinises things have moved on to reflect new circumstances. Indeed, when he and I first came to the House, the European Standing Committees that do most of the detailed scrutiny did not exist.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Could we have a debate next week on far left infiltration of local institutions, so that we could highlight the fact that a Labour councillor in my constituency has resigned from the Labour party on grounds of extreme left-wing activity? A Labour councillor in West Suffolk has done likewise, and joined the Conservative party. Both councillors joined the Labour party believing all the moderate twaddle of new Labour, only to discover the reality: that Labour is still very left-wing in the constituencies—[Interruption.]—and, as we know, in the House.
Mr. Newton: As my hon. Friend may have noticed, he has put new heart into Labour Members below the Gangway.
Miss Kate Hoey: Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate next week in which the Minister responsible for sport could give his views on the chaotic situation at the Football Association in respect of ticket distribution for the Euro 96 championships? In view of the short time before Euro 96 and the increasing dissatisfaction of football supporters throughout England, will he ensure that we debate this important topic, so that we can be sure that England's name will be strengthened—and not weakened by chaos at the FA?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of National Heritage will be one of the Heritage Ministers who will answer questions on Monday 20 May, and I will warn him of possible questions. I understand that the Football Association is making every effort to ensure that safety and security at Euro 96 are not compromised by tickets falling into the wrong hands, and the Government are giving it every support.
Dr. Robert Spink: Could my right hon. Friend find time for an early debate to ensure that the fishing industry, especially the controls on it and sea fish conservation, is properly regulated? We must ensure that the small inshore fleet and the traditional boats are properly and appropriately controlled when compared with the deep-sea boats of producer organisations and rule beaters that seem to do so well. As an Essex Member, he knows that the small inshore fleet is one of the features of the Essex fishing industry.
Mr. Newton: Indeed. Although I have a landlocked constituency, I was born and brought up in the Essex port of Harwich, so I am well aware of what my hon. Friend said. I shall bring his remarks to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture.
Mr. Alan Simpson: Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate on the issues raised by last night's "Dispatches" programme on the running of Motability? Can I have an assurance that the whole House—or at the very least, the Public Accounts Committee—will have an opportunity to debate those issues, and especially these four very serious allegations: first, the take-over of a public charity by a private for-profit, consortium of high street banks; secondly, the siphoning off of more than £100 million that belonged to disabled people, to boost the private consortium's profits; thirdly, the extent to which the charity exists behind a cloak of secrecy that the Government have consistently refused to question and bring before the House; and fourthly, the links between direct benefactors and donors to the Conservative party and the running of the Motability Finance Ltd. scheme? That must be addressed under the scrutiny of the House as a whole.
Mr. Newton: I did not see the "Dispatches" programme, but obviously I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's comments, as a former Minister for disabled people and as one who has supported the Motability arrangements over the years. The hon. Gentleman will understand if I do not feel able to comment on what he has said, but I shall bring his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security.
Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for an early debate on the national health service, so that I may welcome the further reduction in long-term waiting lists which were published today? Is he aware that the number of people awaiting surgery for more than 12 months has been reduced from more than 200,000 six years ago to only 4,400? Will he also confirm that there has been a 25 per cent. increase in the number of patients treated since the reforms were introduced, and that GP fundholders have revolutionised general practice?
Mr. Newton: I shall certainly look as sympathetically as I can upon my hon. Friend's request, bearing in mind the pressures on the House's time. I welcome the opportunity that he has in any case had to draw attention to those very welcome and encouraging figures.
Mr. Paul Flynn: When can we have a debate about road safety, so that we may congratulate the Government on their courage in introducing probably the most effective advertisements on road safety ever to be used? They comprise home videos depicting children who have been the victims of fatal road accidents and are accompanied by a very moving, simple message from the works of Auden. As those advertisements are likely to get through to those who have caused road accidents when other advertisements have not, is it not right that we should congratulate the Government and all those responsible on drawing attention to the dreadful road toll of 10 fatal accidents every day of the year?
Mr. Newton: For once, I am left almost speechless, as I cannot remember the hon. Gentleman's asking a helpful question ever before. I shall simply take his comments in the spirit in which they are offered, and thank him most warmly.
Mr. Harry Barnes: My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) offered a sensible suggestion as to how we could vote on substantive matters next Thursday. The matters will be discussed in European Standing Committee A on Wednesday, when a motion will be put in front of us, presumably with an Opposition amendment. When the matters are decided, they could be brought before the House—certainly the Government motion must be brought back to the House—and voted upon immediately. We could vote on the motion in the House after 10 o'clock on Thursday, and then on the amendment if necessary.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman is a member of the Scrutiny Committee, and I have referred briefly to the constructive and thoughtful letter that I received from its Chairman. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion does not strike me immediately as particularly attractive, but I have no doubt that it was intended in a constructive spirit.

Points of Order
4.37 pm
Mr. Jeff Rooker: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In the past few days, hon. Members will have seen reports in the press that a journalist who works in the precincts of Westminster has been banned for 20 working days. Can you give us any useful background information regarding that matter?
Madam Speaker: I am sure that the whole House agrees that the press are an important element in the preservation of democratic freedoms, that their presence in the Palace of Westminster is welcome, and that they have the right to report our proceedings and to comment on political developments as they choose. Members of the Lobby are granted privileged access to Parliament so that they may exercise that right most effectively. But privilege is accompanied by responsibility. That responsibility includes a duty to take the advice of the security authorities of the House in relevant cases.
On 28 April, The People printed an article by its political editor about a current security threat. The article contained information which, unusually, he had been asked specifically by the security authorities not to publish. This is not the first time that the political editor of The People has published material that increases the security risk to Members and to their staff. He was previously given a warning about his activities here.
I have given very careful consideration to this entire matter. My conclusion is that the political editor's Lobby pass should be suspended for a period of 20 sitting days.
Sir David Steel: As I was the hon. Member involved in that story, if the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) or anyone else is concerned about it, I shall be happy to provide further information in private.
Madam Speaker: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Arising out of the exchanges at Prime Minister's Question Time and in answer to the private notice question about Westminster, can you provide guidance on what hon. Members can do when it is clear—at least to me, and I am sure to many other hon. Members—that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for the Environment, either intentionally or unintentionally, misled the House about the law in relation to the district auditor's findings?
The report is available to hon. Members and makes it clear that the auditor announced his findings today, which were not provisional—they were decisions. He made three decisions that there had been unlawful behaviour, and he came to the conclusion that six people were guilty—his words—of wilful misconduct.
The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State either misled the House, were economical with the truth or were ill-informed, and clearly were advised in an extraordinary manner. There must be a way to get Government officials to state accurately the law when the law is absolutely clear.
Madam Speaker: There may well be an opportunity for the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members who wish to pursue that line of argument in the debate that is planned for next week. That debate will no doubt provide an opportunity for all those matters to be examined.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

COAL INDUSTRY
That the draft Redundant Mineworkers (Payments Schemes) (Amendment and Consolidation) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 8th March, be approved.
NORTHERN IRELAND
That the draft Proceeds of Crime (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 16th April, be approved.

INTERNATIONAL IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES
That the draft International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund 1992 (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 17th April, be approved.—[Mr. Ottaway.]
Question agreed to.

DEREGULATION
Madam Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14A (Consideration of draft deregulation orders),

MOTOR VEHICLES TESTS
That the draft Deregulation (Motor Vehicles Tests) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 1st April, be approved.

PARKING EQUIPMENT
That the draft Deregulation (Parking Equipment) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 1st April, be approved.—[Mr.
Ottaway.]
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

  NATURAL MINERAL WATERS
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 12712/95, relating to natural mineral waters, and supports the Government's opposition to those parts of this proposal which impose unnecessary new requirements on producers of 'spring waters'.—[Mr. Ottaway.]
  Question agreed to.

  ARMED FORCES BILL [MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Armed Forces Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any sums required by the Secretary of State for making grants towards expenditure in connection with the repair or maintenance of—

  (a) the land and buildings on the site known as the Royal Naval College; or

  (b) any object of historical interest situated on that land or in those buildings.—[Mr. Soames.]

Orders of the Day

  Armed Forces Bill
  As amended in the Select Committee, considered in Committee.
  [MR. MICHAEL MORRIS in the Chair]
  Ordered,
  That the recommitted Bill be considered in the following Order, namely, Clauses 1 to 4; New Clause 5; New Schedule 1; Clauses 5 to 7; Schedule 1; Clause 8; Schedule 2; Clause 9; New Clause 3; Clause 10; Schedule 3; Clauses 11 to 13; Schedule 4; Clauses 14 to 27; New Clause 4; Clauses 28 to 31; Schedules 5 and 6; Clause 32; remaining New Clauses, other than New Clause 1; remaining New Schedules; New Clause 1.—[Mr. Ottaway.]
  Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

  ENLISTMENT OR ENTRY FOR LOCAL SERVICE
  4.42 pm
  Mr. Bruce George: I beg to move amendment No. 81, in page 2, line 10, at end insert
  `Provided that no regulations shall be made under paragraphs (j) and (k) above until a full report on the consultative process and pilot studies relating to the Ministry of Defence police has been made to the House.'.
  I move this amendment with some reluctance because I was hoping that the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill would agree with my general attitude on the future of the Ministry of Defence police, which the clause addresses. If implemented, the clause would cause considerable damage to that fine organisation. Unfortunately, the Committee—with the casting vote of an excellent Chairman, who had this one lapse—did not agree. Because the voting was five to five, and the Chairman's vote consigned the amendment not to the clause but to the relevant part of the report, I thought that I should give the House an opportunity to consider the two views on the matter—which are not and should not be party political—and to discuss clause 2 and what it entails, particularly for the MOD police.
  The MOD police is a non-Home Department police force that has served with great distinction for many years. My intention is not to try to wreck the concept, but merely to give the House an opportunity to consider in more detail what the MOD has in mind for the future of the MOD police. As we all know, the clause is intended to set up a new organisation, which will clearly have a detrimental effect on existing organisations. I repeat that my amendment is intended not to wreck anything but to give the House an opportunity to debate what the MOD is still in the process of doing—undertaking a series of consultations on the future of defence organisations and defence concepts. If my amendment secures sufficient support, I hope that the MOD will pause and give some thought to those matters.
  No monopoly on wisdom is held by any individual or political party anywhere in relation to security policy. In relation to defence, which is the responsibility of the MOD, clearly the right decisions have to be made. Unfortunately, over the years other members of the Select Committee on Defence and myself have reached the conclusion that the MOD does not always get things right on policing and security.
  390
  The Defence Committee was largely responsible for stopping the privatisation of security at the royal ordnance factories when they were taken out of Government control in the early 1980s. Later, that Committee played an enormous part in ensuring that, when British Aerospace took over the royal ordnance factories, it took with it the MOD police. The Committee produced a very critical report on the MOD Deal barracks bombing, and it is currently in the midst of another evaluation of a substantial change being considered by the MOD.
  The Defence Committee is still examining the report produced by the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, of which I was a member. Unfortunately, the MOD police and security have been subject to almost constant examination. I recall the Broadbent report in 1984, the "Guarding of Defence Installations" report in 1989, the Blelloch inquiries and the Rucker report—some of which was made public. There have been investigations on several occasions by the inspectorate of constabulary, and internal inquiries. I fear that the MOD is getting it wrong again, and I want to give it time more seriously to consider what could be a precipitate decision.
  If the MOD police were reduced to 2,500 in number—an almost inevitable consequence of the process of change that is being undertaken by the MOD, which will certainly be accelerated should clause 2 be passed—I fear that it would be extremely traumatic. If that happened, morale would sink very low and many of the best MOD police officers would leave, taking advantage of the compulsory redundancy terms on offer. For some years, the quality of the MOD police is likely to be impaired, but it would eventually recover.
  Sir Jim Lester: In terms of the morale of the MOD police, I know that the hon. Gentleman knows that Chilwell and Chetwynd barracks are carved into my heart. I find that it will be the pilot scheme for this change. It will happen by April 1997—less than a year. There is considerable concern among the MOD police on the site in my constituency and among the local population, who feel that soldiers parading the fences around the depot would not have the same force as policemen, who have the power to intervene with all sorts of people in cases of burglary, car theft or whatever. So I am listening carefully to what my colleague is saying. I should say to my hon. Friend the Minister that it will be difficult for me to vote against the amendment.
  Mr. George: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. His comments reinforce the point that I have sought to make over the years, that security should never be seen as a party political issue. The fact that members of the Defence Committee agree with much of what I say suggests that the Government should proceed with considerable caution.
  My amendment of the text of the Select Committee report was intended to say, "Look, the MOD is making a series of inquiries into the future of policing and security. Please do not take any major decisions until that inquiry has been completed, evaluated and passed on to the House and its Defence Committee for evaluation." Surely there is nothing too dramatic about that. Nothing should be done until the Defence Committee has completed its overall examination based on the evidence that has been given to us and the forthcoming visit by the Minister, to which we are all looking forward, and reported. Nothing

  391
  should be done until the pilot studies to which the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Sir J. Lester) referred have been evaluated—I suggest that they should be evaluated independently as well as by the MOD. Only when all those legitimate conditions have been fulfilled should the Ministry of Defence proceed to make the changes that it appears hellbent on making.
  It is my considered judgment that the MOD already has a mix of policing and security forces, from which it can draw to meet any future requirements, without recourse to the establishment of yet another organisation. There is surely a super-abundance of security and policing organisations. As yet, no justification has been given for creating one more.
  Military home service engagement is a spurious concept that has not been properly explained. Nor has it secured the support of the House of Commons. It is in my view a further attempt to get at the MOD police because it is perceived that costs are too high. I say that security must not be tampered with and that the ultimate criterion by which we evaluate good policing and security is its success in catching adversaries, criminals and fraudsters and deterring potential ones. One should not be profligate, but surely one should not drive down costs to such a level that the organisation's future is in jeopardy.
  I presume that, if the scheme goes ahead, soldiers recruited will be given redundancy payments and then re-employed. That is a distinct possibility. They will serve according to different conditions of service from those under which they serve in the armed forces.
  We are several thousand soldiers short at present. The Navy and the Air Force want nothing to do with the scheme. It is hard to keep soldiers in the Army and to attract more soldiers to join the armed forces. Soldiers are now given a bounty if they can recruit a mate. If we cannot keep soldiers in the Army at existing pay rates, how are we to entice them in with lower pay, no overtime, no benefits and lower status? They will not have access to free housing or a housing allowance. I wonder how these men and, I presume, women are to be recruited. They will be expected to serve Queen and country, yet this bizarre little organisation is being set up, which requires men and women to serve only in a limited area.
  All of us who watch the Napoleonic wars being fought out weekly on the television are familiar with the old redcoat song, "Over the hills and far away." If the clause is accepted tonight, the song will need a slight amendment. It will go:
  "Queen Anne commands and we'll obey
  Over the hills and as far as Wolverhampton."
  People recruited in the west midlands will be required to serve Queen or King and country only within the travel-to-work area. It seems to me that it will be rather difficult to motivate people in those circumstances. Whatever the Minister says, it will be a second-class, inferior Army. That will make it even more difficult to recruit.
  The MOD tested opinion among a few hundred soldiers and asked whether they would like to serve in some future guarding force. Twenty-five per cent. said that they would be interested, but they were not told what the wages would be, that they would not be allowed to work overtime or that they would not receive a housing allowance. So that little survey was spurious.
  392
  The Ministry of Defence police are being attacked and attacked fundamentally. Will the Minister tell us what will be the administration costs of the new guarding force? Will he tell us what witnesses were not able to tell either the Defence Committee or the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill how much it is all going to cost? The Defence Committee was told that it would cost some £42,000 to make a MOD policeman redundant. That figure went up a few months later to £85,000.
  Then the Government said that it would take between seven and 11 years to reach break-even point. In other words, all this disruption to the MOD police and the guarding and policing of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and their families will not even pay off financially for between seven and 11 years. If my experience of MOD statistics is anything to go by, it will be even longer before there will be any achievement of profit, if that is the criterion.
  It is estimated that the number of MOD police, which was 5,000 a few years ago, will be driven down to perhaps between 2,600 and 3,000—a cut of between 40 and 50 per cent. That will surely have an adverse effect on morale. The MOD police perform their tasks well. Will a force the size of which has been driven down by between 40 and 50 per cent. realise its functions of guarding, exercising constabulary powers, fulfilling its role in transition to war, fraud detection—of increasing importance—dealing with emergencies and assisting Home Office forces?
  The future of policing within the MOD is threatened by what the Government intend to do. The Government must prove to us that the cost saving will be worth all the disruption. We shall have to have more information about whether the Treasury will fund the cost of the change. I suspect that, in a couple of years, any financial assistance from the Treasury will be withdrawn and that all the costs will fall on the MOD.
  Therefore, I urge both sides of the Committee to join me in asking the Ministry of Defence not to proceed so quickly, as there are critical decisions to be made. The Ministry of Defence has embarked on at least three consultative exercises. It should conclude them before consulting the Defence Committee, not so that we can exercise our veto, but to discuss security and policing.
  Although pilot studies are under way, the Government should make no further reductions beyond those proposed and those already achieved through redundancies. Only if the proposed changes are successful, valid and necessary in the exceedingly dangerous world in which we live, and only if the Government can prove that to the organisation concerned, the House and the Defence Committee, should those substantial changes be made.
  If I receive assurances that there will be no major further changes, I shall be delighted not to divide the Committee, but if I do not receive those assurances, I shall seek the support of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee in forcing the amendment to a vote.
  5 pm
  Mr. Robert Key: It is now more than a decade since the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) and I served on the Ministry of Defence Police Bill. We have followed the security interests of the Ministry of Defence police and all the other police and security forces in the Army, the Navy and the Air Force

  393
  since then. It is important that hon. Members are aware that there is support on both sides of the Committee for much of what the hon. Gentleman has said.
  The Ministry of Defence police must be the most reviewed police force ever. There is real anger among Ministry of Defence policemen, not just in my constituency, where I met the Ministry of Defence police from Land Command only 10 days ago, and had an extremely fruitful discussion. Part of the trouble was that they did not know what was happening, although it would affect their numbers, and their lives and careers and those of their families.
  The hon. Gentleman will understand that I shall be unable to support him if he seeks to divide the Committee, for reasons that I explained to the Select Committee. In addition, I believe that there is merit in the proposal for local service engagement, which I would not wish to prevent. I am glad that it has been recommended that the Defence Committee should review the matter, so that we can press the Minister and his officials on future security arrangements.
  We should bear it in mind, however, that the agencies now established in the Ministry of Defence pay for their own security. There is downward financial pressure on them, so they seek to achieve the best possible use of the most appropriate policing techniques. That might well involve more use of soldiers or service men and women as well as new security arrangements, in addition to the guard force.
  I continue to be concerned by the interface with the Home Office police. In areas of military concentration such as my constituency—as well as in Colchester and other places—there are real issues to be addressed. It is assumed that if there is a reduction in the numbers of Ministry of Defence police, there will be substitution by the Home Office police to achieve the same level of policing. I do not believe that that will happen. However, constructive discussions are taking place about joint control rooms, for example, and there is best practice of county constabularies to be followed around the country, on such matters as joint patrolling. In Colchester, for example, there is an outstanding system whereby the Ministry of Defence police and the military police patrol with the county constabulary. That may be the way ahead.
  I am much reassured by the chief constable of the Ministry of Defence police and by the answer that I received to a recent parliamentary question, informing me that radio communications between the county constabularies and the Ministry of Defence police are much better than they were even a year or two ago.
  Local service engagements are a good idea. Whatever is decided for the future role of the Ministry of Defence police, there will be a role for local service engagements, but I view with great concern the contraction of the Ministry of Defence police, especially as—except in Whitehall—it is not quite clear exactly what will happen. The concept of area policing teams for Ministry of Defence police should be developed much further, but this is not the place to do it. It is a matter for the Defence Committee.
  I am grateful for the opportunity to put on record my misgivings about what is happening to the Ministry of Defence police and to pay tribute to their work. It is of a very high standard and it is unique in that they now have full constabulary powers. They play an important role in
  394
  the policing of our civilian communities and are often the first people to whom married quarters personnel turn when there is trouble on Army estates. My hon. Friend the Minister should be fully aware of the concern on both sides of the Committee.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: I cannot claim the length of commitment of the two hon. Members who have already spoken, but, as a member of the Defence Committee, I have had the opportunity to hear evidence on some of the matters with which the amendment is concerned and, at the invitation of my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel), I visited his constituency which contains the atomic weapons establishments at Burfield and Aldermaston. The Ministry of Defence police have a significant, important and considerable role in ensuring proper practice in and around those establishments.
  If the clause were to become law, it would not be mandatory, but permissive. It would allow the Ministry of Defence—if it so chose—to introduce a system of local service engagements. The nature of the debate so far, and in particular the misgivings that were expressed by the two hon. Gentlemen who have spoken, seems to argue strongly against the introduction of such a service.
  The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Sir J. Lester), in an intervention, identified the central issue. The Ministry of Defence police do not function merely as armed guards. They possess full police powers, so they can prevent crime and deal directly with criminals and all other categories of person. Those inducted under a system of local service engagements would have a limited capability. They would have legal powers over service personnel only and there is much evidence to suggest that civilians constitute the main threat to the security of defence property.
  If the basis of the proposal is the desire to make savings, any savings that may be made by reducing the number of Ministry of Defence police must be set against the cost of making members of that force redundant, establishing a new organisation and—what is not always fully considered—the effect of the substantial sums, perhaps running into millions of pounds, that must be saved every year by virtue of their ability to prevent and detect crime, a capability that those on local service engagements could not possess.
  The hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) rightly drew attention to the rather curious conditions that may attach to service in such a force. Recruits are to be drawn from ex-service personnel. They will be offered considerably lower rates of pay than those available in the Army, their conditions of service will be much inferior to those currently enjoyed in the Army and there will be no long-term job security. They will have to observe service discipline, and their principal activity will be static armed guarding, which is notoriously unpopular in the armed services. It seems that the proposition in respect of local service engagements is hardly attractive, so there must be considerable doubt whether enough people of the right calibre could be recruited on those terms.
  If the Ministry of Defence police are removed from an area, it will still require policing. That burden will inevitably fall on what are described as the Home Department police—the local force in any area—and it is one that, so far, they have not been required to bear.

  395
  I shall be interested to know what the reactions of chief constables throughout the land will be when they find themselves subject to an additional policing burden when there is continuing pressure from hon. Members in all parts of the House for the police to be more active and effective in preventing and detecting crime.
  A concept similar to local service engagement has been presented on no fewer than three previous occasions, but it has been abandoned as unviable. The Government's proposals do not take sufficient account of the vital considerations of security, safety and crime prevention. If the hon. Member for Walsall, South feels compelled to force his amendment to a Division, he will certainly have my support.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: I am certainly not opposed to change. I have often supported revolutionary change, but I appeal to the Minister to acknowledge that the proposed amendment is sensible and reasonable. Its purpose is not to overturn Government policy, but to suggest that there should at some stage be a review of a pilot scheme. I have seen many changes that were well intentioned but which turned out to provide a poorer service at greater expense. The Government's proposal is not new, but has been tried on three previous occasions and, as the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) said, it was abandoned because it could not work.
  In 1985—probably before most of the hon. Members present entered the House, but I was here—the royal ordnance factories were privatised. They were purchased by British Aerospace but, as a result of serious doubts about lack of security expressed by the Defence Committee, the MOD police were forced on Royal Ordnance as a condition of sale. The House insisted that privatisation be subject to the provision of MOD police.
  We must bear in mind the dangers of establishing new organisations. I know that the Government are wholly opposed to quangos—I am sure we all are—but, these days, there seem to be more and more little offices and officials, and more people supervising something. Somebody will have to supervise military local service engagement, monitor its operation and how good it is, its conditions and whether the interests of the law-abiding public are properly represented. Has consideration been given to the cost?
  The removal of a well-respected police force with a record of success often has a serious effect on an organisation's security. The Minister is not only cautious, but thorough and talented. I hope that he acknowledges there is always a danger of clever people—unlike those of us on the Back Benches—with great ideas being carried away with implementing them, without in every case anticipating how they will turn out in practice.
  The amendment is saying, "This is a wonderful idea, and it will provide a better service at lower cost"—as Conservatives always want to do—"but let us check in case it is not the right idea." There is a case for caution, because the concept was tried before and did not work. The amendment seems to make sound, common sense. Although revolutionaries such as me and other Back Benchers always want big changes, there is always the risk that things that are working perfectly well will be upset.
  396
  I ought to declare a constituency interest in that Southend, East is the location of DTEO Shoeburyness. The P and EE, as we used to call it, is now run by another organisation that I do not entirely understand—although I met its chief executive the other day. He has a nice big office. He is a splendid man, and I am sure that he does a great job. He told me that there is no doubt in the local community that the MOD police have a superb reputation, command great respect, and have a great tradition of success.
  The proposed revolutionary change of halving the number of MOD police from 5,000 to 2,500 should not proceed until we can see that it will work. I appeal to the Minister to accept the spirit of the amendment, if not the amendment. We are not asking him to abandon a brilliant idea. It may be brilliant, although some people, like me, do not think so. Let us try to establish whether it is a brilliant idea before going ahead with it. The Government, as we all know, have been wonderful. They have great ideas and have made many great changes. Let us not spoil our record of success by going ahead with a change that might not work as brilliantly as all the other measures that they have introduced.
  5.15 pm
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: Speaking as a reformist rather than as a revolutionary, I must at the outset declare a constituency interest. A goodly number of my constituents work across the Firth of Clyde at Calport and Faslane—some of them as police men and women. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) reasonably and sanely argued against the Ministry of Defence taking a precipitate decision about the terms and conditions of employment for those men and women. They are a fine body of decent, loyal, hard-working and highly skilled officers who deserve much better than that which the Bill proposes.
  No change should be made before there is a genuine consultative process that involves those police officers or their representatives. The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) spoke of the range of duties performed by MOD police, and he made the significant point that they often have to act against civilians. That is most clearly seen on the other side of the Clyde when there are demonstrations against nuclear submarines entering the river. As I have witnessed some of those demonstrations over the past 25 years, I can say with confidence that MOD police handle those often difficult situations in a mature and level-headed way.
  I am not sure how many MOD police officers are employed at Calport and Faslane, but they must number 200 or 300. They, with their colleagues elsewhere in Scotland and south of the border, deserve fair-minded treatment. If they are to be presented with change, it can be legitimate only when it meets some of the understandable concerns and worries felt by those officers. I ask the Minister to accept the amendment and to ensure that any change is made only after genuine consultation with the representatives of the police officers in question.
  Mr. Peter Viggers: I share the regard for the dedicated service given by Ministry of Defence police. I voted, as Chairman of the Select Committee on the Bill,

  397
  against a comparable amendment, for two reasons—the Minister gave a categorical assurance that there would be a genuine pilot study of local service engagements, and there are two ways in which the MLSE concept can be scrutinised. One is by the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, which has effectively ceased to exist because we have reported; the other is through the Select Committee on Defence, of which the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) and others are members. There are two Committees.
  The question is not whether the pilot scheme should be subject to scrutiny, but how that scrutiny should be carried out. The right way to maintain scrutiny of the pilot study is through the Select Committee on Defence. My hon. Friend the Minister was good enough to brief the Select Committee when the concept of local service engagements was first put forward, and he is to appear before the Committee on 4 June. We will continue our study and scrutiny, and that is the right way to do it.
  Dr. John Reid: Since everyone else has had a say, I am more or less obliged to say something. This is an important issue, but there are other important issues before us tonight, so I shall keep my comments brief. The Minister knows my views, which I have expressed. I am not convinced that we need another guard service or that we will be able to recruit the members of such a service as he suggests. I am thoroughly unconvinced that the figures for supposed costings have been prepared well, since we do not even know yet what the redundancy payments for the Ministry of Defence police would be.
  The matter was discussed at length in Committee, and it has been voted on. It has been the subject of an investigation and it will continue to be investigated by the Defence Committee. The Minister has already given assurances. I hope that he will repeat his assurances tonight about the genuine nature of the pilot scheme and I hope that that will be sufficient to allow my hon. Friends not to push the amendment to a Division, which would unnecessarily divide us across parties.
  The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid), and I am happy to repeat to the House the same assurances that my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) set out.
  We have had a good debate. The hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) feels very strongly about such matters, and I have a great deal of respect for him. His knowledge of defence matters is positively daunting, and I look forward to what I understand will be a cheerful and, I hope, brief exchange with him in the Defence Committee. I am sure that the business will be dealt with and dispatched with the vigour and speed that is well known. I should be in and out in about 15 minutes.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) has, throughout, expressed great concern and interest in the Ministry of Defence police, and not just because the Ministry of Defence police do an admirable job in his constituency. My hon. Friend is aware that many of the defence agencies, which operate extremely effectively in his constituency, often make representations to him about the importance of trying to bear down on the costs of guarding, which are very high.
  398
  I am aware of the visit to Newbury by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North—East (Mr. Campbell) and of his views, because he was good enough to discuss them with me earlier. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) paid a warm tribute to the brilliance of the Government and I share that view wholeheartedly. My hon. Friend has always regarded me as a paralysed wet when it comes to his views on revolutions. The changes are not a revolution, but a nice adjustment. I noted carefully what my hon. Friend said and I shall deal with the important points that he raised.
  The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) also has an extensive MOD police presence in his constituency. He and I discussed this matter when he came to see me the other day. My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport was an able and admirable Chairman of the Select Committee and I am sure that we all wish to pay tribute to his work. I am happy to extend to him again the reassurances that I gave the Select Committee.
  Clause 2 will give the armed forces the flexibility to recruit personnel for military service in a specified locality rather than worldwide. As the hon. Member for Walsall, South knows, that is not an attempt to get at the MOD police—but nothing will ever persuade him that it is not, because he has it fixed in his mind firmly that we are trying to get at them. I wish to join the hon. Gentleman and all those hon. Members who paid tribute to the work of the MOD police. They do a splendid job and are a fine force that is greatly respected.
  There are some tasks that might be unattractive to, or inappropriate for, full engagement regulars, but they might none the less best be carried out by uniformed service personnel rather than by civilians or police officers. The reasons for considering the use of local service personnel could vary according to the circumstances of the case. There are no plans or proposals for the general introduction of local service schemes other than for guarding. The Bill would give the option to introduce such schemes if the services saw a need for them before the next Armed Forces Bill in five years' time.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport said, the matter has been carefully discussed in the Committee, and we have been round this buoy on several occasions. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury raised an important point about joint working. As he knows, I wholly endorse his views. I am determined to press forward on the matter, and I know that there is already a joint arrangement on Salisbury plain, which my hon. Friend has seen and which is extremely impressive and works well. I note his comments and I am well aware of his views.
  On current assumptions, the size of the MOD police is expected to fall to between 2,500 and 3,000 by the early years of the next century. I want to make it plain to the House that it is my intention that they remain a substantial force able to provide a civil policing service, where that is required, throughout the whole Department. The chief constable and I are entirely confident that a force of 2,500 to 3,000, properly structured and resourced, will be able to do so. The force will lose some of the work that does not need to be done by police officers. In future, it will concentrate more on its constabulary role, as Sir John Blelloch recommended.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Walsall, South that the MOD police must be the most reviewed police force in the country. It has emerged from all the reviews with

  399
  great credit, and the suggestion that morale is low is not true. They have had a difficult time, as have other parts of the Ministry of Defence, during a period of great change. The Select Committee heard from the chief constable that morale is not as low as some hon. Members have suggested.
  Sir Jim Lester: One of the pilot schemes is taking place in my constituency. I can assure my hon. Friend that morale is not very high. The MOD police have been visited by somebody who talked about redundancy and how quickly the pilot scheme could be brought in. With respect, I request my hon. Friend to be sensitive to the people affected by the pilot schemes—never mind the bigger schemes—before any final decision is made.
  Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend will never deal with a more sensitive Minister than me. He has my assurance that I shall be extremely sensitive.
  One of the new developments to which I referred concerns the MOD police area policing teams. As some hon. Members will know, we have already set up three teams, and I have now decided that the concept should be extended to other areas in Great Britain where teams are needed. That will require some additional MOD police posts, which should reduce the need for voluntary early retirements or severances during the Military Provost Guard Service—MPGS—pilot scheme.
  Another factor that should reduce the need for MOD police voluntary early retirements or severances is the position of the royal ordnance factories. We had proposed to withdraw them from three royal ordnance factories when some important security enhancements had been completed to the satisfaction of the licensing authorities. The chief constables concerned and the Health and Safety Executive told us that they had no objections. In the event of an armed response being required at one of those factories, the local police would have provided it. I have now decided, however, that, in view of the current terrorist threat, this is not the right time to implement the proposal. I have therefore deferred the measure for two years, and we will consider the situation again in the light of the terrorist threat at that time.
  Hon. Members have said that they foresee difficulties with recruiting for the military local service engagements. It is the considered judgment of the Ministry of Defence and the Army that that will not be the case. The members of the Select Committee who have made visits to familiarise themselves with the situation will realise that there are many young men and women who wish to leave the services but to continue their close association with service life. We believe that we will indeed be able to attract people of sufficient calibre to such a scheme.
  If the MPGS pilot scheme were successful, the main scheme would follow on after about two years. About 500 further MOD police officers, employed only on guarding duties, would be replaced by military local service engagement soldiers. The earliest date for the beginning of the main scheme would be 1 April 1999. I expect to be ready to consult about the main scheme locations during the autumn. It will not be possible to do so earlier because of on-site complementary reviews that are still required at some sites that are under consideration. I have
  400
  heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Sir J. Lester) said about Chilwell. He is only too aware that he has discussed the matter with me on many occasions. He understands that I am entirely aware of the situation.
  5.30 pm
  Since the MPGS investment appraisals and affordability assessments were prepared last spring, a great deal of work has been done to develop the scheme. Much work has been done also on all the other proposals set out in all the various policing and guarding consultative documents. It is not surprising that some of the assumptions made last spring have needed some adjustment. I have therefore announced that the Ministry of Defence is preparing a new investment appraisal and affordability assessment to reflect the necessary changes. I have promised to make the results known to the Select Committee on Defence when I give evidence on 4 June. I am looking forward enormously to that occasion. I have ordered a new set of armour for it.
  The new investment appraisal and affordability assessment will be set out also in a new consultative document, which will be issued shortly. That will be subject to further consultation. Although work on the new investment appraisal has not been completed, it is clear that it will confirm that the proposal offers the Ministry the prospect of significant resource-cost saving over the medium to long term without reduction in security standards. I am aware that the hon. Member for Walsall, South attaches the highest importance to that.
  Concern has been expressed about the cost of redundancies. We are not expecting any compulsory redundancies. The planned reduction in size is enabling a number of officers, who wish to do so, to leave the force on voluntary early retirement or voluntary early severance terms. For reasons unconnected with the MPGS proposal, 331 officers left the force in that way last year. Until now, we have had to assume that the implementation of the MPGS pilot scheme next year will require consequential MPGS losses to be covered by a further scheme.
  The amendment is defective. It might prevent any pilot scheme ever being implemented, which I am sure is not the intention. It might be interpreted as not allowing regulations permitting the introduction of MLSE to be made until a report has been made on the MPGS pilot scheme. In fact, the pilot scheme cannot be introduced until the MLSE regulations have been made.s
  I note the concerns that have been expressed on both sides of the Committee. I hope that the assurance that I gave in the Select Committee will be accepted by the Committee of the whole House. I note especially the points that have been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East, to whom I defer in many ways. He says, importantly, that there is no point in change for the sake of change. My hon. Friend feels that something that works well should not be changed.
  I accept that the system works very well, but it is expensive. I know that my hon. Friend will agree that the Ministry of Defence, which has had to bear down throughout its budget in every department, must examine carefully where high costs, which might be reduced, are incurred.
  I ask the Committee to reject the amendment.
  Mr. George: I assure the Minister that he need bring with him to the Select Committee on Defence not a suit of

  401
  armour, but another suit. No one except the Minister appears to be enthusiastic about the proposal in clause 2. Most hon. Members seem to be downright opposed to it. Those who have not have been less than enthusiastic. To retain the bipartisan approach of the House of Commons and of the Select Committee on Defence, which will be meeting the Minister shortly—it will be an occasion when we can explain and probe rather more fully than is possible in the Chamber—I shall take into account the partial concessions that have been offered.
  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clauses 2 to 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New clause 5

  PROCEDURE FOR DEALING WITH OFFENCES UNDER SERVICES ACTS
  `. Schedule (procedure for dealing with offences under Services Acts) to this Act (amendment of provisions relating to the procedure for dealing with offences under the Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955 and the Naval Discipline Act 1957) shall have effect.'—[Mr. Soames.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Soames: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new schedule 1—Procedure for dealing with offences under Services Acts.
  Government amendments Nos. 1, 2, 51, 57, 58, 61, 62, 64, 67, 68, 71, 72 and 78.
  Paragraphs 64 and 65 of the new schedule do not appear in the amendment paper. The correct and complete version of the schedule has been reissued separately and is available in the Vote Office.
  Mr. Soames: The amendments, and especially new clause 5 and new schedule 1, incorporate the greater part of the court martial reform package that I announced last year. Part of the package is already in the Bill. It appears in clauses 12 to 16, which deal with post-trial procedures. New schedule 1 sets out the detail of the new procedures at the pre-trial and trial stages. The purpose of the reforms is to reinforce the independence of the court martial, principally by reducing the apparent influence of the chain of command while preserving its necessary involvement. I hope that the reforms will find favour with the Committee.
  Dr. Reid: There is much before us that has already been discussed fully in Committee. We are dealing with consequential amendments or amendments that have already been circulated to the Committee by courtesy of the Minister. There are amendments with which I and my colleagues agree. We shall attempt to minimise the time that we spend debating them.
  We welcome every move that has been made to create a sense of independence between the command structure and the prosecution structure so as to entrench a system of appeals that is less liable to be found wanting. Therefore, in substance, we approve of all the amendments that have been proposed by the Minister. I
  402
  wish to say now, as I did in the Select Committee, that my colleagues and I still believe that there will be sufficient grounds for an endless stream of lawyers—well educated, well briefed and in most instances well heeled—to drive a reluctant Ministry of Defence continually to the European Court of Human Rights on the court martial system and on other issues. We welcome the proposals as far as they go, and will not intervene again in the consideration of new clause 5, new schedule 1 and the amendments. We take this decision for reasons of time, of which the Committee will be well aware.
  Mr. Soames: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am grateful to the Committee generally for its tolerance in accepting the manner in which the new clause, the new schedule and the amendments have been presented to it. Sight was given of what the various amendments would look like and the further shape of them was dependent on further drafting. I am most grateful to the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) for what he has said. I share his concern, of course, about the European Court—we all do—but we believe that the court martial system has served the United Kingdom extremely well, including our armed forces. We shall be prepared to take our chance, the same as everyone else.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Schedule
  PROCEDURE FOR DEALING WITH OFFENCES UNDER SERVICES ACTS
    PART I
      SUMMARY DISPOSAL OF OFFENCES

        Army Act 1955 (c. 18)
        1. The Army Act 1955 shall be amended as follows.
        2. For section 76 there shall be substituted the following sections—

        Investigation of charges by commanding officer
        76.—(1) An allegation that a person subject to military law ("the accused") has committed an offence against any provision of this Part of this Act shall be reported, in the form of a charge, to his commanding officer.
        (2) A commanding officer shall investigate a charge reported to him under subsection (1) above.
        (3) If, in the course of investigating a charge, the commanding officer considers it appropriate to do so, he may amend the charge or substitute another charge for it and treat the amended or substituted charge as if that charge had been reported to him under subsection (1) above.
        (4) If, in the course of investigating a charge, it appears to the commanding officer that proceedings in respect of the matters to which the charge relates could be, and in the interests of the better administration of justice should be, taken against the accused otherwise than under this Act he may stay further proceedings with respect to the charge.
        (5) After investigating a charge the commanding officer may, subject to subsection (6) below—

        (a) dismiss the charge;

        (b) refer the charge to higher authority; or

        (c) deal summarily with the charge.

        (6) The commanding officer may not deal summarily with a charge if—

        (a) the accused is an officer or warrant officer; or

        403

        (b) the charge is not capable of being dealt with summarily.

        (7) This section has effect subject to any power of the commanding officer under section 103A(1) below to direct that the charge be tried by a field general court-martial.

        Powers of higher authority
        76A.—(1) Where a charge is referred to higher authority, the higher authority shall refer the case to the prosecuting authority unless he takes one of the steps mentioned in this section in relation to the charge.
        (2) The higher authority may refer the charge back to the commanding officer of the accused with a direction to dismiss it or to stay all further proceedings in relation to it, and the commanding officer shall deal with the charge accordingly.
        (3) If the charge is against a non-commissioned officer or soldier and is capable of being dealt with summarily, the higher authority may refer it back to the commanding officer of the accused to be so dealt with.
        (4) If the charge is against an officer below the rank of lieutenant-colonel or a warrant officer and is capable of being dealt with summarily, the higher authority may refer it to the appropriate superior authority to be so dealt with.
        (5) If the charge has been referred to the higher authority as a result of an election for court-martial trial, and that election has not been withdrawn with leave, he may not refer the charge back to the commanding officer of the accused, or (as the case may be) to the appropriate superior authority, to be dealt with summarily.
        (6) This section has effect subject to any power of the higher authority under section 103A(1) below to direct that the charge be tried by a field general court-martial.

        Summary dealings
        76B.—(1) This section applies where a charge is to be dealt with summarily by a commanding officer or appropriate superior authority.
        (2) References in this Act to dealing summarily with a charge are references to the taking of the following action, namely, determining whether the charge is proved and, accordingly, either dismissing the charge or recording a finding that the charge has been proved and awarding punishment.
        (3) If, before determining whether the charge is proved, he considers it appropriate to do so, the commanding officer or appropriate superior authority may amend the charge or substitute another charge for it and treat the amended or substituted charge as the charge to be dealt with summarily by him.
        (4) If, before determining whether the charge is proved, he considers that it should not be dealt with summarily, the commanding officer or appropriate superior authority may refer the charge to higher authority.
        (5) If he determines that the charge has been proved, the commanding officer or appropriate superior authority shall, before recording a finding that the charge has been proved, afford the accused an opportunity of electing court-martial trial.
        (6) If the accused so elects, the commanding officer or appropriate superior authority shall refer the charge to higher authority with a view to the trial of the accused by court-martial.
        (7) If the accused does not so elect, or so elects but subsequently withdraws his election with leave, the commanding officer or appropriate superior authority shall record a finding that the charge has been proved and award punishment accordingly.
        (8) If a charge has been referred to higher authority as a result of an election for court-martial trial, and that election is withdrawn with leave, the higher authority shall—

        (a) if the accused is an officer or warrant officer, refer the charge back to the appropriate superior authority;

        404

        (b) if the accused is a non—commissioned officer or soldier, refer the charge back to the commanding officer of the accused,

        for the appropriate superior authority or commanding officer to record a finding that the charge has been proved and award punishment accordingly.
        (9) This section has effect subject to any power of the commanding officer or appropriate superior authority under section 103A(1) below to direct that the charge be tried by a field general court-martial.
        (10) Nothing in this section or section 76A above shall be taken to prevent an officer from acting as both higher authority and appropriate superior authority in relation to a charge.

        Punishments available on summary dealings
        76C.—(1) This section applies where a commanding officer or appropriate superior authority records a finding that a charge against an accused has been proved.
        (2) The commanding officer may award one or more of the following punishments—

        (a) if the offender is a soldier, detention for a period not exceeding 60 days;

        (b) fine;

        (c) if the offender is a non-commissioned officer, severe reprimand or reprimand;

        (d) where the offence has occasioned any expense, loss or damage, stoppages;

        (e) any minor punishment for the time being authorised by the Defence Council.

        (3) The appropriate superior authority may award one or more of the following punishments—

        (a) except in the case of a warrant officer, forfeiture of seniority for a specified term or otherwise;

        (b) fine;

        (c) severe reprimand or reprimand;

        (d) where the offence has occasioned any expense, loss or damage, stoppages.

        (4) The commanding officer may not award a fine or minor punishment for an offence for which he awards detention.
        (5) The appropriate superior authority may not award a fine for an offence for which he awards forfeiture of seniority.
        (6) Except in the case of an offence against section 70 of this Act, the amount of a fine shall not exceed the amount of the offender's pay for twenty-eight days.
        (7) In the case of an offence against section 70 of this Act where the corresponding civil offence is a summary offence, the amount of a fine shall not exceed—

        (a) the amount of the offender's pay for twenty-eight days; or

        (b) (if less) the maximum amount of the fine which could be imposed by a civil court on summary conviction.

        (8) In the case of an offence against section 70 of this Act where the corresponding civil offence is an indictable offence, the amount of a fine shall not exceed—

        (a) the amount of the offender's pay for twenty-eight days; or

        (b) (if less) the maximum amount of the fine which could be imposed by a civil court on conviction on indictment.

        (9) A day's pay shall be taken, for the purposes of subsections (6) to (8) above, to be the gross pay that is, or would (apart from any forfeiture) be, issuable to the offender in respect of the day on which punishment is awarded in respect of the offence.
        (10) If the offender is a lance-corporal or lance-bombardier, the commanding officer may, if he awards no other punishment or no other punishment except stoppages, order the offender to be reduced to the ranks.
        (11) If the offender is an acting warrant officer or non-commissioned officer, the commanding officer may, if he awards no other punishment or no other punishment except stoppages, order the offender—

        (a) to revert to his permanent rank;

        (b) to assume an acting rank lower than that held by him but higher than his permanent rank; or

        (c) where his permanent rank is that of lance-corporal or lance—bombardier, to forfeit his acting rank and be reduced to the ranks."

        3. Sections 77 to 80 shall cease to have effect.
        4.—(1) Section 82 (officers who are to act as commanding officers and appropriate superior authorities) shall be amended as follows.
        (2) For subsection (2) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
        "(2) A person may act as appropriate superior authority in relation to a person charged with an offence if—

        (a) he is a general officer, flag officer, air officer or brigadier, or

        (b) where the Defence Council so direct, he is a colonel or a naval or air force officer of corresponding rank."

        (3) Subsection (3) shall cease to have effect.
        5. For section 83 there shall be substituted the following section—

        Regulations as to summary dealings etc
        83.—(1) The Defence Council may make regulations with respect to the investigation of charges by commanding officers and summary dealings by commanding officers and appropriate superior authorities.
        (2) Regulations under this section may in particular make provision with respect to—

        (a) the reporting of a charge to a commanding officer;

        (b) the procedure to be followed by a commanding officer investigating a charge;

        (c) the delegation by the commanding officer of any of his functions;

        (d) the charges which are capable of being dealt with summarily;

        (e) the amendment or substitution of charges;

        (f) the procedure on summary dealings;

        (g) limitations on the punishments which may be awarded on a summary dealing by a commanding officer or appropriate superior authority of a specified description;

        (h) the information to be provided to a person afforded an opportunity of electing court-martial trial;

        (i) the procedure for electing court-martial trial, including any period within which any such election may be made;

        (j) the procedure for requesting leave to withdraw an election for court-martial trial and for withdrawing any such election;

        (k) who may act as the higher authority and the appropriate superior authority in specified descriptions of cases;

        (l) who is to act as the higher authority and the appropriate superior authority in any particular case.

        (3) A regulation under this section which is inconsistent with the provisions of this Act shall to the extent of the inconsistency be void."

        Air Force Act 1955 (c. 19)
        6. The Air Force Act 1955 shall be amended as follows.
        7. For section 76 there shall be substituted the following sections"—

        Investigation of charges by commanding officer
        76.—(1) An allegation that a person subject to air—force law ("the accused") has committed an offence against any provision of this Part of this Act shall be reported, in the form of a charge, to his commanding officer.
        (2) A commanding officer shall investigate a charge reported to him under subsection (1) above.
        (3) If, in the course of investigating a charge, the commanding officer considers it appropriate to do so, he may amend the charge or substitute another charge for it and treat the amended or substituted charge as if that charge had been reported to him under subsection (1) above.
        (4) If, in the course of investigating a charge, it appears to the commanding officer that proceedings in respect of the matters to which the charge relates could be, and in the interests of the better administration of justice should be, taken against the accused otherwise than under this Act he may stay further proceedings with respect to the charge.
        (5) After investigating a charge the commanding officer may, subject to subsection (6) below—

        (a) dismiss the charge;

        (b) refer the charge to higher authority; or

        (c) deal summarily with the charge.

        (6) The commanding officer may not deal summarily with a charge if—

        (a) the accused is an officer or warrant officer; or

        (b) the charge is not capable of being dealt with summarily.

        (7) This section has effect subject to any power of the commanding officer under section 103A(1) below to direct that the charge be tried by a field general court-martial.

        Powers of higher authority
        76A.—(1) Where a charge is referred to higher authority, the higher authority shall refer the case to the prosecuting authority unless he takes one of the steps mentioned in this section in relation to the charge.
        (2) The higher authority may refer the charge back to the commanding officer of the accused with a direction to dismiss it or to stay all further proceedings in relation to it, and the commanding officer shall deal with the charge accordingly.
        (3) If the charge is against a non-commissioned officer or airman and is capable of being dealt with summarily, the higher authority may refer it back to the commanding officer of the accused to be so dealt with.
        (4) If the charge is against an officer below the rank of wing commander or a warrant officer and is capable of being dealt with summarily, the higher authority may refer it to the appropriate superior authority to be so dealt with.
        (5) If the charge has been referred to the higher authority as a result of an election for court-martial trial, and that election has not been withdrawn with leave, he may not refer the charge back to the commanding officer of the accused, or (as the case may be) to the appropriate superior authority, to be dealt with summarily.
        (6) This section has effect subject to any power of the higher authority under section 103A(1) below to direct that the charge be tried by a field general court-martial.

        Summary dealings
        76B.—(1) This section applies where a charge is to be dealt with summarily by a commanding officer or appropriate superior authority.
        (2) References in this Act to dealing summarily with a charge are references to the taking of the following action, namely, determining whether the charge is proved and, accordingly, either dismissing the charge or recording a finding that the charge has been proved and awarding punishment.
        (3) If, before determining whether the charge is proved, he considers it appropriate to do so, the commanding officer or appropriate superior authority may amend the charge or

        407
        substitute another charge for it and treat the amended or substituted charge as the charge to be dealt with summarily by him.
        (4) If, before determining whether the charge is proved, he considers that it should not be dealt with summarily, the commanding officer or appropriate superior authority may refer the charge to higher authority.
        (5) If he determines that the charge has been proved, the commanding officer or appropriate superior authority shall, before recording a finding that the charge has been proved, afford the accused an opportunity of electing court-martial trial.
        (6) If the accused so elects, the commanding officer or appropriate superior authority shall refer the charge to higher authority with a view to the trial of the accused by court-martial.
        (7) If the accused does not so elect, or so elects but subsequently withdraws his election with leave, the commanding officer or appropriate superior authority shall record a finding that the charge has been proved and award punishment accordingly.
        (8) If a charge has been referred to higher authority as a result of an election for court-martial trial, and that election is withdrawn with leave, the higher authority shall—

        (a) if the accused is an officer or warrant officer, refer the charge back to the appropriate superior authority;

        (b) if the accused is a non-commissioned officer or airman, refer the charge back to the commanding officer of the accused, for the appropriate superior authority or commanding officer to record a finding that the charge has been proved and award punishment accordingly.

        (9) This section has effect subject to any power of the commanding officer or appropriate superior authority under section 103A(1) below to direct that the charge be tried by a field general court-martial.
        (10) Nothing in this section or section 76A above shall be taken to prevent an officer from acting as both higher authority and appropriate superior authority in relation to a charge.

        Punishments available on summary dealings
        76C.—(1) This section applies where a commanding officer or appropriate superior authority records a finding that a charge against an accused has been proved.
        (2) The commanding officer may award one or more of the following punishments—

        (a) if the offender is an airman, detention for a period not exceeding 60 days;

        (b) fine;

        (c) if the offender is a non-commissioned officer, severe reprimand or reprimand;

        (d) where the offence has occasioned any expense, loss or damage, stoppages;

        (e) any minor punishment for the time being authorised by the Defence Council.

        (3) The appropriate superior authority may award one or more of the following punishments—

        (a) except in the case of a warrant officer, forfeiture of seniority for a specified term or otherwise;

        (b) fine;

        (c) severe reprimand or reprimand;

        (d) where the offence has occasioned any expense, loss or damage, stoppages.

        (4) The commanding officer may not award a fine or minor punishment for an offence for which he awards detention.
        (5) The appropriate superior authority may not award a fine for an offence for which he awards forfeiture of seniority.
        (6) Except in the case of an offence against section 70 of this Act, the amount of a fine shall not exceed the amount of the offender's pay for twenty-eight days.
        (7) In the case of an offence against section 70 of this Act where the corresponding civil offence is a summary offence, the amount of a fine shall not exceed—

        (a) the amount of the offender's pay for twenty-eight days; or

        (b) (if less) the maximum amount of the fine which could be imposed by a civil court on summary conviction.

        (8) In the case of an offence against section 70 of this Act where the corresponding civil offence is an indictable offence, the amount of a fine shall not exceed—

        (a) the amount of the offender's pay for twenty-eight days; or

        (b) (if less) the maximum amount of the fine which could be imposed by a civil court on conviction on indictment.

        (9) A day's pay shall be taken, for the purposes of subsections (6) to (8) above, to be the gross pay that is, or would (apart from any forfeiture) be, issuable to the offender in respect of the day on which punishment is awarded in respect of the offence.
        (10) If the offender is an acting warrant officer or non-commissioned officer, the commanding officer may, if he awards no other punishment or no other punishment except stoppages, order the offender—

        (a) to revert to his permanent rank; or

        (b) to assume an acting rank lower than that held by him but higher than his permanent rank."

        8. Sections 77 to 80 shall cease to have effect.
        9.—(1) Section 82 (officers who are to act as commanding officers and appropriate superior authorities) shall be amended as follows.
        (2) For subsection (2) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
        "(2) A person may act as appropriate superior authority in relation to a person charged with an offence if—

        (a) he is an air officer, flag officer, general officer or brigadier, or

        (b) where the Defence Council so direct, he is a group captain or a naval or military officer of corresponding rank."

        (3) Subsection (3) shall cease to have effect.
        10. For section 83 there shall be substituted the following section—

        Regulations as to summary dealings etc
        83.—(1) The Defence Council may make regulations with respect to the investigation of charges by commanding officers and summary dealings by commanding officers and appropriate superior authorities.
        (2) Regulations under this section may in particular make provision with respect to—

        (a) the reporting of a charge to a commanding officer;

        (b) the procedure to be followed by a commanding officer investigating a charge;

        (c) the delegation by the commanding officer of any of his functions;

        (d) the charges which are capable of being dealt with summarily;

        (e) the amendment or substitution of charges;

        (f) the procedure on summary dealings;

        (g) limitations on the punishments which may be awarded on a summary dealing by a commanding officer or appropriate superior authority of a specified description;

        (h) the information to be provided to a person afforded an opportunity of electing court-martial trial;

        409

        (i) the procedure for electing court-martial trial, including any period within which any such election may be made;

        (j) the procedure for requesting leave to withdraw an election for court-martial trial and for withdrawing any such election;

        (k) who may act as the higher authority and the appropriate superior authority in specified descriptions of cases;

        (1) who is to act as the higher authority and the appropriate superior authority in any particular case.

        (3) A regulation under this section which is inconsistent with the provisions of this Act shall to the extent of the inconsistency be void."

        Naval Discipline Act 1957 (c. 53)
        11. The Naval Discipline Act 1957 shall be amended as follows.
        12. Sections 49, 50 and 52A shall cease to have effect.
        13. After section 52A there shall be inserted the following sections—

      Investigation and summary trial

        Investigation of charges by commanding officer
        52B.—(1) An allegation that a person subject to this Act ("the accused") has committed an offence against any provision of this Act shall be reported, in the form of a charge, to his commanding officer.
        (2) A commanding officer shall investigate a charge reported to him under subsection (1) above.
        (3) If, in the course of investigating a charge, the commanding officer considers it appropriate to do so, he may amend the charge or substitute another charge for it and treat the amended or substituted charge as if that charge had been reported to him under subsection (1) above.
        (4) If, in the course of investigating a charge, it appears to the commanding officer that proceedings in respect of the matters to which the charge relates could be, and in the interests of the better administration of justice should be, taken against the accused otherwise than under this Act he may stay further proceedings with respect to the charge.
        (5) After investigating a charge, the commanding officer may, subject to subsection (6) below—

        (a) dismiss the charge;

        (b) refer the charge to higher authority; or

        (c) try the accused summarily.

        (6) The commanding officer may not try summarily—

        (a) any charge against an officer; or

        (b) any charge which is not capable of being tried summarily.

        (7) For the purposes of this Act, a charge is capable of being tried summarily if it is for an offence triable by court-martial under this Act, other than an offence punishable by sentence of death or an offence of murder.

        Powers of higher authority
        52C.—(1) Where a charge is referred to higher authority, the higher authority shall refer the case to the prosecuting authority unless he takes one of the steps mentioned in this section in relation to the charge.
        (2) The higher authority may refer the charge back to the commanding officer of the accused with a direction to dismiss it or to stay all further proceedings in relation to it; and the commanding officer shall deal with the charge accordingly.
        (3) If the charge is against a rating and is capable of being tried summarily, the higher authority may, subject to subsection (4) below, refer it back to the commanding officer of the accused to be so tried.
        (4) If the charge has been referred to the higher authority as a result of an election for court-martial trial, and that election has not been withdrawn with leave, he may not refer the charge back to the commanding officer of the accused to be tried summarily.
        (5) This section has effect subject to any power of the higher authority under section 52G(1) below to order a disciplinary court.

        Summary trial
        52D.—(1) This section applies where a charge is to be tried summarily.
        (2) If the commanding officer considers that, if the charge were proved, he would award a punishment—

        (a) in the case of a warrant officer, of disrating, a fine or stoppages;

        (b) in the case of any other rating, of dismissal from Her Majesty's service, detention or disrating, he shall afford the accused an opportunity of electing court-martial trial.

        (3) If the accused so elects and does not withdraw his election with leave, the commanding officer shall refer the charge to higher authority with a view to the trial of the accused by court-martial.
        (4) If a charge has been referred to higher authority as a result of an election for court-martial trial, and that election is withdrawn with leave, the higher authority shall refer the charge back to the commanding officer of the accused to be tried summarily.
        (5) If, in the course of trying the charge, the commanding officer considers that it should not be tried summarily, he may refer the charge to higher authority.
        (6) If the commanding officer determines that the charge has not been proved, he shall acquit the accused.
        (7) If the commanding officer determines that the charge has been proved, he shall record a finding of guilt and award punishment accordingly.
        (8) A commanding officer shall not have power on a summary trial to award a sentence of dismissal with disgrace from Her Majesty's service, a sentence of imprisonment or a sentence of detention for any term exceeding three months.

        Commanding officers
        52E.—(1) In this Act "the commanding officer", in relation to a person charged with an offence, means the officer in command of the ship or naval establishment to which he belongs at the time of the commission of the offence or at the time of its investigation or summary trial.
        (2) The Defence Council may by regulations make provision—

        (a) enabling the powers conferred by this Act on the commanding officer of an accused to be exercised by other persons of such descriptions as may be specified;

        (b) with respect to the delegation by the commanding officer, or other person exercising the powers of a commanding officer by virtue of regulations under paragraph (a) above, of any of his powers to any officer not below the rank of lieutenant or corresponding rank.

        (3) An officer to whom any powers are delegated by virtue of subsection (2)(b) above shall not have power to award any punishment other than a fine, stoppages or those described in section 43(1)(m) of this Act.
        (4) The reference in subsection (3) above to stoppages does not include a reference to stoppages for personal injury.

        Regulations as to summary trial etc
        52F.—(1) The Defence Council may make regulations with respect to the investigation of charges by commanding officers and summary trial.
        (2) Regulations under this section may in particular make provision with respect to—

        (a) the reporting of a charge to a commanding officer;

        411

        (b) the procedure to be followed by a commanding officer investigating a charge;

        (c) the amendment or substitution of charges;

        (d) the procedure on summary trial;

        (e) limitations on the punishments which may be awarded on summary trial by a specified description of commanding officer;

        (f) limitations on the punishments which may be so awarded to a specified description of accused;

        (g) requirements for punishments to be approved before taking effect;

        (h) the information to be provided to a person afforded an opportunity of electing court-martial trial;

        (i) the procedure for electing court-martial trial, including any period within which any such election may be made;

        (j) the procedure for requesting leave to withdraw an election for court-martial trial and for withdrawing any such election;

        (k) who may act as the higher authority.

        (3) A regulation under this section which is inconsistent with the provisions of this Act shall to the extent of the inconsistency be void.

        Disciplinary courts
        52G.—(1) If an officer of Her Majesty's naval forces below the rank of commander is charged with an offence to which this section applies at a time when the force to which he belongs is on active service, the higher authority to whom the charge was referred may order a disciplinary court.
        (2) A disciplinary court shall have power, subject to the provisions of this section and of any rules made under it, to try and punish the offence accordingly.
        (3) This section applies to any offence triable by court-martial under this Act other than an offence under the following provisions—

        (a) sections 2 to 4, 6, 9, 10, 23 and 24, section 29(1) so far as relating to public or service property, section 29A, and sections 34 to 37 and 42;

        (b) sections 40 and 41, so far as applicable to an offence under any of the provisions mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection.

        (4) A disciplinary court shall consist of not less than three nor more than five officers, at least one of whom is not below the rank of commander.
        (5) An officer shall not be a member of a disciplinary court unless he is an officer of Her Majesty's naval forces and is subject to this Act.
        (6) The officer who orders a disciplinary court shall not be a member of the court.
        (7) A disciplinary court shall not have power to award any punishment greater than dismissal from Her Majesty's service.
        (8) The Secretary of State may by statutory instrument make rules as to the assembling, constitution, procedure and practice of disciplinary courts.
        (9) Rules under subsection (8) above may apply in relation to disciplinary courts and to proceedings of such courts, with the necessary modifications, any provisions of this Part of this Act or of rules under section 58 of this Act relating to courts-martial and proceedings of courts-martial."

    PART II
      THE PROSECUTING AUTHORITY
        Army Act 1955 (c. 18)
        14. After section 83 of the Army Act 1955 there shall be inserted the following sections—

        The prosecuting authority
        83A.—(1) Her Majesty may appoint a qualified officer belonging to Her military forces to be the prosecuting authority for the Army; and in this Act "the prosecuting authority" means the officer so appointed.
        (2) An officer shall not be qualified to be appointed as the prosecuting authority unless he is—

        (a) a person who has a ten year general qualification within the meaning of section 71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990;

        (b) an advocate or solicitor in Scotland of at least ten years' standing; or

        (c) a member of the Bar of Northern Ireland, or a solicitor of the Supreme Court of Northern Ireland, of at least ten years' standing.

        Functions of the prosecuting authority
        83B.—(1) This section applies where a case has been referred to the prosecuting authority.
        (2) If the case has been referred to him as a result of an election for court-martial trial, and that election is withdrawn with leave, the prosecuting authority shall—

        (a) if the accused is an officer or warrant officer, refer the case to the appropriate superior authority;

        (b) if the accused is a non-commissioned officer or soldier, refer the case to the commanding officer of the accused, for the appropriate superior authority or commanding officer to record a finding that the preliminary charge has been proved and award punishment accordingly.

        (3) In subsection (2) above "the preliminary charge" means the charge for which punishment would have been awarded had the accused not elected court-martial trial.
        4) If the prosecuting authority considers that court-martial proceedings under this Act should be instituted, he shall—

        (a) determine any charge to be preferred and (subject to subsection (5) below) whether any such charge is to be tried by general court-martial or district court-martial; and

        (b) prefer any charge so determined by him.

        (5) The prosecuting authority shall not determine that a charge against an officer be tried by district court-martial.
        (6) The prosecuting authority shall, in accordance with rules under section 103 of this Act, notify the commanding officer of the accused and a court administration officer of any charge preferred and the description of court-martial by which that charge is to be tried; and the commanding officer shall, in accordance with any such rules, inform the accused accordingly.
        (7) The prosecuting authority shall have the conduct of any court-martial proceedings under this Act against the accused.
        (8) Without prejudice to any other power of his in relation to the conduct of the proceedings, the prosecuting authority may, in accordance with rules under section 103 of this Act—

        (a) amend, or substitute another charge or charges for, any charge preferred;

        (b) prefer an additional charge, or additional charges, against the accused;

        (c) discontinue proceedings on any charge.

        (9) The powers mentioned in subsection (8)(a) above may be exercised in relation to an amended or substituted charge as well as in relation to any charge preferred by the prosecuting authority.
        (10) The prosecuting authority may not exercise any power mentioned in subsection (8)(a) or (c) above in relation to any charge against the accused after the commencement of the trial of that charge unless the court-martial gives him leave to do so.
        (11) If, before the commencement of the trial of a charge against the accused ("the original charge"), the prosecuting authority exercises the power mentioned in subsection (8)(b) above, he may, in accordance with rules under section 103 of this Act, direct any additional charge to be tried by the court-martial convened to try the original charge; and where he does so, subsection (6) above shall apply with such exceptions and modifications as may be prescribed.
        (12) The prosecuting authority may not exercise the power mentioned in subsection (8)(b) above after the commencement of the trial of a charge against the accused unless the court-martial gives him leave to do so; and where the prosecuting authority exercises that power with the leave of the court-martial, the court may try any additional charge preferred.
        (13) If, before the commencement of the trial of any charge, the prosecuting authority discontinues proceedings on that charge, he may direct that, for the purposes of section 134 of this Act, the accused is to be deemed to have been tried by court-martial for the offence charged.
        (14) If, after the commencement of the trial of any charge, the prosecuting authority discontinues proceedings on that charge, the court-martial may give a direction such as is mentioned in subsection (13) above.

        Prosecuting officers
        83C.—(1) The prosecuting authority may delegate any of his functions to officers appointed by him as prosecuting officers.
        (2) An officer shall not be appointed as a prosecuting officer unless he is—

        (a) a person who has a general qualification within the meaning of section 71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990;

        (b) an advocate or solicitor in Scotland; or

        (c) a member of the Bar of Northern Ireland or a solicitor of the Supreme Court of Northern Ireland."

        Air Force Act 1955 (c. 19)
        15. After section 83 of the Air Force Act 1955 there shall be inserted the following sections—

        The prosecuting authority
        83A.—(1) Her Majesty may appoint a qualified officer belonging to Her air forces to be the prosecuting authority for the Royal Air Force; and in this Act "the prosecuting authority" means the officer so appointed.
        (2) An officer shall not be qualified to be appointed as the prosecuting authority unless he is—

        (a) a person who has a ten year general qualification within the meaning of section 71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990;

        (b) an advocate or solicitor in Scotland of at least ten years' standing; or

        (c) a member of the Bar of Northern Ireland, or a solicitor of the Supreme Court of Northern Ireland, of at least ten years' standing.

        Functions of the prosecuting authority
        83B.—(1) This section applies where a case has been referred to the prosecuting authority.
        (2) If the case has been referred to him as a result of an election for court-martial trial, and that election is withdrawn with leave, the prosecuting authority shall—

        (a) if the accused is an officer or warrant officer, refer the case to the appropriate superior authority;

        (b) if the accused is a non-commissioned officer or airman, refer the case to the commanding officer of the accused, for the appropriate superior authority or commanding officer to record a finding that the preliminary charge has been proved and award punishment accordingly.

        (3) In subsection (2) above "the preliminary charge" means the charge for which punishment would have been awarded had the accused not elected court-martial trial.
        (4) If the prosecuting authority considers that court-martial proceedings under this Act should be instituted, he shall—

        (a) determine any charge to be preferred and (subject to subsection (5) below) whether any such charge is to be tried by general court-martial or district court-martial; and

        (b) prefer any charge so determined by him.

        (5) The prosecuting authority shall not determine that a charge against an officer be tried by district court-martial.
        (6) The prosecuting authority shall, in accordance with rules under section 103 of this Act, notify the commanding officer of the accused and a court administration officer of any charge preferred and the description of court-martial by which that charge is to be tried; and the commanding officer shall, in accordance with any such rules, inform the accused accordingly.
        (7) The prosecuting authority shall have the conduct of any court-martial proceedings under this Act against the accused.
        (8) Without prejudice to any other power of his in relation to the conduct of the proceedings, the prosecuting authority may, in accordance with rules under section 103 of this Act—

        (a) amend, or substitute another charge or charges for, any charge preferred;

        (b) prefer an additional charge, or additional charges, against the accused;

        (c) discontinue proceedings on any charge.

        (9) The powers mentioned in subsection (8)(a) above may be exercised in relation to an amended or substituted charge as well as in relation to any charge preferred by the prosecuting authority.
        (10) The prosecuting authority may not exercise any power mentioned in subsection (8)(a) or (c) above in relation to any charge against the accused after the commencement of the trial of that charge unless the court-martial gives him leave to do so.
        (11) If, before the commencement of the trial of a charge against the accused ("the original charge"), the prosecuting authority exercises the power mentioned in subsection (8)(b) above, he may, in accordance with rules under section 103 of this Act, direct any additional charge to be tried by the court-martial convened to try the original charge; and where he does so, subsection (6) above shall apply with such exceptions and modifications as may be prescribed.
        (12) The prosecuting authority may not exercise the power mentioned in subsection (8)(b) above after the commencement of the trial of a charge against the accused unless the court-martial gives him leave to do so; and where the prosecuting authority exercises that power with the leave of the court-martial, the court may try any additional charge preferred.
        (13) If, before the commencement of the trial of any charge, the prosecuting authority discontinues proceedings on that charge, he may direct that, for the purposes of section 134 of this Act, the accused is to be deemed to have been tried by court-martial for the offence charged.
        (14) If, after the commencement of the trial of any charge, the prosecuting authority discontinues proceedings on that charge, the court-martial may give a direction such as is mentioned in subsection (13) above.

        Prosecuting officers
        83C.—(1) The prosecuting authority may delegate any of his functions to officers appointed by him as prosecuting officers.
        2) An officer shall not be appointed as a prosecuting officer unless he is—

        (a) a person who has a general qualification within the meaning of section 71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990;

        415

        (b) an advocate or solicitor in Scotland; or

        (c) a member of the Bar of Northern Ireland or a solicitor of the Supreme Court of Northern Ireland."

        Naval Discipline Act 1957 (c. 53)
        16. After section 52G of the Naval Discipline Act 1957 there shall be inserted the following sections—

        The prosecuting authority
        52H.—(1) Her Majesty may appoint a qualified officer of Her naval forces to be the prosecuting authority for the Royal Navy; and in this Act "the prosecuting authority" means the officer so appointed.
        (2) An officer shall not be qualified to be appointed as the prosecuting authority unless he is—

        (a) a person who has a five year general qualification within the meaning of section 71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990;.

        (b) an advocate or solicitor in Scotland of at least five years' standing; or

        (c) a member of the Bar of Northern Ireland, or a solicitor of the Supreme Court of Northern Ireland, of at least five years' standing.

        Functions of the prosecuting authority
        521.—(1) This section applies where a case has been referred to the prosecuting authority.
        (2) If the case has been referred to him as a result of an election for court-martial trial, and that election is withdrawn with leave, the prosecuting authority shall refer the case to the commanding officer of the accused for the preliminary charge to be tried summarily.
        (3) In subsection (2) above "the preliminary charge" means the charge which would have been tried summarily had the accused not elected court-martial trial.
        (4) If the prosecuting authority considers that court-martial proceedings under this Act should be instituted, he shall determine any charge to be preferred and prefer any such charge.
        (5) The prosecuting authority shall, in accordance with rules under section 58 of this Act, notify the commanding officer of the accused and a court administration officer of any charge preferred; and the commanding officer shall, in accordance with any such rules, inform the accused accordingly.
        (6) The prosecuting authority shall have the conduct of any court-martial proceedings under this Act against the accused.
        (7) Without prejudice to any other power of his in relation to the conduct of the proceedings, the prosecuting authority may, in accordance with rules under section 58 of this Act—

        (a) amend, or substitute another charge or charges for, any charge preferred;

        (b) prefer an additional charge, or additional charges, against the accused;

        (c) discontinue proceedings on any charge.

        (8) The powers mentioned in subsection (7)(a) above may be exercised in relation to an amended or substituted charge as well as in relation to any charge preferred by the prosecuting authority.
        (9) The prosecuting authority may not exercise any power mentioned in subsection (7)(a) or (c) above in relation to any charge against the accused after the commencement of the trial of that charge unless the court-martial gives him leave to do so.
        (10) If, before the commencement of the trial of a charge against the accused ("the original charge"), the prosecuting authority exercises the power mentioned in subsection (7)(b) above, he may, in accordance with rules under section 58 of this Act, direct any additional charge to be tried by the court-martial convened to try the original charge; and where he does so, subsection (5) above shall apply with such exceptions and modifications as may be prescribed.
        (11) The prosecuting authority may not exercise the power mentioned in subsection (7)(b) above after the commencement of the trial of a charge against the accused unless the court-martial gives him leave to do so; and where the prosecuting authority exercises that power with the leave of the court-martial, the court may try any additional charge preferred.
        (12) If, before the commencement of the trial of any charge, the prosecuting authority discontinues proceedings on that charge, he may direct that the accused shall not be liable to be tried summarily or by court-martial for the offence charged.
        (13) If, after the commencement of the trial of any charge, the prosecuting authority discontinues proceedings on that charge, the court-martial may give a direction such as is mentioned in subsection (12) above.

        Prosecuting officers
        52J.—(l) The prosecuting authority may delegate any of his functions to officers appointed by him as prosecuting officers.
        (2) An officer shall not be appointed as a prosecuting officer unless he is—

        (a) a person who has a general qualification within the meaning of section 71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990;

        (b) an advocate or solicitor in Scotland; or

        (c) a member of the Bar of Northern Ireland or a solicitor of the Supreme Court of Northern Ireland."

    PART III

      Army Act 1955 (c. 18)
      17. The Army Act 1955 shall be amended as follows.
      18. Section 84 shall cease to have effect.
      19. After section 84 there shall be inserted the following sections—

      "Court administration officers."
      84A. In this Act—
      "court administration officer" means an officer (or other person) appointed by the Defence Council to convene general and district courts-martial and perform such other functions as may be prescribed; and
      "the court administration officer", in relation to a court-martial, means the court administration officer who convened the court-martial and includes his successor or any person for the time being exercising his or his successor's functions.

      Judge advocates
      84B.—(1) In this Act "the judge advocate", in relation to a court-martial, means the judge advocate appointed by or on behalf of the Judge Advocate General to be a member of the court-martial.
      (2) No person shall be appointed as the judge advocate unless he is—

      (a) a person who has a five year general qualification within the meaning of section 71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990;

      (b) an advocate in Scotland of at least five years' standing or a solicitor who has had a right of audience in the Court of Session or the High Court of Justiciary for at least five years; or

      (c) a member of the Bar of Northern Ireland of at least five years' standing.

      (3) Rulings and directions on questions of law (including questions of procedure and practice) shall be given by the judge advocate.
      (4) Any directions given by the judge advocate shall be binding on the court.

      Convening of general and district courts martial
      84C.—(1) On being notified by the prosecuting authority of the charge preferred and the description of court-martial by which the charge is to be tried, a court administration officer shall by order convene a court-martial of that description.
      (2) The order convening the court-martial shall specify—

      (a) the date, time and place at which the court-martial is to sit;

      (b) the officers who are to be members of the court-martial;

      (c) which of those officers is to be president of the court-martial;

      (d) any other officers appointed for the purpose of filling vacancies, and shall state that a judge advocate appointed by or on behalf of the Judge Advocate General is to be a member of the court-martial.

      (3) At any time before the commencement of the trial, the court administration officer may, in accordance with rules under section 103 of this Act, amend or withdraw the order convening the court-martial.
      (4) The following shall not be eligible to be members of a court-martial for the trial of a charge—

      (a) the court administration officer;

      (b) an officer who at any time between the date on which the preliminary charge was reported to the commanding officer of the accused and the date of the trial has been the commanding officer of the accused;

      (c) the higher authority to whom the preliminary charge against the accused was referred;

      (d) any other officer who has investigated the subject matter of the charge against the accused;

      (e) any other officer who under this Act has held, or has acted as one of the persons holding, an inquiry into matters relating to the subject matter of the charge against the accused.

      (5) In subsection (4) above "the preliminary charge" means the charge referred to higher authority by the commanding officer of the accused.

      Constitution of general and district courts-martial
      84D.—(1) A general court-martial shall consist of the president, not less than four other military officers and the judge advocate.
      (2) A district court-martial shall consist of the president, not less than two other military officers and the judge advocate.
      (3) An officer shall not be appointed a member of a general court-martial unless he has held a commission in any of Her Majesty's naval, military or air forces for a period of not less than three years or for periods amounting in the aggregate to not less than three years.
      (4) An officer shall not be appointed a member of a district court-martial unless he has held a commission in any of Her Majesty's naval, military or air forces for a period of not less than two years or for periods amounting in the aggregate to not less than two years.
      (5) Not less than four of the members of a general court-martial shall be of a rank not below that of captain.
      (6) A general court-martial for the trial of an officer above the rank of captain shall not include any member below the rank of captain.
      (7) The president of a general or district court-martial shall not be below the rank of field officer unless in the opinion of the court administration officer a field officer having suitable qualifications is not, with due regard to the public service, available; and in any event the president of such a court-martial shall not be below the rank of captain.
      (8) If, in the opinion of the court administration officer, the necessary number of military officers having suitable qualifications is not, with due regard to the public service,
      418
      available, he may appoint as any member of the court (but not as its president) any naval or air-force officer of corresponding rank to that required for a military officer.
      (9) In this section-—

      "air-force officer" means an officer belonging to Her Majesty's air forces and subject to air-force law;

      "military officer" means an officer belonging to Her Majesty's military forces and subject to military law; and

      "naval officer" means an officer belonging to Her Majesty's naval forces and subject to the Naval Discipline Act 1957."

      20. Section 85(3) shall cease to have effect.
      21. Sections 86 to 90 shall cease to have effect.
      22.—(1) Section 91 (place for sitting of court-martial and adjournment to other places) shall be amended as follows.
      (2) In subsection (1)—

      (a) for the words "Her Majesty's dominions" there shall be substituted the words "the United Kingdom"; and

      (b) the words from "and the convening officer" to the end shall cease to have effect.

      (3) In subsection (2), for the words from "shall" to "direction" there shall be substituted the word "may".
      23.—(1) Section 92 (challenges by accused to members of court-martial) shall be amended as follows.
      (2) In subsection (1), for the word "officer" there shall be substituted the word "member".
      (3) In subsection (2)—

      (a) for the word "they" there shall be substituted the words "the officers appointed members"; and

      (b) for the words "those officers" there shall be substituted the words "the members".

      (4) In subsection (3)—

      (a) for the word "officer" there shall be substituted the word "member"; and

      (b) for the words from "considered" to the end there shall be substituted the words "determined by the judge advocate".

      (5) In subsection (4)—

      (a) for the words from "objection" to "it" there shall be substituted the words "an objection to the president is allowed"; and

      (b) for the word "convening" there shall be substituted the words "court administration".

      (6) In subsection (5)—

      (a) for the words from "objection" to "it" there shall be substituted the words "an objection to any other officer appointed a member of the court is allowed";

      (b) for the word "member" in the second place it appears there shall be substituted the word "officer"; and

      (c) for the word "members" in the second place it appears there shall be substituted the word "officers".

      (7) After subsection (5) there shall be added the following subsection—
      "(6) If an objection to the judge advocate is allowed, the judge advocate shall retire and another judge advocate shall be appointed by or on behalf of the Judge Advocate General."
      24.—(1) Section 93 (administration of oaths) shall be amended as follows.
      (2) In subsection (1)—

      (a) after the word "every" there shall be inserted the words "officer appointed a"; and

      (b) the words "other than an exempted person" and "judge advocate" shall cease to have effect.

      (3) Subsection (1A) shall cease to have effect.
      25. In section 94 (courts—martial to sit in open court), after subsection (5) there shall be added the following subsections—
      "(6) The judge advocate shall not be present while the other members of the court are deliberating on their finding on any charge.
      (7) Any ruling or direction of the judge advocate on a question of law (including a question of procedure or practice) shall be given in open court.
      (8) The judge advocate may determine, and give rulings on, questions of law (including questions of procedure and practice) in the absence of the other members of the court and of any officers and other persons under instruction."
      26.—(1) Section 95 (dissolution of courts-martial) shall be amended as follows.
      (2) In subsection (1)—

      (a) for the words "whether before or after" there shall be substituted the word "before"; and

      (b) for the word "convening" in both places it appears there shall be substituted the words "court administration".

      (3) After subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
      "(1A) Where, after the commencement of the trial, it appears to the judge advocate necessary or expedient in the interests of the administration of justice that a court-martial should be dissolved, he may by order dissolve the court-martial."
      (4) In subsection (3), for the words "convening officer" there shall be substituted the words "judge advocate".
      (5) Subsection (4) shall cease to have effect.
      27.—(1) Section 96 (decisions of courts-martial) shall be amended as follows.
      (2) In subsection (1), for the words from "every" to "court-martial" there shall be substituted the words "the finding of a court-martial and any sentence awarded".
      (3) After subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
      "(1A) The judge advocate shall not be entitled to vote on the finding."
      (4) In subsection (3)—

      (a) after the word "court" in the second place it appears there shall be inserted the words "entitled to vote on the finding"; and

      (b) for the words "the members" in the second place they appear there shall be substituted the words "those members".

      (5) In subsection (5), the words from "or on" to "finding" shall cease to have effect.
      28. In section 97(3) (sentence of court-martial to be announced in open court) after the word "mercy" there shall be inserted the words "and any reasons for the sentence".
      29.—(1) Section 99 (rules of evidence) shall be amended as follows.
      (2) In subsection (1)—

      (a) for the words "civil courts" there shall be substituted the words "trials on indictment"; and

      (b) for the words "before a civil court" there shall be substituted the words "in a trial on indictment".

      (3) In subsection (3), for the words "civil court" there shall be substituted the words "trial on indictment".
      30. For section 103 there shall be substituted the following section—

      Rules
      103.—(1) The Secretary of State may make rules with respect to—

      (a) the investigation, prosecution and trial of, and awarding of punishment for, offences cognizable by courts-martial;

      420

      (b) the review of findings and sentences of courts-martial.

      (2) Rules under this section may in particular make provision with respect to—

      (a) proceedings preliminary to trials by general or district courts-martial;

      (b) the appointment of a judge advocate for any preliminary proceedings;

      (c) the delegation by court administration officers of any of their functions;

      (d) the convening and constitution of general and district courts-martial;

      (e) the sittings, adjournment and dissolution of general and district courts-martial;

      (f) the procedure to be followed in trials by general and district courts-martial;

      (g) the representation of the accused at such trials and any preliminary proceedings;

      (h) procuring the attendance of witnesses at such trials and any preliminary proceedings;

      (i) enabling a general or district court-martial, in such cases and to such extent as may be prescribed, to amend a charge which is being tried by the court;

      (j) enabling a general or district court-martial, where the particulars proved or admitted at the trial differ from those alleged in the charge but are sufficient to support a finding of guilty of the like offence as that charged, to make a finding of guilty subject to exceptions or variations specified in the finding if it appears to the court that the difference is not so material as to have prejudiced the accused in his defence;

      (k) directing that the powers conferred by section 7 of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act 1879 (which enables orders to be made for the inspection of bankers' books for the purposes of legal proceedings) may be exercised for the purposes of a general or district court-martial (whether within or without the United Kingdom) by the commanding officer of the accused or a judge advocate as well as by the court or a judge within the meaning of that Act;

      (l) the forms of orders and other documents to be made for the purposes of any provision of this Act or of rules under this section;

      (m) the cases in which, and extent to which, offences may be taken into consideration by a general or district court-martial and the powers of the court in relation to any offences taken into consideration;

      (n) the recording of the proceedings of a general or district court-martial;

      (o) the procedure to be followed on review of findings and sentences of general or district courts-martial.

      (3) Rules made by virtue of paragraph (i) of subsection (2) above shall secure that the power to amend charges is not exercisable in circumstances substantially different from those in which indictments are amendable by a civil court in England, or otherwise than subject to the like conditions, as nearly as circumstances admit, as those subject to which indictments are so amendable.
      (4) A rule under this section which is inconsistent with the provisions of this Act shall to the extent of the inconsistency be void.
      (5) Rules under this section shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
      31. After section 103 there shall be inserted the following sections—

      Field General Courts-Martial
      103A.—(1) Where an officer to whom this subsection applies—

      (a) is commanding a body of the regular forces on active service; and

      (b) is of opinion that it is not possible without serious detriment to the public service for a charge against a member of that body to be tried by a general or district court-martial, he may direct that the charge be tried by a field general court-martial.

      (2) Subsection (1) above applies to—

      (a) the commanding officer who has investigated the charge;

      (b) the commanding officer or appropriate superior authority who has determined on a summary dealing that the charge against the accused has been proved, in a case where the accused has elected court-martial trial and that election has not been withdrawn;

      (c) where the charge is against an officer or warrant officer, the higher authority to whom the charge has been referred by the commanding officer.

      (3) If an officer to whom subsection (1) above applies directs that a charge be tried by a field general court-martial, he shall by order convene a field general court-martial.
      (4) The order convening the field general court-martial shall specify—

      (a) the date, time and place at which the court-martial is to sit;

      (b) the officers who are to be members of the court-martial;

      (c) which of those officers is to be president of the court-martial.

      (5) At any time before the commencement of the trial, the officer who convened the field general court-martial may, in accordance with rules under section 103C of this Act, amend or withdraw the order convening the court-martial.
      (6) Subject to subsection (7) below, the officer convening the field general court-martial shall not be a member of the court-martial.
      (7) The officer convening the field general court-martial may be its president if, in his opinion, it is not possible, without serious detriment to the public service, to appoint another officer as president.

      Constitution of field general courts martial
      103B.—(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3) below, a field general court-martial shall consist of the president and not less than two other military officers.
      (2) If the officer who convened the field general court-martial is of opinion that three military officers having suitable qualifications are not available without serious detriment to the public service, the field general court-martial shall consist of the president and one other military officer.
      (3) Unless the officer convening the field general court-martial is of opinion that a judge advocate is not available without serious detriment to the public service, a judge advocate shall be a member of the court-martial.
      (4) In subsection (3) above, "a judge advocate" means a judge advocate appointed by or on behalf of the Judge Advocate General or, if the officer convening the field general court-martial is of opinion that no such judge advocate is available without serious detriment to the public service, a qualified officer appointed by that officer.
      (5) An officer is "qualified" for the purposes of subsection (4) above if he is—

      (a) a person who has a general qualification within the meaning of section 71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990;

      (b) an advocate or solicitor in Scotland; or

      (c) a member of the Bar of Northern Ireland or a solicitor of the Supreme Court of Northern Ireland.

      (6) The president of a field general court-martial shall not be below the rank of captain.
      (7) If a field general court-martial is to be convened at any place where in the opinion of the officer convening it the necessary number of military officers having suitable qualifications is not available to form the court, and cannot be made available without serious detriment to the public service, the officer may appoint as any member of the court (but not as its president) any naval or air-force officer of corresponding rank to that required for a military officer.
      (8) A field general court-martial shall have the powers of a general court-martial except that where less than three officers are members of the court the sentence shall not exceed imprisonment for a term of two years or detention under section 71AA of this Act for a period of two years.
      (9) In this section—

      "air force officer" means an officer belonging to Her Majesty's air forces and subject to air-force law;

      "military officer" means an officer belonging to Her Majesty's military forces and subject to military law; and

      "naval officer" means an officer belonging to Her Majesty's naval forces and subject to the Naval Discipline Act 1957.

      Field General Court Martial Rules
      103C.—(1) The Secretary of State may by statutory instrument make rules with respect to field general courts-martial.
      (2) Rules under this section may in particular—

      (a) provide for any provision of this Act relating to general or district courts-martial or the proceedings of such courts-martial to apply to field general courts-martial or the proceedings of such courts-martial with the necessary modifications;

      (b) make any provision with respect to field general courts-martial which may be made with respect to general and district courts-martial by rules under section 103 of this Act."

      32. Sections 104 to 106 shall cease to have effect.

      Air Force Act 1955 (c. 19)
      33. The Air Force Act 1955 shall be amended as follows.
      34. Section 84 shall cease to have effect.
      35. After section 84 there shall be inserted the following sections—

      Court administration officers
      84A. In this Act—
      "court administration officer" means an officer (or other person) appointed by the Defence Council to convene general and district courts-martial, and perform such other functions as may be prescribed; and
      "the court administration officer", in relation to a court-martial, means the court administration officer who convened the court-martial and includes his successor or any person for the time being exercising his or his successor's functions.

      Judge advocates
      84B.—(1) In this Act "the judge advocate", in relation to a court-martial, means the judge advocate appointed by or on behalf of the Judge Advocate General to be a member of the court-martial.
      (2) No person shall be appointed as the judge advocate unless he is—

      (a) a person who has a five year general qualification within the meaning of section 71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990;

      (b) an advocate in Scotland of at least five years' standing or a solicitor who has had a right of audience in the Court of Session or the High Court of Justiciary for at least five years; or

      (c) a member of the Bar of Northern Ireland of at least five years' standing.

      (3) Rulings and directions on questions of law (including questions of procedure and practice) shall be given by the judge advocate.
      (4) Any directions given by the judge advocate shall be binding on the court.

      Convening of general and district courts martial
      84C.—(1) On being notified by the prosecuting authority of the charge preferred and the description of court-martial by which the charge is to be tried, a court administration officer shall by order convene a court-martial of that description.
      (2) The order convening the court-martial shall specify—

      (a) the date, time and place at which the court-martial is to sit;

      (b) the officers who are to be members of the court-martial;

      (c) which of those officers is to be president of the court-martial;

      (d) any other officers appointed for the purpose of filling vacancies, and shall state that a judge advocate appointed by or on behalf of the Judge Advocate General is to be a member of the court-martial.

      (3) At any time before the commencement of the trial, the court administration officer may, in accordance with rules under section 103 of this Act, amend or withdraw the order convening the court-martial.
      (4) The following shall not be eligible to be members of a court-martial for the trial of a charge—

      (a) the court administration officer;

      (b) an officer who at any time between the date on which the preliminary charge was reported to the commanding officer of the accused and the date of the trial has been the commanding officer of the accused;

      (c) the higher authority to whom the preliminary charge against the accused was referred;

      (d) any other officer who has investigated the subject matter of the charge against the accused;

      (e) any other officer who under this Act has held, or has acted as one of the persons holding, an inquiry into matters relating to the subject matter of the charge against the accused.

      (5) In subsection (4) above "the preliminary charge" means the charge referred to higher authority by the commanding officer of the accused.

      Constitution of general and district courts martial
      84D.—(1) A general court-martial shall consist of the president, not less than four other air-force officers and the judge advocate.
      (2) A district court-martial shall consist of the president, not less than two other air-force officers and the judge advocate.
      (3) An officer shall not be appointed a member of a general court-martial unless he has held a commission in any of Her Majesty's naval, military or air forces for a period of not less than three years or for periods amounting in the aggregate to not less than three years.
      (4) An officer shall not be appointed a member of a district court-martial unless he has held a commission in any of Her Majesty's naval, military or air forces for a period of not less than two years or for periods amounting in the aggregate to not less than two years.
      (5) Not less than four of the members of a general court-martial shall be of a rank not below that of flight lieutenant.
      (6) A general court-martial for the trial of an officer above the rank of flight lieutenant shall not include any member below the rank of flight lieutenant.
      (7) The president of a general or district court-martial shall not be below the rank of squadron leader unless in the opinion of the court administration officer a squadron leader having suitable qualifications is not, with due regard to the public service, available; and in any event the president of such a court-martial shall not be below the rank of flight lieutenant.
      (8) If, in the opinion of the court administration officer, the necessary number of air-force officers having suitable qualifications is not, with due regard to the public service, available, he may appoint as any member of the court (but not as its president) any naval or military officer of corresponding rank to that required for an air-force officer.
      (9) In this section—

      "air-force officer" means an officer belonging to Her Majesty's air forces and subject to air-force law;

      "military officer" means an officer belonging to Her Majesty's military forces and subject to military law; and

      "naval officer" means an officer belonging to Her Majesty's naval forces and subject to the Naval Discipline Act 1957."

      36. Section 85(3) shall cease to have effect.
      37. Sections 86 to 90 shall cease to have effect.
      38.—(1) Section 91 (place for sitting of court-martial and adjournment to other places) shall be amended as follows.
      (2) In subsection (1)—

      (a) for the words "Her Majesty's dominions" there shall be substituted the words "the United Kingdom"; and

      (b) the words from "and the convening officer" to the end shall cease to have effect.

      (3) In subsection (2), for the words from "shall" to "direction" there shall be substituted the word "may".
      39.—(1) Section 92 (challenges by accused to members of court-martial) shall be amended as follows.
      (2) In subsection (1), for the word "officer" there shall be substituted the word "member".
      (3) In subsection (2)—

      (a) for the word "they" there shall be substituted the words "the officers appointed members"; and

      (b) for the words "those officers" there shall be substituted the words "the members".

      (4) In subsection (3)—

      (a) for the word "officer" there shall be substituted the word "member"; and

      (b) for the words from "considered" to the end there shall be substituted the words "determined by the judge advocate".

      (5) In subsection (4)—

      (a) for the words from "objection" to "it" there shall be substituted the words "an objection to the president is allowed"; and

      425

      (b) for the word "convening" there shall be substituted the words "court administration".

      (6) In subsection (5)—

      (a) for the words from "objection" to "it" there shall be substituted the words "an objection to any other officer appointed a member of the court is allowed";

      (b) for the word "member" in the second place it appears there shall be substituted the word "officer"; and

      (c) for the word "members" in the second place it appears there shall be substituted the word "officers".

      (7) After subsection (5) there shall be added the following subsection—
      "(6) If an objection to the judge advocate is allowed, the judge advocate shall retire and another judge advocate shall be appointed by or on behalf of the Judge Advocate General."
      40.—(1) Section 93 (administration of oaths) shall be amended as follows.
      (2) In subsection (1)—

      (a) after the word "every" there shall be inserted the words "officer appointed a"; and

      (b) the words "other than an exempted person" and "judge advocate" shall cease to have effect.

      (3) Subsection (1A) shall cease to have effect.
      41. In section 94 (courts-martial to sit in open court), after subsection (5) there shall be added the following subsections—
      "(6) The judge advocate shall not be present while the other members of the court are deliberating on their finding on any charge.
      (7) Any ruling or direction of the judge advocate on a question of law (including a question of procedure or practice) shall be given in open court.
      (8) The judge advocate may determine, and give rulings on, questions of law (including questions of procedure and practice) in the absence of the other members of the court and of any officers and other persons under instruction."
      42.—(1) Section 95 (dissolution of courts-martial) shall be amended as follows.
      (2) In subsection (1)—

      (a) for the words "whether before or after" there shall be substituted the word "before"; and

      (b) for the word "convening" in both places it appears there shall be substituted the words "court administration".

      (3) After subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
      "(1 A) Where, after the commencement of the trial, it appears to the judge advocate necessary or expedient in the interests of the administration of justice that a court-martial should be dissolved, he may by order dissolve the court-martial."
      (4) In subsection (3), for the words "convening officer" there shall be substituted the words "judge advocate".
      (5) Subsection (4) shall cease to have effect.
      43.—(I) Section 96 (decisions of courts-martial) shall be amended as follows.
      (2) In subsection (1), for the words from "every" to "court-martial" there shall be substituted the words "the finding of a court-martial and any sentence awarded".
      (3) After subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
      "(1A) The judge advocate shall not be entitled to vote on the finding."
      (4) In subsection (3)—

      (a) after the word "court" in the second place it appears there shall be inserted the words "entitled to vote on the finding"; and

      426

      (b) for the words "the members" in the second place they appear there shall be substituted the words "those members".

      (5) In subsection (5), the words from "or on" to "finding" shall cease to have effect.
      44. In section 97(3) (sentence of court-martial to be announced in open court) after the word "mercy" there shall be inserted the words "and any reasons for the sentence".
      45.—(1) Section 99 (rules of evidence) shall be amended as follows.
      (2) In subsection (1)—

      (a) for the words "civil courts" there shall be substituted the words "trials on indictment"; and

      (b) for the words "before a civil court" there shall be substituted the words "in a trial on indictment".

      (3) In subsection (3), for the words "civil court" there shall be substituted the words "trial on indictment".
      46. For section 103 there shall be substituted the following section—

      Rules
      103.—(1) The Secretary of State may make rules with respect to—

      (a) the investigation, prosecution and trial of, and awarding of punishment for, offences cognizable by courts-martial;

      (b) the review of findings and sentences of courts-martial.

      (2) Rules under this section may in particular make provision with respect to—

      (a) proceedings preliminary to trials by general or district courts-martial;

      (b) the appointment of a judge advocate for any preliminary proceedings;

      (c) the delegation by court administration officers of any of their functions;

      (d) the convening and constitution of general and district courts-martial;

      (e) the sittings, adjournment and dissolution of general and district courts-martial;

      (f) the procedure to be followed in trials by general and district courts-martial;

      (g) the representation of the accused at such trials and any preliminary proceedings;

      (h) procuring the attendance of witnesses at such trials and any preliminary proceedings;

      (i) enabling a general or district court-martial, in such cases and to such extent as may be prescribed, to amend a charge which is being tried by the court;

      (j) enabling a general or district court-martial, where the particulars proved or admitted at the trial differ from those alleged in the charge but are sufficient to support a finding of guilty of the like offence as that charged, to make a finding of guilty subject to exceptions or variations specified in the finding if it appears to the court that the difference is not so material as to have prejudiced the accused in his defence;

      (k) directing that the powers conferred by section 7 of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act 1879 (which enables orders to be made for the inspection of bankers' books for the purposes of legal proceedings) may be exercised for the purposes of a general or district court-martial (whether within or without the United Kingdom) by the commanding officer of the accused or a judge advocate as well as by the court or a judge within the meaning of that Act;

      (l) the forms of orders and other documents to be made for the purposes of any provision of this Act or of rules under this section;

      427

      (m) the cases in which, and extent to which, offences may be taken into consideration by a general or district court-martial and the powers of the court in relation to any offences taken into consideration;

      (n) the recording of the proceedings of a general or district court-martial;

      (o) the procedure to be followed on review of findings and sentences of general or district courts-martial.

      (3) Rules made by virtue of paragraph (i) of subsection (2) above shall secure that the power to amend charges is not exercisable in circumstances substantially different from those in which indictments are amendable by a civil court in England, or otherwise than subject to the like conditions, as nearly as circumstances admit, as those subject to which indictments are so amendable.
      (4) A rule under this section which is inconsistent with the provisions of this Act shall to the extent of the inconsistency be void.
      (5) Rules under this section shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
      47. After section 103 there shall be inserted the following sections—

      Field General Courts—Martial
      103A.—(1) Where an officer to whom this subsection applies—

      (a) is commanding a body of the regular air force on active service; and

      (b) is of opinion that it is not possible without serious detriment to the public service for a charge against a member of that body to be tried by a general or district court-martial, he may direct that the charge be tried by a field general court-martial.

      (2) Subsection (1) above applies to—

      (a) the commanding officer who has investigated the charge;

      (b) the commanding officer or appropriate superior authority who has determined on a summary dealing that the charge against the accused has been proved, in a case where the accused has elected court-martial trial and that election has not been withdrawn;

      (c) where the charge is against an officer or warrant officer, the higher authority to whom the charge has been referred by the commanding officer.

      (3) If an officer to whom subsection (1) above applies directs that a charge be tried by a field general court-martial, he shall by order convene a field general court-martial.
      (4) The order convening the field general court-martial shall specify—

      (a) the date, time and place at which the court-martial is to sit;

      (b) the officers who are to be members of the court-martial;

      (c) which of those officers is to be president of the court-martial.

      (5) At any time before the commencement of the trial, the officer who convened the field general court-martial may, in accordance with rules under section 103C of this Act, amend or withdraw the order convening the court-martial.
      (6) Subject to subsection (7) below, the officer convening the field general court-martial shall not be a member of the court-martial.
      (7) The officer convening the field general court-martial may be its president if, in his opinion, it is not possible, without serious detriment to the public service, to appoint another officer as president.

      Constitution of field general courts martial
      103B.—(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3) below, a field general court-martial shall consist of the president and not less than two other air-force officers.
      (2) If the officer who convened the field general court-martial is of opinion that three air-force officers having suitable qualifications are not available without serious detriment to the public service, the field general court-martial shall consist of the president and one other air-force officer.
      (3) Unless the officer convening the field general court-martial is of opinion that a judge advocate is not available without serious detriment to the public service, a judge advocate shall be a member of the court-martial.
      (4) In subsection (3) above, "a judge advocate" means a judge advocate appointed by or on behalf of the Judge Advocate General or, if the officer convening the field general court-martial is of opinion that no such judge advocate is available without serious detriment to the public service, a qualified officer appointed by that officer.
      (5) An officer is "qualified" for the purposes of subsection (4) above if he is—

      (a) a person who has a general qualification within the meaning of section 71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990;

      (b) an advocate or solicitor in Scotland; or

      (c) a member of the Bar of Northern Ireland or a solicitor of the Supreme Court of Northern Ireland.

      (6) The president of a field general court-martial shall not be below the rank of flight lieutenant.
      (7) If a field general court-martial is to be convened at any place where in the opinion of the officer convening it the necessary number of air-force officers having suitable qualifications is not available to form the court, and cannot be made available without serious detriment to the public service, the officer may appoint as any member of the court (but not as its president) any naval or military officer of corresponding rank to that required for an air-force officer.
      (8) A field general court-martial shall have the powers of a general court-martial except that where less than three officers are members of the court the sentence shall not exceed imprisonment for a term of two years or detention under section 71AA of this Act for a period of two years.
      (9) In this section—

      "air-force officer" means an officer belonging to Her Majesty's air forces and subject to air-force law;

      "military officer" means an officer belonging to Her Majesty's military forces and subject to military law; and

      "naval officer" means an officer belonging to Her Majesty's naval forces and subject to the Naval Discipline Act 1957.

      Field General Court Martial Rules
      103C.—(1) The Secretary of State may by statutory instrument make rules with respect to field general courts-martial.
      (2) Rules under this section may in particular—

      (a) provide for any provision of this Act relating to general or district courts-martial or the proceedings of such courts-martial to apply to field general courts-martial or the proceedings of such courts-martial with the necessary modifications;

      (b) make any provision with respect to field general courts-martial which may be made with respect to general and district courts-martial by rules under section 103 of this Act."

      48. Sections 104 to 106 shall cease to have effect.

      Naval Discipline Act 1957 (c. 53)
      49. The Naval Discipline Act 1957 shall be amended as follows.
      50. Section 53 shall cease to have effect.
      51. After section 53 there shall be inserted the following sections—

      Court administration officers
      53A. In this Act—
      "court administration officer" means an officer (or other person) appointed by the Defence Council to order courts-martial and perform such other functions as may be prescribed by rules under section 58 of this Act; and
      "the court administration officer", in relation to a court-martial, means the court administration officer who ordered the court-martial and includes his successor or any person for the time being exercising his or his successor's functions.

      Judge advocates
      53B.—(1) In this Act "the judge advocate", in relation to a court-martial, means the judge advocate appointed by or on behalf of the Chief Naval Judge Advocate to be a member of the court-martial.
      (2) No person shall be appointed as the judge advocate unless he is—

      (a) a person who has a five year general qualification within the meaning of section 71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990;

      (b) an advocate in Scotland of at least five years' standing or a solicitor who has had a right of audience in the Court of Session or the High Court of Justiciary for at least five years; or

      (c) a member of the Bar of Northern Ireland of at least five years' standing.)

      (3) Rulings and directions on questions of law (including questions of procedure and practice) shall be given by the judge advocate.
      (4) Any directions given by the judge advocate shall be binding on the court.

      Ordering of courts martial
      53C.—(1) On being notified by the prosecuting authority of the charge preferred, a court administration officer shall order a court-martial.
      (2) The order assembling the court-martial shall specify—

      (a) the date, time and place at which the court-martial is to sit;

      (b) the officers who are to be members of the court-martial;

      (c) which of those officers is to be president of the court-martial;

      (d) any other officers appointed for the purpose of filling vacancies,
      and shall state that a judge advocate appointed by or on behalf of the Chief Naval Judge Advocate is to be a member of the court-martial.

      (3) At any time before the commencement of the trial, the court administration officer may, in accordance with rules under section 58 of this Act, amend or withdraw the order assembling the court-martial.
      (4) The following shall not be eligible to be members of the court-martial for the trial of a charge—

      (a) the court administration officer;

      (b) an officer who at any time between the date on which the preliminary charge was reported to the commanding officer of the accused and the date of the trial has been the commanding officer of the accused;

      (c) the higher authority to whom the preliminary charge against the accused was referred;

      (d) any other officer who has investigated the subject matter of the charge against the accused;

      430

      (e) any other officer who under this Act has held, or has acted as one of the persons holding, an inquiry into matters relating to the subject matter of the charge against the accused.

      (5) In subsection (4) above "the preliminary charge" means the charge referred to higher authority by the commanding officer of the accused."
      52. For section 54 there shall be substituted the following section—

      Composition of courts martial
      54.—(1) A court-martial shall consist of the president, not less than four nor more than eight other naval officers and the judge advocate.
      (2) An officer shall not be appointed a member of a court-martial unless he is of or above the rank of lieutenant and he has been an officer of any of Her Majesty's naval, military or air forces for a period of not less than three years or for periods amounting in the aggregate to not less than three years.
      (3) The officers appointed members of a court-martial shall not all belong to the same ship or naval establishment.
      (4) The president of a court-martial shall not be below the rank of captain, and in the case of a court-martial for the trial of an officer of flag rank shall be an officer of flag rank.
      (5) A court-martial for the trial of an officer of flag rank shall not include any member below the rank of captain.
      (6) A court-martial for the trial of a commodore or captain shall not include any member below the rank of commander.
      (7) A court-martial for the trial of a commander shall include at least two members, in addition to the president, who are not below the rank of commander.
      (8) If, in the opinion of the court administration officer, the necessary number of naval officers having suitable qualifications is not, with due regard to the public service, available, he may appoint as any member of the court (but not as its president) any military or air-force officer of corresponding rank to that required for a naval officer.
      (9) In this section—

      "air-force officer" means an officer belonging to Her Majesty's air forces and subject to air-force law;

      "military officer" means an officer belonging to Her Majesty's military forces and subject to 'military law; and

      "naval officer" means an officer belonging to Her Majesty's naval forces and subject to this Act."

      53. Section 55 shall cease to have effect.
      54.—(1) Section 56 (place and time of sittings of courts-martial) shall be amended as follows.
      (2) In subsection (1), for the words from "appointed" to the end there shall be substituted the words "specified in the order assembling the court".
      (3) In subsection (2), the words from "and shall" to the end shall cease to have effect.
      (4) In subsection (3), for the word "prosecutor" there shall be substituted the words "prosecuting authority".
      55. After section 56 there shall be inserted the following section—

      Dissolution of courts martial
      56A.—(1) Where, before the commencement of the trial, it appears to the court administration officer necessary or expedient in the interests of the administration of justice that a court-martial be dissolved, he may by order dissolve the court-martial.
      (2) Where, after the commencement of the trial, it appears to the judge advocate necessary or expedient in the interests of the administration of justice that a court-martial be dissolved, he may by order dissolve the court-martial.
      (3) If after the commencement of the trial the president dies or is otherwise unable to attend, the court-martial shall be dissolved.
      (4) Where a court-martial is dissolved the accused may be tried by another court."
      56.—(1) Section 57 (quorum) shall be amended as follows.
      (2) Subsections (1) and (3) shall cease to have effect.
      (3) In subsection (2)—

      (a) for the word "members" in both places it appears there shall be substituted the word "officers"; and

      (b) after the word "that" there shall be inserted the words "an officer appointed".

      57. For section 58 there shall be substituted the following section—

      Rules
      58.—(1) The Secretary of State may make rules with respect to—

      (a) the investigation, prosecution and trial of, and the awarding of punishment for, offences cognizable by courts-martial;

      (b) the review of findings and sentences of courts-martial.)

      (2) Rules under this section may in particular make provision with respect to—

      (a) proceedings preliminary to trials by courts-martial;

      (b) the appointment of a judge advocate for any preliminary proceedings;

      (c) the delegation by court administration officers of any of their functions;

      (d) the ordering and composition of courts-martial;

      (e) the sittings, adjournment and dissolution of courts-martial;

      (f) the procedure to be followed in trials by courts-martial;

      (g) the functions of the clerk of the court and the exercise by him of those functions;

      (h) the representation of the accused at trials by courts-martial and any preliminary proceedings;

      (i) procuring the attendance of witnesses at such trials and any preliminary proceedings;

      (j) enabling a court-martial, in such cases and to such extent as may be prescribed by the rules, to amend a charge which is being tried by the court;

      (k) enabling a court-martial, where the particulars proved or admitted at the trial differ from those alleged in the charge but are sufficient to support a finding of guilty of the like offence as that charged, to make a finding of guilty subject to exceptions or variations specified in the finding if it appears to the court that the difference is not so material as to have prejudiced the accused in his defence;

      (1) directing that the powers conferred by section 7 of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act 1879 (which enables orders to be made for the inspection of bankers' books for the purposes of legal proceedings) may be exercised for the purposes of a court-martial (whether within or without the United Kingdom) by the commanding officer of the accused or a judge advocate, as well as by the court or a judge within the meaning of that Act;

      (m) the forms of orders and other documents to be made for the purposes of any provision of this Act or of rules under this section;

      (n) the cases in which, and extent to which, offences may be taken into consideration by a court-martial and the powers of the court in relation to any offences taken into consideration;

      (o) the recording of the proceedings of a court-martial;

      (p) the procedure to be followed on review of findings and sentences of courts-martial.

      (3) Rules made by virtue of paragraph (j) of subsection (2) above shall secure that the power to amend charges is not exercisable in circumstances substantially different from those in which indictments are amendable by a civil court in England, or otherwise than subject to the like conditions, as nearly as circumstances admit, as those subject to which indictments are so amendable.
      (4) Rules under this section which are inconsistent with the provisions of this Act shall to the extent of the inconsistency be void.
      (5) Rules under this section shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
      58.—(1) Section 59 (challenges by accused to members of court-martial) shall be amended as follows.
      (2) In subsection (1)—

      (a) after the words "Before the" there shall be inserted the words "officers appointed";

      (b) for the words "officers constituting" there shall be substituted the words "members of'; and

      (c) for the words from "being" to the end there shall be substituted the words "any of those members".

      (3) In subsection (2)—

      (a) for the word "officer" there shall be substituted the word "member"; and

      (b) for the words from "considered" to the end there shall be substituted the words "determined by the judge advocate".

      (4) For subsection (3) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
      "(3) If an objection to the president is allowed, the court shall be dissolved."
      (5) In subsection (4)—

      (a) for the words from "objection" to "the member" there shall be substituted the words "an objection to any other officer appointed a member of the court is allowed";

      (b) for the word "nominated" there shall be substituted the word "appointed"; and

      (c) for the words "section fifty—four" there shall be substituted the words "section 53C".

      (6) After subsection (4) there shall be inserted the following subsection
      "(4A) If an objection to the judge advocate is allowed, the judge advocate shall retire and another judge advocate shall be appointed by or on behalf of the Chief Naval Judge Advocate."
      (7) Subsection (5) shall cease to have effect.
      (8) In subsection (6)—

      (a) after the words "After the" there shall be inserted the words "officers appointed"; and

      (b) for the words "Defence Council" there shall be substituted the words "reviewing authority".

      59.—(1) Section 60 (administration of oaths) shall be amended as follows.
      (2) For subsection (1) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
      "(1) An oath shall be administered separately to each member of a court-martial, to the clerk of the court and any officer or other person in attendance for instruction, and to any person appointed to attend as interpreter."
      (3) In subsection (5), for the words "General Orders" there shall be substituted the word "rules".
      60. In section 61 (courts-martial to sit in open court), after subsection (2) there shall be added the following subsections—

      "(3) A court-martial shall sit in closed court while deliberating on their finding and sentence on any charge.

      (4) A court-martial may sit in closed court on any other deliberation amongst the members.

      433

      (5) Where a court-martial sits in closed court no person shall be present except the members of the court and such other persons as may be prescribed by rules under section 58 of this Act.

      (6) The judge advocate shall not be present while the other members of the court are deliberating on their finding on any charge.

      (7) Any ruling or direction of the judge advocate on a question of law (including a question of procedure or practice) shall be given in open court.

      (8) The judge advocate may determine, and give rulings on, questions of law (including questions of procedure and practice) in the absence of the other members of the court."

      61.—(1) Section 62 (findings and sentences of courts-martial) shall be amended as follows.
      (2) In subsection (1), for the words from "every" to "court-martial" there shall be substituted the words "the finding of a court-martial and any sentence awarded".
      (3) After subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
      "(1A) The judge advocate shall not be entitled to vote on the finding."
      (4) In subsection (3), after the word "mercy" there shall be inserted the words "and any reasons for the sentence".
      (5) In subsection (4)—

      (a) after the word "court" in the second place it appears there shall be inserted the words "entitled to vote on the finding"; and

      (b) for the words "the members" in the second place they appear there shall be substituted the words "those members".

      62. In section 64(1) (summoning of witnesses), for the words "clerk of the court" there shall be substituted the words "court administration officer".
      63. After section 64 there shall be inserted the following sections—

      Rules of evidence
      64A.—(1) The rules as to the admissibility of evidence to be observed in proceedings before courts-martial shall, subject to Schedule 13 to the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (evidence before courts-martial etc) and to service modifications, be the same as those observed in trials on indictment in England, and no person shall be required in proceedings before a court-martial to answer any question or to produce any document which he could not be required to answer or produce in similar proceedings in a trial on indictment in England.
      (2) In this section "service modifications" means such modifications as the Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument prescribe, being modifications which appear to him to be necessary or proper for the purposes of proceedings before a court-martial; and it is hereby declared that in this section—

      "rules" includes rules contained in or made by virtue of an enactment; and

      "enactment" includes an enactment contained in an Act passed after this Act.

      (3) Regulations under subsection (2) above shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
      (4) A court-martial shall take judicial notice of all matters of notoriety, including all matters within the general service knowledge of the court, and of all other matters of which judicial notice would be taken in a trial on indictment in England.

      Proofs at courts martial by written statement
      64B.—(1) Without prejudice to section 64A above, section 9 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 (proof by written statement) shall apply subject to subsection (2) below and to service
      434
      modifications, for the purposes of proceedings before courts-martial (whether held in the United Kingdom or not) as it applies to proceedings on indictment.
      (2) The statements rendered admissible by this section are statements made—

      (a) in the United Kingdom by any person, and

      (b) outside the United Kingdom by any person who at the time of making the statement was—

      (i) a person subject to service law, or

      (ii) a person to whom Parts I and II of this Act are applied by section 117 or section 118 of this Act, or to whom Part II of the Army Act 1955 or Part II of the Air Force Act 1955 is applied by section 208A or section 209 of the Army Act 1955 or the Air Force Act 1955 respectively, and the persons mentioned in this paragraph include persons to whom section 119 of this Act, section 131 of the Army Act 1955 or section 131 of the Air Force Act 1955 apply.

      (3) In subsection (1) above "service modifications" means—

      (a) modifications made by any regulations under section 12 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 in force on the coming into force of this section, and

      (b) such modifications in the said section 9, as applied by subsection (1) above, as the Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument prescribe thereafter, being modifications which appear to him to be necessary or proper for the purpose of the operation of that section in relation to proceedings before a court-martial.

      (4) Regulations under subsection (3)(b) above shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
      (5) Section 89 of the said Act of 1967 (punishment of making false statements tendered under section 9) shall apply to any statement rendered admissible by this section.

      Proof of service facts and records
      64C.—(1) This section applies with respect to proceedings before a court-martial.
      (2) A letter, return or other document stating that any person—

      (a) was or was not serving at any specified time or during any specified period in any part of Her Majesty's forces;

      (b) was discharged from any part of those forces at or before any specified time;

      (c) held or did not hold at any specified time any specified rank or appointment in any of those forces;

      (d) had at or before any specified time been attached, posted or transferred to any part of those forces;

      (e) at any specified time or during any specified time was or was not serving or held or did not hold any rank or appointment in any particular country or place; or

      (f) was or was not at any specified time authorised to use or wear any decoration, badge or emblem; shall if purporting to be issued by or on behalf of the Defence Council or by a person authorised by them, be evidence of the matter stated in the document.

      (3) A record—

      (a) made in any service record in pursuance of any Act or of Queen's Regulations, or otherwise in pursuance of naval duty; and

      (b) purporting to be signed by the commanding officer or by any person whose duty it was to make or keep the records, may be received without formal proof in all trials under this Act as prima facie evidence of the record.

      (4) A copy of a record (including the signature thereto) such as is mentioned in subsection (3) above, purporting to be certified to be a true copy by a person stated in the certificate

      435
      to have the custody of the record, may be received without formal proof in all trials under this Act as prima facie evidence of the record.
      (5) A document purporting to be issued by order of the Defence Council and to contain instructions given or regulations made by the Defence Council shall be evidence of the giving of the instructions or making of the regulations and of their contents.
      (6) A certificate purporting to be issued by or on behalf of the Defence Council or by a person authorised by them, and stating—

      (a) that a decoration of a description specified in or, as annexed to the certificate is a military, naval or air force decoration; or

      (b) that a badge or emblem of a description specified in or, as annexed to the certificate is one supplied or authorised by the Defence Council;
      shall be evidence of the matters stated in the certificate.

      (7) A certificate purporting to be signed by a person's commanding officer or any officer authorised by him to give the certificate, and stating the contents of, or of any part of, standing orders or other routine orders of a continuing nature made for—

      (a) any ship, train or aircraft;

      (b) any formation or unit or body of Her Majesty's forces; or

      (c) any command or other area, or place; shall in proceedings against that person be evidence of the matters stated in the certificate.

      (8) Any document which would be evidence in any proceedings under the Army Act 1955 or the Air Force Act 1955 shall in like manner, subject to the like conditions, and for the like purposes, be evidence in a court-martial under this Act.

      Privilege of witnesses and others at courtsmartial
      64D. A witness before a court-martial or any other person whose duty it is to attend on or before the court shall be entitled to the same immunities and privileges as a witness before the High Court in England."
    PART IV
      MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

        Courts-Martial (Appeals) Act 1951 (c. 46)
        64. In section 28(2) of the Courts-Martial (Appeals) Act 1951 (qualification for appointment as Judge Advocate of Her Majesty's Fleet), in paragraph (b), for the words from "been" to "and" there shall be substituted the words "had a right of audience in the Court of Session or".
        65. In section 31 of that Act (qualification for appointment as Judge Advocate General and his assistants), in paragraph (b) in each of subsections (1), (2) and (3), for the words from "been" to "and" there shall be substituted the words "had a right of audience in the Court of Session or".

        Army Act 1955 (c. 18)
        66. The Army Act 1955 shall be amended as follows.
        67. In section 134 (persons not to be tried under Act for offences already disposed of), in subsection (1)(b), for the words "been found guilty on the charge" there shall be substituted the words "had a finding that the charge has been proved recorded against him".
        68. Section 139 shall cease to have effect.
        69. In section 143(1) (interpretation of Part II)—

        (a) the definition of "convening officer" shall cease to have effect; and

        (b) in the definition of "prescribed", for the words "Rules of Procedure" there shall be substituted the words "rules under section 103 of this Act".

        70. In section 198 (general provisions as to evidence), in subsection (9), after the words "that Act" there shall be inserted the words ", or in any proceedings under the Naval Discipline Act 1957, by virtue of section 64C of that Act,".
        71. In section 209(3) (modifications of Act in relation to trial of civilians by courts-martial)—

        (a) paragraph (d) shall cease to have effect;

        (b) in paragraph (fa), the words "constituted under section 87 above" and "constituted under section 88 above" shall cease to have effect; and

        (c) after paragraph (fa) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—

        "(faa) references to the officers appointed members of a court-martial shall be construed as including references to persons who are members of a court-martial by virtue of paragraph (fa) above;".
        72.—(1) Section 209(3B) (modifications of Act in its application to any area for which Standing Civilian Courts are established) shall be amended as follows.
        (2) After paragraph (a) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
        "(aa) section 83 above shall have effect as if after subsection (1) there were inserted the following subsection—
        "(1A) Regulations under this section may provide for sections 76 to 76C of this Act to have effect subject to such modifications as may be specified in relation to charges which may be tried by Standing Civilian Courts and which are brought against persons whom such courts may try.";"
        (3) For paragraph (b) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—

        "(b) section 103(1) above shall have effect as if the following paragraph were inserted after paragraph (b)—

        "(c) the hearing by courts-martial of appeals against findings and sentences of Standing Civilian Courts.";"

        (4) In paragraph (c)—

        (a) for "77, 79 and 80" there shall be substituted "to 76C"; and

        (b) for the words from "consequential" to "Procedure" there shall be substituted the words "as may be specified by regulations under section 83 of this Act".

        73. In section 211 (application of Act to reserve forces), in subsection (7), for the words "subsection (3) of section seventy-eight" there shall be substituted the words "section 76C(2)".
        74. In section 225(1) (general provisions as to interpretation of Act)—

        (a) in the definition of "appropriate superior authority" for the words from "has" to "and" there shall be substituted the words "means a person who may act as an appropriate superior authority by virtue of';

        (b) after the definition of "corresponding rank" there shall be inserted the following definition—

        "court administration officer" and "the court administration officer" have the meanings assigned to them by section 84A of this Act;";

        (c) after the definition of "Her Majesty's air forces", "Her Majesty's military forces" and "Her Majesty's naval forces" there shall be inserted the following definition—

        "the judge advocate" has the meaning assigned to it by section 84B(1) of this Act;";

        (d) after the definition of "property" there shall be inserted the following definition—

        "the prosecuting authority" has the meaning assigned to it by section 83A(1) of this Act;"; and

        (e) the definition of "Rules of Procedure" shall cease to have effect.

        75. In Schedule 5A (powers of court on trial of civilian), in paragraphs 13(2)(a) and 14(6)(a), for the words "Rules of Procedure" there shall be substituted the word "rules".

        Air Force Act 1955 (c. 19)
        76. The Air Force Act 1955 shall be amended as follows.
        77. In section 134 (persons not to be tried under Act for offences already disposed of), in subsection (1)(b), for the words "been found guilty on the charge" there shall be substituted the words "had a finding that the charge has been proved recorded against him".
        78. Section 139 shall cease to have effect.
        79. In section 143(1) (interpretation of Part II)—

        (a) the definition of "convening officer" shall cease to have effect; and

        (b) in the definition of "prescribed", for the words "Rules of Procedure" there shall be substituted the words "rules under section 103 of this Act".

        80. In section 198 (general provisions as to evidence), in subsection (9), after the words "that Act" there shall be inserted the words ", or in any proceedings under the Naval Discipline Act 1957, by virtue of section 64C of that Act,".
        81. In section 209(3) (modifications of Act in relation to trial of civilians by courts-martial)—

        (a) paragraph (d) shall cease to have effect;

        (b) in paragraph (fa), the words "constituted under section 87 above" and "constituted under section 88 above" shall cease to have effect; and

        (c) after paragraph (fa) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—

        "(faa) references to the officers appointed members of a court-martial shall be construed as including references to persons who are members of a court-martial by virtue of paragraph (fa) above;".
        82.—(1) Section 209(3B) (modifications of Act in its application to any area for which Standing Civilian Courts are established) shall be amended as follows.
        (2) After paragraph (a) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
        "(aa) section 83 above shall have effect as if after subsection(1) there were inserted the following subsection—
        "(1A) Regulations under this section may provide for sections 76 to 76C of this Act to have effect subject to such modifications as may be specified in relation to charges which may be tried by Standing Civilian Courts and which are brought against persons whom such courts may try.";"
        (3) For paragraph (b) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—

        "(b) section 103(1) above shall have effect as if the following paragraph were inserted after paragraph (b)—

        "(c) the hearing by courts-martial of appeals against findings and sentences of Standing Civilian Courts.";"

        (4) In paragraph (c)—

        (a) for "77, 79 and 80" there shall be substituted "to 76C"; and

        (b) for the words from "consequential" to "Procedure" there shall be substituted the words "as may be specified by regulations under section 83 of this Act".

        83. In section 210 (application of Act to reserve forces), in subsection (7), for the words "subsection (3) of section seventy-eight" there shall be substituted the words "section 76C(2)".
        84. In section 223(1) (general provisions as to interpretation of Act)—

        (a) in the definition of "appropriate superior authority" for the words from "has" to "and" there shall be substituted the words "means a person who may act as an appropriate superior authority by virtue of';

        (b) after the definition of "corresponding rank" there shall be inserted the following definition—

        438

        "court administration officer" and "the court administration officer" have the meanings assigned to them by section 84A of this Act;";

        (c) after the definition of "Her Majesty's air forces", "Her Majesty's military forces" and "Her Majesty's naval forces" there shall be inserted the following definition—

        "the judge advocate", in relation to a court-martial, has the meaning assigned to it by section 84B(1) of this Act;";

        (d) after the definition of "property" there shall be inserted the following definition

        "the prosecuting authority" has the meaning assigned to it by section 83A(1) of this Act;"; and

        (e) the definition of "Rules of Procedure" shall cease to have effect.

        85. In Schedule 5A (powers of court on trial of civilian), in paragraphs 13(2)(a) and 14(6)(a), for the words "Rules of Procedure" there shall be substituted the word "rules".

        Naval Discipline Act 1957 (c. 53)
        86. The Naval Discipline Act 1957 shall be amended as follows.
        87. In section 65(4) (contempt of court-martial by civilians), for the words "subsection (5) of section fifty" there shall be substituted the words "section 52G(9)".
        88. In section 66(1) (record of proceedings of court-martial) for the words from "judge" to "it" there shall be substituted the words "court administration officer shall transmit the record of the proceedings".
        89. In section 76 (restitution or compensation on conviction of larceny etc.)—

        (a) in subsection (6)(a), the words from "by the officer" to the end shall cease to have effect; and

        (b) in subsection (6)(b), for the words "section forty-nine" there shall be substituted the words "section 52D".

        90. In section 81 (place of imprisonment or detention)—

        (a) in subsection (3)(c) for the words "officer who ordered the court-martial" there shall be substituted the words "court-martial by which he is tried"; and

        (b) in subsection (3)(d) for the words "section forty-nine" there shall be substituted the words "section 52D".

        91. In section 85(2) (commencement of sentences) for the words "section forty-nine" there shall be substituted the words "section 52D".
        92. In section 103(1) (arrest under warrants of naval authorities) for the words from "subsection (4)" to the end there shall be substituted the words "regulations under section 52E(2)(a) above may exercise the powers of that person's commanding officer".
        93. In section 129(1) (jurisdiction of civil courts) for the words "section forty-nine" there shall be substituted the words "section 52D".
        94. In section 135(1) (general provisions as to interpretation of Act)—

        (a) after the definition of "civil prison" there shall be inserted the following definition—

        "the commanding officer", in relation to a person charged with an offence, has the meaning assigned to it by section 52E(1) of this Act;";

        (b) after the definition of "constable" there shall be inserted the following definition—

        "court administration officer" and "the court administration officer" have the meanings assigned to them by section 53A of this Act;";

        (c) after the definition of "Her Majesty's forces" there shall be inserted the following definition—

        "the judge advocate", in relation to a court-martial, has the meaning assigned to it by section 53B(1) of this Act;"; and

        (d) after the definition of "property" there shall be inserted the following definition—

        439

        "the prosecuting authority" has the meaning assigned to it by section 52H(1) of this Act;".

        95. In Schedule 1 (application of Act to marine forces), in paragraph 3, for the words "section forty—nine" there shall be substituted the words "section 52D".
        96. In Schedule 2 (application of Act to attached military and air forces)—

        (a) in paragraph 6, for the words "section forty—nine" there shall be substituted the words "section 52D"; and

        (b) in paragraph 7, for the words "section fifty" there shall be substituted the words "section 52G" and for the words "subsection (3)" there shall be substituted the words "subsection (5)".

        97. In Schedule 4 (application of Act to certain civilians), in paragraph 4—

        (a) for the words "section forty-nine" in both places there shall be substituted the words "section 52D"; and

        (b) the words from "and subsections" to "not apply" shall cease to have effect.

        98. In Schedule 4A (powers of court on trial of civilian), in paragraphs 13(2)(a) and 14(6)(a), for the words "General Orders" there shall be substituted the word "rules".

        Criminal Justice Act 1967 (c. 80)
        99. In section 12 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 (application to courts-martial of certain provisions relating to admissibility of evidence)—

        (a) after the words "Air Force Act 1955" in the first place they appear there shall be inserted the words ", or section 64A(1) of the Naval Discipline Act 1957,"; and

        (b) for paragraphs (a) and (b) there shall be substituted the words "sections 10 and 11 above shall apply to proceedings before courts-martial".

        Civil Evidence Act 1968 (c. 64)
        100. In section 11 of the Civil Evidence Act 1968 (convictions as evidence in civil proceedings), in subsection (6), for the words "section 50" there shall be substituted the words "section 52G".
        Civil Evidence Act (Northern Ireland) 1971 (c. 36 (N.J.))
        101. In section 7 of the Civil Evidence Act (Northern Ireland) 1971 (convictions as evidence in civil proceedings), in subsection (6), for the words "section 50" there shall be substituted the words "section 52G".

        Armed Forces Act 1976 (c. 52)
        102. In section 6 of the Armed Forces Act 1976 (establishment of Standing Civilian Courts), in subsection (15), for the words "authority who directs the trial or trials" there shall be substituted the words "court administration officer notified by the prosecuting authority that the trial or trials are".
        103.—(1) Schedule 3 to that Act (Standing Civilian Courts) shall be amended as follows.
        (2) In paragraph 1 (interpretation)—

        (a) after the definition of "the court" there shall be inserted the following definitions—

        "court administration officer" has the same meaning as in the Army Act 1955;

        "the court administration officer", in relation to a civilian, means the court administration officer notified by the prosecuting authority that the civilian is to be tried by the court and includes his successor or any person for the time being exercising his or his successor's functions;

        "the higher authority", in relation to a civilian, means the higher authority who referred his case to the prosecuting authority;";

        (b) the definition of "the directing officer" shall cease to have effect; and

        440

        (c) after the definition of "prescribed" there shall be inserted the following definition—

        "the prosecuting authority"—

        (a) in the case of a civilian to whom Part II of the Army Act 1955 applies, has the same meaning as in that Act;

        (b) in the case of a civilian to whom Part II of the Air Force Act 1955 applies, has the same meaning as in that Act;".

        (3) In paragraph 2 (sittings of the Standing Civilian Court)—

        (a) in sub-paragraphs (1) and (3), for the word "directing" there shall be substituted the words "court administration"; and

        (b) in sub-paragraph (2), for the word "shall" there shall be substituted the word "may" and the words from "if so" to "direction" shall cease to have effect.

        (4) In paragraph 4 (right of accused to elect trial by court-martial)—

        (a) in sub-paragraph (4), for the words from "report" to the end there shall be substituted the words "shall refer the case to the prosecuting authority"; and

        (b) sub-paragraph (5) shall cease to have effect.

        (5) For paragraph 6 there shall be substituted the following paragraph—

        Unfitness to stand trial and insanity
        6.—(1) Where on a trial by the court the question arises (whether at the instance of the defence or otherwise)—

        (a) whether the accused is fit to stand trial, or

        (b) where it appears to the court that the accused did the act or made the omission constituting the offence with which he is charged, whether he was insane at the time of the act or omission concerned, the court shall adjourn the hearing and refer the case to the prosecuting authority.

        (2) For the purposes of this paragraph a person is unfit to stand trial if he is under a disability such that apart from the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 it would constitute a bar to his being tried on indictment in England and Wales."
        (6) Paragraph 7 shall cease to have effect.
        (7) In paragraph 8 (re—trial where Standing Civilian Court ceases to be properly constituted)—

        (a) in sub-paragraph (1), for the words from the beginning to "directing" there shall be substituted the words "The court administration";

        (b) in sub-paragraphs (2) and (3), for the word "directing" there shall be substituted the words "court administration".

        (8) In paragraph 12 (procedures etc. of Standing Civilian Court)—

        (a) in sub-paragraph (1), after the word "namely" there shall be inserted the following paragraph—

        "(aa) the prosecution of offences which may be tried by Standing Civilian Courts;";

        (b) after sub-paragraph (4)(b) there shall be inserted the following paragraphs—

        "(ba) proceedings preliminary to trials by Standing Civilian Courts;

        (bb) the appointment of a magistrate for any preliminary proceedings;";

        (c) in sub-paragraph (4)(f), after the word "trials" there shall be inserted the words "and any preliminary proceedings";

        (d) in sub-paragraph (4)(h), the words "and the directing officer" shall cease to have effect; and

        (e) sub-paragraph (4)(m) shall cease to have effect.

        (9) In paragraph 18 (appeals to courts-martial)—

        (a) in sub-paragraphs (3) and (4), for the words "directing officer" there shall be substituted the words "higher authority";

        (b) in sub-paragraph (4), for the words "Rules of Procedure" there shall be substituted the word "rules"; and

        (c) in sub-paragraph (10), the words "or as judge advocate" shall cease to have effect.

        (10) In paragraph 20 (review of findings and sentences of Standing Civilian Court), in sub-paragraph (9), for the words "directing officer" there shall be substituted the words "higher authority".

        Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c. 60)
        104. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 shall be amended as follows.
        105. In section 67(12)(a), the definition of "court-martial" in section 82(1) and section 113(11)(a), for the words "section 50" there shall be substituted the words "section 52G".
        106. In section 72(1) (meaning of certain expressions used in Part VII), in the definition of "proceedings"—

        (a) in paragraph (a), for the words "or the Air Force Act 1955" there shall be substituted the words ", the Air Force Act 1955 or the Naval Discipline Act 1957"; and

        (b) in paragraph (b)(i), the words from "or from" to "1957" shall cease to have effect.

        107. In section 82(1) (meaning of certain expressions used in Part VIII), in the definition of "proceedings"—

        (a) in paragraph (a), for the words "or the Air Force Act 1955" there shall be substituted the words ", the Air Force Act 1955 or the Naval Discipline Act 1957"; and

        (b) in paragraph (b)(i), the words from "or from" to "1957" shall cease to have effect.

        Criminal Justice Act 1988 (c. 33)
        108. In section 146 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (evidence before courts-martial etc.) for the words "section 50" there shall be substituted the words "section 52G".
        109.—(1) Schedule 13 to that Act (evidence before courts-martial etc.) shall be amended as follows.
        (2) In paragraph 1 (interpretation)—

        (a) for the words "Rules of Procedure" there shall be substituted the word "rules";

        (b) for the words "General Orders" there shall be substituted the word "rules"; and

        (c) for the words "section 50" there shall be substituted the words "section 52G".

        (3) In paragraph 4 (application of section 26 of the Act of 1988)—

        (a) for the words "section 77" in both places they appear there shall be substituted the words "section 76B"; and

        (b) for the words "section 49" there shall be substituted the words "section 52D".

        (4) In paragraph 7 (forms of evidence and glossaries)—

        (a) for the words "section 50" there shall be substituted the words "section 52G";

        (b) for the words "Rules of Procedure" there shall be substituted the word "rules"; and

        (c) for the words "General Orders" there shall be substituted the word "rules".

        Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (S.1. 1989 1341 (N.I. 12))
        110. In Article 66(11)(a) of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (codes of practice — supplementary), for the words "section 50" there shall be substituted the words "section 52G".

        Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (c. 33)
        111. In section 39 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (power to apply sections 34 to 38 to armed forces), in subsection (2)(g), for the words "section 50" there shall be substituted the words "section 52G".'.—[Mr. Soames.]
        Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
        Clauses 5 to 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Schedule 1

      FINDINGS OF UNFITNESS TO STAND TRIAL AND INSANITY
      Amendments made: No. 17, in page 27, leave out lines 30 to 41 and insert—
      '(2) Subject to subsections (3) and (4) below, the court shall make one of the following orders in respect of the accused, namely—

      (a) an admission order;

      (b) a guardianship order;

      (c) a supervision and treatment order; or

      (d) an order discharging him absolutely, as the court thinks most suitable in all the circumstances of the case.

      (3) The court may not make an order under subsection (2)(b), (c) or (d) above if the offence to which the finding relates is an offence the sentence for which is fixed by law.
      (4) The court shall not make a guardianship order or a supervision and treatment order unless it has power to do so by virtue of section 116C or section 116D below.
      (5) An order under subsection (2)(a), (b) or (c) above shall be treated as if it had been made by a civil court in England and Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland, as the court may direct, and the appropriate mental health legislation shall apply accordingly with such modifications as may be prescribed.'.
      No. 18, in page 27, line 42, leave out 'section' and insert 'Act'.—
      No. 19, in page 27, line 45, at end insert—
      '(1A) Where an admission order is made by a court-martial, the court may, in such circumstances as may be prescribed, direct the accused to be treated as if an order restricting his discharge had been made under the appropriate mental health legislation, either without limit of time or (if a civil court would have been permitted to do so under the legislation concerned) during such period as may be specified in the direction.'.
      No. 20, in page 28, line 3, leave out from first 'the' to end of line 7 and insert
      `appropriate mental health legislation to apply, with such modifications as may be prescribed, in relation to admission orders as the legislation concerned applies in relation to hospital orders;'.
      No. 21, in page 28, line 10, at end insert—
      '(4) In this section "hospital", "hospital order" and "place of safety" have the same meanings as in the appropriate mental health legislation.'.
      No. 22, in page 28, line 11, leave out from beginning to end of line 2 on page 29 and insert—

      'Guardianship orders
      116C.—(1) In this Act "guardianship order" means an order placing the accused under the guardianship of—

      (a) in a case where the order is treated as if it had been made by a civil court in England and Wales, a local social services authority or such other person approved by a local social services authority as may be specified in the order;

      443

      (b) in a case where the order is treated as if it had been made by a civil court in Scotland, a local authority or such other person approved by a local authority as may be specified in the order;

      (c) in a case where the order is treated as if it had been made by a civil court in Northern Ireland, a Board or an authorised HSS trust or such other person approved by a Board or an authorised HSS trust as may be specified in the order.

      (2) In subsection (1) above—
      "authorised HSS trust" and "Board" have the same meanings as in the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986;
      "local authority" has the same meaning as in the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984; and
      "local social services authority" has the same meaning as in the Mental Health Act 1983.
      (3) A court-martial shall not make a guardianship order unless—

      (a) the court is satisfied, on the written or oral evidence of two registered medical practitioners, that—

      (i) the accused is suffering from mental illness, psychopathic disorder, severe mental impairment or mental impairment; and

      (ii) the mental disorder is of a nature or degree which warrants his reception into guardianship; and

      (b) the court is of the opinion, having regard to all the circumstances including the nature of the offence and the character and antecedents of the accused and the other available methods of dealing with him, that the most suitable method of disposing of the case is by means of a guardianship order.

      (4) A court-martial shall not make a guardianship order unless it is also satisfied that the authority or other person intended to be specified in the order is willing to receive the accused into guardianship.
      (5) A guardianship order shall specify the form or forms of mental disorder referred to in subsection (3)(a) above from which, upon the evidence taken into account under that subsection, the accused is found by the court to be suffering; and a guardianship order shall not be made unless the accused is described by each of the practitioners whose evidence is taken into account under that subsection as suffering from the same one of those forms of mental disorder, whether or not he is also described by either of them as suffering from another of those forms of mental disorder.
      (6) The appropriate mental health legislation shall apply, with such modifications as may be prescribed, in relation to guardianship orders under this section as it applies to guardianship orders under the legislation concerned.
      (7) In this section "mental disorder", "mental impairment", "psychopathic disorder" and "severe mental impairment" have the same meanings as in the Mental Health Act 1983.'.
      No. 23, in page 29, line 3, leave out 'section' and insert 'Act'.
      No. 24, in page 30, line 5, leave out from beginning to end of line 9 on page 31 and insert—

      'Provisions supplementary to section 115A to 116D
      116E.—(1) In this section and sections 115A to 116D above—
      "the appropriate mental health legislation" means—

      (a) in a case where an order is treated as if it had been made by a civil court in England and Wales, the Mental Health Act 1983;

      (b) in a case where an order is treated as if it had been made by a civil court in Scotland, the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 and Part VI of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995;

      444

      (c) in a case where an order is treated as if it had been made by a civil court in Northern Ireland, the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986;

      "duly approved" means

      (a) approved for the purposes of section 12 of the Mental Health Act 1983 by the Secretary of State as having special experience in the diagnosis and treatment of mental disorder (within the meaning of that Act);

      (b) approved for the purposes of section 20 or 39 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 by a Health Board as having special experience in the diagnosis and treatment of mental disorder (within the meaning of that Act); or

      (c) appointed for the purposes of Part II of the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 by the Mental Health Commission for Northern Ireland;

      "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.
      (2) For the purposes of the provisions of sections 115A, 116, 116C and 116D of this Act which permit a court to act on the written evidence of a registered medical practitioner or a registered medical practitioner who is duly approved, a report in writing purporting to be signed by a registered medical practitioner or a registered medical practitioner who is duly approved may, subject to subsection (3) below, be received in evidence without proof of the signature of the practitioner and without proof that he has the requisite qualifications or is duly approved; but the court may require the signatory of any such report to be called to give oral evidence.
      (3) Where, in pursuance of a direction of the court, any such report is tendered in evidence otherwise than by or on behalf of the accused, then—

      (a) if the accused is represented by counsel or a solicitor, a copy of the report shall be given to his counsel or solicitor;

      (b) if the accused is not so represented, the substance of the report shall be disclosed to him; and

      (c) the accused may require the signatory of the report to be called to give oral evidence, and evidence to rebut the evidence contained in the report may be called by the accused or on his behalf.

      (4) The power of the Secretary of State to make regulations under sections 116A, 116B, 116C and 116D above, and orders under section 116D(2) above, shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'
      No. 25, in page 31, line 9, at end insert—
      '. In section 225(1) of the Army Act 1955 (general provisions as to interpretation)—

      (a) after the definition of "active service" there shall be inserted the following definition

      "admission order" has the meaning assigned to it by section 116B(1) of this Act;";

      (b) after the definition of "Governor" there shall be inserted the following definition—

      "guardianship order" has the meaning assigned to it by section 116C(1) of this Act;"; and

      (c) after the definition of "stoppages" there shall be inserted the following definition—

      "supervision and treatment order" has the meaning assigned to it by section 116D(1) of this Act;".

      In section 223(1) of the Air Force Act 1955 (general provisions as to interpretation)—

      (a) after the definition of "active service" there shall be inserted the following definition—

      "admission order" has the meaning assigned to it by section 116B(1) of this Act;";

      445

      (b) after the definition of "Governor" there shall be inserted the following definition—

      "guardianship order" has the meaning assigned to it by section 116C(1) of this Act;"; and

      (c) after the definition of "stoppages" there shall be inserted the following definition

      "supervision and treatment order" has the meaning assigned to it by section 116D(1) of this Act;".'.

      No. 26, in page 32, leave out lines 35 to 46 and insert—
      '(2) Subject to subsections (3) and (4) below, the court shall make one of the following orders in respect of the accused, namely—

      (a) an admission order;

      (b) a guardianship order;

      (c) a supervision and treatment order; or

      (d) an order discharging him absolutely, as the court thinks most suitable in all the circumstances of the case.

      (3) The court may not make an order under subsection (2)(b), (c) or (d) above if the offence to which the finding relates is an offence the sentence for which is fixed by law.
      (4) The court shall not make a guardianship order or a supervision and treatment order unless it has power to do so by virtue of section 63C or section 63D below.
      (5) An order under subsection (2)(a), (b) or (c) above shall be treated as if it had been made by a civil court in England and Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland, as the court may direct, and the appropriate mental health legislation shall apply accordingly with such modifications as may be prescribed.'.
      No. 27, in page 32, line 47, leave out 'section' and insert 'Act'.
      No. 28, in page 32, line 50, at end insert—
      '(1A) Where an admission order is made by a court-martial, the court may, in such circumstances as may be prescribed, direct the accused to be treated as if an order restricting his discharge had been made under the appropriate mental health legislation, either without limit of time or (if a civil court would have been permitted to do so under the legislation concerned) during such period as may be specified in the direction.'.
      No. 29, in page 33, line 10, leave out from first 'the' to end of line 14 and insert
      'appropriate mental health legislation to apply, with such modifications as may be prescribed, in relation to admission orders as the legislation concerned applies in relation to hospital orders;'.
      No. 30, in page 33, line 17, at end insert—
      '(4) In this section "hospital", "hospital order" and "place of safety" have the same meanings as in the appropriate mental health legislation.'.
      No. 31, in page 33, line 18, leave out from beginning to end of line 11 on page 34 and insert—

      'Guardianship orders
      63C.—(1) In this Act "guardianship order" means an order placing the accused under the guardianship of—

      (a) in a case where the order is treated as if it had been made by a civil court in England and Wales, a local social services authority or such other person approved by a local social services authority as may be specified in the order;

      (b) in a case where the order is treated as if it had been made by a civil court in Scotland, a local authority or such other person approved by a local authority as may be specified in the order;

      (c) in a case where the order is treated as if it had been made by a civil court in Northern Ireland, a Board or an authorised HSS trust or such other person approved by a Board or an authorised HSS trust as may be specified in the order.

      (2) In subsection (I) above—
      "authorised HSS trust" and "Board" have the same meanings as in the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986;
      "local authority" has the same meaning as in the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984; and
      "local social services authority" has the same meaning as in the Mental Health Act 1983.
      (3) A court-martial shall not make a guardianship order unless—

      (a) the court is satisfied, on the written or oral evidence of two registered medical practitioners, that—

      (i) the accused is suffering from mental illness, psychopathic disorder, severe mental impairment or mental impairment; and

      (ii) the mental disorder is of a nature or degree which warrants his reception into guardianship; and

      (b) the court is of the opinion, having regard to all the circumstances including the nature of the offence and the character and antecedents of the accused and the other available methods of dealing with him, that the most suitable method of disposing of the case is by means of a guardianship order.

      (4) A court-martial shall not make a guardianship order unless it is also satisfied that the authority or other person intended to be specified in the order is willing to receive the accused into guardianship.
      (5) A guardianship order shall specify the form or forms of mental disorder referred to in subsection (3)(a) above from which, upon the evidence taken into account under that subsection, the accused is found by the court to be suffering; and a guardianship order shall not be made unless the accused is described by each of the practitioners whose evidence is taken into account under that subsection as suffering from the same one of those forms of mental disorder, whether or not he is also described by either of them as suffering from another of those forms of mental disorder.
      (6) The appropriate mental health legislation shall apply, with such modifications as may be prescribed, in relation to guardianship orders under this section as it applies to guardianship orders under the legislation concerned.
      (7) In this section "mental disorder", "mental impairment", "psychopathic disorder" and "severe mental impairment" have the same meanings as in the Mental Health Act 1983.'.
      No. 32, in page 34, line 12, leave out 'section' and insert 'Act'.
      No. 33, in page 35, line 12, leave out from beginning to end of line 17 on page 36 and insert—

      `Provisions supplementary to section 62A to 63D
      63E.—(1) In this section and sections 62A to 63D above—
      "the appropriate mental health legislation" means—

      (a) in a case where an order is treated as if it had been made by a civil court in England and Wales, the Mental Health Act 1983;

      (b) in a case where an order is treated as if it had been made by a civil court in Scotland, the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 and Part VI of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995;

      (c) in a case where an order is treated as if it had been made by a civil court in Northern Ireland, the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986;

      "duly approved" means—

      (a) approved for the purposes of section 12 of the Mental Health Act 1983 by the Secretary of State as having special experience in the diagnosis and treatment of mental disorder (within the meaning of that Act);

      447

      (b) approved for the purposes of section 20 or 39 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 by a Health Board as having special experience in the diagnosis and treatment of mental disorder (within the meaning of that Act); or

      (c) appointed for the purposes of Part II of the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 by the Mental Health Commission for Northern Ireland;

      "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.
      (2) For the purposes of the provisions of sections 62A, 63, 63C and 63D of this Act which permit a court to act on the written evidence of a registered medical practitioner or a registered medical practitioner who is duly approved, a report in writing purporting to be signed by a registered medical practitioner or a registered medical practitioner who is duly approved may, subject to subsection (3) below, be received in evidence without proof of the signature of the practitioner and without proof that he has the requisite qualifications or is duly approved; but the court may require the signatory of any such report to be called to give oral evidence.
      (3) Where, in pursuance of a direction of the court, any such report is tendered in evidence otherwise than by or on behalf of the accused, then—

      (a) if the accused is represented by counsel or a solicitor, a copy of the report shall be given to his counsel or solicitor;

      (b) if the accused is not so represented, the substance of the report shall be disclosed to him; and

      (c) the accused may require the signatory of the report to be called to give oral evidence, and evidence to rebut the evidence contained in the report may be called by the accused or on his behalf.

      (4) The power of the Secretary of State to make regulations under sections 63A, 63B, 63C and 63D above, and orders under section 63D(2) above, shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'
      No. 34, in page 36, line 17, at end insert—
      `. In section 135(1) of the 1957 Act (general provisions as to interpretation)—

      (a) before the definition of "aircraft" there shall be inserted the following definition—

      "admission order" has the meaning assigned to it by section 63B(1) of this Act;";

      (b) after the definition of "Governor" there shall be inserted the following definition—

      "guardianship order" has the meaning assigned to it by section 63C(1) of this Act;"; and

      (c) after the definition of "steals" there shall be inserted the following definition—

      "supervision and treatment order" has the meaning assigned to it by section 63D(1) of this Act;".'.

      No. 35, in page 36, line 33, leave out from 'shall' to end of line 14 on page 37 and insert
      'make one of the following orders in respect of the appellant, namely—

      (a) an admission order;

      (b) a guardianship order;

      (c) a supervision and treatment order; or

      (d) an order discharging him absolutely,

      as they think most suitable in all the circumstances of the case.
      (3) The Appeal Court may not make an order under subsection (2)(b), (c) or (d) above if the offence to which the appeal relates is an offence the sentence for which is fixed by law.
      (4) An order under subsection (2)(a), (b) or (c) above shall be treated as if it had been made by a civil court in England and Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland, as the Appeal Court may direct, and
      448
      the appropriate mental health legislation shall apply accordingly with such modifications as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.
      (5) The provisions of, or made under, the relevant Service Act in relation to admission orders, guardianship orders and supervision and treatment orders shall apply to the Appeal Court as if—

      (a) references to a court-martial were references to the Appeal Court;

      (b) references to the accused were references to the appellant, and with such other modifications as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.

      (6) The power of the Secretary of State under subsections (4) and (5) above to make regulations shall be exercisable by statutory instrument, which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
      No. 36, in page 37, line 17, at end insert—
      '. In section 22(4) of the 1968 Act (consequences where appeal under section 21 allowed), at the beginning there shall be inserted the words "Subject to section 23 below,".'.
      No. 37, in page 37, line 30, leave out from 'shall' to end of line 14 on page 38 and insert—
      `make one of the following orders in respect of the appellant, namely—

      (a) an admission order;

      (b) a guardianship order;

      (c) a supervision and treatment order; or

      (d) an order discharging him absolutely, as they think most suitable in all the circumstances of the case.

      (3) The Appeal Court may not make an order under subsection (2)(b), (c) or (d) above if the offence to which the appeal relates is an offence the sentence for which is fixed by law.
      (4) An order under subsection (2)(a), (b) or (c) above shall be treated as if it had been made by a civil court in England and Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland, as the Appeal Court may direct, and the appropriate mental health legislation shall apply accordingly with such modifications as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.
      (5) The provisions of, or made under, the relevant Service Act in relation to admission orders, guardianship orders and supervision and treatment orders shall apply to the Appeal Court as if—

      (a) references to a court-martial were references to the Appeal Court;

      (b) references to the accused were references to the appellant, and with such other modifications as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.

      (6) The power of the Secretary of State under subsections (4) and (5) above to make regulations shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.
      No. 38, in page 38, line 28, leave out from 'detained' to end of line 45 and insert
      'pursuant to an admission order made by a court-martial, make an order for his continued detention;

      (b) in any other case, make an order that the appellant be admitted for assessment, in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State, to such hospital as may be specified by the Secretary of State.

      (3) An order under subsection (2) above shall be treated as if it had been made by a civil court in England and Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland, as the Appeal Court may direct, and the appropriate mental health legislation shall apply accordingly with such modifications as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.
      (4) The power of the Secretary of State under subsections (2)(b) and (3) above to make regulations shall be exercisable by statutory instrument, which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
      (5) In this section "hospital" and "mental disorder" have the same meanings as in the appropriate mental health legislation.".'.
      No. 39, in page 39, leave out lines 14 to 20.
      No. 40, in page 39, line 28, leave out from '(1)' to end of line 41 and insert—

      '(a) before the definition of "the Air Force Act" there shall be inserted the following definition—

      "admission order" has the same meaning as in the relevant Service Act;";

      (b) after the definition of "appellant" there shall be inserted the following definition—

      "the appropriate mental health legislation" means

      (a) in a case where an order is treated as if it had been made by a civil court in England and Wales, the Mental Health Act 1983;

      (b) in a case where an order is treated as if it had been made by a civil court in Scotland, the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 and Part VI of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995;

      (c) in a case where an order is treated as iP it had been made by a civil court in Northern Ireland, the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986;";

      (c) after the definition of "army court-martial" there shall be inserted the following definition—

      "civil court" has the same meaning as in the relevant Service Act;";

      (d) after the definition of "court-martial;" there shall be inserted the following definition—

      "duly approved" means—

      (a) approved for the purposes of section 12 of the Mental Health Act 1983 by the Secretary of State as having special experience in the diagnosis and treatment of mental disorder (within the meaning of that Act);

      (b) approved for the purposes of section 20 or 39 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 by a Health Board as having special experience in the diagnosis and treatment of mental disorder (within the meaning of that Act); or

      (c) appointed for the purposes of Part II of the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 by the Mental Health Commission for Northern Ireland; ";

      (e) after the definition of "enactment" there shall be inserted the following definition—

      "guardianship order" has the same meaning as in the relevant Service Act;";

      (f) at the end there shall be inserted the following definition

      "supervision and treatment order" has the same meaning as in the relevant Service Act." '.

      No. 41, in page 39, line 43, leave out from beginning to end of line 5 on page 41 and insert—
      ' "(2A) For the purposes of the provisions of sections 16, 23 and 23A of this Act which permit the Appeal Court to act on the written evidence of a registered medical practitioner or a registered medical practitioner who is duly approved, a report in writing purporting to be signed by a registered medical practitioner or a registered medical practitioner who is duly approved may, subject to subsection (2B) below, be received in evidence without proof of the signature of the practitioner and without proof that he has the requisite qualifications or is duly approved; but the Appeal Court may require the signatory of any such report to be called to give oral evidence.
      (2B) Where, in pursuance of a direction of the Appeal Court, any such report is tendered in evidence otherwise than by or on behalf of the appellant, then—

      (a) if the appellant is represented by counsel or a solicitor, a copy of the report shall be given to his counsel or solicitor;

      (b) if the appellant is not so represented, the substance of the report shall be disclosed to him; and

      (c) the appellant may require the signatory of the report to be called to give oral evidence, and evidence to rebut the evidence contained in the report may be called by the appellant or on his behalf." ',—[Mr.Soames.]

      Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
      Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Schedule 2 agreed to.

    Clause 9

      FINGERPRINTING OF CERTAIN OFFENDERS
      Amendments made: No. 1, in page 4, line 37, leave out `50' and insert '52G'.
      No. 2, in page 4, line 39, leave out '49' and insert —[Mr.Soames.]
      Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    New clause 3

      TAKING OF SAMPLES FROM CERTAIN OFFENDERS
      '.—(1) A service policeman may, for the purpose of recording information, take a sample to which this section applies from a person without his consent if that person has been convicted of an offence in service disciplinary proceedings.
      (2) This section applies to a sample of hair (other than pubic hair) or to a swab taken from a person's mouth.
      (3) The power under subsection (1) above may be exercised in relation to a person convicted of an offence only if—

      (a) he has not had a sample to which this section applies taken from him since his conviction; or

      (b) where he has had such a sample taken from him, the sample has proved insufficient.

      (4) The power under subsection (1) above may not be exercised after the end of the period of three months beginning—

      (a) in a case falling within subsection (3)(a) above, with the date of the conviction;

      (b) in a case falling within subsection (3)(b) above, with the date on which a service policeman is informed of the fact that the sample has proved insufficient.

      (5) A service policeman may use reasonable force, if necessary, in exercising the power under subsection (1) above.
      (6) A sample of hair may be taken either by cutting hairs or by plucking hairs with their roots so long as no more are plucked than are reasonably considered to be necessary for a sufficient sample.
      (7) In this section—
      "service disciplinary proceedings" and "service policeman" have the same meanings as in section 9 above; and
      "sufficient" and "insufficient", in relation to a sample, means sufficient or insufficient (in point of quantity or quality) for the purpose of enabling information to be produced by the means of analysis used or to be used in relation to the sample.
      (8) This section is without prejudice to any power to take samples under any other enactment or under any rule of law.'.—[Mr. Soames.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Soames: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 80, in title, line 5, leave out `fingerprinting of and insert
      `taking of fingerprints and samples from'.
      Dr. Godman: I want to voice some concerns that I have about the new clause and to seek guidance from the Minister. The new clause begins by stating:
      "A service policeman may, for the purpose of recording information, take a sample".
      In the Bill, a service policeman is defined as
      "a member of the Royal Navy Regulating Branch, the Royal Marines Police, the Royal Military Police, the Royal Air Force Police or the staff of the Royal Air Force Provost Marshal."
      I can only speak with some experience, albeit limited, of the Royal Military police. Presumably, under the new clause, a service policeman could be a lance-corporal. Is that the case? Why is the clause so much out of kilter with extant legislation in Scotland and in England and Wales?
      In part II of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993, clause 28 allows for a police constable, presumably the equivalent of a lance-corporal in the corps of the Royal Military police, to take a sample. But subsection (4) states:
      "A constable may, with the authority of an officer of a rank no lower than inspector, take from the person—
      (a) from the hair of an external part of the body".
      From that point clause 28 of the 1993 Act and new clause 3 are almost identical. Why does the new clause not have that limiting subsection? Why has the Minister chosen to allow any member of a military police establishment to take such action against a prisoner? Surely if it is good enough for the civil police in Scotland to require an inspector to give permission, the same should hold for the armed forces.
      In a crude, rough way, the rank of inspector is equivalent to an Army major. Therefore, why not insert a subsection into new clause 3 which allows only a lance corporal in the military police, say, to take such a body sample once he or she has the approval of the officer commanding the unit, or someone of equal rank?
      In terms of human rights, the new clause leaves a lot to be desired when compared with the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act. At the most appropriate moment, the new clause should be changed in the way that I have suggested.
      Mr. Soames: The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) says that the new clause is out of kilter, but I have to tell him that it is one of the most kiltered new clauses that I have ever met. I want to reassure him that the rank of the service policeman concerned is completely immaterial. All service policemen, given the authority and status of their position and the special responsibilities that they carry, will be able to undertake these tasks. There is no problem with regard
      452
      to the law being the same in Scotland, but I shall investigate further the matter that he has raised and write to him in greater detail.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Menzies Campbell: It is not surprising that the Minister does not have encyclopaedic knowledge of Scottish general law, but the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) has raised an interesting question of principle—namely the level at which a power of this kind should be able to be exercised. If, as I understand it, it is a principle to try and approximate as far as possible the law which pertains to the armed services with the law which pertains in civilian life, there is clearly a substantial issue of principle as to whether the person who is lowest in the command structure in the military police can exercise a power which, in the civilian sector, can be exercised only by someone of a substantially higher rank. I therefore hope that the Minister will give serious consideration to the important point of principle which the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow has isolated.
      Mr. Soames: I assure the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) that I do not hold the kind of views about my learned Friend that the hon. Gentleman does. That is a supremely helpful and constructive intervention. I have no idea what the answer to the point is. I shall investigate it and write to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East and the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow. I am sure that they have a valid point, and we will clarify it.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
      Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Schedule 3 agreed to.
      Clauses 11 and 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 13

      REVIEW OF FINDINGS AND SENTENCES OF COURTS-MARTIAL
      Amendment made: No. 3, in page 6, line 30, leave out `court-martial'.—[Mr. Soames.]
      Clause 13, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.)

    Schedule 4

      AMENDMENTS RELATING TO THE REVIEW OF FINDINGS AND SENTENCE
      Amendments made:No. 42, in page 43, line 28, at end insert—
      `. Section 108 (power of accused to present petition against finding or sentence at any time after finding or sentence) shall cease to have effect.
      . For section 112 (approval required for death sentences) there shall be substituted the following section—

      Review of proceedings of courts-martial Approval required for death sentences
      112.—(1) A sentence of death passed by a court-martial shall not be carried out until it has been reviewed under section 113 of this Act and has not been quashed or replaced by another sentence on the review.
      (2) A sentence of death passed by a court-martial shall not be carried out in a colony unless it is also approved by the Governor of the colony." '.
      No. 43, in page 44, line 41, at end insert—
      '(aa) revoke an order made by the court under section 120A(1) of this Act;'.
      No. 44, in page 45, line 9, leave out from 'section' to `for' and insert
      `113A (power of reviewing authority to authorise retrial)—
      (a) in subsection (1),'
      No. 45, in page 45, line 11, at end insert `; and

      (b) in subsection (2), for the words "Defence Council" there shall be substituted the words "reviewing authority".'

      No. 46, in page 45, line 11, at end insert—
      `. For section 115 of the Army Act 1955 (review of summary findings and awards) there shall be substituted the following section—

      Review of summary findings and awards
      115.—(1) This section applies where a charge has been dealt with summarily and a finding has been recorded that the charge has been proved.
      (2) The accused may at any time request a review of the finding or any punishment awarded (or both); and where he does so, the finding or punishment (or both) shall be reviewed.
      (3) The finding or any punishment awarded (or both) may be reviewed at any other time.
      (4) A review under this section shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions of Queen's Regulations.
      (5) A review under this section may be carried out by—

      (a) the Defence Council;

      (b) any military, naval or air-force officer superior in command to the officer who dealt summarily with the charge;

      (c) a general officer or brigadier appointed by the Defence Council to carry out the review or any class of review which includes the review.

      (6) Section 113AA of this Act shall apply to a review under this section by an authority mentioned in subsection (5) above as it applies to a review under section 113 of this Act by the reviewing authority.
      (7) In the application of section 113AA to reviews under this section, that section shall have effect as if—

      (a) references to the court-martial were references to the officer who dealt summarily with the charge;

      (b) references to a finding of guilt were references to a finding that the charge has been proved;

      (c) references to a sentence passed were references to a punishment awarded; and

      (d) subsections (5)(aa) and (6) were omitted."

      . For section 115 of the Air Force Act 1955 (review of summary findings and awards) there shall be substituted the following section—

      Review of summary findings and awards
      115.—(1) This section applies where a charge has been dealt with summarily and a finding has been recorded that the charge has been proved.
      (2) The accused may at any time request a review of the finding or any punishment awarded (or both); and where he does so, the finding or punishment (or both) shall be reviewed.
      (3) The finding or any punishment awarded (or both) may be reviewed at any other time.
      (4) A review under this section shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions of Queen's Regulations.
      (5) A review under this section may be carried out by—

      (a) the Defence Council;

      454

      (b) any air-force, naval or military officer superior in command to the officer who dealt summarily with the charge;

      (c) an air officer appointed by the Defence Council to carry out the review or any class of review which includes the review.

      (6) Section 113AA of this Act shall apply to a review under this section by an authority mentioned in subsection (5) above as it applies to a review under section 113 of this Act by the reviewing authority.
      (7) In the application of section 113AA to reviews under this section, that section shall have effect as if—

      (a) references to the court-martial were references to the officer who dealt summarily with the charge;

      (b) references to a finding of guilt were references to a finding that the charge has been proved;

      (c) references to a sentence passed were references to a punishment awarded; and

      (d) subsections (5)(aa) and (6) were omitted.'''.

      No. 47, in page 45, leave out lines 12 and 13.
      No. 48, in page 45, leave out lines 22 to 24.
      No. 49, in page 45, line 28, leave out 'under subsection (3) above'.
      No. 50, in page 45, line 36, leave out 'under subsection (3) above'.
      No. 51, in page 46, line 3, leave out 'General Orders' and insert 'rules'.
      No. 52, in page 46, line 34, at end insert—
      '(aa) revoke an order made by the court under section 89A(1) of this Act;'.
      No. 53, in page 47, leave out lines 3 to 9. No. 54, in page 47, line 10, leave out '(1)%
      No. 55, in page 47, line 11, after 'Council"' insert
      `in both places where they appear'.
      No. 56, in page 47, line 11, at end insert—
      '. After section 71A there shall be inserted the following section—

      `Review of summary findings and awards
      71B.—(1) This section applies where on a summary trial the accused has been found guilty of any offence.
      (2) The accused may at any time request a review of the finding or any sentence awarded (or both); and where he does so, the finding or sentence (or both) shall be reviewed.
      (3) The finding or any sentence awarded (or both) may be reviewed at any other time.
      (4) A review under this section shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions of Queen's Regulations.
      (5) A review under this section may be carried out by—

      (a) the Defence Council;

      (b) any naval officer superior in command to the officer who tried the charge summarily;

      (c) a flag officer appointed by the Defence Council to carry out the review or any class of review which includes the review.

      (6) Section 71 of this Act shall apply to a review under this section by an authority mentioned in subsection (5) above as it applies to a review under section 70 of this Act by the reviewing authority.
      (7) In the application of section 71 to reviews under this section, that section shall have effect as if—

      (a) references to the court-martial were references to the officer before whom the summary trial took place; and

      (b) subsections (5)(aa) and (6) were omitted."'.—[Mr. Soames.]

      Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
      Clauses 14 to 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 17

      REDRESS OF COMPLAINTS
      Amendments made: No. 4, in page 9, line 10, after `Act' insert
      ',ask for a review under section 115 of this Act'.
      No. 5, in page 10, line 15, after 'Act' insert
      `, ask for a review under section 115 of this Act'.
      No. 6, in page 11, line 21, after 'Act' insert
      ',ask for a review under section 70A of this Act'.—[Mr. Soames.]
      Clause 17, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 18 to 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 21

      EQUAL TREATMENT: GREAT BRITAIN
      Amendment made: No. 7, in page 17, line 13, leave out from 'the' to second 'the' in line 15 and insert
      `period of service during which the claim arose ended more than nine months before'.—[Mr. Soames.]
      Clause 21, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 22

      SERVICE PAY AND CONDITIONS
      Amendment made: No. 8, in page 18, line 45, leave out from 'the' to second 'the' in line 47 and insert
      `period of service during which the claim arose ended more than nine months before'.—[Mr. Soames.]
      Clause 22, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 23

      OTHER COMPLAINTS: GREAT BRITAIN
      Amendments made: No. 9, in page 19, line 23, leave out from 'Section' to `(application' in line 25 and insert
      `192 of the Employment Rights Act 1996'.
      No. 10, in page 19, line 27, leave out `(3)' and insert
      `(4)'.
      No. 11, in page 19, line 35, leave out `(4)' and insert
      `(5)'.
      No. 12, in page 19, line 37, leave out `(4)' and insert
      `(5)'.
      No. 13, in page 19, line 38, leave out `(2)' and insert
      `(3)'.
      No. 14, in page 19, line 38, leave out `(3)' and insert
      `(4)'.
      No. 15, in page 19, line 43, leave out `(3)' and insert `(4)'.
      No. 16, in page 20, line 1, leave out `(7)' and insert `(6)'.—[Mr. Soames.]
      Clause 23, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 24 to 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 27

      GREENWICH HOSPITAL
      Mr. Nick Raynsford: I beg to move amendment No. 83, in page 22, line 43, at beginning insert
      `Where he is satisfied that the objectives set out in paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (2) of this section are met,'.
      The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government new clause 4—Grants for preservation of Royal Naval College site.
      Mr. Raynsford: Clause 27 governs the use of the site currently occupied by the royal naval college in Greenwich. As hon. Members know, the subject has been raised in the House on several occasions during the past year or so.
      Last summer, the Government decided to put this magnificent complex of buildings on the market following their decision to close the college. The subsequent appearance of some of the country's finest architectural masterpieces in the pages of an estate agent's catalogue rightly provoked a national outcry. It says a great deal for the curious values of the present Government that they could ever have felt it appropriate to flog off such an important part of our national heritage in that way. Fortunately, common sense has finally prevailed: even the Secretary of State for Defence now seems to recognise that this was a privatisation too far. For that reason, we are now considering a clause that has undergone a substantial transformation since it was first debated on Second Reading in December.
      That transformation owes a great deal to two main influences. First, there was the weight of public opinion in Greenwich and throughout the country—public opinion that was outraged at the Government's treatment of some of our country's finest buildings, and the risk of their falling into unsuitable hands. Secondly, there was the timely intervention of members of the Select Committee, who visited Greenwich not just once but twice to look around the college complex and take evidence on site. As the Committee's report makes clear, they were convinced that the Bill as originally drafted failed to provide adequate guarantees as to the future occupancy or uses of the site.
      The Bill has now been amended. Clause 27(2) requires the Secretary of State to have regard to three main concerns. First, he must have regard to
      "the importance of preserving for the benefit of the nation the historic buildings and monuments"
      on the site, and of maintaining its "architectural integrity". Secondly, he must have regard to
      "the desirability of securing reasonable public access".
      Thirdly, he must have regard to
      "the desirability of preventing any use"
      that is "out of keeping" with the "unique character and history" of the site.
      So far so good. Those are important safeguards that were not previously in the Bill, and they represent a major step forward as well as a triumph for common sense. Clause 27(3), however, remains unaltered. It allows the Secretary of State to grant a lease on any or all the Greenwich buildings for a period of up to 150 years to

      457
      any person whom he considers suitable. There is no link between the provisions in subsection (3)—which, in effect, prompted the public outcry—and the new subsection that introduces the safeguards to which I referred.
      The purpose of my amendment is simple—to establish a clear link between the Secretary of State's obligation to have regard to those wider national and heritage issues and interests, and his power to grant a lease. The amendment makes it a precondition of the grant of any lease for the Secretary of State to be satisfied that the objectives set out in subsection (2) have been met. It means that, before granting a lease, he will have to be convinced that the outcome will be the preservation of the historic buildings and architectural integrity of the site, the maintenance of reasonable public access and the prevention of any inappropriate use.
      I hope that the Government will accept the amendment. It is clearly in keeping with their own current intentions, now that they have backed away from their ill-conceived attempt to dispose of the buildings on the open market. Subsection (2) is a clear reflection of their admission that the previous approach was wrong, and that there must now be explicit safeguards in the Bill to protect this incomparable site.
      While we hear the assurances that the Government have been giving, Ministers cannot be surprised if we remain a little sceptical, given their previous record. We welcome the inclusion of subsection (2), but many hon. Members will want to be absolutely sure that the criteria spelled out in that subsection are effective. That is the purpose of the amendment. Without it, there can be no absolute guarantee that, having had regard to those criteria, the current Secretary of State—or, indeed, any future Secretary of State—will not subsequently offer the buildings on a 150-year lease to an organisation that does not entirely satisfy the objectives set out in subsection (2).
      I am not saying that that is what the Government currently intend to do. I understand that negotiations are proceeding with the university of Greenwich and the national maritime museum, both of which are widely recognised as appropriate and suitable users of the site. I hope that those negotiations bear fruit. Having said that, I must add that we are considering legislation that could remain on the statute book for 100 year or more. The legislation that the Bill replaces dates back to 1869, and what we are considering this afternoon could well remain in force for a similar or longer period.
      We cannot anticipate the circumstances that may arise at a future date, when the national maritime museum or, indeed, the university of Greenwich may have moved to pastures new. In such circumstances, without the link that my amendment seeks to introduce, it would still be open to a future Secretary of State to grant a lease to another organisation that did not entirely satisfy the criteria in subsection (2).
      In that event, the Secretary of State could plead that, having had regard to the criteria, he had nevertheless concluded that the lease that he proposed to grant was the best that he could envisage in the circumstances, even if it did not satisfy those criteria. Future generations will not thank us if we leave any opportunity open for such an outcome, which could involve these magnificent buildings passing into hands that are not appropriate or suitable.
      458
      The experience of the past few months should surely have taught the Government a salutary lesson—that we cannot and must not allow the possibility of some of our country's most magnificent buildings ever again to be offered for sale in an estate agent's catalogue.
      Considerable progress has been made since the firm of Knight, Frank and Rutley advertised the Royal Naval college in its glossy brochure last autumn. Not only have the Government been chastened by the experience, but the estate agents have not emerged unscathed. Mr. Rutley appears to have been a casualty of the engagement. Our responsibility is to make sure that the legislation is watertight and that the safeguards will bite to prevent any possible repeat of that demeaning and deplorable episode. My amendment provides the necessary safeguard, and I trust that the Committee will accept it.
      6 pm
      Mr. Key: The Select Committee on Defence looked at this matter in great detail, and when we visited Greenwich we were convinced that we should press the Ministry of Defence. I understand the hon. Gentleman's cause and I appreciate the way that he has put it, but I am convinced that his amendment is unnecessary. The Government amendments went considerably further than I and other members of the Select Committee had hoped for in our wildest dreams. It was good to see the Government responding so swiftly.
      The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) went rather over the top, because the college was never offered for sale: it was a lease that was on offer. That matters, and I do not want the hon. Gentleman to get away with promoting the idea that the Government ever sought to sell the freehold of those buildings. I had some responsibility for our heritage while I was in the Department of National Heritage, and from my experience I can say that the solution is good. I am confident and the people of Greenwich can be confident about that.
      I pay tribute to the Minister and to the Secretary of State for Defence who took a great personal interest in this matter. Of course lessons have been learnt: the Minister said that in Committee. I hope that we can put this episode behind us and move forward to ensure that a proper and fitting use is found for those wonderful world heritage site buildings.
      Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): I support the amendment. The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) has campaigned to preserve the royal naval college and related buildings for the nation, and deserves to be widely applauded in Parliament, in London and throughout the country. The royal naval college is an incomparable part of our nation's maritime history and naval traditions, and I am pleased at the drafting of clause 27. However, the strict stipulations that the amendment seeks to introduce are necessary and wise. Clause 27(3) states:
      "It shall be lawful for the Secretary of State to grant a lease of any of the land to which this section applies, with its appurtenances, to any person appearing to him to be suitable for a term not exceeding 150 years."
      Potentially, that is a long term and "appearing … to be suitable" is not the kind of strictly defined criterion that should be demanded for the preservation of the nation's maritime history or of buildings of this kind.

      459
      I welcome the interesting new clause, in that it makes possible the granting of moneys from Parliament for the repair and maintenance of the land and buildings on the royal naval college site. I hope that that will make it possible for an appropriate educational function to be fulfilled. My desire has always been for a tri-service cadet college at Greenwich in that fine historic setting. There is an educational tradition at the college, first, as a staff college for the Royal Navy and then as a successor to the former joint services staff college at Latimer.
      Many of us had hoped that it would be the new tri-service staff college but that opportunity was not taken. I earnestly request the Ministry of Defence to look at the possibility of establishing such an officer cadet college, perhaps in combination with the university of Greenwich, so that the Bill's ethos of ensuring that our armed forces maintain the best standards of discipline and respect for the traditions of the services can be maintained. We should also seek to provide education in the newest technologies, sciences and engineering that are required for a career in the profession of arms in all three services. That should be provided within a fine, historic, maritime setting as befits an island nation with so many naval traditions.
      The late Sir Winston Churchill said that we make buildings but that they make us. To inculcate those qualities in officer cadets who will form the backbone of their respective services and who will go from Greenwich to professional training at Cranwell, Sandhurst or Dartmouth is laudable, and it is made possible by the new clause. Nevertheless, I urge the Minister, with his characteristic magnanimity and generosity, to accept the entirely sensible amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Greenwich who has campaigned so long and hard and so effectively for the preservation of the royal naval college, Greenwich.
      Dr. Reid: I should like to raise two matters. First, the Government have nearly got it right, and they have done so by that most unusual of expedients in the Ministry of Defence—consulting and listening to people. That process has extended to the Armed Forces Bill and threatens to overcome the Ministry of Defence, a Department that I have never seen as being in the vanguard of open government. The Minister has taken to it with the zeal of a convert, and long may it continue.
      Secondly, the achievement of the safeguards that are required to preserve the Royal Naval college for the nation is much to the credit of all parties, many hon. Members, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford). It would be the icing on the cake if, as hon. Members have said, the Minister accepted the amendment or gave assurances that substantially give effect to its spirit, because that would save a Division.
      The criteria to which the Secretary of State must have regard under clause 27(2) are architectural integrity, public access and the history and heritage of the building. They must be the necessary prerequisites when he is considering the use of the powers that are vested in him under subsection (3), which contains the power to sell or lease the land for an extended period. If he agreed to do that expeditiously it would save much time, we would not need to divide on the amendment, and we would have one
      460
      of those rare occasions on which hon. Members could go away happy and ready to praise not just a Minister, but a Minister in the Ministry of Defence.
      Mr. Soames: The speech by the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) was almost seductive and I had to think hard to resist his blandishments.
      I shall try to deal with the issues that have been raised. As the Committee knows, the clause will allow the Secretary of State to grant a lease to a non-Government body in respect of the royal naval college, Greenwich. Section 7 of the Greenwich Hospital Act 1869 restricts the use of college buildings to occupation by the Royal Navy, Government Departments, or organisations that are associated with seafaring.
      The clause was extensively amended by the Select Committee, to whose members I pay tribute for their admirable work, and by Government amendments that were tabled there. The principal amendment was intended to ensure that there should be appropriate acknowledgement in the Bill of the interests and considerations to which the Secretary of State in his capacity as trustee of Greenwich hospital should have regard in reaching a decision on a lease in respect of the royal naval college. Those include maintaining the absolute architectural integrity of the site, preserving it for the nation's benefit, the desirability of public access and ensuring suitable use of the site. For those reasons, much of what the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) said was ungracious and unfair.
      Other important amendments added more detailed provision in relation to sub-leases because of the proposal to grant the head lease of the royal naval college to a trust, which would, in its turn, grant sub-leases or licences to others. Thus, it is made clear that only the Secretary of State can authorise the granting of the sub-lease or assignment of the lease on terms that he has agreed.
      It is important to remember that the Secretary of State is holding the land for the benefit of a charity: Greenwich hospital. It would be unfair to that charity if he could determine future occupation without having regard to the charity's interests. As amended by the Select Committee, the clause seeks to achieve a proper balance between the charity's private interests, which the Secretary of State, as trustee, must seek to safeguard, and the wider public interest.
      I turn to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). His idea of a tri-service college is interesting. As he knows, Greenwich simply does not have the capacity to accommodate the tri-service college as it forms up, but I was interested in his proposal and I would be grateful if he would send me more details of his scheme, although we would not be able to do it at Greenwich.
      Sir Michael Grylls: As my hon. Friend has raised the question of the tri-service college in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), will he think again about the proposal temporarily to coelocate the staff college to Bracknell? The information that I have is that the staff college in Camberley in my constituency is concerned about that and that Bracknell will be an unattractive temporary solution. I realise that something must be done while the main new tri-service college is

      461
      built, but there is a feeling that Bracknell's hutted accommodation will not be attractive, especially as the college depends so much on foreign students, who, whatever one may think, depend on the kudos of coming to Camberley, which has a world reputation. It could practically be done at Camberley. Will he reconsider that?
      Mr. Soames: No, I will not reconsider. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the matter with me—he has already done so by letter—but the tri-service staff college will form up initially at Bracknell. It may not be as smart as it has been and for a couple of years it may not be as comfortable, but the reason why so many of our foreign friends choose to come to the staff college of all three services and the tri-service staff college is not because of the beautiful surroundings, but because the training is undoubtedly the best in the world. The tri-service staff college will continue that formidable record of training. I am familiar with the views of the people at the staff college at Camberley. Those were not the views that were presented to me when I was there last week.
      Mr. Wilkinson: May I make it absolutely clear to my hon. Friend that I am not harping back to the dispute, or the argument, about staff college training, but referring specifically to the possibility of a tri-service officer cadet college at Greenwich—perhaps operated in co-operation with the university of Greenwich—in relation to the use of those fine buildings for an educational purpose, especially as the professional training at the three individual service academies of Cranwell, Sandhurst and Dartmouth is so truncated that officer cadets do not receive enough grounding in the basic disciplines and military sciences that are required for a long-term career?
      Mr. Soames: I was aware of what my hon. Friend was suggesting and that there is no suggestion that we can do that at Greenwich, but I was saying that it is an interesting proposition that has not been advanced before. I would be happy if he would let me have details of his idea and I will consider whether I can take it forward.
      I am grateful for the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) whose knowledge of this matter cannot be gainsaid and who had considerable experience of and responsibility for part of the national heritage when he was Minister. It is right that there is a proper debate on Greenwich; such a debate was needed. After all, as the hon. Member for Greenwich rightly says and as we all agree—no one disagrees—the collection of buildings there is one of, if not the most, important in the United Kingdom.
      I am surprised that the hon. Member for Greenwich is so sceptical, but I suppose that his commercial snobbery is getting the better of him. He is unkind to poor Mr. Rutley. I am also surprised that the hon. Gentleman is sceptical as he said, halfway through his speech, that he believes that the Government's approach is a triumph of common sense, with which I entirely agree.
      I sympathise with the concerns that the hon. Gentleman is expressing in the amendment. We took considerable care to table in the Select Committee an amendment that is now included in clause 27, which ensures that, as far as possible, the wider interests of heritage and access are reflected in future decisions on the Royal Naval college.
      It is important to remember that the Secretary of State is holding the land as trustee. The clause seeks to achieve a proper balance between the private interests of a charity,
      462
      which the Secretary of State must seek to safeguard, and the wider public interest. It lists considerations to which he must have regard in exercising discretion, but they cannot be conditions to be satisfied as the amendment seeks.
      On a more technical point, although the clause requires the Secretary of State to have regard to various matters, it does not contain any objectives. Thus, the amendment is technically incompatible with the clause and would not work. For those reasons, I must ask the Committee to reject the hon. Gentleman's amendment.
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Raynsford: I am disappointed with the Minister's response, which revealed a characteristic inability to grapple with the key issue: although the safeguards are spelled out in clause 27(2), there is no direct link between subsection(2) and the powers under subsection(3) to grant a lease. That is why we believe that the amendment is necessary.
      I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) for his support for the amendment's principle. I regret that the Government do not recognise the need to do this. I trust that their assurances will be honoured. We will examine whether the particular commitments that have been given are met before any leases are granted. The other place may wish to reconsider the issue; it has certainly taken considerable interest in Greenwich's future. In order, however, to not detain the Committee further—hon. Members want to raise many other matters of concern—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    New clause 4
      GRANTS FOR PRESERVATION OF ROYAL NAVAL COLLEGE SITE
      `. After section 31 of the National Heritage Act 1983 there shall be inserted the following section—

    The Royal Naval College Grants for preservation of Royal Naval College site
    31A.—(1) The Secretary of State may out of money provided by Parliament make grants towards expenditure in connection with the repair or maintenance of—

    (a) the land and buildings on the site known as the Royal Naval College; or

    (b) any object of historical interest situated on that land or in those buildings.

    (2) Grants under this section may be paid to such persons and on such conditions as the Secretary of State considers appropriate." '.—[Mr. Soames.]
    Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
    Clauses 28 to 31 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Schedule 5

    MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
    Amendments made: No. 57, in page 47, leave out lines 27 to 32.
    No. 58, in page 47, leave out lines 33 to 36 and insert—

    `Suspension of sentences
    .—(1) In section 120 of each of the 1955 Acts (suspension of sentences of imprisonment and detention)—

    (a) in subsection (2), for the words from the beginning to "officer" there shall be substituted the "On passing such a sentence, the court";

    (b) for subsection (3) there shall be substituted the following subsection—

    "(3) On the review of a sentence which is not for the time being suspended, the reviewing authority may order that the balance of the sentence be suspended."; and

    (c) in subsection (5)(c), for the words from "neither" to "said powers" there shall be substituted the words "the court does not exercise the powers conferred by paragraph (a) above".

    (2) In section 118 (commencement of sentences of imprisonment and detention), in the proviso to subsection (2), for the words "the confirming officer" there shall be substituted the words "a court-martial".'.
    No. 59, in page 47, line 36, at end insert—

    `Remission of sentences
    . In section 122 of each of the 1955 Acts (Imprisonment and Detention Rules), in subsection (1)(e) (rules about remission of part of sentences), the words "for good conduct and industry" shall cease to have effect.
    . In section 82 of the 1957 Act (Naval Detention Quarters Rules), in subsection (1)(d) (rules about remission of part of sentences), the words "for good conduct and industry" shall cease to have effect.'
    No. 60, in page 47, line 36, at end insert—

    'Reviews
    . In Schedule 5A to each of the 1955 Acts (powers of court on trial of civilians), in paragraph 13(3), for the words "section 108" in both places they appear there shall be substituted the words "section 113".
    . In Schedule 4A to the 1957 Act (powers of court on trial of civilians), in paragraph 13(3), for the words "section 70(2)" there shall be substituted the words "section 70(1)".
    . In Schedule 3 to the Armed Forces Act 1976 (Standing Civilian Courts)—

    (a) in paragraph 19 (petitions for reviews), the words from "but" to "period" shall cease to have effect; and

    (b) in paragraph 20 (reviews of findings and sentences), in sub-paragraph (2)(c), for the words from "a confirming" to "section 110" there shall be substituted the words "an authority carrying out a review under section 115".'.

    No. 61, in page 47, leave out lines 38 to 40.
    No. 62, in page 47, line 41, leave out 'that' and insert `the 1957'.
    No. 63, in page 48, line 14, at end insert—

    `Abolition of confirmation
    . In section 82(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (meaning of references to conviction before a Service court in Part VIII), for the words from "references" (in the second place it appears) to "and" there shall be substituted the words "references to a finding of guilty which is, or falls to be treated as, the finding of the court; and".'.
    . In Article 70(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (meaning of references to conviction before a Service court in Part IX), for the words from "references" (in the second place it appears) to the end there shall be substituted the words "references to a finding of guilty which is, or falls to be treated as, the finding of the court."'.—[Mr. Soames.]
    Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.

  Schedule 6
    REPEALS
    Amendments made: No. 64, in page 48, line 16, at end insert—
  `PART

    REPEALS RELATING TO CHANGES TO PROCEDURE FOR DEALING WITH OFFENCES UNDER SERVICES ACTS
    1933 c. 6.

    Visiting Forces (British Commonwealth) Act 1933.

    In section 4(4)(b) the words from "and may" to "courts martial".

    1955 c. 18.

    Army Act 1955.

    Sections 77 to 80.

    Section 82(3).

    Section 84.

    Section 85(3).

    Sections 86 to 90.

    In section 91(1), the words from "and the convening officer" to the end.

    In section 93, in subsection (1), the words "other than an exempted person" and "judge advocate", and subsection (1A).

    Section 95(4).

    In section 96(5), the words from "or on" to "finding".

    Sections 104 to 106.

    Section 139.

    In section 143(1), the definition of "convening officer".

    In section 209(3), paragraph (d) and, in paragraph (fa), the words "constituted under section 87 above" and "constituted under section 88 above".

    In section 225(1), the definition of "Rules of Procedure".

    1955 c. 19.

    Air Force Act 1955.

    Sections 77 to 80.

    Section 82(3).

    Section 84.

    Section 85(3).

    Sections 86 to 90.

    In section 91(1), the words from "and the convening officer" to the end.

    In section 93, in subsection (1), the words "other than an exempted person" and "judge advocate", and subsection (1A).

    Section 95(4).

    In section 96(5), the words from "or on" to "finding".

    Sections 104 to 106.

    Section 139.

    In section 143(1), the definition of "convening officer".

    No. 65, in page 48, line 22, column 3, after '"and"' insert
    '(in the first place in which it appears)'.
    No. 66, in page 48, line 26, column 3, leave out from beginning to end of line 30.
    No. 67, in page 48, leave out line 31.
    No. 68, in page 48, line 32, column 3, leave out `subsection (2)'.
    No. 69, in page 49, line 51, column 3, after -and '"insert"'
    '(in the first place it appears)'.
    No. 70, in page 49, line 55, column 3, leave out from beginning to end of line 6 on page 50.
    No. 71, in page 50, leave out line 7.
    No. 72, in page 50, line 8, column 3, leave out `subsection (2)'.
    No. 73, in page 51, line 16, at end insert—

    '1957 c. 53.

    Naval Discipline Act 1957.

    In Schedule 4A, in paragraph 4(12), the words "confirming officer or", in paragraph 5(2)(b), the words "confirmation, revision or" and, in paragraph 15, in subparagraph (4), the words "confirmation" and "or revision", and, in subparagraphs (5), (6) and (7), the words "confirmation" and "revision".'.

    No. 74, in page 51, line 46, column 3, at end insert—

    'In section 122(1)(e), the words "for good conduct and industry".'.

    No. 75, in page 52, line 4, column 3, at end insert—

    'In section 122(1)(e), the words "for good conduct and industry".'.

    No. 76, in page 52, line 6, column 3, at end insert—

    'In section 82(1)(d), the words "for good conduct and industry".'.

    No. 77, in page 52, line 13, column 3, leave out from `Service,"' to end of line 16.
    No. 78, in page 52, line 42, column 3, at end insert—

    'In Schedule 3, in paragraph 19, the words from "but" to "period".'.

    No. 79, in page 52, line 44, at end insert—

    `1976 c. 74.

    Race Relations Act 1976.

    In section 54(2), the words "or to a complaint to which section 75(8) applies".'.

    —[Mr Soames.]

    Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 32 ordered to stand of the Bill.

  New clause 2
    POSTPONEMENT OF SENTENCES OF COURTS-MARTIAL
    `.—(1) After section 120 of the Army Act 1955 there shall be inserted the following section—

    Postponement of sentences
    120A.—(1) On passing any sentence a court-martial may order that the sentence shall not have effect until the end of the period specified in the order.
    (2) On reviewing a sentence under section 113 of this Act, the reviewing authority may—

    (a) if the sentence has not had effect, order that the sentence shall not have effect until the end of the period specified in the order;

    467

    (b) if the sentence has had effect, order that the sentence shall cease to have effect on the making of the order until the end of the period specified in the order.

    (3) On exercising any power under section 113AA of this Act to pass or substitute a sentence, the reviewing authority may order that the sentence shall not have effect until the end of the period specified in the order.
    (4) The Defence Council or any officer authorised by them may terminate the period specified in an order under this section or extend such a period for a further period specified by them.
    (5) On the termination of such a period the sentence in respect of which the order in question was made shall have effect or (in the case of an order under subsection (2)(b) above) resume effect.
    (6) Nothing in this section shall be taken to prevent section 118(1) of this Act from applying in relation to a military sentence of imprisonment or detention."
    (2) After section 120 of the Air Force Act 1955 there shall be inserted the following section—

    Postponement of sentences
    120A.—(1) On passing any sentence a court-martial may order that the sentence shall not have effect until the end of the period specified in the order.
    (2) On reviewing a sentence under section 113 of this Act, the reviewing authority may—

    (a) if the sentence has not had effect, order that the sentence shall not have effect until the end of the period specified in the order;

    (b) if the sentence has had effect, order that the sentence shall cease to have effect on the making of the order until the end of the period specified in the order.

    (3) On exercising any power under section 113AA of this Act to pass or substitute a sentence, the reviewing authority may order that the sentence shall not have effect until the end of the period specified in the order.
    (4) The Defence Council or any officer authorised by them may terminate the period specified in an order under this section or extend such a period for a further period specified by them.
    (5) On the termination of such a period the sentence in respect of which the order in question was made shall have effect or (in the case of an order under subsection (2)(b) above) resume effect.
    (6) Nothing in this section shall be taken to prevent section 118(1) of this Act from applying in relation to an air—force sentence of imprisonment or detention."
    (3) After section 89 of the 1957 Act there shall be inserted the following section—

    Postponement of sentences Postponement of sentences
    89A.—(1) On passing any sentence a court-martial may order that the sentence shall not have effect until the end of the period specified in the order.
    (2) On reviewing a sentence under section 70 of this Act, the reviewing authority may—

    (a) if the sentence has not had effect, order that the sentence shall not have effect until the end of the period specified in the order;

    (b) if the sentence has had effect, order that the sentence shall cease to have effect on the making of the order until the end of the period specified in the order.

    (3) On exercising any power under section 71 of this Act to pass or substitute a sentence, the reviewing authority may order that the sentence shall not have effect until the end of the period specified in the order.
    (4) The Defence Council or any officer authorised by them may terminate the period specified in an order under this section or extend such a period for a further period specified by them.
    (5) On the termination of such a period the sentence in respect of which the order in question was made shall have effect or (in the case of an order under subsection (2)(b) above) resume effect.
    (6) Nothing in this section shall be taken to prevent section 85(1) of this Act from applying in relation to a sentence of imprisonment or detention awarded under this Act." '.—[Mr. Soames.]
    Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

  New clause 6

    PARDON FOR GREAT WAR SOLDIERS
    '.—(1) Any person (an "eligible person") who in the Great War of 1914 to 1919—

    (a) served in the British Empire Forces,

    (b) was convicted by a court martial of one or more of the offences set out in subsection (2) below or any of these offences together with any other offences, and

    (c) was judicially executed following such conviction shall be eligible for a pardon in accordance with the provisions of this section in respect of any offence referred to in subsection (2) below.

    (2) The offences referred to in subsection (1) above are cowardice, desertion, attempted desertion, disobedience, quitting post, violence, sleeping at post, throwing away arms and striking a superior officer.
    (3) An eligible person shall be pardoned of any offence referred to in subsection (2) above if the Secretary of State makes an order to that effect in accordance with the provisions of this section.
    (4) Within one year of the passing of this Act the Secretary of State shall, in respect of each eligible person, either—

    (i) make an order under subsection (3) above; or

    (ii) lay a report before both Houses of Parliament explaining the reasons for his decision not to make such an order.

    (5) A pardon under this section shall—

    (a) have similar effect to a pardon granted in exercise of the Royal Prerogative,

    (b) be deemed to remove or, as the case may be, nullify any degradations and penalties imposed in connection with the relevant offences, and

    (c) not have any effect on any existing financial rights or obligations of any dependant or of the Secretary of State.

    (6) The power to make an order under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument, and a copy of any order so made shall be laid before each House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Mackinlay.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.)
    Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    The First Deputy Chairman (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will be convenient to discuss also amendment No. 82, in title, line 8, after 'forces', insert
    `to make provision for pardoning soldiers convicted of certain offences during the Great War of 1914 to 1919'.
    Mr. Mackinlay: My new clause would require the Secretary of State for Defence to issue pardons in respect of just over 300 soldiers of the British empire forces who

    469
    were executed in the first world war having been found guilty of offences ranging from cowardice, desertion, sleeping at their post, disobedience, throwing away arms and hitting a superior officer. I believe that pardons are long overdue, and it is my submission that that is the view of the overwhelming majority of the people of the United Kingdom.
    If my new clause were incorporated into the Bill, and the Secretary of State took a different view, he would be required to come to Parliament to demonstrate why he considered it inappropriate in each case to issue a pardon. I believe—I am confident about this—that, if there were to be an objective examination of the cases, in a matter of minutes people would conclude that a grave injustice had been done to those men all those years ago.
    Why do I say that? All 300 of those men were denied the right of natural justice. They were not given an opportunity to prepare a defence. In many cases, they did not have proper advocates, and none of them was given the opportunity to collect evidence, particularly medical evidence, in support of their defence. Above all, each and every one of those soldiers was denied the opportunity to appeal against the sentence of death. I believe that that is contrary to the rules of natural justice.
    For 75 years, it suited the British establishment to keep the documents of the field courts martial under lock and key. They were suppressed at the Public Record Office. When they became available for public inspection by scholars or relatives, it was obvious that there had been a travesty of justice. The British establishment acknowledges that things were bad, but argues that it is too late to provide a remedy. That is not good enough. The documents demand that, as a country, we recognise the terrible wrong done to those men. We need to put the record straight.
    The documents show that the decision to find those men guilty was perverse in many cases because there was documentation showing that many of them had been hospitalised because they had been sick and traumatised and were forcibly returned to the trenches.
    I am thinking particularly of Harry Farr of the West Yorkshire regiment. I had the privilege of meeting his widow, Gertie Batstone—she married again—in her 99th year. Throughout her long life, that wonderful woman sought recognition for her husband as a brave soldier: a volunteer who endured the trauma of the trenches not just for months but for two years or more. After being shelled, he simply could not go on. He was hospitalised, but was forced to return to the front, and when he was told to go forward, he broke away from his escorts trembling. The "trembling" is documented in the field court martial records. Despite that, that poor man and many like him had to face a firing squad at dawn.
    It is time we put the record straight. We spend millions of pounds every year teaching history to our schoolchildren and students, and we need to write that history with clarity and precision, including those s which are uncomfortable for us—this is one of them. We can write the history and put the record straight by granting pardons to those men.
    I have written to the Prime Minister about this on a number of occasions, and, with characteristic courtesy, he expressed sympathy, but declined to recommend to Her Majesty the Queen that there should be pardons or that
    470
    action should be taken in the House. I regret that. His argument was that it is a matter of history, and that we cannot apply our standards to those of 75 years ago.
    The principles of English law, that people should have a fair trial, be able to prepare a defence and be able to appeal against sentence, were not invented after 1918. They are the basic principles of English law since long before, and were denied to those men in our century.
    It is nonsense to say that it is merely a matter of history. I am not seeking pardons for soldiers executed in the Crimean or Napoleonic wars. These events occurred in our century. Every November, the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and many of us go to the Cenotaph and other war memorials to pay our respects to those who died in wars in this century.
    I hope that it will be taken in the correct spirit when I say that Her Majesty the Queen Mother still goes to the Cenotaph, and she is of this century. She mourns the death of many of her contemporaries, as well as her late brother who died in the first world war. As long as there are first world war veterans alive—there are still a few thousand—as well as their widows, and sons and daughters, it is relevant to us. It is not too late to provide a remedy.
    I appeal to the Secretary of State to reflect on this. Service men and women and those who have endured hardship and suffered from shell shock in subsequent conflicts share my view that it would be a matter of pride for our generation and the House if we were to conclude this matter by granting pardons. It might mean that we could draw a final line across a century that has been full of trauma and great distress. Some of those events were triggered in the summer of 1914 and, in some senses, are still with us today in s of central Europe—hopefully, they will conclude soon. It is time we recognised that we have the capacity and the duty to respect those men as brave British soldiers who did their best in the most difficult circumstances.
    Lord Moran, famous as the doctor of Winston Churchill—the Minister's grandfather—was a physician in the first world war. In his memoirs, he referred to the bank of courage that each man and woman has. He said that one draws on that bank of courage, and that eventually none is left. He said that the men who suffered combat stress had often demonstrated immense skill and courage and endured terrible hardships, including sleep deprivation and lack of food, and that eventually they could not go on.
    We must recognise that it is now appropriate for the Government and the House of Commons to say that those were brave British soldiers and should be recognised as such. Those who would have been their dependants require it, and, albeit late in the evening of their lives, their comrades in arms who still survive from the first world war will derive great satisfaction from knowing that at last the nation has exonerated their colleagues.
    A couple of weeks ago, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, who fought at Passchendaele, passed away. I greatly regret that he could not have been here tonight to hear me and the rest of the debate. I remember a relatively recent conversation with him in which he spoke about the horrors of Passchendaele, and said that he supported my campaign to have the pardons granted. He said that it went to the heart of his Christian belief in compassion and forgiveness, but at the word "forgiveness" he paused and added, "If forgiveness is appropriate." Those were brave

    471
    men who had done their best and who did nothing wrong. It is time that the Members of the House of Commons joined together in honouring them.
    I do not know whether it is true that Conservative Members may be subject to some kind of Whip, but I still hope that tonight they will feel that this is where we exercise our consciences, and that the Committee can act as a fulcrum and focal point for the nation's will—and I hope that they will support me in the Division Lobby.
    6.30 pm
    Mr. Wilkinson: We all admire the immense compassion of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) and greatly respect his motivation and the feeling with which he spoke. None of us can fully comprehend the horrors of service in the great war; it is deeply imprinted on the conscience of the nation.
    Nevertheless, I do not believe that the House of Commons can retroactively pass such a provision, however noble the motivation. Each generation of service men and women has to carry out its service of duty to the Crown according to the service Acts that appertain at the time. That is why we are debating the Armed Forces Bill today, to bring service discipline into line with contemporary morality and the ethos of the nation as a whole.
    How, in all equity, can we exonerate those men, many of whom were probably wrongly convicted, but some of whom may have been rightly convicted? How can we do that without a full appreciation of the circumstances—and without a full realisation that examples had to be made, and perhaps on occasion martyrs had to be made, to ensure the discipline and cohesion of whole units?
    How can we single out that group of service men for exoneration, when, through the generations and the centuries, many service men have been executed for apparent dereliction of duty? Sailors in Nelson's Navy were keel-hauled or whipped to death with cats-o'-nine-tails. That does not look very fine or appropriate today, according to our codes of discipline and behaviour, but it was necessary for Nelson's Navy, to secure the victories it won. If we remember the mutinies that took place in the French army in 1917, we may conclude that on occasion such measures may have been unpleasant necessities.
    I marvel that, in the circumstances, only 300 men had to be executed. So many will have been shell-shocked and traumatised beyond all rational behaviour, but according to the exigencies of the service of the day, their commanders had no choice if their units were to be effective and lives were to be saved. Much as I admire the motivation of the hon. Member for Thurrock, I urge the Committee not to accept his new clause.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: As one who has a personal connection with 1915 and Gallipoli—my grandfather was involved—I am extremely angry about the speech that we have just heard by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). There is a simple response to what he said about retrospection. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay)
    472
    mentioned Lord Houghton, and when the retrospection arguments were put to him, Lord Houghton said one thing: "I was at Passchendaele."
    Mr. Paul Flynn: Even according to the exigencies of the time, the decisions to kill those 300 men were savage. We are not talking about something that happened long ago in history. My father fought in that war, and it was a cruel and bitter experience that left him a broken man for the rest of his life. Two things that were available in great quantities during the first world war were alcohol and tobacco, and it is not insignificant that my father died of lung cancer at the age of 43.
    When we consider the 300 deaths, we know that other armies did not find it necessary to kill their own soldiers, and they had equally heroic war records. It is right that we in the Committee should try to do a little, even if it is only symbolic, to undo the terrible injustices that were committed in the name of the House and of the sovereign of the day. We should support my hon. Friend's new clause and do a little to absolve the House and our country of the guilt of those 300 deaths.
    Dr. Godman: We have heard a disgraceful speech by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). My late father, who was awarded the military medal for what was defined as "bravery in the field" on the western front in 1917, always deeply deplored the actions of the appallingly arrogant officers who sent deeply traumatised young men to their deaths. Let us all vote for the new clause.
    Mr. Tony Banks: I thought that the speech by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) was lacking in compassion, and I was quite surprised that he should have made such a speech. A few yards from here, there is an equestrian statue of Lord Haig, who was one of those who sent millions of young men to their deaths, often needlessly. Such people were honoured for what they did, yet they are the sort of people who should be arraigned before the High Court of Parliament, even today. Remembering what was done, the hon. Gentleman should show some compassion and support the new clause.
    Dr. Reid: I have sat through many defence debates, and have had many discussions with the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), and I have great respect for him and for his integrity, but he may come to regret what may have been loose phraseology in his speech today. We are talking about something that happened this century, not about Trafalgar in 1805. The idea that serving British soldiers should be shot "pour encourager les autres" is anathema to the British tradition, and it should stay that way.
    I recall that, in a small museum in the Falkland islands, I spoke to people who contrasted the relationship between the British officers and men who fought together in extremely difficult circumstances with the relationship between the Argentine officers and their men, who had suffered so much throughout the battle. Conscripts were forced into the freezing sea for 15 hours at a time in the sights of their commanding officers' guns "pour encourager les autres", and starved for days in foxholes while their officers had chocolate and brandy. If that was

    473
    ever the British way, surely it is not the British way now. We must remember what these people were going through.
    Mr. Julian Brazier: I have the highest respect for the hon. Gentleman, but will he place clearly on the record whether he believes that the picture that he paints of the Argentines in the Falklands can also be applied to the British officer corps during the first world war? If that is his view, there really is a profound divide across the Committee on this matter.
    Dr. Reid: It was not I who wrote the book "The Donkeys". It was a former member of the Government that the hon. Gentleman supported—indeed, a former Defence Minister. He wrote the book based on the perhaps trivial but penetrating quip that the soldiers in the British armed forces in the first world war were "lions led by donkeys". In one afternoon—before tea time—on the first day of the assault on the Somme, 50,000 British soldiers died. That is equivalent to the entire front line of our armed services today. Such killing went on day after day, month after month.
    Someone made mistakes, but that is not the issue. Mistakes are made in war, and I have the highest regard for the military traditions of the officer corps of the British armed forces. What my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) was speaking about with passion were not the mistakes that can be made even by the brightest general in the fog of war, but injustice.
    Injustice within living memory should not stay unremedied. Hon. Members, particularly those who support the armed forces, must realise that the bond that binds the United Kingdom as a nation is the contract between the present and the past. Dead those men may be, but the sons, the daughters and the grandchildren of those who received a medal in the first world war are still proud to display it. The stigma of an execution and the accusations levelled against a grandfather must be borne by the families of those who were executed.
    This is a piece of enabling legislation. It does not require us to pardon if we cannot do so. It obliges us, after three quarters of a century, to repay the debt of honour that this House surely owes to some of those men who fought and died—some, tragically, by the bullets of their own armed forces—to save this country. If we do not discharge that debt of honour now for the past, we can hardly demand it of our service men and women in the future.
    Mr. Soames: I am grateful to have the opportunity to respond to the points made in the debate. I recognise the strength of feeling that this issue raises in the House and with members of the public.
    It is impossible not to have the deepest sympathy for those men and their families. The war was fought in appalling conditions and many of those involved endured terrible suffering. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) made an important speech. His uncle fought at Gallipoli, was wounded seven times in the first world war, and was awarded the croix de guerre.
    One should not seek to encourage the introduction of a competitive aspect to the debate. Every family represented in the Committee will have had those who, in previous
    474
    generations, suffered the most appalling losses and gross tragedies. The Somme, Passchendaele and Vimy ridge all left a trail of destruction and sadness, that will never be obliterated from the history of this country.
    Between August 1914 and March 1919, more than 141,000 officers and soldiers were convicted by courts martial for a wide range of offences, of whom 346 were executed. The remainder received sentences ranging from life imprisonment and hard labour at one end of the spectrum, to fines and stoppages of pay at the other.
    The new clause does not seek to obtain pardons for all those executed, and I freely acknowledge that. It excludes the 40 service men sentenced to death for mutiny or murder. The vast majority of executions were for desertions, but soldiers were also sentenced for cowardice, quitting a post, disobedience, striking an officer, casting away arms and sleeping at a post. They included men drawn from Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, the West Indies, Nigeria, Egypt, the then Gold Coast and China.
    Of the 346 who suffered death, 91 were already under suspended sentences. Of those, 40 had been previously sentenced to death for desertion or other offences. One soldier had been sentenced to death on two previous occasions for desertion and, in nine cases, the accused were under two or more suspended sentences.
    I do not accept the view that these men were denied a fair trial in accordance with the rules of natural justice. There is sufficient information available to show that the courts martial were properly convened and conducted, and that the decisions of the courts were referred to a higher authority for confirmation in the correct way. There is no evidence that the convictions were unsound or that the accused soldiers were treated unfairly by the standards prevailing at the time. I know that the hon. Member for Thurrock understands that point.
    There are no grounds for considering a posthumous pardon where there is evidence to justify the court's findings of guilty and where the court had passed a sentence which was lawful and within its jurisdiction. It is not sufficient to argue that pardons should be granted merely on the grounds that those sentenced to death did not have their sentences mitigated or remitted. There was an alternative punishment to the death penalty, and a majority of those soldiers sentenced to death by courts martial during the period had their sentences commuted.
    6.45 pm
    Clearly there may well have been cases in which a modern court would not have convicted the accused soldier. Medical evidence as to the state of mind of the individual soldier—whether the offence was desertion, murder or mutiny—may be crucial in a modern court. That evidence is not available from the files, although I acknowledge the point made by the hon. Member for Thurrock about the book by Lord Moran and the "bank of courage". Lord Moran was the first doctor to recognise the very serious problems of stress and other disturbances in battle.
    I recognise that, with the passage of time, attitudes may change, but I am not convinced that legislation for pardons is the right way to reflect the fact that some people might now disagree with the laws and procedures in force at the time under different circumstances. The files of 89 per cent. of the cases where sentence of death

    475
    was commuted have not survived. This is unfortunate, since, in isolation, the comments of the confirming officers from divisional and corps commanders upwards to the commander-in-chief in the 11 per cent. of cases where sentence was confirmed, may appear to be harsh. Apart from the desire to set an example—not always spelt out in court martial records—it is clear that an important factor in confirmation was whether the actions of the accused were deliberate.
    The rules that applied during the first world war differ from those now governing the conduct of courts martial. However, these soldiers were convicted by a properly constituted court, according to the laws and procedures of the land, of an offence punishable by the imposition of the death penalty. That we do things differently today cannot alter that fact, uncomfortable as it might be for many of us, including the hon. Member for Thurrock. He has waged a good and honourable campaign for those men, and I know that he will not accept that.
    This is an issue that does not lend itself to easy solutions, and the debate tonight—although heated—has been restrained and dignified. Perhaps the initial reaction of many of us is to be sympathetic to the sensible campaign of the hon. Member for Thurrock. However, as I have sought to explain, his solution does not seem to the Government to be the most appropriate one, and I must, with regret, ask the Committee to reject the new clause.
    Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 129, Noes 203.

    Division No. 124]

    [6.48 pm

    AYES

    Alton, David

    Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

    Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Armstrong, Hilary

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

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Denham, John

    Barnes, Harry

    Dewar, Donald

    Battle, John

    Dixon, Don

    Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

    Dobson, Frank

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Dowd, Jim

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Etherington, Bill

    Betts, Clive

    Fatchett, Derek

    Boateng, Paul

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Fisher, Mark

    Bowden, Sir Andrew

    Flynn, Paul

    Bradley, Keith

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Foulkes, George

    Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

    Fraser, John

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Fyfe, Maria

    Burden, Richard

    Galloway, George

    Byers, Stephen

    Garrett, John

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    George, Bruce

    Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

    Gerrard, Neil

    Chidgey, David

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Godsiff, Roger

    Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Gordon, Mildred

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Coffey, Ann

    Harvey, Nick

    Cohen, Harry

    Henderson, Doug

    Corbett, Robin

    Heppell, John

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Corston, Jean

    Hoey, Kate

    Cousins, Jim

    Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

    Darling, Alistair

    Hoyle, Doug

    Davidson, Ian

    Ingram, Adam

    476

    Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

    Pope, Greg

    Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

    Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

    Janner, Greville

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Jowell, Tessa

    Raynsford, Nick

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

    Reid, Dr John

    Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)

    Rendel, David

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Ross, William (E Londonderry)

    Loyden, Eddie

    Salmond, Alex

    McFall, John

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Short, Clare

    Maclennan, Robert

    Simpson, Alan

    McMaster, Gordon

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    McNamara, Kevin

    Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

    Madden, Max

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Marek, Dr John

    Spearing, Nigel

    Martlew, Eric

    Spellar, John

    Maxton, John

    Straw, Jack

    Timms, Stephen

    Michael, Alun

    Turner, Dennis

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

    Tyler, Paul

    Milburn, Alan

    Vaz, Keith

    Miller, Andrew

    Wallace, James

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Wareing, Robert N

    Mullin, Chris

    Watson, Mike

    Murphy, Paul

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Wray, Jimmy

    O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

    Olner, Bill

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Pickthall, Colin

    Mr. Terry Lewis and

    Pike, Peter L

    Mr. Dennis Skinner.

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Couchman, James

    Alexander, Richard

    Cran, James

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

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

    Amess, David

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Arbuthnot, James

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Day, Stephen

    Ashdown, Fit Hon Paddy

    Dover, Den

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Duncan, Alan

    Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

    Dunn, Bob

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Bellingham, Henry

    Dykes, Hugh

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

    Booth, Hartley

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Boswell, Tim

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Bowis, John

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Evennett, David

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Faber, David

    Brazier, Julian

    Fabricant, Michael

    Bright, Sir Graham

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Forman, Nigel

    Burns, Simon

    Forth, Eric

    Burt, Alistair

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

    French, Douglas

    Carrington, Matthew

    Gale, Roger

    Carttiss, Michael

    Garnier, Edward

    Cash, William

    Gill, Christopher

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Chapman, Sir Sydney

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Clappison, James

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Coe, Sebastian

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Colvin, Michael

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

    Congdon, David

    Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Harris, David

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Haselhurst, Sir Alan

    477

    Hawkins, Nick

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Hawksley, Warren

    Rathbone, Tim

    Heald, Oliver

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Richards, Rod

    Hendry, Charles

    Riddtek, Graham

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

    Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

    Horam, John

    Robathan, Andrew

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Sackville, Tom

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

    Jack, Michael

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

    Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

    Shersby, Sir Michael

    Key, Robert

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Soames, Nicholas

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Knapman, Roger

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

    Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Stephen, Michael

    Legg, Barry

    Streeter, Gary

    Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

    Sweeney, Walter

    Lidington, David

    Sykes, John

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Lord, Michael

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Luff, Peter

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    MacKay, Andrew

    Thomason, Roy

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Madel, Sir David

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Malone, Gerald

    Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

    Mans, Keith

    Tredinnick, David

    Marlow, Tony

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Viggers, Peter

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Mates, Michael

    Walden, George

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Waller, Gary

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Ward, John

    Merchant, Piers

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Mills, Iain

    Watts, John

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Wells, Bowen

    Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

    Whitney, Ray

    Nelson, Anthony

    Whittingdale, John

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Wilkinson, John

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Willetts, David

    Norris, Steve

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

    Ottaway, Richard

    Wolfson, Mark

    Page, Richard

    Wood, Timothy

    Paice, James

    Yeo, Tim

    Patnick, Sir Irvine

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Pawsey, James

    Mr. Derek Conway and Mr. Patrick McLoughlin.

    Pickles, Eric

    Question accourdingly negatived.

  New clause 7

    PERSONS SUBJECT TO MILITARY LAW: GIBRALTAR
    ', After section 207 of the Army Act 1995 there shall be insered the following section—
    "(1) Without prejudice to the generality of section 207 above, any person who is subject to military law by virtue of section 205(1)(a) to (j) of this Act and who is, whether temporarily or not, attached to the Gibraltar Regiment, shall for the duration of that attachment be subject to the discipline of the Commanding Officer of that Regiment.
    (2) In this section, 'The Gibraltar Regiment' means the Regiment raised under the law of Gibraltar".'.—[Mr. Colvin.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    7 pm
    Mr. Michael Colvin: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    After the seriousness and the passion of the previous debate, hon. Members may feel that the matter to which new clause 7 refers is of little consequence. However, it is important to hon. Members who take an interest in Gibraltar and to the people of the Rock and it must be resolved. The issue relates to the powers of command of officers in the Gibraltar Regiment—specifically, their powers to discipline British soldiers who are on secondment to the Gibraltar Regiment.
    I shall be brief, as I know that many hon. Members wish to speak to the next new clause. I think that it is important to give the House some background information about the Gibraltar Regiment which, following the rundown of British troops stationed in Gibraltar, is now the only resident battalion on the Rock. Its primary role is to oversee the security of the territory and its military installations, but it also has administrative responsibilities and ceremonial duties.
    The regiment has its roots in the Gibraltar volunteer corps of the first world war, which was spontaneously formed by the people of Gibraltar. It developed directly from the Gibraltar defence force—a territorial unit of volunteers, which was raised in April 1939. The unit later trained national service men and became the Gibraltar Regiment, with its own commanding officer, in 1958.
    The Gibraltar Regiment appears in the Army List as an integral part of the British Army. It is funded and trained by the Ministry of Defence to the same standard as any British infantry regiment. Its officers hold Governor's commissions and are trained on a par with United Kingdom officers who hold Queen's commissions. A number of the officers have served, and continue to serve, in attachments to United Kingdom regiments and at Army headquarters. Some served recently with North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and United Nations forces in the former Yugoslavia.
    Inspecting officers consider the training, standard and efficiency of the Gibraltar Regiment to be as high as equivalent United Kingdom regiments. That is also the view of the Defence Committee, which visited the Rock recently, and Ministers who have inspected the force. The regiment conducts training in the United Kingdom every year and during that time United Kingdom regiments take over its duties in Gibraltar.
    Ever since the Gibraltar defence force was raised in 1939, soldiers from United Kingdom regiments and corps have been seconded or attached to the unit. However, in 1990 it was discovered that the commanding officer of the Gibraltar Regiment has no powers of command over personnel from United Kingdom regiments or corps who are attached or seconded to that regiment. The present position is resented and I believe that it is prejudicial to good military discipline. For example, a warrant officer who was attached to the Gibraltar Regiment was returned to the United Kingdom because it was not possible to discipline him in Gibraltar.
    The anomaly has been patched up by appointing, in parallel with the commanding officer of the Gibraltar Regiment, an officer of the United Kingdom forces who

    479
    is attached to the regiment or who serves in British forces headquarters. He acts as commanding officer for disciplinary purposes for United Kingdom soldiers who are attached to the regiment. That highly unsatisfactory stop-gap arrangement belittles the position of the regiment's commanding officer as it divides his command into two categories of soldiers: those over whom he can exercise full authority and those over whom he has no disciplinary powers. Notwithstanding that fact, the two categories are equally subject to the Army Act 1955. Obviously, it is not a sound way of exercising command in any British regiment.
    The Defence Committee visited the Rock last October, when the matter was drawn to our attention not only by the Gibraltar Regiment but by the commander of British forces and by the Speaker of the House of Assembly, the Hon. Colonel Bob Peliza, who is the honorary colonel of the Gibraltar Regiment. I wrote to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, drawing his attention to the fact that the commanding officer of the Gibraltar Regiment does not have that power of command and that any British officer who is seconded to it cannot be disciplined by that regiment and must be either dealt with by the commander of British forces in Gibraltar or flown back to the United Kingdom for disciplinary action.
    My hon. Friend replied to my letter, as did the Secretary of State for Defence, who acknowledged the existing anomaly. I wish to put on record my hon. Friend's response:
    "As you say, the Commanding Officer of the Gibraltar Regiment at present has no formal disciplinary powers over a soldier of the British Army seconded to it. The MOD's legal advisers are in the process of determining the most efficient legislative means to rectify this situation. I can assure you that this is proceeding as a matter of priority but the case of the Gibraltar Regiment is inextricably linked to wider legal questions concerning powers of command. These are complex issues of considerable importance which are likely to take some time to resolve."
    The letter is dated 30 November last year. The issue has been outstanding since 1990 and, although it may be linked inextricably to other questions, the learned legal advisers should by now have found some legal formula to resolve the problem. If it is not resolved in this legislation, it will probably be five years before it is considered again. That is a good reason for setting the ball rolling this evening with new clause 7.
    If the substance of the new clause is accepted, it will end an anomaly that has been detrimental to good order and military discipline in a regiment of Her Majesty's forces for five years. If we do nothing, it will continue to have that effect for another five years. I believe that we have a responsibility to put the matter right once and for all. That is the wish of the Army commanders who are directly responsible for the discipline and the proficiency of the Gibraltar Regiment, such as the commander of the British forces in Gibraltar and the director of infantry. Incidentally, it is also the view of Army Legal Services, which has urged action on that essentially purely legal technicality for five years.
    My hon. Friend the Minister is a man of honour and I know that he will keep his word. He has said that he is dealing with the problem as a matter of urgency and I trust that this evening he will either support the new clause or
    480
    give a firm undertaking that the Government will bring forward their own amendments in another place to address that long-standing difficulty.
    Mr. Soames: I am grateful for the chance to reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) and for our exchange of correspondence. I hope that he accepts that I replied in good faith, and I am happy to elaborate on my comments now.
    The new clause seeks to place members of the United Kingdom forces who are attached to the Gibraltar Regiment under the command of the regiment's commanding officer for disciplinary purposes. That may seem logical at first sight, but to accept the new clause would run counter to the established practice of not allowing non-United Kingdom officers to have disciplinary powers over British troops—I know that my hon. Friend understands that definition.
    I should explain that the commanding officer of the Gibraltar Regiment could be either a British officer or an officer of the regiment. In the latter case, the commanding officer would hold a Governor's commission rather than a Queen's commission. The current practice is that when the commanding officer is a member of the United Kingdom Regular forces, he has command over members of the UK Regular forces who are attached to the regiment, as well as over members of the colonial force. However, when the commanding officer is a member of the colonial force, disciplinary command over UK Regular Army personnel is vested in an officer on the staff of the headquarters in Gibraltar who holds a Regular Army land forces commission.
    We want that practice to continue so that members of the UK Regular forces are under the disciplinary control of other members of the Regular forces, which will prevent them from potentially facing trial by a court martial composed of members of the colonial force or facing summary disposal by a person who is not a holder of the Queen's commission.
    In acknowledging the espousal by my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside of an issue that I know is dear to many people in Gibraltar, I am bound to tell him, I am afraid, that his new clause is unacceptable to the Government. However, the Government are actively considering the wider question of the status of the Gibraltar Regiment. If, as a result of that consideration, it is decided to alter that status and to make the regiment part of the UK Regular forces, disciplinary matters such as the issue that prompted my hon. Friend's new clause will fall into line.
    I hope that my hon. Friend will be persuaded to withdraw his new clause. If not, I must ask the Committee to reject it.
    Mr. Colvin: In the light of what my hon. Friend the Minister said, which has opened up a completely fresh debate about the future status of the Gibraltar Regiment, which I trust that the House will not embark on today, I shall withdraw the motion.
    I ask my hon. Friend to proceed with caution down the path that he has embarked upon and to engage in the widest possible consultation—not only in Gibraltar, but in this country—about the possible changed status of the Gibraltar Regiment. I do not think that such changes

    481
    should be embarked upon without full consultation and without taking into account the views of the people of Gibraltar.
    I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
    Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

  New clause 1
    SEXUAL CONDUCT TO PREJUDICE OF GOOD ORDER AND DISCIPLINE
    '.—(1) After section 69 of each of the 1955 Acts and after section 39 of the 1957 Act there shall be inserted the following section—

    Sexual conduct to prejudice of good order and discipline
    . (1) Sexual conduct, whether heterosexual or homosexual, shall not constitute an offence under any provision of this Act unless that conduct—

    (a) is prejudicial, or may be prejudicial, to good order and discipline; or

    (b) undermines, or tends to undermine, command relationships; or

    (c) involves the use of rank or position to obtain sexual favours or to coerce or encourage another person or persons to take part in sexual activity; or

    (d) constitutes a civil offence.

    (2) No person who is subject to military law shall be subject to any investigation, disciplinary proceedings or discharge solely on the ground of his or her sexual orientation, whether that person has a heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual or lesbian orientation.".
    (2) The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 is amended as follows—

    (a) In section 146 (extension of Sexual Offences Act 1967 to the armed forces and merchant navy) subsection (4) is repealed; and

    (b) In section 147 (homosexuality on merchant ships and in the armed forces: Northern Ireland) subsection (3) is
    repealed.'.

    . (1) Sexual conduct, whether heterosexual or homosexual, shall not constitute an offence under any provision of this Act unless that conduct—

    (a) is prejudicial, or may be prejudicial, to good order and discipline; or

    (b) undermines, or tends to undermine, command relationships; or

    (c) involves the use of rank or position to obtain sexual favours or to coerce or encourage another person or persons to take part in sexual activity; or

    (d) constitutes a civil offence.

    (2) No person who is subject to military law shall be subject to any investigation, disciplinary proceedings or discharge solely on the ground of his or her sexual orientation, whether that person has a heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual or lesbian orientation.".
    (2) The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 is amended as follows—

    (a) In section 146 (extension of Sexual Offences Act 1967 to the armed forces and merchant navy) subsection (4) is repealed; and

    (b) In section 147 (homosexuality on merchant ships and in the armed forces: Northern Ireland) subsection (3) is repealed.'—[Mrs. Currie.]

    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mrs. Edwina Currie: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    482
    A few moments ago, the House was expressing its concern about dead soldiers. Now it is time to express our concern about the welfare of living soldiers, men and women who are serving in the armed forces right now. New clause 1 has two main elements. Part of the new clause spells out a proposed new code of conduct. It would apply to all inappropriate sexual behaviour, whether heterosexual or homosexual. It would protect women as well as men. It would protect young people, and it would protect those in junior ranks who might be at risk of sexual harassment. It would make it clear to heterosexuals as well as to lesbians and to gay men that no inappropriate behaviour would be tolerated.
    The other part of the proposed new clause provides that the armed forces shall not discriminate on the ground of sexual orientation. The supporters of the new clause want to make it absolutely clear that we disapprove profoundly of irresponsible behaviour—by whomever, and whatever their sexual orientation might be. We would prefer to see each case dealt with on its merits or demerits, on the details of the case as presented.
    The ban against homosexuals is the only blanket ban that the armed forces currently operate. Heterosexual misconduct, drug taking, alcoholism, bullying and even serious criminal convictions in the civil courts are treated as discretionary disciplinary matters. It is our view, therefore, that the blanket ban is based on prejudice, pure and simple, and as such it is offensive, impractical and expensive.
    7.15 pm
    All discrimination is inefficient—which is one reason why I, as a Conservative, object to it. But this discrimination, in particular, costs the taxpayer a great deal of money. It has been worked out that each investigation takes approximately 30 working days, and longer in the case of officers. The costs of basic training, including salary and administration, have been estimated at £30,000, and training costs for officers who are dismissed are substantially higher. Specialised training costs are, of course, much higher. Recently, for example, four Nimrod pilots and navigators were discharged, and the cost of replacing them must be absolutely astronomical. Hundreds of trained men and women are discharged, yet we are told that the MOD is short of money.
    What type of people are being discharged under the ban? They are hardly ruffians or criminals. They are, in fact, the type of serving men and women we should be very proud to have in our armed forces. Let us consider the cases of several people who are currently taking the MOD to the European Court of Human Rights.
    Lieutenant Commander Duncan Lustig-Prean enlisted in 1983 and was discharged in 1994. The officer's report on him, from Commander Mussey, of 31 December 1993 stated that he was
    "A most able, conscientious and industrious officer. His engaging and warm personality allows him to communicate effectively at all levels … Resourceful, versatile and perceptive, he is a most effective manager and organiser … his magnanimous and conciliatory nature fosters genuine trust and support … has great all round potential. He is an outstanding prospect for early promotion to Commander."
    The word "trust" features in that.
    Jeanette Smith, a senior aircraftwoman and nurse, is from Derbyshire. She enlisted in 1989 and was discharged in 1994. Her discharge report said:

    483
    "SAC Smith has an above average understanding of trade knowledge … There is no evidence to suggest misconduct, corruption, blatant or promiscuous activities or unnatural behaviour on service establishments",
    yet that qualified nurse was dismissed.
    John Beckett, from the Royal Navy, was a weapons engineer mechanic serving on HMS Collingwood. He enlisted for 22 years in 1989 and was discharged in September 1993. Sir Michael Layard, Second Sea Lord, Chief of Naval Personnel, said of him:
    "We accept that he was a loyal and patriotic man and that he has not committed a civilian or naval disciplinary offence."
    Sergeant Graeme Grady, of the Royal Air Force, enlisted in 1980 and was discharged in 1984. His squadron leader, Squadron Leader McDevitt, stated:
    "Sergeant Grady … has been a loyal serviceman and a conscientious and hardworking tradesman who could be relied on to achieve the highest standards. He has displayed sound personal qualities and integrity throughout his service and has enjoyed the respect of superiors, peers and subordinates alike."
    He was
    "recommended to any future employer",
    but not to the armed services.
    Other countries regard this type of ban as completely unnecessary and find it perfectly feasible to employ gays and lesbians. Among the NATO countries that have no ban are Canada; France, which has not had a ban for more than 200 years; Norway; Denmark; the Netherlands, which has had no ban for more than 20 years; Belgium; Spain; and Germany, which has no such ban on conscripts. Israel removed the ban in 1982. The Australians have a strict code on sexual behaviour, which is what I am proposing, but it has no ban. The Swiss have no such ban, nor has New Zealand. On this issue, we stand shoulder to shoulder with Turkey.
    Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Is the hon. Lady aware that, today, I had a conversation with an Israeli reserve service man who told me that, not only is there no ban on gay or lesbian people in the Israeli army, but that a known Israeli homosexual was promoted as an officer? He has died, and the Israeli army is now considering whether it should award a pension to his male partner.
    Mrs. Currie: The point is also well made that, whether with other NATO or United Nations personnel, there is absolutely no doubt that British troops have now served alongside gay service members from many other countries in many theatres of war without any problems arising. We also do not regard it as a matter of concern in other parts of the civilian services. There is no such ban in the police, and there is no such ban in the fire service.
    If I am to be told—as no doubt I will be by my hon. Friend the Minister—that it is a matter of people being in close proximity to each other, I should remind him that we removed the ban for merchant seamen, and that we also removed the ban on gays serving in the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. There have been no ill consequences of that. In fact, I think that it is probably now true to say that it is not only nice girls who love a sailor.
    Mr. Brazier: My hon. Friend has not said how she feels about the overwhelming majority of serving
    484
    personnel who do not want to have homosexuals in the military. [Interruption.] The German professional forces are the only major organisation in the European countries that she mentioned that has to recruit people rather than having conscripts, and they have the same ban as we do.
    Mrs. Currie: I was going to come to that. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising it.
    It seems to me that the reaction of the Ministry of Defence has been rather curious. As part of its approach, it commissioned a survey, a copy of which is in the Library. It seems bizarre that the MOD should commission a survey among soldiers. Its results were predictable. One might, indeed, have stuck the notice up on the mess board saying, "No gays wanted here", which is a paraphrase of what my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) has just said.
    I venture to suggest that a similar outcome might have occurred if, for example, we had asked the Guards whether they wanted blacks serving with them. I believe that my hon. Friend the Minister was a sub-lieutenant for three years in the 11th Hussars. Given the amount of wise-cracking that he has been indulging in this evening, perhaps one should dub him the gay Hussar, but there we are.
    The Ministry of Defence did not ask soldiers whether women should serve in the armed forces as equals. I believe that if it had done so, it would have received much the same sort of response. But we did not invite the views of serving service men and women on whether females should be allowed to serve as equals. We told them that women would make good truck drivers, navigation officers and pay clerks. We tackled the issues of discipline and good order—more or less successfully, I believe.
    The point is that we did not pander to prejudice on that issue. We did not encourage the enunciation of prejudice. We ensured that the armed forces obeyed the new rules and adapted to changed circumstances. We did so because we felt that the armed forces had no choice. But on gays, the Ministry of Defence has a choice. How much more impressive it would be if that choice were exercised with tolerance and dignity.
    We have made some progress. Until a couple of years ago, the very fact of being a homosexual was a criminal offence in the armed forces. Yet the improvement is slight. What bothers me is the continued harassment and hounding of officers and ranks. It is official hounding and it appears to be encouraged the moment sexual orientation becomes suspect. In December 1995—a matter of only a few weeks ago—a former Royal Marine was approached in a gay pub in Torquay by a man who later invited him home. Upon leaving the bar, the man produced a Royal Marine military police warrant card and tried to arrest the person. He obviously did not know that the chap had left the Royal Marines some three years earlier, so no action could be taken.
    Between September and November 1995, near Aldershot, a member of Rank Outsiders—the campaigning organisation—working on a gay men's health project observed frequent visits to a known cruising area by two men whom he knew were members of the Army special investigation branch. He knew that because they had conducted his investigation some time previously. During the visits he observed the SIB men making approaches to men who were of service appearance and attempting to pick them up.

    485
    So we have official agents provocateurs in the armed forces. Not only that, but we are spending quite a lot of money on surveillance. Portsmouth Royal Naval SIB put up a camera observation point in a building opposite Drummonds public house, a known gay bar. Former Able Seaman Brett Burnell was investigated after being photographed entering the pub by the SIB. He was shown the photos and has been discharged.
    In 1995, four RAF officers who had been anonymously informed on were subjected to an intensive six-week operation by 12 members of the RAF SIB. The Ministry of Defence is supposed to be short of money, yet it had 12 senior officers of the RAF SIB spend six weeks watching four RAF officers. The evidence clearly shows that they were routinely followed throughout that period. They were informed by their commanding officers on discharge that the evidence from that operation was the justification for discharge.
    I have always disapproved of civilian police spending their time taking pictures of public toilets, trying to catch the poor souls who get involved cottaging, because I think that the police ought to be catching real criminals. I take exactly the same view of the military special investigation branches. Surely they have some real cases that they ought to be chasing, and should not be chasing the people whom I have just described.
    I have very little to add, except that in the 1990s homosexual men and women have seen attitudes to them change. Attitudes have become more liberal and less harsh in many fields. Homosexuals have been enabled to live with less fear and instead to play their part as ordinary tax-paying citizens, minding their own business like everyone else—but not yet in the armed forces. That is to their disadvantage, the forces' detriment and our country's shame.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: I and my colleagues will have a free vote on this issue, but as the spokesman for my party on defence issues, I have signed new clause 1 and I have made a strong recommendation to my right hon. and hon. Friends that they should vote for it.
    The issue was considered by the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill. I hope that I will not be thought to do an injustice to the Committee if I say that there is nothing very new in its analysis, as reported in its proceedings. Perhaps that is inevitable, because the ground that we are considering is well traversed. The only correct way to approach such an issue is on the basis of principle. I believe firmly as a matter of principle that there should be no discrimination against any person by virtue of race, colour or sexual orientation. In my judgment the issue is firmly rooted in the civil rights of every United Kingdom citizen.
    Before we deny any citizen his or her civil rights, there must be overwhelming evidence to justify such a course of action. We deny the civil rights of terrorists because their conduct goes to the very existence of the state. Only in those extreme circumstances is it justified to detract from the civil rights of any individual. It is my judgment that that standard of evidence has not been shown in the circumstances that we are here considering.
    The hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs. Currie) moved the new clause with great skill and sincerity. She has been notable for her courage in adopting the matter in circumstances which have not always made her entirely
    486
    persona grata within her party. She mentioned the position in other armed forces. The Defence Select Committee has just returned from a three-day visit to Bosnia. We visited several units which are deployed there under the allied rapid reaction corps, of which the United Kingdom has overall command. Virtually all the countries that the hon. Lady mentioned are represented in that NATO deployment.
    I did not hear a single British soldier say to me that the Dutch were less effective than the British because they had a different policy on homosexuality in the armed services. I did not hear it suggested that the contribution made by those who had gone to Bosnia from other NATO countries was diminished because those countries had a different policy from that of the United Kingdom.
    The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) referred in an intervention to the attitude within our services. It is almost inevitably conditioned by the fact that the ban exists. The views of people in the services are conditioned by the ban.
    If one feature of the ban should surely be offensive to all of us, it is the means of enforcing it. The hon. Member for South Derbyshire gave us some eloquent examples. Let us consider the nature of the investigations. They are degrading for those who are the subject of them and, I suspect, pretty degrading for those who have to carry them out. That type of investigation, and the use of agents provocateurs, would be outlawed in a civilian court. It would not be feasible to admit evidence obtained in that way. That is a feature of the matter that ought to be offensive to everyone in the House.
    As the hon. Lady said, new clause 1 sets out the principle of no discrimination, but it also sets out other principles in plain language perhaps for the first time in legislation on service discipline. What are those other principles? Sexual conduct of any kind that prejudices good order and discipline is unacceptable and is an offence, as is sexual conduct of any kind which undermines the command relationship and the use of rank or position to obtain sexual favours. Those principles stand robustly behind the principle of non-discrimination at the centre of the new clause.
    It would be much better for us to make a measured, sensible decision to change the policy rather than to be forced into it by the inevitable and ultimate judgment of the European Court of Human Rights.
    7.30 pm
    Mr. Michael Brown: I shall follow the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs. Currie) and the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) by focusing on the last sentence of the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech.
    First, I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for the fairness and courtesy with which he has received my representations on behalf of Rank Outsiders during the past year. However, I believe that he will invite the House to reject the new clause by praying in aid the following recommendation by the Select Committee:
    "We do not recommend any change in the current policy."
    That recommendation was based primarily on the report that was commissioned by the MOD last year and that found that the armed forces did not want openly gay people to serve in the forces.

    487
    As the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said from a sedentary position in answer to the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) in the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire, had we adopted that attitude some 20 or 30 years ago in regard to black people and invited all the ranks to express a view on whether they wanted to shower with black people, the answer would have been exactly the same.
    Prejudice is prejudice, whether it is racial or sexual, and prejudice is wrong. It must be outlawed. My hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire and I do not always see eye to eye on matters relating to Europe. Today is Europe day, so it is an appropriate time for my hon. Friend to have introduced her new clause.
    I want the House of Commons always to be the place where discrimination and prejudice are outlawed, but I should also refer to a point that was mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East. Earlier this year, when four former members of the armed forces took their cases to the Court of Appeal, the Master of the Rolls said that it was likely that the blanket ban would be held to be in breach of article 8 of the European Convention. It is also possible that the European equal treatment directive will apply if those four ex-service men and women are successful in either of the relevant European institutions.
    I want the House to imagine we are debating the same issue in 1998 or 1999. I am sure that the Conservative party will be embarking on an historic fifth term. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will have decided that, after nearly a decade as Prime Minister, it is time to become the Earl of Huntingdon. Perhaps, with the unanimous support of all my right hon. and hon. Friends, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, who I regret is unable to be here today, will have become Prime Minister. Perhaps he will ask himself, "Who made such an excellent job of my dirty work during the debate in May 1996?", and promote my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces to the post of Secretary of State for Defence.
    My fear is that in 1998 or 1999, whoever is Prime Minister, and whoever is Secretary of State, the Government—a Conservative Government or a Labour Government—will have a ruling against them from the European Court of Human Rights.
    I remember the hapless late Lord Joseph coming to the House in 1985 to introduce legislation to outlaw corporal punishment in our schools. It was not a pretty sight. Most of my hon. Friends were thoroughly annoyed and angry by the introduction of such a measure. My late noble Friend said that he was very sorry and that he did not particularly want to introduce such legislation, but that he was required to do so because of a ruling against the United Kingdom by the European Court of Human Rights.
    As I said earlier, I believe that the House of Commons should be the place to which those who suffer injustice and prejudice should come, but although I am a Euro-sceptic, I cannot blame those who cannot obtain justice from the House for exercising their right to go to the European Court and using the European convention.
    I believe that one day—probably only two or three years hence—my hon. Friend the Minister or an Opposition Member in his post will be required to
    488
    introduce legislation and there will not be a free vote. If we are still in power and my hon. Friend has been promoted to Secretary of State, he will be required to stand at the Dispatch Box and present a Bill. All my hon. Friends whose views differ from mine will be very angry that they will not have a free vote, as they were in 1985 when the late Lord Joseph was required to introduce the measure to which I referred.
    It is inevitable that this ban will be outlawed—if not by the House of Commons, certainly by the European Court and probably by the European Court of Human Rights—and a Minister of the Crown will have to come to the House under duress to overturn it. I do not like to see Ministers under duress from outside organisations. I want them to right injustices because those injustices are patently wrong.
    We understand that 300 to 400 service men and women have been discharged from the forces during the past three or four years. How many hundreds of service men and women who the special investigations branch have not yet found or have not yet been grassed up are quietly going about their daily business serving their country? They fought in the Gulf war and they serve all over the world, risking their lives for our country. Tonight there are gay people in the armed forces who have not yet been grassed up by the special investigations branch. If he cannot do so tonight, I believe that one day my hon. Friend the Minister will have to do something about this gross injustice. Nevertheless, I pay tribute to him for the manner in which he has always received the delegations that I have led on behalf of Rank Outsiders.
    Mr. Kevin McNamara: I shall not detain the House for long. It is more than a decade since, on behalf of the Labour party, I proposed the decriminalisation of homosexuality in the armed forces. I am only sorry we do not have a more powerful Whip on that today.
    The reason why I reached that conclusion and recommended that course of action to my right hon. and hon. Friends was twofold. First, it was basically wrong that two individuals could be engaged in a sexual act that would be completely legal for one person, but for another it would be a disciplinary fault for which he would be dismissed from the armed forces. That seemed basically wrong in practice and in principle.
    Secondly, I remembered the background to the Calcutt inquiry and its overtones of homosexuality, heterosexuality and blackmail. There could be nothing worse than for members of the armed forces to risk their careers, and perhaps through fear of blackmail, put their country at risk for doing something which, under proper circumstances, was accepted in civilian life. It seems wrong to put our service people in that position.
    At the time, during the cold war, the pressures to which members of the armed forces—in that case it was in Cyprus, but also elsewhere—were subjected because of their sexual orientation and particular way of displaying it seemed very wrong. Those two reasons seemed compelling then, and they remain compelling. I urge my hon. Friends to consider the incongruity of the fact that one person can be disciplined and lose his job for engaging in an activity with another person for whom it is perfectly legal, and the dangers and pressures under which members of our armed forces could be put.
    Mr. Wilkinson: This is probably the most important debate on the Bill. We must not be in any sense

    489
    censorious—that is the last thing we want—but must seriously consider the evidence. Five years ago, I had the great privilege of chairing a Special Standing Committee on an armed forces Bill. It is an enormous merit of that procedure that hon. Members can take evidence from interested parties. On this occasion, the Committee reached in essence exactly the same conclusion that we did five years ago, when we recommended decriminalisation of homosexual behaviour in the armed forces—which the Government implemented.
    We recommended also that homosexual behaviour was not compatible with remaining in the armed forces, because members of them did not want any change. After all, they are the best judges of the appropriate values for the organisations in which they serve. Those values may not seem to us identical to those that we normally share, but the profession of arms is a calling distinct from civilian life. Although those values may appear a bit traditional, for those who serve in the armed forces they are greatly appreciated. They are appreciated also by parents who are perhaps encouraging their children's aspiration to enter the armed services. If parents felt that the forces condoned homosexuality, a large number of them would do their best to resist the recruitment of their children.
    Mrs. Currie: That is prejudice.
    Mr. Wilkinson: My hon. Friend may say that, but I speak of the sort of family values that are held by most people in this country—and which the armed forces are called upon to defend, if necessary, with their lives. We ought to be chary before seeking to impose on the armed forces values that they do not want.
    Mrs. Currie: It does not look as though my two daughters plan to enter the armed forces, but if they were to do so, I would be obliged to warn them that they were more likely to be killed or seriously injured than be the subject of homosexual attack.
    Mr. Wilkinson: As my hon. Friend admitted, that is a purely hypothetical situation in respect of her children. I will not make my argument so subjective but will specifically address my hon. Friend's proposed new clause. Subsection (1) states:
    "Sexual conduct, whether heterosexual or homosexual, shall not constitute an offence under any provision of this Act unless that conduct—

    (a) is prejudicial, or may be prejudicial, to good order and discipline".

    Members of the armed forces believe that homosexuality—because of its nature, the intensity of the emotions involved, and the risk of blackmail and of undue influence—is prejudicial to good order and discipline, particularly in the close confines required of service in the field, remote stations or on ships at sea.
    Subsection (1)(b) of new clause 1 states that homosexuality shall not be an offence unless it
    "undermines, or tends to undermine, command relationships".
    Again, that is true where there is favouritism—particularly of a sexual kind. That form of bonding can impair the necessary discipline and mutuality of respect inherent in the command relationship.
    490
    Subsection (1)(c) provides for an offence where the conduct
    "involves the use of rank or position to obtain sexual favours".
    The armed forces have gradations of rank that may seem strange to my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs. Currie), but they are a necessary function of the command system. Almost inevitably with differences in age, there will be differences of rank. As there are bound to be such differences, there are also bound to be problems if homosexuality in the armed forces is condoned.
    Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Has the hon. Gentleman never heard of a man in a senior position using his seniority to make unwanted sexual advances to a woman of junior rank, in civilian or Army life? The logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument is that there should be no women in the armed forces either.
    7.45 pm
    Mr. Wilkinson: I shall not follow the hon. Lady's intervention. Suffice it to say that differences of responsibility of rank accentuate the potential mutuality of attraction or the influence that one person may have over another. A homosexual dimension is a complication that the armed services can do without.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Wilkinson: I want to draw my remarks to a conclusion.
    Many speakers in the debate cited the practices of the armed services of other countries. They are welcome to run their armed forces as they run their other institutions—according to traditions, values, history and patterns of behaviour that appear to them to be right and normal. The British armed services are essentially Regular forces because, except in times of emergency or war, we do not usually go in for conscription. We are selective and have particular standards and values, which do not include condoning homosexual behaviour. It may be that the matter will eventually go to the European Court of Justice and that the equal opportunities directive may be invoked, to seek to impose on the United Kingdom's armed forces a pattern of values with which the majority of service men are not happy.
    My hon. Friend the Minister may recall an Adjournment debate in which I moved against the Ministry of Defence decision to grant compensation retrospectively to ex-service women required to leave the armed forces on the ground of pregnancy and thereby retrospectively gain huge sums in compensation. The MOD's decision to cede the principle has already cost the British taxpayer more than £50 million.
    Mr. Stephen Day: Disgraceful.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Just as my hon. Friend says.
    It is also wrong for the European Court of Justice to arrogate unto itself an intrusive right, because, under the treaty of union signed in Maastricht, defence remains a national responsibility—so manpower policies within the armed forces, including disciplinary provisions, should

    491
    rest with member states. I hope that—in the unfortunate eventuality the ECJ is called on to adjudicate—the Government will resist—
    Mr. Michael Brown: My hon. Friend means the European Court of Human Rights.
    Mr. Wilkinson: I am talking about a decision based on the equal opportunities directive. I am not talking about a potential decision of European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, because we are a signatory to the convention, so I am excluding that court from my arguments. I am specifically addressing my arguments to the ECJ. If there were an adverse decision by the ECJ, I hope that the Government would refuse it because otherwise we would open a floodgate to retrospective compensation claims at great cost to the British taxpayer.
    The majority of the British armed forces do not want any change in our rules on homosexuality; the Government have been entirely right to support that majority and to accept the advice of the Select Committee on the matter.
    Mr. Kaufman: As the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) perhaps knows, I have considerable personal respect for him, but the speech that he made just now is the kind of speech, on subjects related to decent and sensible reform, that the House has heard for centuries. It is the kind of speech that is made when something that makes sense is being proposed by those who are trying to prevent what is inevitably going to happen. I shall refer to such matters a little more before I sit down.
    Two points emerge so far from the debate, following the admirable speech by the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs. Currie). The first is the implication that, because a Select Committee of the House has made a report, the Government are bound by it. I only wish that was so in the case of the Select Committee on National Heritage, because, if so, the Government's confusions about listed sporting events and about Channel Four funding would have been eliminated at source.
    The second question that arises in my mind—following the speech by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood, the report of the Select Committee and much of the comment about the issue—is what, is it about members of the United Kingdom armed forces that makes them so vulnerable to seduction by homosexuals? What is it about them? Are they so fastidious, and are they so vulnerable in a way that service men in the rest of Europe, in other countries and in the state of Israel are not? Are we recruiting weaklings into our armed forces? That is the implication of the terrible danger that appears to be hanging over them, as advanced in the speech of the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood.
    The hon. Gentleman said that homosexuality is not compatible with membership of Her Majesty's forces. That is very strange to me, because I have a slight suspicion that there are large numbers of homosexuals in our armed forces today. I have a further suspicion that there have been homosexuals throughout history in our own armed forces and those of other great powers, and, somehow or other, we have managed to win wars all the same.
    492
    Is the implication that the official acceptance of homosexuality would bring discredit on our armed forces? If so, we should have proof that that has taken place. If I consider other cases in the armed forces, I see that a convicted murderer, Paratrooper Lee Clegg, has not only been retained in the armed forces after his release from prison, but has been promoted to lance-corporal and made second in command of an eight-man rifle section. It seems to be all right to promote a convicted murderer in our armed forces, but it would appear that people of a particular sexual orientation are more dangerous to the good name of our armed forces.
    Three men, who have now been discharged from our armed forces, killed a woman, Louise Jensen, in Cyprus in the most brutal and appalling way. I do not gain any impression from reading press reports of that case that those were gay men who were driven to murder that woman so brutally, yet they have inflicted more discredit on our armed forces than anyone else I can remember in recent years—so much so that the Secretary of State for Defence has had to make a public apology for what took place.
    Last night, I was reading "Roads to Ruin: The Shocking History of Social Reform" by E. S. Turner. He has looked at rearguard actions against sensible and decent reform over the centuries. What emerges from that great book is that the kind of untenable, illogical and prejudiced arguments that have been advanced against new clause 1, which I have signed, were advanced about all other kinds of social reform on which we would regard it as ludicrous that they should even have been debated.
    Those reforms included stopping children and women going down coal mines; it was described as ridiculous to say that that was not a satisfactory or admirable state of affairs. The Plimsoll line has saved the lives of many seafarers, but it was said in the House that it was ludicrous that that elementary reform should be introduced.
    A number of us have been in the House for many years and the kind of arguments that have been advanced by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood, and will no doubt be advanced by other Conservative Members tonight, are analogous to the very arguments that have been put in the House for generations, and that led to innocent men being hanged for murder. It has even been argued that we should take that risk.
    We take a good deal of sanctimonious satisfaction from the role of the House of Commons. We are all proud—as I am—to be Members of the House of Commons, but we seem to imagine that the House has been a force for forward and inevitable reform over centuries and generations. The fact has to be faced that this is a House of belated reform, and a House that often does not get around to obvious, necessary and logical reforms.
    It has to be said that the House has allowed a terrible amount of human suffering to take place because it has been so slow to accept logical and sensible arguments for reform. There is a great list of examples for anybody who studies Hansard over the decades, generations and centuries. This debate will eventually take its place in the annals of those debates, in which the House has shown itself reluctant to do the right, sensible and decent thing.
    It may well be that new clause I will be defeated tonight, but the hon. Member for South Derbyshire is far too tough a campaigner to believe that that will be the end of the story. She will win, and all those who agree with

    493
    her will win, but before she does, and before we do, we will have to go through some more years of hypocrisy and persecution. It is about time that the House did the right thing at the right time. Tonight is the right time.
    Mr. Key: After more than decade of representing many thousands of service men and women in all three services, I have come to the conclusion that it would be right to support the status quo tonight. I have given that pledge to my military constituents and their families, and to all my constituents.
    The argument stems from the military ethos, which filters down through the whole chain of command, and says straightforwardly that the military are different. Historically, it has been different for a very long time, and certainly since the county regiments were established. That is a fact. To understand it and the implications that flow from it, one either has to have served in the armed forces, which I have not, or to have undertaken the sort of investigation carried out by the Select Committee of which I have had the honour to be a member for the past four months.
    We, the members of the Committee, talked to service men and women on and off duty in England, Northern Ireland and Germany. Initially, I thought that it was a put-up job. I thought that all the people lined up for us to speak to must have been hand-picked and told what to say. As the week went by, we met scores of people who continued to say the same thing.
    I came to realise that, in the British armed forces, there is a deep and genuine conviction that homosexuals have no place in service life. Other people may not like that attitude, but it is a plain fact. The courts may not like it, and they may seek to change it. My greatest fear is that change may be forced on the services too fast, with all the attendant risks of recrimination, victimisation and real unrest. We should not add to those risks by agreeing to the new clause.
    Change will come slowly when it comes. It will need a massive change of culture, and a massive re-education programme in the armed forces.
    8 pm
    Service men and women are not unreasonable people. I found it ironical that, while they were horrified at the thought of homosexuals in the forces, they accepted homosexuals in the rest of the community in civilian life. One service man told me that his brother was a homosexual, and that he had told him not to join the Army.
    Recently, I was in Bosnia with the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell). We visited forces from the United States, Canada and Holland. Like the hon. and learned Gentleman, I took the opportunity of asking about homosexuality in those forces. Only in the Dutch contingent did I find genuine acceptance of homosexuals.
    In none of those forces did the nationals concerned believe that there was any threat to discipline, to undermining of command relationships or to operational effectiveness on the battlefield because of the presence of homosexuals. There was no suggestion in the British forces that in NATO British troops would not accept orders from those who might be homosexuals in other forces, or would refuse to serve alongside them.
    494
    I have much sympathy for the terms of the new clause. We shall return to the issue, but tonight is not the time to press it. The General Medical Council has been quoted, and I am disappointed that we have not heard from it. I fully understand that service doctors are part of the chain of command. The Standing Committee was told of harrowing events, such as the homosexual sailor who set off on a tour of duty of some months and realised after a few weeks that he had a genital problem. He realised that the ship's medical officer would be bound to take action leading to his discharge from the service. The sailor waited for four months before going to his family general practitioner at home. That is unacceptable and dangerous. It is dangerous to the sailor and to his colleagues. That is something that must be addressed.
    Dr. Lynne Jones: Would not the answer be to agree to the new clause? It seems that the burden of the hon. Gentleman's argument, and that of the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), is that homosexuals are much more likely than heterosexuals to behave in an improper fashion sexually, or in a more coercive fashion. What evidence is there that that is so? If there is none, as I believe, surely the logic is that those who oppose the new clause are prejudiced. We should oppose their prejudiced views.
    Mr. Key: The answer is that there is no such evidence. If the hon. Lady will hear me out, she will understand why I take that point.
    I talked about chaplains when the Bill was being considered in Standing Committee. There was a flurry in the national press, and then a rather tragic flow of correspondence in the Church Times. I had written to the Bishop of Her Majesty's forces asking for clarification from Bishop John Kirkham, the Bishop of Sherborne. The bishop replied on 1 May. His letter was duly published in the Church Times. The letter is important, because so many people were concerned that they could not trust chaplains.
    The bishop wrote:
    "The position is quite clear and is fully endorsed by the Chaplain of the Fleet, the Chaplain General and the Chaplain-in-chief (RAF). Chaplains in HM Forces are commissioned as chaplains and their status as officers in no way prejudices their absolute duty of confidentiality on all matters as priests and ministers of their respective Churches. This position is recognised by the authorities in the three Services. If individual chaplains have failed in their duty of confidentiality, for whatever reason, that is a matter of extreme regret and they have contravened their duty as chaplains."
    Whatever the courts may say, it is unacceptable and uncivilised for the forces of the Crown to recognise on the one hand that homosexuality in the armed forces is not a criminal offence, and then to make use of agents provocateurs or covert surveillance to expose homosexuals. The Select Committee was told that the Ministry of Defence has never discharged homosexuals for criminal offences; just being a homosexual is enough.
    As a former military chaplain told the Church Times recently, those who have been offended by the practice of "outing" prominent people should remember that the Ministry of Defence has been doing it to its personnel for years. That is not something of which anyone can be proud.
    Whatever the Committee decides this evening, we shall return to this issue.
    Mr. Alan Howarth: It is not fitting to condone prejudice and injustice in the armed

    495
    forces any more than it is elsewhere in society. It is clearly prejudice that we are discussing. Some of the world's greatest and most famous soldiers have been homosexual. There is surely no Member of this place who would seriously seek to deny that, for many centuries, homosexuals have served in the British armed forces with distinction. With great courage, skill and patriotism, they have contributed to the service of their country. It is plainly an injustice that men or women, on account of their sexuality, should be denied the opportunity to serve their country in the armed services.
    It would have been right for the Government to give the lead in seeking to undo the culture of prejudice within the armed services by banning discrimination on the ground of sexuality. Sadly, the Government have not chosen to do so. The new clause is plainly sensible and decent, and the Government should not hesitate to accept it.
    Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): The points that I want to make have been succinctly set out in a letter that I wrote to the Select Committee on Defence. I shall repeat only one of them. What sticks in my craw, as much as anything, is the thought that, if a man has served in the armed service for perhaps 10 years—he may well have been decorated and subjected to the most extraordinary perils—and if by some mischance he has an accident and as a result of consequent medical examination is discovered to be a homosexual, even though he may have lived 180 miles away from the base and there has never been a flicker of a suggestion of improper, indecent or offensive behaviour, and he has been a model of discipline, he will lose his job. His livelihood and everything else will be lost. All he has done for the nation will be thrown away by sheer mischance and the prejudice that exists within the armed services.
    It is not fair, it is entirely improper, and it flies in the face of the causes for which the armed services claim to stand.
    Mr. Tony Banks: First, I congratulate the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs. Currie) on tabling the new clause. I also congratulate those who support her. The proposal has my support.
    We have just heard a classic example of the theory of unsound time. Indeed, it has been put to us on two occasions, and both have involved the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). First, we were discussing the possibility of forgiveness and a pardon for so-called cowardice during the first world war. The hon. Gentleman showed no compassion. In effect, he said that it was too late. We have been told by the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) that it is too early to agree to the new clause. It is too late on one hand and too early on the other. It is never too late and it is never too early to do something that is proper. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) has made that clear.
    The House will have to come round to the matter. It will have to be decided. The barrenness of the arguments from those who oppose the new clause shows that up. Those who oppose it are scraping the barrel. They start by paying fulsome tribute to those homosexuals whom
    496
    they know have served the country and continue to serve the country. But still they say that they will, in effect, be condemned for their sexual orientation.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton gave us the example of the three sub-human heterosexuals in Cyprus. Is it so wonderful to be heterosexual in those circumstances? They are the sort of people who bring shame to our armed forces, not those homosexual men who loyally serve their country and are ready to die for it, yet are still treated abysmally by the House and the Government.
    On the amendment moved by hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), the House revealed itself as having no compassion in terms of its majority. Now it appears to be revealing itself as homophobic as well. It is appalling to see the House of Commons behave in that way.
    We have heard about the survey of the armed forces and told that somehow we must accept its results as sufficient evidence for the rejection of the new clause. I should like to know far more about that survey, although there is not time to go into the matter tonight.
    I understand that no anonymity was given to those who were questioned. Who will come forward and say that they think that gays should be allowed to serve in the armed forces? Even if a person who did so was heterosexual, one could imagine what would be said to him afterwards. The finger of suspicion would be pointed at such people, whatever their sexual orientation. How can we possibly accept that the survey is socially just or statistically admissible?
    It is no good saying that we will allow prejudice to determine policy. That is precisely what this is all about—not wanting homosexuals in the Army. I am sure that, if the same people were asked, they would say that they did not want blacks or even women in the Army. Shall we allow racists and sexists to determine national policy in Britain? That is not what we should be doing. We should not abrogate our power and responsibility to the British people, because those who are prejudiced say that they do not want any change in the way in which we organise the armed forces. We cannot accept that survey as acceptable on any terms.
    We decide, and we must determine. The new clause is in time now, and to postpone it further is only to bring further disgrace on the House and further to alienate those gay men and women who have loyally served, and will continue so to serve, Britain's armed forces.
    Mr. Viggers: I wish only to assure the House of the care and the concern that the Select Committee put into considering this issue. Knowing that the Ministry of Defence had commissioned an enormous report on the subject, I encouraged institutions and bodies with a special interest in the subject to submit evidence to us, and we took evidence from those who had a special interest in the subject.
    During the past five months, the Select Committee, on its visits and in receiving evidence here in the House of Commons, has asked scores, even hundreds, of service men and others what their attitude is to homosexuality in the armed forces. I think that it is right that we should take account of the overwhelming response that came back, which is that they wish the status quo to continue.

    497
    The Select Committee considered the issue very carefully, and I am confident that the conclusion we reached is correct.
    Mr. Harry Cohen: The ban on homosexuals and lesbians serving in the armed forces treats those people, and all homosexuals and lesbians in Britain, as second-class citizens. That should not be, and the ban should go.
    There was no such discrimination in the second world war. According to statistics, at least 250,000 homosexuals served in the British forces during that war. One of those was a Mr. Dudley Cave, now aged 75. He was quoted in The Guardian yesterday, and I shall just read a little bit of the article:
    "Cave recalls that neither the top brass nor fellow soldiers showed any concern about gay enlistees. 'There were none of the witch hunts that we have nowadays … Homosexual soldiers were more or less accepted. The visible gays were mostly drag performers in concert teams. Regarded with considerable affection, their camp humour helped lift the men's spirits'."
    Contrary to the current fears of the generals, during the war there was no evidence that homosexual soldiers undermined unit cohesion:
    "'All the gays and straights worked together as a team. We had to because our lives might have depended on it'."
    If that discrimination was unacceptable in wartime, it is unacceptable in peacetime as well, and I say that the ban should go.
    Sex on duty or in the barracks is, of course, not acceptable. But that is the case with heterosexuals as well as homosexuals. However, what soldiers do in their private time should not be the subject of prurient investigation, disciplinary action and the sack. The ban is a gross breach of the civil liberties of those individuals, and it is almost certain that the United Kingdom will be found to be in violation of the European convention on human rights. That is why I support the new clause tonight.
    8.15 pm
    Mr. Clive Betts: I first say to the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), who was concerned about the threat of blackmail if we passed the new clause, and the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) who was concerned about the threat of victimisation: what on earth do they think is happening in the armed forces today? There is blackmail and victimisation because people are frightened that they will lose their jobs and be discharged if their sexuality is discovered. That is the situation.
    I want to refer to the case of one of my constituents, Mr. John Beckett, with whom I have had correspondence and a lengthy conversation on his situation, which is most concerning and should worry every hon. Member.
    John Beckett is a young man who had an exemplary record, to which the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs. Currie) referred in an excellent speech in moving the new clause. He was to be considered as an officer candidate. He had an unblemished record both in civilian and military life. He had given more than five years of his young life to the armed services. He was trained and extremely committed. Not only had he committed himself and a number of years of his life to his vocation, but thousands of pounds of public money had been spent on his training.
    498
    John Beckett told me that, when he entered the armed services, he did not know that he was gay. He subsequently had a relationship in civilian life. He never had a relationship with anyone in the armed services, either someone with whom he was serving closely or in another part of the armed services. He had one civilian relationship.
    As a result of that, he spoke to the services' padre. On his advice, he went to his senior officer to report the situation. He was an honest and open young man, who was concerned about the situation and went to talk about it. As a result of volunteering that information, he was subjected to a most humiliating interview. I hope that it was as humiliating to the person who conducted it as it was to John Beckett, going, as it did, into every possible aspect of his private and personal relationships. I am not sure what they have to do with defending Britain in a proper manner. He was subsequently discharged.
    John Beckett is now studying at college and wants to enter the fire service. I asked him how he now felt about the armed services; what his attitude was towards them. He said, "If Parliament was to change its view, I simply want to have the chance to go back and continue to serve my country. That is what I have always wanted to do, and it is still the view that I hold."
    The House should know that John Beckett has not committed any crime—he has simply offended against bigotry and prejudice, and those who hold those views. The Select Committee has collected many pages of evidence, but, however many pages it collects, it cannot prove that bigotry and prejudice are right.
    If we fail to pass the new clause tonight, John Beckett will not stand guilty of any crime, but we in the House will stand guilty of failing to allow him and hundreds, perhaps thousands, of other young people the opportunity to serve Britain in the way that they have chosen simply because of their sexuality. I believe that to be wrong. I hope that the House passes the new clause.
    Mr. Nigel Spearing: I was impelled to investigate this subject, and, in particular, to read the Select Committee report, by a constituency case that was drawn to my attention. Hon. Members who are not present now might well have examined the issue more closely if they too had encountered such cases.
    I was rather shocked by the Select Committee's approach, and will remain so unless the Minister or anyone else can give reasons for it. I served in the Army, and—understandably, I think; the majority of Army personnel, both male and female, are heterosexual—if I had been asked the question, I would have responded, "Let the position remain as it is." That is a natural response. I therefore do not think that, basing its view on that evidence, the Select Committee was particularly convincing.
    The question is—a question that many hon. Members have asked—who knows? My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) gave examples of distinguished military personnel of the past. I thought of my comrades in the forces as people. One might have had ideas or suspicions, but that was as far as it went. It was what they did that counted, and I knew what they would do if we were in a tight corner. Fortunately, I never had that experience, but I could imagine it, and there is plenty of evidence that other qualities are what matter in such circumstances.

    499
    So it is a case of "Who knows?"—unless, of course, agents provocateurs are involved. I hope that, if this excellent debate achieves nothing else, it will lead the Secretary of State—he is not present now, but his Minister is—to review the policy on agents provocateurs. I hope that he will make it clear that the Government accept the view of the bishops, of which the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) reminded us, and will at least consider—perhaps not immediately—introducing the confidentiality that I believe should exist between doctor and patient and between Member of Parliament and constituent. Let us hope that at least those matters will be considered, whether or not the new clause is accepted.
    I think that the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) is under a misapprehension. When I was commissioned, we were given a number of lectures. I should say that I held the commission of his late Majesty George VI, so this was some time ago. We were lectured about codes of conduct for officers—I should like to think that those codes now extend to all ranks, but that is by the way—and particularly about heterosexual behaviour with people in the area or with other officers' wives.
    That code was fairly clear. Surely, in the end, it is codes of conduct rather than the letter of the law that count. I suggest to the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood—who I believe was himself an officer in Her Majesty's forces—that what is important is the way in which our extremely wonderful instincts are used, and the degree of responsibility or irresponsibility with which they are used, irrespective of orientation.
    I hope that the Minister will tell me what is wrong with the proposal for a code of conduct of the sort specified in new subsection (1). The subsection states that sexual conduct,
    "whether heterosexual or homosexual"—
    which really means sexual conduct of any description—
    "shall not constitute an offence"
    except in certain circumstances. It would even be possible to remove the words "heterosexual" and "homosexual" from the legislation.
    I also want to know why that provision cannot stand on its own. I realise that new subsection (2), which deals with disciplinary proceedings or discharge, may have legal implications, but surely that is consequential on the code of conduct specified in new subsection (1).
    Let me deal with another issue that has not been mentioned so far. Her Majesty's forces contain both men and women, and, owing to gender differences, in normal circumstances—for obvious reasons—there is always more pressure on women. If a woman whose orientation is not known, as a result of her actions, an admission by her or any other indication does not respond as others hope, her susceptibility to, for instance, blackmail is different from that of a man in an equivalent position. Certain cases, well known from the newspapers, have shown that to be true.
    I hope that, whatever happens tonight, the Minister will bear some of those background issues in mind.
    Mr. Tony Banks: He is not even listening.
    Mr. Spearing: I hope that he will listen. I hope that administrative action will be reviewed as a result of the
    500
    debate;, and I hope that the Minister will tell us why he cannot accept new subsection (1)—if not now, at a later stage—rewording it as he wishes, but concentrating on responsible use of these wonderful powers that we all have, rather than contravention of good order and military discipline.
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: When the Minister replies, I hope that he will touch on the report of the homosexuality policy assessment team to which my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) alluded, and, in particular, the experience in Australia, where the ban was lifted in 1992—notwithstanding the objections of a number of members of the joint chiefs of staff in Australia, who expressed the view that relaxation of the rule would be unacceptable.
    According to the report, in Australia, after the initial outcry, homosexuality has become a non-issue. Exercising a flawed logic, however, the report then sets out a conclusion that is at variance with that statement:
    "Australia enjoys a multi ethnic, multi cultural society with a considerable willingness, in the metropolitan areas at least, to accept sexual behaviour which, in the UK, is still regarded with a considerable degree of suspicion."
    Where has the Ministry of Defence been? It is based in London, for goodness' sake.
    It is the conclusion of that report that has informed the Government's response to the new clause. It is time for Britain to fall in line with Australia, New Zealand and the other European countries, and it is time for the House to support new clause 1.
    Dr. Reid: It goes without saying that the subject of homosexuality in the armed forces was the most sensitive subject, and certainly the most intractable, with which the Select Committee had to deal. It forced us to make a judgment, on balance, between a general principle and a specific duty, both of which are dear to the majority of hon. Members.
    The general principle is that sexual orientation or preference, in itself, should not exclude a person from the opportunities that are available to others. Most hon. Members probably support that principle. The same applies to the specific duty—the burden of duty placed on hon. Members to ensure that those whom we may ask to risk, and possibly sacrifice, their lives in the defence of this country are given the maximum support in securing maximum operational effectiveness, and thus the minimum number of casualties. That judgment, on the relative priorities to be given to civil rights on one hand and military imperatives on the other is never easy, but it often has to be made in military life.
    Our most precious freedom, freedom of speech, does not apply in the British military, nor does the right to engage in political or trade union activity—freedoms which are so valued by us and which we take for granted. Again, the right to resign and the right to privacy in the most intimate of social situations is severely curtailed. Occasionally, whole groups suffer the curtailment of such rights. Women are excluded from combat units, and legislation incorporating the rights of disabled persons specifically excludes the military. These are always difficult decisions, but the blanket nature of the ban on homosexuals and lesbians makes that judgment, for me anyway, even more anguished.

    501
    8.30 pm
    There will be a free vote on this issue, so I can speak only for the Labour Members of the Committee. We approached the problem with three initial premises. The first was that it was no part of our task to make moral judgments on sexual orientation; nor are there grounds for questioning the professionalism, dedication, courage or patriotism of homosexuals, individually or as a group.
    The second premise was that we were dealing with a practical decision which takes effect not in general, not in the abstract or in civilian life, but within real life in the British armed forces. Finally, we are dealing with today's armed forces. In Britain, however enlightening foreign or historical comparisons may be, there is no perfect blueprint that can be automatically transposed, although, God knows, sometimes we wish that there were.
    On the basis of those premises, when we cut through the fog, the propaganda and the prejudice, three essential questions remain. First, would allowing homosexuals openly to join the armed forces tend to weaken operational effectiveness? Secondly, would it be possible in the imposed social intimacy of the armed forces to guarantee the right to privacy of the sexual preference of homosexuals and the right to privacy of heterosexuals? Thirdly, is there an obvious compromise that might satisfy both sides?
    I shall deal first with the question of operational effectiveness. As we know, the army's purpose is to fight. Whatever additional tasks it is given and irrespective of what other armies are constructed for, the purpose of the British Army is to fight and to win. Humanitarian or civil tasks are in addition to that, not a substitute for it. The burden that Parliament places on the members of our armed forces is to fight and win, even if they have to sacrifice not only their liberty but their lives.
    The fighting power of a force consists of three elements. There is the conceptual element of tactics, doctrine and strategy; the resources element, which means the physical resources that we provide; and morale.
    In military life, morale fulfils a purpose that is different from its normal usage. In military terms, it is both more specific and more comprehensive. It includes not only matters such as belief in a just cause or pride in the regiment's traditions but also, and crucially, ordered relations within a unit, absolute trust in one's comrades and absolute confidence in one's leaders. Those are the qualities that motivate a soldier to fight, and fight better than his enemy. If they are diminished, so is the command structure, the cohesion and the operational effectiveness of the military unit.
    Among the factors that are most likely to undermine that mutual confidence, obedience and cohesion is the existence or the perceived existence of a special relationship between particular members of a unit, especially a relationship of a romantic or sexual nature.
    Mrs. Currie: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, if a relationship was seen in any way to be damaging to discipline, I would be against it as well? What concerns us is that, when no such relationship is going on and discipline is not damaged, these people can still be dismissed.
    Dr. Reid: I shall cover that when I deal with the hon. Lady's clause. I shall later deal with the difference
    502
    between having a code of conduct to deal with incidents when they arise, and increasing the circumstances that are likely to give rise to more incidents.
    Mr. George Galloway: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Dr. Reid: I shall certainly do that when I have finished this part of my speech.
    Relationships which damage cohesion, such as those of a romantic or sexual nature, are particularly damaging. In situations in which such special relationships are most likely to develop in the armed forces, personnel are separated by gender. Therefore, as a matter of course in the armed forces, in the most intimate situations that are likely to lead to special relationships, a heterosexual is separated from the potential object of his or her sexual preference. Precisely the opposite circumstances would obtain for homosexuals, as they would be integrated in units with members of their own sex. That is the key problem, and it does not relate to prejudiced allegations of increased potential for promiscuity among homosexuals.
    Mr. Galloway: I sympathise with my hon. Friend in his difficult job with his brief. He must be aware of the inherent and enormous contradiction between what he is saying and the obvious fact that it is possible and acceptable to be a homosexual member of a war Parliament or a war Cabinet, or a homosexual Secretary of State for Defence but not to be a homosexual private in the Royal Corps of Signals. There is an inherent absurdity in that proposition.
    I put to my hon. Friend another contradiction in case he is not aware of it. I shall put to him a fantastic hypothesis. Suppose there were two homosexual members of a war Cabinet. Would that mean that that war Cabinet's effectiveness in waging and directing war might be compromised by a special relationship that might exist between those two Cabinet members?
    Dr. Reid: I shall reply to my hon. Friend's points in reverse order. My hon. Friend asks about a war Cabinet. It is obvious that he completely missed the distinction that I drew between civilian and military life. My hon. Friend has given me a poisoned chalice. Without being facetious, I shall try to answer his first point. The difference between a Secretary of State for Defence and a member of an army unit is that the Secretary of State does not have to sleep every night with the Minister for Procurement or the Armed Forces Minister. [Laughter.] However, the member of an armed unit might have to sleep with a comrade.
    I am not trying to bring levity to this sensitive and intractable subject. Hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens want a serious debate. I do not suggest for a minute that such special relationships destroy operational effectiveness. I am suggesting that they would weaken operational effectiveness and in battle such a reduction could mean the loss of lives as well as the loss of battles.
    I do not underestimate the weight of the arguments that have been advanced tonight because no liberty held to be precious in civilian society can be negated in the military as a matter of course or without justification. Prejudice is no ground on its own for the continuation of past practice, but nor can practical problems be wished away.
    Sir Andrew Bowden: I will be supporting the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the

    503
    Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs. Currie), but the hon. Gentleman is indulging in disgraceful weasel words. He has tried to stand on both sides of the fence at the same time. He represents the Opposition Front-Bench team, which hopes one day to form a Government. If it cannot give leadership one way or the other, it is not fit to govern.
    Dr. Reid: First, I have already made it plain that, for Labour Members, there is a free vote. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman can accuse me of many things tonight; one of them might not be representing Labour Members behind me, but to suggest that it shows cowardice or a lack of courage to put the argument that I am advancing is nonsense.
    I do not underestimate those arguments about civil liberties, but there is another argument that, if that was controversial, is, I appreciate, even more sensitive, but must be put because it is felt generally to be important by members of the armed forces. I accept that their views are not sufficient to continue a ban, but they are one of the necessary elements that must be considered.
    The argument involves a genuine concern that was put to me by a female soldier and it crystallises the case, so I can be brief. She said, "Dr. Reid, even in the imposed social intimacy of the Army, you and your colleagues at Westminster would defend my right to refuse to share the most intimate experiences of sleeping, sharing and bathing with a man. You would do that not because you assume evil intention on the part of the man, but because it offends my sensibilities as a woman, because it may offend my sense of privacy or decency or because I may feel that I am the object of inquisitive sexual observation by the man, but all the reasons why you would give me that right would be on my perceptions, not on the intentions of the man. If you change this rule, will you give me the right to protect my privacy if I refuse to shower with one of my lesbian colleagues?" I did not have a satisfactory answer for her then and, frankly, I do not now.
    That sums up the second intractable conflict between trying to give the homosexual rights of privacy while balancing them with the heterosexual rights of privacy in the armed forces.
    Mr. Peter Snape: Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that those of us who served on the Select Committee and who talked to serving men and women think that some of their views, although my hon. Friends might not agree with them, deserve better consideration than being denounced as mere homophobia, and that they are genuine concerns? Their concerns about operational efficiency led me, him and other hon. Friends to put our names to the report.
    Dr. Reid: I agree. Individuals have a range of feelings that are often difficult to classify because they range from irrational prejudices to moral perceptions. Sometimes, that distinction is not made, although I must say to my hon. Friend, who has been helpful, that there are hon. Members who will be in the same Division Lobby as me tonight who sometimes seem incapable of presenting a logical argument because they are blinded with prejudice.
    There are logical, objective grounds for qualifying what is a very valuable civil right to preserve effectiveness. However, it is honourable and legitimate to say that the
    504
    weight of the civil liberties argument is sufficiently great to overcome both the operational reduction in effectiveness and the case for privacy for heterosexuals. There is nothing dishonourable in making that balance and in arriving at a judgment that is different from mine, but the Labour Members of the Select Committee were not persuaded that that change was necessary.
    I say again, however, that the decision was on balance. It was not taken lightly or without agonising. We fully recognise the clash of principle and the practical problems. We do not argue that the present position is perfect and, in particular, we entirely concur with tonight's speeches that have been directed at entrapment, agent provocateurs, harassment and, on occasions, disgusting treatment, which should not be meted out to any citizen in this country, in any condition. I have no time for any of that, and I hope that it will be stopped immediately.
    8.45 pm
    Mr. Michael Brown: I fully understand the particular responsibility that goes with the hon. Gentleman's position, the more so because he aspires to occupy the Treasury Bench, but the country needs to know what the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) would do if they ever became Ministers and were forced to act as a consequence of a European Court of Human Rights directive.
    Dr. Reid: I was coming to the European Court of Human Rights, although I think that the hon. Gentleman will be slightly disappointed.
    We have not argued that the position will never change. It will obviously be reviewed again during the next Parliament. No one here could be stupid enough to think that the issue will go away. I cannot imagine that it will not recur for reconsideration. It is not our job to guess the what the European Court of Human Rights will do, but we are aware that it is likely to be asked to issue a ruling on this matter during the next Parliament. We will have to cross that bridge when we come to it.
    Mr. George Howarth: Although I will be in a different Lobby from my hon. Friend tonight and disagree with what he says, I respect the way in which he is putting his argument. On returning to the issue in future, does he agree that, if the new clause is defeated tonight, the people who believe, as I do, that the current position is wrong—and that should include the Government—must go out and sell the case to the armed services that they should no longer peddle prejudice as an excuse for excluding people from the armed services?
    Dr. Reid: If I were advocating the case to members of the armed services, I would first stop trying to portray them as a bunch of redneck, thick-skulled and prejudiced bigots, although I am not saying that my hon. Friend is doing that. It is not helpful when they live in particular circumstances, deprived of the right to leave. Any of us tonight can choose which room to leave. We can choose to go if we do not like the company that we are sleeping with. In the morning, we can remove ourselves from a position that we find offensive. We do not have to shower with people. Members of the armed forces cannot make those choices. Let us recognise at least that their views are of merit, even if we must weigh in the balance the great issue of civil liberties.

    505
    Do not let us pretend—I do not think for a minute that the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) has done so—that there is an easy or painless answer. Whatever decision is taken tonight or in the next Parliament, people will be hurt. Homosexuals or heterosexuals will be disappointed, perhaps angry. Whichever way the vote goes, one group or another will have their rights diminished, but, for the majority of hon. Members, it will not be a decision that is taken lightly because the curtailment of liberties or the loss of lives are considerations that rank highest in everything that we hold to be precious in the House. Whatever happens, the people who will then be asked by us to remain the ultimate defender of both those liberties and those lives will be the men and women of our British armed forces.
    Mr. Soames: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs. Currie) on the sensible, measured and passionate way in which she introduced this important debate. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) and thank him for the extraordinary courtesy that he has shown me during the time that we have been discussing what is a very difficult matter for the armed forces.
    We have had a useful debate and many of the most important issues have been aired. I propose to deal with them. I am grateful to my hon. Friends for providing with their amendment this opportunity to have a debate that has been waiting in the wings for several months. I am sure that they will have a pretty good idea of what I am about to say.
    The services' policy on homosexuality is hardly a secret, and nor are the reasons underpinning it. That said, I shall start, perhaps surprisingly, by saying that much of the new clause causes us very little difficulty. Much of it is already unnecessary. We announced in 1992 that we had accepted the recommendation of the Select Committee on the previous Armed Forces Bill that homosexual acts which were legal in civilian life should no longer constitute offences under service law. The only extra condition was that the act should not involve the commission of a service offence such as the abuse of rank or other behaviour prejudicial to good order and discipline. That change in policy took immediate effect, but we were not able to make the necessary change to the legislation under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
    It is difficult to see how the first part of the amendment adds to what Parliament has already achieved. However, we have to vote on the whole amendment and my hon. Friends have insinuated into the middle of their amendment a sentence that is designed to change the services' policy on the exclusion of homosexuals, contrary to the unanimous recommendation of the Select Committee which has been considering the Bill. I shall concentrate the rest of my remarks on the Government's response to that issue.
    The current policy of excluding homosexuals from the armed forces is not—I repeat, not—the result of a moral judgment. The prime concern of the armed forces is the maintenance of operational effectiveness and our policy derives from a practical assessment of the implications of homosexual orientation on military life. I do not believe that the services have a right to be different, but I firmly believe that they have a need to be different.
    506
    The conditions of military life are truly very different from civilian life. The hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) made that point very well. Service personnel are regularly required to live in extremely close proximity to one another in shared, single-sex accommodation with limited privacy and sometimes under stressful conditions. They may have to work for long hours in physically close quarters, sometimes for long periods under demanding circumstances. We believe that those conditions, together with the need for absolute trust and confidence between all ranks, require that the potentially disruptive influence of homosexual orientation and behaviour be excluded.
    As hon. Members will recall, the legality of our policy was challenged in the High Court last year by four former members of the services who had been discharged on the ground of their homosexuality. The court found that the policy was lawful and that ruling has been upheld by the Court of Appeal. Just recently, the House of Lords has refused leave to appeal further, so the lawfulness of our policy has been further vindicated.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Does hon. Gentleman accept that there is undoubtedly a considerable number of homosexuals within the armed forces now? He must know that to be a fact. How is that affecting operational efficiency now?
    Mr. Soames: There may well be some homosexual personnel in the armed forces but they choose to keep that to themselves. That is a matter for them. [Interruption.] I will deal with that later.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes mentioned the European Court. One can only speculate about what the European Court might say in several years' time because the issue has never been tested before it. We have considered the issue thoroughly, both as to what is required as a matter of national policy and the potential legal consequences. Our decision, in legal terms, is entirely respectable. We believe that our decision is the right one, and we will defend it robustly in any court.
    Mr. Robert Maclennan: When considering their position, did the Government consult other Governments, in countries such as Australia, where the law has been changed in the way suggested in the amendment and where they apparently have not experienced the practical difficulties that have been referred to by those who oppose the amendment?
    Mr. Soames: The answer is, yes, we did consult other Governments. I shall deal with that point later, because it is extremely important.
    My hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire mentioned costs and the cost to the taxpayer. The basis of all the various figures that are bandied about is uncertain. What is clear from the review report is the significant adverse effect that a change of policy would have on recruitment and retention—I urge the House to accept that that is true—with the considerable cost penalties that would result.
    Several hon. Members mentioned agent provocateurs. Evidence was given to the Select Committee by witnesses in the Ministry of Defence that the service police are not

    507
    allowed to carry out agent provocateur activity when inquiring into allegations of homosexual activity. I wish to assure the House that I will not tolerate such action.
    The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) raised the question of a code of conduct.
    Sir Terence Higgins: On the use of resources, does my hon. Friend agree that it would not be a sensible, economic or efficient use of resources to identify those who are homosexual and who, in his own words, wish to keep it to themselves?
    Mr. Soames: Yes, I agree with my right hon. Friend.
    While a new code of conduct might appear to be symmetrical in its effect on heterosexuals and homosexuals, it would not solve the problem of anticipated loss of cohesion or operational effectiveness caused by the knowledge or strong suspicion of the sexual identity of homosexual personnel. We do not believe that a code of conduct, no matter how rigorously enforced, would adequately address the issues of privacy or decency and it would not be possible or desirable to provide separate facilities for homosexuals and heterosexuals.
    Mr. Eddie Loyden: What the Minister has just said is tantamount to saying that this is gesture politics. I am one of the diminishing band of hon. Members who went through the whole of the second world war. There was no discrimination then. I was in no fewer than seven troop ships carrying men and women to the four corners of the globe to fight on behalf of the nation. There were no questions about homosexuality then. What the Government are saying is the height of hypocrisy. If there was a war tomorrow, there would be no discrimination against homosexuals or lesbians. They would be dragged in just as they were in 1939.
    Mr. Soames: That was a splendid sally from the hon. Gentleman. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I will, if I may develop my argument in my own time.
    The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) asked about other countries, and the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) has just done the same. The report went into great detail on the matter and covered many different countries, and we are aware that in some countries homosexuality is not a formal bar to service, although there may be restrictions on the areas in which homosexuals are employed and on their career progression.
    However, we do not consider that the policies of other countries towards their armed forces are necessarily relevant to our own, as they may be influenced by other factors, such as conscription and domestic employment laws. The situation in other countries simply cannot be compared with that of our armed forces, which are, as the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland knows, wholly different from conscript armies and other foreign operators.
    Several hon. Members have referred to comparisons with race and sex discrimination. However, the review report shows that homosexuality creates insoluble problems of decency and privacy, as race and gender do
    508
    not. I shall quote an extract from a report by General Colin Powell, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in America:
    "Unlike race or gender, sexuality is not a benign trait. It is manifested in behaviour. While it would be decidedly biased to assume certain behaviours based on gender or membership in a racial group, the same is not true for sexuality. We have successfully mixed rich and poor, black and white, male and female, but open homosexuality in units is not just the acceptance of benign characteristics such as colour or gender or background. It involves matters of privacy and human sexuality that, in our judgment, if allowed to exist openly in the military, would affect the cohesion and well-being of the force. It asks us to deal with fundamental issues that the society at large has not yet been able to deal with".
    Mr. Betts rose—
    Mr. Soames: No, I must get on.
    I now wish to return—
    Mr. Betts: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Soames: No, I will not.
    I wish now to return to the subject of Great Britain. The High Court recommended that we should review our policy in the light of changing social circumstances, and of the experience of other countries where homosexuality is not a formal bar to service. Accordingly, the internal review was carried out.
    The review took into account the policies and practices of overseas armed forces, the views of serving personnel, the advice of senior military commanders and the full range of evidence presented in the report. The report of the assessment was placed in the Library on 4 March.
    After detailed consideration of the available evidence, the assessment team concluded that homosexuality remained incompatible with service life, if the armed forces were to be maintained at their full potential operational effectiveness. The team recommended that there should be no change in current policy. My Department has accepted that recommendation and, as I said earlier, the Select Committee, after much careful deliberation, agreed that there should be no change in the policy.
    Both the evidence contained in the assessment team's detailed and thorough report, and that given in open session to the Select Committee, show that the presence of openly homosexual men and women in the armed forces would have an adverse effect on morale and unit cohesion.
    Mr. Betts: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Soames: No, I will not.
    That presence would also affect operational effectiveness. That we cannot risk, and we shall not accept it.
    Uncertainty and suspicion about the sexual orientation of fellow service personnel are just as likely to cause unease, polarise relationships and disrupt unit cohesion as overt homosexuality.
    Ms Glenda Jackson: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Soames: No, I will not. I must get on.

    509
    It would be quite wrong to ignore the strongly held views of the majority of service men and women that the admission of homosexuals would have a detrimental effect on operational effectiveness, and I shall not do so. In the face of all the evidence presented by my Department, of substantial submissions both oral and written from those who wished to change the policy, and also of the evidence that it gathered privately, the Select Committee concluded that the policy should continue.
    If collective professional judgments about operational effectiveness are simply to be defined away in advance as irrelevant prejudice unless they fit abstract principles of equal treatment, service men and women will be silenced and disfranchised by a decision that would affect them more than anyone else. That would both be morally questionable and put at risk the cohesion and fighting power of our armed forces.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Rubbish.
    9 pm
    Mr. Soames: It is not rubbish.
    It is significant and perhaps inevitable that the most widely reported spokesman of the homosexual movement, Sir Ian McKellen, took exactly that attitude. He said:
    "Why are Ministers even asking the military?"
    The not so hidden agenda of those who want to change Ministry of Defence policy is to steamroller aside the judgments, experience and wishes of the military.
    Although we have no desire to discriminate against homosexuals, or indeed against any other minority, the Government will not capitulate to such doctrinaire attitudes. What is special about the military is the fact that we expect them to exhibit commitment and self sacrifice beyond that of any other professional group and, if need be, to sacrifice their lives. They put their trust in the Government and it would be immoral, as well as operationally highly detrimental, to overrule or ignore them.
    Let me make it clear—this is not about homophobia in the armed forces. Rather it is a clear indication of the ability of service men and women to differentiate between their own personal views on homosexuality—which are often tolerant and sympathetic—and what they nevertheless perceive to be the effect of homosexuality in a military environment. I know that no Member of the House will vote on the new clause without having carefully weighed up the issues. These are not simple, since they summon up an apparent conflict between individual rights and wishes—which none of us lightly sets aside—and the moral cohesion, effectiveness and fighting power of the armed forces.
    The services of this country are very special, and they are a unique and extraordinary asset to our nation. They serve us faithfully and well, and they are—by and large—men and women of a quality not found in any other institution in the land. The extraordinarily gallant record of our armed forces—in the Falklands, through 25 years of exceptional gallantry and skill on the streets and countryside of Northern Ireland, in the Gulf, and today in Bosnia, Rwanda and Angola—is beyond compare.
    My overriding duty must be to maintain the effectiveness of our armed forces. In my view, that should also be the prime concern of the House of Commons. In
    510
    my view, the armed forces have earned the right to be allowed to get on with the job they do so well and not be bludgeoned out of the standards, traditions and esprit de corps that has won Great Britain every war in which we have engaged since 1812. That being the case, I strongly urge the Committee to reject the new clause.
    Mrs. Currie: This has been a superb debate, showing the House of Commons at its very best. I would like to thank those hon. Members from both sides of the House who have expressed their support for the new clause. The matter is already before the European Court of Human Rights, which we helped set up four decades ago. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about democracy?"' I say to my hon. Friends that I agree with them. I would rather that this House decided on the issue. The Committee has the power to do so, and it should decide tonight.
    Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
    The House divided: Ayes 120, Noes 188.

    Division No. 125]

    [9.07 pm

    AYES

    Allen, Graham

    Fyfe, Maria

    Alton, David

    Galloway, George

    Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

    Garrett, John

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Gerrard, Neil

    Barnes, Harry

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Barron, Kevin

    Godsiff, Roger

    Battle, John

    Gordon, Mildred

    Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Harvey, Nick

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Betts, Clive

    Hayes, Jerry

    Boateng, Paul

    Heppell, John

    Bowden, Sir Andrew

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Bradley, Keith

    Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

    Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

    Hoyle, Doug

    Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

    Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

    Hughes, Simon (Southward)

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

    Burden, Richard

    Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

    Byers, Stephen

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Jowell, Tessa

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

    Carrington, Matthew

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Chidgey, David

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

    Loyden, Eddie

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    McFall, John

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Coffey, Ann

    Maclennan, Robert

    Corbett, Robin

    McMaster, Gordon

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    McNamara, Kevin

    Corston, Jean

    Madden, Max

    Cousins, Jim

    Martlew, Eric

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

    Meacher, Michael

    Darling, Alistair

    Michael, Alun

    Davidson, Ian

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

    Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

    Milburn, Alan

    Denham, John

    Miller, Andrew

    Dobson, Frank

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Dowd, Jim

    Mullin, Chris

    Etherington, Bill

    Murphy, Paul

    Fatchett, Derek

    O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Pike, Peter L

    Fisher, Mark

    Pope, Greg

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

    Fraser, John

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    511

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Soley, Clive

    Rendel, David

    Straw, Jack

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Timms, Stephen

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Tyler, Paul

    Salmond, Alex

    Vaz, Keith

    Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Wallace, James

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Watson, Mike

    Short, Clare

    Wray, Jimmy

    Simpson, Alan

    Skinner, Dennis

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford East)

    Mr. Tony Banks and

    Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

    Mr. Harry Cohen.

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    George, Bruce

    Alexander, Richard

    Gill, Christopher

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Amess, David

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Arbuthnot, James

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Gorst, Sir John

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Baldry, Tony

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

    Bellingham, Henry

    Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Hannam, Sir John

    Booth, Hartley

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Boswell, Tim

    Harris, David

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Hawkins, Nick

    Bowis, John

    Hawksley, Warren

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Heald, Oliver

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Brazier, Julian

    Hendry, Charles

    Bright, Sir Graham

    Horam, John

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Burt, Alistair

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Jack, Michael

    Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Key, Robert

    Carttiss, Michael

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Cash, William

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Chapman, Sir Sydney

    Knapman, Roger

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Coe, Sebastian

    Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

    Colvin, Michael

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Congdon, David

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Conway, Derek

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Legg, Barry

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

    Couchman, James

    Lewis, Terry

    Cran, James

    Lidington, David

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Day, Stephen

    Lord, Michael

    Dixon, Don

    Luff, Peter

    Dover, Den

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Duncan, Alan

    MacKay, Andrew

    Dunn, Bob

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Madel, Sir David

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Malone, Gerald

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Mans, Keith

    Evennett, David

    Marlow, Tony

    Faber, David

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Fabricant, Michael

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Merchant, Piers

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Mills, Iain

    Forman, Nigel

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Forth, Eric

    Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Moss, Malcolm

    French, Douglas

    Nelson, Anthony

    Gale, Roger

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Garnier, Edward

    Nicholls, Patrick

    512

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Stephen, Michael

    Norris, Steve

    Streeter, Gary

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Sweeney, Walter

    Ottaway, Richard

    Sykes, John

    Page, Richard

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Paice, James

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Patnick, Sir Irvine

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Thomason, Roy

    Pawsey, James

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Pickles, Eric

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

    Rathbone, Tim

    Turner, Dennis

    Reid, Dr John

    Viggers, Peter

    Richards, Rod

    Walden, George

    Riddick, Graham

    Waller, Gary

    Robathan, Andrew

    Ward, John

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Ross, William (E Londonderry)

    Watts, John

    Wells, Bowen

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Whittingdale, John

    Sackville, Tom

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

    Wilkinson, John

    Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

    Willetts, David

    Shersby, Sir Michael

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

    Snape, Peter

    Wolfson, Mark

    Soames, Nicholas

    Wood, Timothy

    Spellar, John

    Yeo, Tim

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Mr. Simon Burns and

    Steen, Anthony

    Dr. Liam Fox.

    Question accordingly negatived.

    Title
    Amendment made: No. 80, in line 5, leave out `fingerprinting of and insert
    `taking of fingerprints and samples from'.—[Mr. Soames.]
    Bill reported, with amendments.
    Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Soames.]
    9.19 pm
    Mr. Cohen: There are issues that show that, contrary to what the Minister would have us believe, all is not fine in the armed forces. I shall concentrate on one example—racism. The Commission for Racial Equality recently issued a report on the Household Cavalry, about which there was subsequently a formal investigation. That report has not been mentioned during the Bill's passage, but it should have been properly dealt with by the Minister.
    I have a summary of the report. It points out that the Household Cavalry ran its own mobile display team, which visited primarily small rural towns that were
    "distant from the main centres of ethnic minority population."
    The Household Cavalry recruited through regimental associations that tended
    "to reach only white people linked through family and other connections with former members of the Regiment."
    Its recruiters were also largely located
    "away from centres of ethnic minority populations."

    513
    The Household Cavalry recruited purely a white force, which became apparent in the number—it was nil—of its ethnic minority recruits. The summary states:
    "There were about 3,000 ethnic minority applicants to the Army between 1989 and 1994, but none of them were recruited to the Household Cavalry.
    The weight of evidence was that some at least of these had been steered away to other regiments."
    A key point is:
    "The Inspector of Recruiting said that recruiters would send ethnic minority recruits to local regiments instead of to the Household Division where they would have a hard time."
    The summary goes on to state:
    "A member of the MDT had said that the Household Cavalry did not recruit ethnic minorities.
    An ethnic minority applicant was deterred by others telling him not to go into the Guards because 'they hate blacks'.
    One ethnic minority recruit to the Household Cavalry in the mid 1980s had experienced a 'barrage of racism' during his training and afterwards.
    In the year after the CRE launched the investigation, there were three ethnic minority recruits to the Household Cavalry, reversing the total absence in the preceding five years."
    Later, the summary states:
    "The Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers officer in command had passed the content of this briefing on to the warrant officer second in command, and was not surprised to be told by him that he had got the posting changed because"—
    Corporal Malcolm, who subsequently made the complaint—
    "was black."
    The CRE concludes:
    "that the Commanding Officer had, in effect, given an unlawful discriminatory instruction to the officer in command of the REME detachment."
    That was a scathing report on the racism existing in the Household Cavalry.
    I know that the British Army, through the Ministry of Defence, is now committed to a five-year programme of measures to promote racial equality, which is to be implemented in close liaison with the CRE, but that two-year examination of the Household Cavalry found that there had been racial discrimination in recruitment and transfers, and racial abuse and harassment in individual cases.
    The Ministry of Defence almost had racial equality measures imposed on it. Only after discussions did it agree to introduce them voluntarily. It had to sign a formal agreement that it would.
    I put it to the Minister that the report was damning, the action is now extremely late and implementation of racial equality measures in the Army should be treated as a matter of urgency. The same applies to the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy, which should fall into line quickly with action, programmes and policies of their own to end racial discrimination. I know that, if that does not happen, the Ministry risks having a non-discrimination notice imposed on it next year. It is important that it implements racial equality measures. In its press release in response to the report on the Household Cavalry, the Campaign for Racial Equality said:
    "we can only regret the length of time it has taken the Armed Forces to adopt these measures."
    514
    There have been appalling cases of racism in the armed forces. I have examples of plenty of them. An article in The Guardian of 5 March gave many. A man called Scott Enion, who fought in the Gulf with the British forces, is now considering taking his case to the European Court of Human Rights because of the racism that he encountered. He said in The Guardian:
    "I wouldn't recommend the Army to any young black person … Lots of people just told me to shrug off the abuse but these problems will continue until the Army makes racist behaviour a specific offence. No amount of publicity is going to attract black people to the Army until the top ranks start clamping down on it. At the moment, they are allowed to get away with it and most blacks know the Army is a racist institution."
    Although the Minister claims that the Government are out to recruit more people from the ethnic minorities—indeed, there is a crisis in recruitment—the number of recruits from ethnic minorities dropped by 25 per cent. last year. The figures for 1994–95 show that the total was just 1 per cent. in the Navy, 0.9 per cent. in the Army and 0.5 per cent. in the RAF. That compares with an ethnic minority population of 6 per cent. in Britain as a whole.
    There really is a danger. As we saw in the previous debate on homosexuals and lesbians in the armed forces, the Army does not want to comply with standards that are accepted as standard elsewhere in the country or to respect civil liberties. In his reply to the debate on new clause, the Minister quoted Colin Powell of the United States forces as saying that discrimination against homosexuals was different from racism, but it is not different in relation to how people are treated by the armed forces. In both cases, the armed forces say that the standards that apply in the community at large do not apply to them. By adopting that approach, the armed services run a risk of becoming a nation within a nation and not properly reflecting the society they serve. That is a dangerous state of affairs in a democratic country.
    The report on the Household Cavalry was scathing. The Conservative Government have been in power for 17 years, but they have made no attempt to tackle racism in the armed forces until now—and they are doing so only because the issue was forced upon them by the Commission for Racial Equality.
    The Minister mentioned General Colin Powell. The top military man in the United States is a black man. No black man is anywhere near a position of power in the British Army. A black person in the United Kingdom armed forces is probably lucky to reach the rank of sergeant.
    The Minister and the Government have displayed enormous complacency in respect of racism in the armed forces. It has continued for 17 years and it has been exposed by the CRE report on the Household Cavalry. I suspect that it will be left to a Labour Government—hopefully, in the not-too-distant future—to tackle racism in the armed forces so that they represent all the people in our nation.
    9.29 pm
    Mr. Viggers: The Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill is a most interesting Committee on which to serve. It was a great honour to be its Chairman for the second time in 10 years.
    Paragraph 4 of the Select Committee report, which I wrote, states:
    "It has been the policy of successive Governments to preserve consistency, as far as appropriate … between civilian and military law."

    515
    However, there is some tension:
    "Civilian law may reflect changing social attitudes, and these have in recent years involved some relaxation of the stricter discipline and formal personal relationships of former generations. On the other hand, the Armed Forces derive strength from their structured environment and from military discipline … The Committee has been very conscious of the serious and sensitive issues involved in deciding when military law and practice should be consistent with civilian law".
    There have been a number of important issues for the Select Committee to consider, some of which are outside the scope of the Bill. We took evidence over nine sittings and considered a wealth of written material. We did more work and received more paper than any previous Committee, to produce a more substantial Bill.
    I should like to thank the Committee members who helped our work to proceed swiftly and in a spirit of co-operation and good-humour. That was reflected in the need for only one Division, which was also good-humoured, forced by the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George).
    I welcome the significant improvements to the courts martial system in the Bill, which introduces a greater element of independence.
    The future of the royal naval college, Greenwich excited much interest and local concern. As a loyal Conservative, it is better for me not to look at the starting point and the narrative, but to consider the conclusion, which is immensely satisfactory and better than we could have dreamt of at the beginning of our deliberations.
    I am grateful for the constructive attitude of my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, who took a personal interest in the issue. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces more than met our concerns with an amendment proposed in Committee which was made to the Bill.
    The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), a colleague on the North Atlantic Assembly, referred to the report by the Commission for Racial Equality into allegations of racism in the Household Cavalry. Let me reassure him about the bilateral nature of our approach to the Bill by telling him that, when I discovered the Commission for Racial Equality was about to produce its report, I suggested to the Committee—which readily agreed—that we should postpone our deliberation of matters relating to racial equality until it had been published. We then called witnesses from the Ministry of Defence and made absolutely sure that it was committed to the policy that it had signed with the Commission for Racial Equality.
    On Second Reading, I drew attention to the fact that, despite all good intentions, recruitment into the armed forces of those in ethnic minorities had fallen. I am convinced, however, that the Commission for Racial Equality and the Ministry of Defence have reached a firm and clear agreement. Although it is a five-year programme, it will not end after five years; it will commence now and be active immediately. We have received assurances from the Ministry of Defence that it will provide a definitive statement of its position before the next sitting of the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill in four to five years time. That is the long-stop position, and there will be positive action in the meantime.
    516
    Some people will no doubt be disappointed by the Committee's conclusions on current policy on homosexuality. After studying the findings of the MOD's comprehensive review and talking to many personnel across the ranks in all three services, as well as to serving personnel in other armed forces, it was impossible to conclude other than that the presence of openly homosexual personnel would cause significant difficulties for commanding officers and other ranks. The risks to operational effectiveness are real. Unless and until that alters, any policy change would be difficult to justify.
    Having spoken to representatives of the armed forces of other countries, I am not persuaded that any other country has achieved a more effective system of rules than ours. There has been an assumption in much of the debate in the House that everything is inexorably moving one way—a kind of ratchet—towards liberality without firm, clear standards. In evidence from gay rights activists, we were told that prejudice is immoral. A large number of people in this country and in the armed forces believe that not only prejudice, but homosexuality, is immoral. It may be that the tide is not moving all in one direction.
    Mr. Eric Martlew: Is that the hon. Gentleman's opinion?
    Mr. Viggers: I have expressed a point of view that I believe to be widely held in this country. I do not believe that the view is universally held that the movement is all one way and that movement towards liberality is inexorable. That is my personal view; it is not expressed in any other representational capacity.
    Consideration of a measure such as the Armed Forces Bill by a Select Committee every five years is a useful way of keeping a check on matters relating to discipline in the armed forces, and we were of course happy to commend the Bill to the House.
    I want to give three final votes of thanks. Two are serious and one may sound slightly frivolous. I want to express, first, thanks for the work contributed by the Ministry of Defence. A year or more ago, the MOD set up a team ably led by David Woodhead to deal specifically with the Select Committee on the Bill. That team, and the Ministry as a whole, responded quickly, efficiently and generously to our requests for information and facilities—such as travel and the opportunity to meet forces personnel. I am sure that the Committee would want me to give the most generous vote of thanks to the Ministry and all its staff. I should be grateful if the Minister would make sure that those thanks are conveyed in the most suitable manner.
    The Committee would wish me to thank also Chris Shaw, who is the second Clerk to the Defence Committee but who was nominated as the Clerk to the Select Committee on the Bill as his first clerkship of a Select Committee. He has carried his job through exceptionally well, not only in briefing me and other members of the Committee, but in preparing the draft report, which was first-class.
    Finally, I give perhaps a more frivolous vote of thanks to the United States 4th Cavalry for providing two Blackhawk helicopters, which got four members of the Committee back from Tuzla to Split in time to catch our Royal Air Force VC10—without which we would not necessarily have had a Government majority in the final stages of the Committee. I thank the US army air force for its contribution to the Committee's work.
    9.37 pm
    Mr. George: Having heard those last remarks of the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), I am not so sure that I would have been happy to join him in a Blackhawk if I had known that it was to do service to the Government Whips Office. However, our journey was expedited by the cavalry, who came to the rescue—leaving a rather forlorn American-built, but RAF-owned, Chinook on the runway in eastern Tuzla. I experienced some horror in Bosnia when I switched on an old television set and saw Question Time live. That was probably the worst thing I saw during four days in the former Yugoslavia.
    Having heard the debate of the past two hours, I have mixed feelings about volunteering to serve on the Select Committee. The procedure reinforced my view that a Select Committee approach is preferable to a Standing Committee approach. Although not everyone will agree with the consensual approach that we are obliged to take on defence issues, I am pleased that the consensus has largely returned on most security issues in the House and, to a great extent, in the country as a whole.
    I am sorry that the Select Committee on Defence has not assumed responsibility for dealing with this quinquennial legislation, but we did the next best thing by having four members of that Select Committee, including the Chairman, on the Select Committee on the Bill. The combined approach of part Select Committee and part Standing Committee allows the special Select Committee to do what cannot be done in a Standing Committee environment, which is almost invariably non-consensual. It allows the Select Committee to discuss in detail the rationale, if there is one, behind a series of policies emanating from the Ministry of Defence.
    By taking the Select Committee approach, we can exert more influence on the Ministry of Defence instead of allowing a Minister, with his aides behind him and his loyalists endorsing him, to railroad any old policy through a Standing Committee. That appears to be the normal approach to many pieces of legislation. It is a shame that the Government and the Opposition do not connive more frequently to approach legislation in a way more like the Select Committees.
    The Select Committee was able to exert an influence over the daft policy of selling or leasing Greenwich naval college and, in that sense, the whole exercise was worth while. It was also very important that we provided a forum for discussion of the Commission for Racial Equality's report on the Household Cavalry, which put more pressure than there would otherwise have been on the Ministry of Defence. As someone who has served for many years on the Defence Committee, I recall time and again trying to enthuse the Ministry of Defence, through the Committee, about ethnic monitoring. The Ministry had its fall coming to it. Remarkably, it was not a parliamentary Committee that put pressure on the Government; it required an external body—the Commission for Racial Equality. The Select Committee provided a forum for that report and never was a fall more deserved, swifter or more full than that embarrassing climbdown by the Government. It really taught them.
    The Minister has, on previous occasions, questioned my knowledge of military history. He said that we had not lost a war since 1802, but I must remind him that that war
    518
    was a draw as opposed to a loss. For a military defeat, the Minister needs to go back much further. We lost several battles around 1802, but the war did not end in defeat.
    Mr. Viggers: As the hon. Gentleman is an historian, can he remind me what happened in South Africa at the beginning of this century?
    Mr. George: South Africa was a dishonourable draw: it was not a military defeat.
    When our endeavours began, the Ministry of Defence got off to a bad start. It was forced on to the back foot within about three minutes of the beginning of our deliberations on the issue of consolidation of legislation. The previous Committee had strongly recommended that single-service legislation needed to be examined more closely and tidied up.
    To our embarrassment, and even more to the embarrassment of the Ministry of Defence, the witnesses, who were not responsible for the policy failure, had to explain to the Committee why, despite starting with the MOD and trying to follow up the recommendations of the previous Select Committee, their movement and enthusiasm came to a dramatic halt. They had to appear before the previous Select Committee to explain why they had done nothing to follow and take up the recommendations of the Committee before it. I hope that, when the Committee is re-formed four and a half years from now, there will be substantial adherence to our recommendations.
    I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) on a courageous speech shortly before the final Division. It is not easy, in such circumstances, to make such a speech from the Opposition Benches. It was not easy to support the new clause in the Lobby. We who gave our support may suffer the consequences for our position and our honesty. I voted willingly on the issue, as I did in the Select Committee.
    I am sure that the Minister will not agree with me when I say that everything that has been done in this place has provided a stay of execution for present policy. Having read the advice of the Ministry's legal adviser on the likely consequences of the European Court of Human Rights when considering the MOD's policy, I believe that it is almost inevitable that the line that the majority of the House has taken, and the line taken by the MOD, will become increasingly difficult to sustain.
    The report commissioned by the MOD contained a proposal, although it is not presented as such, that might be seen as a fall-back position if all else fails. It was not a version of the United States policy, but one in that general direction. I am sure that the Minister will not tell the House that the Government are even considering a fall-back position. He and his fellow Ministers will sustain the MOD's line vigorously in the European Court of Human Rights or in any legal or media forums in which anyone may be obliged to speak or appear.
    If there is any furtiveness, I hope that serious consideration will be given, as it was in the United States, to commissioning a study similar to that pursued by the Rand Corporation in Santa Monica on what could be done within the military to prepare a way for an eventual change in policy. That may seem unpalatable now, but I feel that serious consideration must be given to such an approach.
    On reflection, I am delighted, despite my initial reservations, to have participated in the Committee

    519
    proceedings. As our Chairman said, the staff of the Select Committee were excellent. We had good relationships and there were some amusing contretemps with the witnesses. We were all seeking a common objective—a legal framework within which men and women may serve within the armed forces. I do not patronise them when I say that they are probably the best service men and women in the world.
    Those service men and women may be criticised. Lee Clegg was referred to by some of my hon. Friends, who implied that, somehow, he was a murderer. That is insulting nonsense. It was also implied that the men in Cyprus who besmirched the reputation of Britain's armed forces were in some way not an aberration. They were an aberration.
    I was angered by that debate, because I have seen British soldiers in the most appalling conditions throughout the world—in the Falklands, in some barracks in Britain and certainly in Northern Ireland. They are men and women who offer their services to the country in a way that few hon. Members can comprehend. There are few people who understand what young and not so young men and women sacrifice in order to earn not a miserable but an unsatisfactory salary.
    I am not making a political point. Those men and women are experiencing the traumas of a reorientation of our armed forces following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989. We should see as typical those people, not the men who did such damage to the reputation of the armed forces, the Ministry of Defence and the British in Cyprus and throughout the world. We can be justly proud of the men and women who are serving us.
    I hope that I shall be in a position to serve on the Select Committee that considers the next Bill five years from now. I hope that even more members of the Defence Committee will serve on that Committee, which showed that it is possible to develop a common approach to serious issues.
    I hope that the magnanimity that I showed in not pressing amendment No. 81 to a Division, when I would clearly have won, so allowing the Minister to avoid experiencing defeat within three hours of the beginning of the debate, will be reciprocated by the Minister's coming before the Defence Committee with an open mind and listening seriously to our arguments.
    I hope that the spirit of tolerance that has been shown by some Opposition Members will be duly rewarded with a compromise that at the moment is not evident. I hope that the consensual spirit that the Minister has experienced so recently will be continued, not in this Committee, which has now ceased to exist, but in the Defence Committee which will pick up a number of issues that were raised by the Select Committee on the Bill.
    9.52 pm
    Mr. Michael Stephen: This House of Commons has this evening made a momentous decision in refusing to overturn the British armed forces' long-standing policy that homosexuality is incompatible with military service. That is a delicate matter upon which many hon. Members have held and expressed genuine and passionate views on both sides.
    We decided that question after careful deliberation. It was one of the best debates that I have ever heard in the House. All points of view were considered. We drew upon
    520
    our own experiences and we listened to the experiences of other hon. Members, often eloquently expressed. I was particularly impressed by the contribution to the debate of the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid).
    One of the most important points in the debate was that the question had to be decided according to United Kingdom conditions. We were referred to the experiences of other countries. It is clear that other countries, including other European countries, have their own cultures and their armed forces have their own traditions, and that what succeeds or fails in their countries and in their armed forces may not necessarily be a good guide to what we should do here.
    But having made the decision on the basis of United Kingdom conditions, and after careful deliberation in this sovereign Parliament, I have one important concern, and that is that the whole exercise may have been completely academic. The European Court of Human Rights, we are told, is going to overrule the decision.
    During the debate, reference was made not only to that court but to the European Court of Justice. The two institutions are very different, and there is in particular an important difference between them in respect of the question that we have just decided. Defence matters are specifically excluded from the competence of the European Union, and the European Court of Justice would therefore have no right to decide whether homosexuality should be allowed in Britain's armed forces.
    I think that it would be outrageous if the European Court of Justice used equal opportunities legislation to seek to intervene in defence matters, which are specifically excluded from its competence. I find it extraordinary that the British Government conceded the point in relation to pregnant service women, and I hope that they will never again concede that the European Court of Justice has any jurisdiction in respect of defence.
    We are bound by the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights because we are signatories to the European convention on human rights. Defence matters are not exempted from that court's jurisdiction, as they are from the competence of the European Union. It is therefore open to the court, when the case comes before it—as it undoubtedly will—to overrule the decision that we have made, after careful deliberation, in this United Kingdom House of Commons. If it did so, that would be an extremely important constitutional matter.
    The European Court of Human Rights exists by virtue of a convention signed at the end of the second world war to protect the peoples of Europe from the gross abuses of human rights that were perpetrated during and before that war. It was not signed in order to allow a foreign court to interfere at will in this country's domestic affairs, and to overrule the will of this sovereign Parliament. The House must warn the European Court of Human Rights of the danger into which it may fall. It should be fully aware of that danger before deciding this case, and it should be aware that this sovereign Parliament has the right—although we do not wish to exercise it—to give notice, under article 65 of the convention, of its intention to withdraw from that convention if need be.
    9.57 pm
    Mr. Soames: I warmly endorse the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), and thank him for being such an admirable Chairman. I join him in

    521
    paying tribute to the Clerk and the Committee for all the work they did. As the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. Bruce) said, we had a very good cross-party debate. We dealt with important points; Bills such as this are important. As everyone agrees, it is important for the armed forces to know that justice is not only done but seen to be done, and I believe that their affairs were well investigated and looked after by the Committee.
    I also join my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport in warmly thanking the Ministry of Defence Bill team, the parliamentary branch of the MOD, my heroic parliamentary private secretary—my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins)—and all who contributed to the superb job that the Committee has done.
    The Bill both preserves and improves the system of discipline in the armed forces, and I warmly commend it to the House. We have settled many important matters. I heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) said; no one could gainsay the important points he made. The hon. Member for Walsall, South also made important points.
    Let me reassure the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) that we take the question of the Commission for Racial Equality very seriously. Some of what he said was very wide of the mark. It is not in our interests not to encourage all the recruits that we can get, wherever they come from; we need more, not fewer recruits from ethnic minorities in the armed forces, and they are very welcome. If the hon. Gentleman can offer me helpful suggestions as to how we can better achieve that, we shall pay considerable attention to them.
    We thank all who took part in the Bill's passage, and to our armed forces, wherever they may be—in Bosnia, Saudi Arabia or Turkey—we send our warmest wishes, and our thanks for all that they do for this country.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

    Royal Maternity Hospital, Belfast
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wells.]
    9.59 pm
    Dr. Joe Hendron: I am grateful for this opportunity to draw to the attention of the House a proposal that threatens one of Northern Ireland's most respected and renowned hospitals with an international reputation for innovation and research. It is the Royal maternity hospital, Belfast, which is an integral part of the Royal hospitals trust and is facing possible closure. Access to and from the four hospitals is simplicity itself and they are only about 150 m from each other. That is the geography, and when that is understood one can appreciate why over 85 per cent. of Northern Ireland's population can reach the Royal hospitals inside an hour.
    In a typical year, one family in three in Northern Ireland is seen in some department of the Royal hospitals. I emphasise that I speak not just as a politician but as a medical practitioner who has spent all his medical life in west Belfast where these great hospitals are situated.
    I shall explain why I have asked for the debate. The Northern Ireland Department of Health and Social Services, acting on behalf of the Minister, established a committee, the acute hospitals reorganisation project, under the chairmanship of Dr. James McKenna, a former chief medical officer for Northern Ireland. The committee is considering ways to eliminate unnecessary duplication of services by the Royal hospitals trust and Belfast City hospital, Northern Ireland's two largest hospitals.
    The committee, which includes representatives from both hospitals, was asked to make proposals as to how services could best be redeployed between the two to make the best possible use of resources in terms of specialist staff, accommodation and, presumably, finance because, inevitably, it was hoped that these proposals would bring about some savings in the Northern Ireland health service.
    It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wells.]
    Dr. Hendron: On the face of it, the establishment of the committee with its representation from the Eastern health board and various other interested parties seemed a good idea. However, many people, myself included, ask why the committee's remit should have been restricted to the services of these two great hospitals in isolation from other hospitals, particularly those within the Greater Belfast area which also duplicate services that are provided by the two hospitals in the centre.
    In terms of fairness, let alone economies of scale, it seems odd in the extreme that not one but three other acute hospitals within 10 miles of Belfast city centre are not included in the current review. I am grateful to the Minister for being present for this debate. First, he should immediately announce a further review of hospital services not just for Greater Belfast but for the whole of Northern Ireland. Until such a review has been completed, no hospital should be considered for closure.
    Of course I must deal with reality. Today a proposal, which will shortly be presented to the Minister, suggests that the maternity services of the Jubilee hospital,

    523
    which is part of the Belfast City hospital trust and the Royal hospitals trust, should be brought together in one unit in three yet-to-be-refurbished floors of the multi-storey tower block of the City hospital. That proposal has attracted almost universal opposition.
    I shall make some important facts clear before proceeding further. Both the Royal hospitals trust and the Belfast City hospital trust are committed in principle to the work of James McKenna's committee, but that does not mean blind acceptance of all the proposals, especially those in the most recent document called "Seeking Balance" which has been issued by the committee.
    The Royal, for example, with some reluctance, agrees with the proposal to move its renowned breast care clinic, the first in the United Kingdom to receive a charter mark, to a new location in Belfast City hospital. That is because the Royal trust believes that, if Belfast City hospital is to be the cancer centre for Northern Ireland, as appears to be the case, it is better for women to have the breast clinic located there. The Royal trust, however, is unanimous in opposing the proposal, which would close its maternity hospital and move it to the city hospital site.
    The Government are on record as having the best interests of the national health service at heart. Understandably, they advocate change, but surely only where change is for the better. They advocate change when clear economies are to be made. Those are worthy ideals, to which we would all subscribe. If the Minister agrees, however, with the proposal from the "Seeking Balance" document about maternity services, he will bring about changes in Belfast which, far from protecting or even enhancing the service, will weaken it and, almost unbelievably, will cost more to provide.
    I said earlier that I speak both as a politician and as a family doctor, but let me assure hon. Members that my views are not simply those of a concerned doctor. The opposition to the proposal is echoed by astonished clinicians throughout Northern Ireland and by medical experts throughout the UK. Let me quote some of the things that those learned people have been saying.
    The Provincial Paediatric Specialty Group, representing doctors throughout Northern Ireland, said about the proposal:
    "It was uniformly agreed that the proposed move would give rise to considerable difficulties in the care of the sick newborn. These babies may require the urgent attention of a range of specialist services and specialised laboratory services. On the site of the Royal Hospitals Trust there is easy access to the specialists and associated facilities. A move of the maternity services in isolation would compromise the care of the sick baby."
    The chairman of the division of paediatrics from the Homefirst community unit in Ballymena said:
    "Members were amazed and concerned at such a proposal as it was felt there could be no medical justification for it. Movement to Belfast City Hospital would isolate the neonate from the Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children. This cannot be in the best interests of the sick baby. The paediatricians in the Northern Health and Social Services Board feel that the proposed move would be a retrograde step moving from a unified to a split service."
    The Craigavon area hospital group trust said:
    "Our concern as referring doctors, to the neo-natal services is that they should have cardiac, surgical, neurosurgical, nephrology or ophthalmology requirements and that there is no unnecessary delay in obtaining those for the neonates."
    524
    All those services are available only within the Royal hospitals trust.
    Erne hospital in Enniskillen said:
    "In any redeployment of facilities for caring for small acutely ill babies, it is most important to so arrange affairs that all necessary facilities are available within one unit".
    As I said, in Northern Ireland, those facilities are available only in the Royal hospitals trust.
    The paediatric sub-committee of the area medical advisory committee of the Eastern Health and Social Services Board said:
    "The Sub-committee is of the view that there are clear disadvantages to this proposal for the management of babies requiring multiple specialist input. The Sub-committee can see no advantage to babies being treated on the Belfast City Hospital site. The proposal is in conflict with guidance from the British Paediatric Association and the British Association of Perinatal Medicine. There is no support for this move by any body of paediatrician in Belfast or anywhere in Northern Ireland. The committee unanimously recommend that the Regional Neonatal Service remains at the Royal site in close proximity to all specialist paediatric services available only at the Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children."
    The National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting for Northern Ireland said:
    "The National Board is strongly of the view that maternity, neonatology and children's services should be on the same site, as a significant number of neonates require the services of the Sick Children's Hospital within the first days of life."
    The paediatricians at the Ulster, North Down and Ards hospitals trust said:
    "We are concerned at the proposal that the Regional Neo-natal Services should now move to the Tower Block at the Belfast City Hospital. It has been our understanding over the years as clinicians that to provide the best such service it has been important and will remain important to have our regional neo-natal and paediatric system specialists on the same site to most efficiently meet the complex needs of these babies. To separate the neo-natal service to the Belfast City Hospital would clearly be a clinically poorer service than the present excellent one."
    The Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children is in close proximity to the neo-natal unit and the Royal maternity hospital. Its staff said:
    "The proposals to dislocate the relationship between the tertiary maternity and neo-natal services from the paediatric specialties and the regional cardiac and neurosurgical services on the Royal Hospitals site receives no support. To rearrange these services so that they are separated not only by physical distance, but also by the busiest dual carriageway in the province is almost certainly going to reduce the quality of the service available to newborn babies and will result in delayed diagnosis and treatment and consequent increases in morbidity and mortality."
    The staff of the Royal maternity hospital said:
    "It is envisaged that all the facilities for a regional service can be provided within the present Royal Maternity Hospital. 'Seeking Balance' proposes the removal of obstetrics, gynaecology and neonatology from the Royal site. We submit that firstly the quality of care to the women and the babies of Belfast and Northern Ireland cannot but deteriorate as a result of this move and secondly, facilities can be provided on the Royal site to enable the highest quality of effective care to be maintained."
    The Western Health and Social Services board in Londonderry said:
    "We consider it clinically inappropriate given the regional nature of some of the maternity/neonatal provision that this should be separated from related back-up facilities such as the paediatric surgical component. We find the proposal surprising given the recent significant refurbishments which there have been at the Royal Maternity Hospital. Amalgamation on the Royal Maternity site could be achieved more quickly and at significantly less cost."

    525
    One clinical difficulty related to the use of the tower block option is that there would inevitably be greater time delays for mothers arriving in advanced labour or with emergency difficulties and who need emergency clinical assessment. That is currently coped with easily in the layout that exists at the Royal maternity hospital, but it is likely to be much more difficult to achieve where a maternity unit is placed on three floors of the tower block.
    I want to make a few important points, to which I know that the Minister will pay particular attention. There are about 50 calls per month by paediatric specialists to sick babies in the neonatal unit of the Royal maternity hospital. The Jubilee maternity hospital refers 15 babies per year to the neonatal unit of the Royal and, in addition to that, there are about 70 to 80 babies a year from throughout Northern Ireland. It does not take minutes, which is what it says in the McKenna report, to transfer a baby from the Jubilee to the Royal—it takes three quarters of an hour from the moment a decision is taken to transfer a baby until it arrives at the Royal.
    Targeting social need is an important part of Government policy. The Secretary of State refers to the policy of targeting social need being implemented in areas such as north and west Belfast—areas of great deprivation. The Royal group of hospitals is the biggest employer in west Belfast. Therefore, to threaten its future is gross and rank hypocrisy.
    Opposition to the proposal to close or transfer the Royal maternity hospital comes from all staff levels in the Royal, including midwives, nurses and consultants as well as from trade unions and the West Belfast health monitoring committee. The people of the Protestant Shankill road and of the Catholic Falls road, as well as the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker), are totally against the closure of the Royal maternity hospital.
    I could add many more quotations, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I could tell you about the tens of thousands of people throughout the city and the rest of Northern Ireland who have signed petitions against the proposal. I could tell you about communities united as never before in the joint aim of protecting and maintaining the best possible clinical service for mothers and babies.
    In the national health service beyond Northern Ireland, health authorities throughout the United Kingdom have been unanimous in saying that where possible they would wish to provide paediatric and maternity services side by side on one site. In Belfast, within the Royal hospitals trust, that sought-after arrangement already exists, yet it is under threat from a committee set up by the Minister and the Department of Health and Social Services.
    There is another aspect to the ludicrous and ill-conceived proposal to move maternity services from the Royal into the Belfast city hospital tower block—that of finance. The Belfast city hospital is a modern building less than 10 years old, yet because of its design, if all the maternity services from the Jubilee maternity hospital and the Royal maternity hospital had to be accommodated within its floors, as the McKenna committee proposes, alterations costing £5 million to £6 million, which could not be completed until the year 2000 at the earliest, would have to be made. It is claimed that the relocated services would then have a 25-year life span.
    However, the Royal maternity hospital, although admittedly the building is 60 years old, was designed to handle up to 7,000 deliveries a year, and already houses
    526
    Northern Ireland's superb regional neonatal unit, which is known not only the length and breadth of Ireland but far beyond. The unit was opened recently at a cost of about £2 million, has more theatres than are envisaged in the relocation to the city hospital, and could easily and swiftly be adapted to take all the services currently at the Jubilee, at much lower cost.
    Indeed, to give the Royal maternity hospital the same 25-year life span believed possible at the Belfast city hospital would cost about £4 million—£2 million less than the current proposal at the city hospital will cost. That does not include the savings that could be made almost immediately because the Royal maternity option would quickly be brought into operation, whereas the proposal involving the city hospital tower could not be implemented until the year 2000 at the earliest.
    I admit that I am no economist, but it seems to me that to reject the idea of spending £4 million to enhance a service that is already of high quality, with high standards and a unique and comprehensive range of services, in favour of spending £6 million on a proposal that will offer services that are less accessible and of a lower standard, simply does not make sense. So why is the proposal before the Minister?
    The answer is now clear. The object of the acute hospitals project in this case is to utilise fully Belfast city hospital's tower block. I have no hang-up about that; indeed, as a young doctor I worked in the city hospital myself. The Royal hospitals trust has no hang-up about it either, but it has offered Dr. McKenna other more sensible options, which so far all seem to have been rejected. The document "Seeking Balance" does not seem to have sought far enough.
    There are strongly held views that the three floors thought necessary to accommodate the maternity services will not be available in the tower from the year 2000. But even if they were likely to be available, no Government and no department of the civil service, no one faced with possible appearances before the Public Accounts Committee, could accept a proposal to commit millions of pounds to what is clearly a contentious recommendation, without serious in-depth investment appraisals being carried out by independent experts.
    That would mean that all the options would have to be fully considered, not simply the one proposal about to be put before the Minister. There are at least three other options, which must be fully financially explored.
    The first option is to concentrate all the Royal maternity hospital and Jubilee hospital services in the tower of the Belfast city hospital. The second is to leave the services as they are. The third is to look at the maternity services provided by all the hospitals in the Belfast area before making a decision. The final option—the most obvious and sensible one in the circumstances—is to relocate the services from the Jubilee hospital to the Royal maternity hospital site. Without such an appraisal, no Government could possibly approve action that, in the long run, could result in millions of pounds being spent unwisely.
    History is often strange. In the case of the maternity services in Belfast area, it is not just strange but bizarre. Just before the trusts were launched in Northern Ireland, the Eastern health and social services board was trying to find ways of saving money. The board produced a number of reports that offered various options as to how services should best be provided within the tight finances that the board expected to be available in the coming years.

    527
    One plan produced by the board was to centralise maternity services in the Greater Belfast area. Bearing in mind the then regional strategy, the proximity of the children's hospital to the Royal maternity hospital and various other factors, which hospital found itself faced with a closure plan? It was the Jubilee, and of course there was a massive campaign to keep that hospital open. But that was the recommendation that was made to the Government. Barely three years later, the same board—having failed to bring about the closure of the Jubilee hospital in pre-trust days—is one of the key players in the McKenna committee that produced the proposal to move all maternity services into the Belfast city hospital. Isn't that amazing?
    Let me sum up. The document "Seeking Balance", produced by the acute hospitals reorganisation project, wants to move maternity services from the Jubilee maternity hospital and the Royal maternity hospital and relocate them in the upper three storeys of a multi-storey tower block. This proposal is against all the best clinical opinion, which supports the provision of maternity and paediatric services on the same site as is currently provided on the Royal hospital site. The proposal to relocate at the Belfast city hospital will cost a minimum of £6 million, whereas centralisation at the Royal maternity hospital will cost at most £4 million—a saving of £2 million. No financial appraisals have been made of this contentious proposal, and clearly there must be a thorough investigation of all possible options.
    The Minister should reject this illogical, ill-conceived and insensitive proposal concerning maternity services. The Department of Health should carry out a thorough review of all hospital services throughout Northern Ireland and, in addition, obtain proper investment appraisals of all other possible options for maternity services other than those currently outlined in the document "Seeking Balance". These will conclude that the only sensible way to provide and to protect these most necessary services is to have them located within the Royal maternity hospital, which is only a few minutes walk from the internationally acclaimed services of the other three hospitals within the Royal trust.
    Were the Government to do anything less, they would be ignoring the best options for women and babies. Surely no Minister and no Government would want to compromise these essential services.
    10.22 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Malcolm Moss): I congratulate the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron) on his good fortune in securing the debate. I commend him for his choice of subject and for the clear manner in which he has set out his concerns and those of his constituents about the current proposals by the acute hospitals reorganisation project for the rationalisation of maternity services between the Belfast City Hospital trust and the Royal Group of Hospitals trust.
    I want to make it clear at the outset that the proposal for maternity services has not been made in isolation. It is one of a large number of proposals for 28 specialties that have been put forward by the reorganisation project and not, I wish to make it clear, by my Department. Because those proposals are so closely interrelated, they can be considered properly only as a complete package.
    528
    The proposal on maternity services was one of 16 contained in the third project paper, "Seeking Balance", on which consultation finished on 5 April. The project's steering group is at present considering the responses that it received and, in the light of those, will put a final set of recommendations before me for consideration. At that stage, I shall wait to consult further, as I did in relation to the second paper, "A Singular Service". At the end of that process, it will be my responsibility to make the final decisions.
    I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall do so as quickly as possible, to remove the uncertainty at both trusts, but not before I have had time to hear and consider fully all the arguments from both sides of this important and emotive issue. I want to emphasise that, whatever my final decisions, the future of the two trusts will not be put in any doubt by the absence of a maternity unit, either in clinical terms or in terms of income.
    The Belfast city hospital tower is one of the most modern hospitals in the United Kingdom, and will continue to be a key asset for many years to come. The Government have recently agreed an investment of approximately £65 million for the reconstruction of the Royal Victoria hospital. That is in addition to expenditure of more than £20 million in the Royal Group in the past five years. There could hardly be clearer evidence of our commitment to both those much admired and loved hospitals.
    As a prerequisite to discussion of any of the proposals, it is necessary to understand how and why they came about in the first place. We started back in November 1993 when, after extensive consultation over almost two years, the Eastern health and social services board produced its "Strategy for General (Acute) Hospital Services". In the section of the document that focused on maternity services, the board set down its view that one maternity unit in central Belfast could provide the required services both for the local population, and, in terms of specialist services, for the wider board area and Northern Ireland as a whole. The board also commented on the significant support for the concept of one maternity unit in central Belfast that it found during the consultation process.
    The board's strategy was then considered by my predecessor, Baroness Denton, and in announcing her decisions in March 1994, she welcomed the fact that not only the board but
    "both Trusts recognise the need for rationalisation and are willing to play their part in achieving this".
    She then asked Dr. James McKenna, then the chief medical officer, to move from that post and lead a steering group on rationalisation.
    For the record, the remit of the acute hospitals reorganisation project, as it came to be known, is
    "to develop and oversee the implementation of a coherent strategy for the reorganisation of services at the RGH Trust and the BCH Trust to provide a sound basis for their future development"—
    this is a key point—
    "having regard to services presently located at other hospitals in the Greater Belfast Area where relevant".
    To take up the hon. Gentleman's point about the wider remit, I think that there is still within the original remit for the reorganisation project the wherewithal to move beyond the two hospitals, where that is relevant.

    529
    It is important to note that the chief executive and clinical director of the RGH and the BCH trusts are members of the steering group.
    I want to deal with some of the hon. Gentleman's more specific points in the very limited time that he has left me to respond. If I do not cover all his points, I shall write to him and I shall be issuing a press release to the Andersonstown News.
    The group's second paper, "A Singular Service", was issued for consultation in mid-1995 and contained proposals for 12 specialties. That paper, too, gained public and professional support and, following further consultation on my part, I endorsed the recommendations at the beginning of this year.
    Simultaneously with my announcement on "A Singular Service", the steering group issued for consultation the "Seeking Balance" document, which contains proposals not only for maternity services but for 15 other specialties. It sets out the majority view of the steering group, that maternity services, including gynaecology and neonatology, should be provided in the Belfast city hospital tower rather than the Royal Group of Hospitals site. I do not intend to comment this evening on the pros or cons of that recommendation. It would be wrong for me to do so at this time, as I expect to be asked by the
    530
    group to consider its final recommendation, whatever it may be, and to make a decision on the issue. I can, however, make some general comments on the matter.
    The view that only one consultant-led maternity unit is required in central Belfast was, as I said, first expressed by the Eastern board in its acute hospital strategy, and was subsequently endorsed by my predecessor, Baroness Denton. There was clear evidence of strong support for the concept during the consultation on the board's strategy. The physical inadequacies of both the present units, the Royal maternity hospital and the Jubilee, were pointed out by the hon. Gentleman.
    The hon. Gentleman also asked me about the need for an option appraisal. I agree that the financial aspect of the proposal is important, and I would not pretend otherwise. The demand for health services outstrips the supply of money available and there must be a continuous search for greater efficiency, to ensure that the maximum benefit is derived from existing resources. I give him an undertaking that there will be a need for an option—
    The motion having been made at Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.

TRANSPORT

  Office Space
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the square footage and cost of office space rented by his Department and its agencies and the number of his Department or agencies' buildings partly, or fully unoccupied together with the square footage of that unoccupied office space and its estimated rental value where available in each of the past five financial years. [27719]

  Mr. Norris
  My Department occupies 3,893,000sq ft of office space with an annual rental cost of £22,117,000.

  This includes 109,000sq ft of fully or partly unoccupied office space in eight buildings with an annual rental cost of £420,000.

  My Department does not hold reliable information for past years.

  Railway Bridges
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many of Railtrack's structures are subject to overstress above levels acceptable by his Department. [28268]

  Mr. Watts
  Railtrack has weight capacity obligations under the Transport Act 1968 in respect of bridges carrying highways over the railway. Railtrack has estimated that around 10 per cent. of such bridges owned by it do not meet the weight capacity obligations and estimates the total cost of strengthening these bridges to meet it to be £200 million, of which £150 million is likely to be spent during the period ending 31 March 2004. Railtrack will review this estimate in the light of an assessment of highway overbridges that it is presently carrying out on behalf of local authorities, in consequence of an EU directive which requires the United Kingdom to admit 40 tonne vehicles from 1 January 1999.

  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many of Railtrack's bridges have a structural assessment indicating a life of(a) up to one year, (b) one to three years, (c) three to five years and (d) over five years. [28270]

  Mr. Watts
  Structural assessment is the process by which the safe load of a structure is established and does not itself indicate residual life. Railtrack's rigorous inspection process is designed to discover incipient defects in structures before their integrity is threatened so that preventive action can be taken in good time.

  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many bridges are owned by Railtrack; and how many of these have a valid up to date structural assessment; [28224]
  192
  (2) what estimate has been made of how long it would take to obtain up to date structural assessments for all of Railtrack's bridges, and of the cost involved. [28226]

  Mr. Watts
  Railtrack owns around 40,000 bridges, viaducts and tunnels. These structures currently have assessments in compliance with long-standing policies. Railtrack has published more stringent standards covering bridge assessments and is assessing bridges to calculate their strength on a priority basis over an 18-year cycle.

  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many bridge reconstructions Railtrack plans to carry out over the next 10 years. [28222]

  Mr. Watts
  In the period to 2004 Railtrack plans to renew 913 bridge spans, excluding those that are part of stations and depots.

  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if Railtrack has up to date scour assessments for each of its bridges and other structures which could be affected by flooding. [28554]

  Mr. Watts
  I understand that Railtrack does have such assessments.

  British Rail Property Sales
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what were the total proceeds from British Rail property sales in each of the last five years. [28552]

  Mr. Watts
  The total proceeds from property sales after deduction of sale expenses are as follows:

  £ million

  1991–92

  43.7

  1992–93

  33.8

  1993–94

  107.7

  1994–95

  39.9

  1995–96

  142.5

  Total

  267.6

  1 Subject to audit.

  Port of Tyne Authority
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many written representations have been received by him in respect of the Port of Tyne Authority scheme 1996; and of these how many expressed(a) opposition to and (b) support for the proposed privatisation of the port of Tyne; and if he will place copies of the representations in the Library. [28310]

  Mr. Norris
  A total of 134 written representations have been received in respect of the proposed privatisation of the Port of Tyne Authority. Three were in favour, one was purely technical and did not express a view, and 130 were opposed.

  The Port of Tyne Authority's notice concerning representations did not suggest that they would be made available other than to the Secretary of State, the authority, and its parliamentary agents, and they are therefore not being otherwise released.
  193

  Traffic Director for London
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has decided on the appointment of the Traffic Director for London; and if he will make a statement. [29182]

  Mr. Norris
  I am pleased to confirm that Derek Turner has been reappointed as Traffic Director for London from 9 May 1996 at a salary of £75,000. His primary objective remains to have the red route network substantially operational by 2000.

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much was spent on official hospitality by his Department and all associated agencies in the financial year 1995–96. [28564]

  Mr. Norris
  The table represents the expenditure on official hospitality by the Department, central transport group, and its associated agencies in the financial year 1995–96. The figure for the central transport group may include some non-entertainment costs which cannot readily be disaggregated.

  £

  Central Transport Group

  170,704

  Driving Standards Agency

  3,009

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

  10,546

  Marine Safety Agency

  17,740

  The Coastguard Agency

  7,906

  Vehicle Certification Agency

  1,280

  Vehicle Inspectorate

  46,000

  The Highways Agency

  4,097

  The total amount spent by the Department and its agencies for the financial year 1995–96 was £261,282.64.

  Sea Empress
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the countries who volunteered equipment, personnel and supplies and other aid for Milford Haven during the Sea Empress disaster; and if he will make a statement. [27554]

  Mr. Norris
  A number of specific offers of assistance were received by the marine pollution control unit from a number of companies and organisations, some of them foreign based. In addition the MPCU received direct offers of assistance from the Governments of the Netherlands, France and Germany.

  Highway Bridges
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much money has been committed by his Department for the carrying out of assessments required to plan for the strengthening of bridges required under European Union regulations(a) for each local authority in England and (b) for England indicating the sum committed for 1994–95, 1995–96 and 1996–97 and showing the totals as a percentage of overall local authority budgets; and if he will make a statement. [28157]
  194
  Mr. Norris
  Local authorities receive a single allocation for both the assessment and the strengthening of their highway bridges. In 1996–97, for the first time, an element within this allocation was separately identified for assessment, but it remains open to local authorities to determine their own priorities within the total allocation. The first three columns of the following table show total bridge allocations for 1994–95, 1995–96 and 1996–97 respectively. The final column shows the indicative assessment allocations made in 1996–97. The information required to express these as a percentage of overall local authority budgets is not readily available.

  Allocations for Assessment and Strengthening of Bridges

  11994–95

  11995–96

  11996–97

  21996–97

  Total allocations for England

  England

  137,000

  122,438

  103,096

  28,176

  Allocations by local authority

  City of London

  610

  496

  622

  207

  Barking

  139

  125

  146

  46

  Barnet

  485

  200

  140

  40

  Bexley

  852

  742

  458

  50

  Brent

  830

  200

  220

  120

  Bromley

  183

  360

  180

  80

  Camden

  1,945

  1,372

  320

  160

  Croydon

  77

  172

  225

  125

  Ealing

  158

  126

  123

  23

  Enfield

  1,059

  1,436

  1,070

  370

  Greenwich

  569

  660

  284

  110

  Hackney

  891

  555

  245

  145

  Hammersmith

  2,153

  1,164

  530

  230

  Haringey

  424

  720

  416

  22

  Harrow

  571

  1,245

  395

  170

  Havering

  239

  340

  277

  228

  Hillingdon

  939

  1,046

  1,030

  130

  Hounslow

  701

  1,045

  790

  50

  Islington

  471

  1,490

  907

  100

  Kensington

  30

  122

  300

  0

  Kingston

  330

  2,500

  2,560

  10

  Lambeth

  465

  831

  585

  185

  Lewisham

  114

  179

  410

  60

  Merton

  64

  117

  120

  60

  Newham

  5,960

  2,437

  1,600

  100

  Redbridge

  557

  200

  150

  50

  Richmond

  462

  400

  185

  85

  Southwark

  361

  1,088

  747

  40

  Sutton

  285

  376

  244

  144

  Tower Hamlets

  414

  943

  734

  27

  Waltham Forest

  235

  178

  382

  227

  Wandsworth

  3,600

  764

  765

  325

  Westminister

  2,165

  3,301

  2,786

  136

  Bath and North-East Somerset

  n/a

  n/a

  735

  64

  Bristol

  n/a

  n/a

  934

  245

  North Somerset

  n/a

  n/a

  304

  66

  South Gloucestshire

  n/a

  n/a

  162

  82

  Hartlepool

  n/a

  n/a

  18

  18

  Middlesbrough

  n/a

  n/a

  702

  37

  Redcar and Cleveland

  n/a

  n/a

  237

  47

  Stockton

  n/a

  n/a

  200

  57

  East Riding

  n/a

  n/a

  518

  185

  Hull

  n/a

  n/a

  538

  110

  North-East Lincolnshire

  n/a

  n/a

  176

  70

  North Lincolnshire

  n/a

  n/a

  402

  70

  North Yorkshire

  n/a

  n/a

  1,744

  888

  York

  n/a

  n/a

  206

  82

  Bolton

  1,223

  2,264

  990

  180

  Bury

  1,032

  425

  484

  56

  Manchester

  2,150

  1,620

  1,266

  367

  Oldham

  2,060

  1,346

  1,190

  207

  Rochdale

  1,062

  1,866

  2,392

  150

  Salford

  768

  892

  910

  189

  Stockport

  2,350

  1,284

  1,378

  222

  Tameside

  492

  363

  584

  80

  Trafford

  214

  804

  1,134

  121

  Wigan

  385

  547

  510

  120

  Knowsley

  283

  157

  322

  84

  195

  Allocations for Assessment and Strengthening of Bridges

  11994–95

  11995–96

  11996–97

  21996–97

  Liverpool

  616

  508

  726

  202

  St. Helens

  176

  90

  715

  97

  Sefton

  363

  328

  510

  176

  Wirral

  319

  596

  583

  60

  Barnsley

  823

  546

  562

  158

  Doncaster

  1,558

  2,169

  1,162

  280

  Rotherham

  966

  966

  984

  80

  Sheffield

  3,071

  3,608

  1,945

  479

  Gateshead

  224

  422

  308

  118

  Newcastle

  211

  1,251

  1,514

  88

  North Tyneside

  408

  288

  557

  55

  South Tyneside

  318

  318

  496

  68

  Sunderland

  493

  342

  582

  201

  Birmingham

  2,163

  1,500

  1,084

  180

  Coventry

  828

  743

  741

  129

  Dudley

  501

  432

  454

  50

  Sandwell

  2,932

  2,516

  1,105

  162

  Solihull

  240

  214

  271

  75

  Walsall

  2,228

  1,073

  986

  58

  Wolverhampton

  3,538

  2,788

  1,100

  149

  Bradford

  3,247

  2,177

  1,106

  477

  Calderdale

  622

  622

  494

  160

  Kirklees

  1,078

  890

  556

  124

  Leeds

  2,006

  1,311

  1,020

  402

  Wakefield

  1,188

  939

  680

  129

  Avon

  2,211

  1,789

  n/a

  n/a

  Bedfordshire

  1,530

  2,137

  986

  277

  Berkshire

  850

  823

  1,114

  305

  Buckinghamshire

  478

  818

  758

  282

  Cambridgeshire

  1,462

  1,462

  1,433

  266

  Cheshire

  3,358

  3,283

  2,341

  700

  Cleveland

  1,338

  382

  n/a

  n/a

  Cornwall

  1,970

  1,870

  1,340

  675

  Cumbria

  1,342

  910

  1,256

  400

  Derbyshire

  1,126

  976

  1,294

  629

  Devon

  1,432

  1,382

  1,290

  625

  Dorset

  784

  1,067

  1,160

  495

  Durham

  1,727

  1,103

  1,727

  205

  East Sussex

  1,277

  1,085

  1,144

  250

  Essex

  2,207

  1,655

  1,540

  684

  Gloucestershire

  996

  656

  1,030

  365

  Hampshire

  1,111

  1,112

  1,331

  666

  Herefordshire/ Worcestershire

  779

  661

  759

  283

  Hertfordshire

  1,800

  1,513

  1,286

  430

  Humberside

  1,183

  1,084

  n/a

  n/a

  Isle of Wight

  132

  97

  197

  7

  Kent

  2,344

  2,334

  1,456

  600

  Lancashire

  5,990

  4,866

  2,356

  1,500

  Leicestershire

  1,124

  1,008

  922

  257

  Lincolnshire

  1,752

  1,080

  1,261

  452

  Norfolk

  3,413

  2,457

  2,021

  828

  Northamptonshire

  1,059

  999

  890

  225

  Northumbria

  3,745

  2,684

  1,548

  216

  North Yorkshire

  2,588

  2,186

  1,744

  888

  Nottinghamshire

  1,403

  1,451

  1,580

  578

  Oxon

  1,133

  1,088

  1,071

  406

  Shropshire

  1,264

  1,215

  1,055

  342

  Somerset

  1,690

  1,893

  1,487

  536

  Staffordshire

  1,630

  1,300

  964

  300

  Suffolk

  2,166

  1,768

  1,249

  250

  Surrey

  4,291

  3,686

  1,641

  690

  Warwickshire

  1,380

  994

  1,270

  414

  West Sussex

  354

  312

  951

  540

  Wiltshire

  117

  117

  1,165

  689

  1 Assessment and strengthening.

  2 Assessment only.

  Public Transport Fares (London)
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what percentage of(a) London underground fares and (b) London bus fares will be capped as a result of his consultation on transport in London; [28417]
  196
  (2) what estimate he has made of the loss of revenue to London Transport resulting from the proposed capping of fares in transport in London; [28416]

  (3) what are the implications of his consultation on transport in London for the price of London Transport travel cards; [28415]

  (4) what additional funding he plans to provide for London Transport following his decision to cap transport fares in London. [28418]

  Mr. Norris
  The London travelcard, excluding one-day tickets, is included in the range of fares subject to the franchising director's policy on passenger rail fares. There is no capping regime for other London Transport fares. However, as its document "A Transport Strategy for London" indicates, the Government believe that in future LT fares are likely to rise more in line with inflation than with earnings, implying average fares increases lower than in recent years. LT's revenue forecasts will continue to be taken into account in considering LT's funding requirements.

  Vessels
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he proposes to issue his Department's consultation document on sub-standard and uninsured vessels; and if he will make a statement. [28472]

  Mr. Norris
  In the near future.

  Salvage Tugs
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans his Department has to enter into contracts for salvage tugs to be stationed at Stornoway and Dover during the winter months of 1996–97. [28474]

  Mr. Norris
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Stoke on Trent, North (Ms Walley) on 18 March,Official Report, column 40.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what evaluation he has made of the stationing of salvage tugs at Stornoway and Dover during the winter months of 1995–96; and if he will make a statement. [28473]

  Mr. Norris
  The two tugs completed their 1995–96 trial on 30 April. The results are currently being analysed.

ENVIRONMENT

  Office Space
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the square footage and cost of office space rented by his Department and its agencies and the number of his Department or agencies' buildings partly, or fully unoccupied together with the square footage of that unoccupied together with the square footage of that office space and its estimated rental value where available in each of the past five financial years. [27729]
  197
  Sir Paul Beresford
  Prior to 1 April 1996, office accommodation on the civil estate was managed centrally by Property Holdings not by individual Departments. The information for the years requested is therefore not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  On 1 April my Department inherited from Property Holdings responsibility for the management of 1.4 million sq. ft. of rented office space in 100 buildings at a total cost of some £25 million in rents and rates of 1995–96 levels. Vacant office space totalled some 150,000 sq ft in 10 buildings at an estimated cost of £2.2 million for 1996–97, if none is occupied.

  My Department also sponsors two crown bodies—the Buildings Research Establishment and the Health and Safety Executive—whose properties were not managed by Property Holdings. The information requested in respect of these bodies is as follows:

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  BRE

  Square footage

  19,786

  19,786

  19,786

  19,786

  19,786

  Cost (£000s)

  74

  80

  80

  94

  94

  HSE

  Square footage

  1,042,487

  1,042,487

  1,098,223

  1,098,223

  1,033,455

  Cost (£000s)

  6,603

  7,729

  8,155

  9,173

  8,836

  The buildings used by these bodies have been fully occupied throughout the relevant period.

  Air Pollution
  Sir Graham Bright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the costs to public funds of(a) health care and (b) clean-up measures from pollution from diesel vehicles. [28178]

  Mr. Clappison
  Diesel vehicles emit a number of pollutants. Of these the pollutant most strongly linked with health effects is particulate matter less than 10 microns across—PM10. During winter episodes in most major United Kingdom cities the dominant contribution of primary PM10 comes from road traffic, notably from diesel-powered vehicles, increasing from about a quarter to in excess of 70 per cent. It is difficult to estimate precisely the effects on health of particles from diesel vehicles. Healthy individuals are unlikely to be affected by levels of PM10 found in ambient air in the United Kingdom. However, there is growing evidence of a link between PM10 and premature mortality, hospital admissions and ill-health in those with pre-existing heart or lung conditions.

  Pollutants from road traffic, including diesel vehicles, have other environmental impacts, for instance soiling of buildings caused mainly by particulate elemental carbon. It has been estimated' that in the financial year 1990–91 the UK stone cleaning market had a value of £79 million. 1 Mansfield T (1992) Sources of Building Soiling and a Review of the Stone Cleaning Industry 1991, International Conference on Stone Cleaning, Edinburgh.
  198
  Sir Graham Bright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what powers local authorities have to set pollution limits for vehicles used to undertake local authority services. [28179]

  Mr. Clappison
  Statutory emission limits for new vehicles and for those in service are set by the Secretary of State for Transport and approved by Parliament. Local authorities have no special powers to impose different limits. It would be a matter for a local authority should it wish to set separate conditions for vehicles undertaking a local service, provided these did not breach compulsory competitive tendering requirements.

  Sir Graham Bright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many airborne particulates monitoring sites there are in the United Kingdom; [28180]

  (2) what are the current levels of airborne particulates as measured in the United Kingdom. [28181]

  Mr. Clappison
  There are currently 22 sites in the Department of the Environment's national automatic monitoring network which measure fine particulate matter—PMlO. A further 26 PM10 monitors will be added to the network by the end of 1996, bringing the total number of PM10 sites to 48. The Department also, in co-operation with local authorities, monitors particles in the form of smoke at 225 sites throughout the UK.

  In 1995, the annual average mean concentration of PM10, measured at the 16 national automatic urban monitoring sites in operation, ranged from 20 to 28 microgrammes per metre cubed. The maximum 24 hour running average concentration at the same sites ranged from 68 to 395 microgrammes per metre cubed. The average annual average concentration of smoke at 225 sites between April 1994 and March 1995 was 9 microgrammes per cubic metre. The maximum daily average smoke concentration during this period ranged from 9 to 263 microgrammes per cubic metre.

  Current concentrations of PM10 from the national automatic monitoring network are updated hourly on the Internet (http://www.open.gov.uk/doe/doehome.htm).

  Fire Service Pension Scheme
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to place the funding of the fire service pension scheme outside the capping criteria; and if he will make a statement. [28248]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  We have no plans to place the funding of the fire service pension scheme outside the capping criteria. Any decisions on capping criteria for 1997–98 will be considered in the context of the local government finance settlement.

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much was spent on official hospitality by his Department and all associated agencies in the financial year 1995–96. [28570]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Total expenditure by my Department and its agencies, including the residual
  199
  functions of Property Services Agency services, in 1995–96 is expected to be £107,000. This does not include the agencies which transferred to the Office of Public Service on 1 January 1996. I also refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service today.

  Purchase Grant Scheme
  Mr. Merchant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) when he intends to consult on detailed proposals covering the remaining counties of England to exempt small rural settlements from the purchase grant scheme; and if he will make a statement; [28956]

  (2) when he intends to consult on detailed proposals covering the remaining counties of England to exempt small rural settlements from the purchase grant scheme; and if he will make a statement. [29183]

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

  Today we issued a supplement to that paper, which gives detailed proposals for a further 15 counties or areas, covering Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly; Cumbria; Devon; Durham; Gloucestershire; Greater Manchester; Hampshire; Hereford and Worcester; Hertfordshire; Humberside; Isle of Wight; Kent; Shropshire; Oxfordshire and Wiltshire.

  We will also consult on the remaining areas of England shortly.

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

  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the Environment Agency has now prepared its code on enforcement practice. [29042]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Environment Agency's code on enforcement practice was adopted on 23 April and copies have been placed in the Library of the House. It takes the form of a statement of enforcement policy which sets out how the agency will operate, and detailed guidance for warranted officers, setting out their responsibilities. The documents will be revised over time in the light of experience and comments from all the agency's customers.

  Animal Feedstuffs
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what regulations govern the inclusion of cement dust in animal feedstuffs. [27342]

  Mrs. Browning
  I have been asked to reply.
  200
  There are no regulations controlling the specific use of cement dust in animal feedingstuffs. However, under the Agriculture Act 1970, it is an offence to sell, or have in possession with a view to sale, any material which is deleterious to animals or, through the consumption of animal products, deleterious to human beings. The Feeding Stuffs Regulations 1995, made under part IV of the 1970 Act, contain detailed provisions including controls on contaminants to feedingstuffs.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Solicitors' Indemnity Fund
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the solicitors' indemnity fund. [27564]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The solicitors indemnity fund, which provides compulsory insurance cover for all solicitors, was established under section 37 of the Solicitors Act 1974. The Act empowers the Law Society to make rules concerning indemnity against loss arising from any kind of civil liability, although most claims arise from allegations of negligence. The most recent rules are the Solicitors Indemnity Rules 1992.

  Personal Injury Insurance Compensation
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the maximum time after which personal injury insurance compensation may no longer be pursued; and what plans he has to alter this period. [27904]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The limitation period in respect of claims between an insurer and an insured person arising out of their contract is six years, subject to any stipulation in the contract to the contrary. The normal period in respect of claims for compensation for personal injury against the person causing the injury is three years from the date on which the cause of action accrued or the date of the plaintiffs knowledge. The Law Commission is at present reviewing limitation periods generally.

  Justices of the Peace
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the present number of(a) men and (b) women from ethnic minority communities who are justices of the peace, serving courts in the Greater London area. [27953]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Information is only available in respect of three of the six Greater London commissions of the peace.

  Male

  Female

  Total

  City of London

  1

  3

  4

  Inner London

  67

  45

  112

  Middlesex

  Not available

  —

  144

  No information is currently available in respect of the North-East, South-East and South-West London commissions.
  201

TREASURY

  Privatisation
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in how many privatisations Bayesian probability theory was used in the analysis of maintenance costs of the capital equipment being privatised; and if he will make a statement on the value of the theory in assessing investment needs of(a) public and (b) private industries. [27938]

  Mr. Jack
  Information required to determine the number of privatisations in which Bayesian probability theory was used could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Bayesian probability theory is an established modelling technique relevant to determining estimates of maintenance expenditure for companies with a large capital base. It is not for HM Government to express a view of the value attributable to the use of Bayesian probability theory by private industries.

  Suicides in the United Kingdom involving the use of firearm and a shotgun in 1980, 1985, 1992, 1993 and 1994

  1980

  1985

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Suicides and self-inflicted injury by firearm including shotgun

  255

  257

  206

  205

  193

  Suicides and self-inflicted injury by shotgun only

  85

  107

  98

  101

  96

  Injury by firearm including shotgun undetermined whether accidentally or purposely inflicted

  25

  38

  24

  20

  24

  Injury by shotgun only undetermined whether accidentally or purposely inflicted

  10

  13

  9

  9

  12

  1 International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision.

  Codes E995.0-E955.4 refer to deaths where suicide is the underlying cause of death, whereas codes E985.0-E985.4 relate to deaths where it is undetermined whether the injury was accidentally or purposely inflicted. The majority of these, however, are generally regarded to be suicide.

  Deaths in England and Wales for 1992 and earlier years represent the number of deaths registered in each year, while deaths from 1993 are deaths which occurred in each year.

  Deaths in Scotland and Northern Ireland represent the number of deaths registered in every year.

  Hourly Earnings
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many employees in (i) England and (ii) Great Britain earned(a) less than £1.50 per hour, (b) between £1.50 and £2.50 per hour, (c) between £2.50 and £3.50 per hour, (d) between £100,000 and per £250,000 per annum and (e) more than £250,000 per annum in 1995; and if he will list his projections for 1996. [28584]

  Mrs Angela Knight
  Information from the New Earnings Survey, April 1995 is shown in the table. Projections for April are not available.
  202

  European Parliament (New Buildings)
  Mr. Stewart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the cost to the United Kingdom of the European Parliament's new buildings in Brussels and Strasbourg in the next year. [28315]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I assume my hon. Friend is referring to 1997. The cost of the European Parliament's new buildings for the forthcoming year are established only following the annual budget negotiations. We will not know the cost of these buildings until the 1997 EC budget is adopted in December.

  Suicides
  Mr. Touhig
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many suicides in the United Kingdom involved the use of(a) a firearm and (b) a shotgun in (i) 1980, (ii) 1985, (iii) 1992, (iv) 1993, (v) 1994 and (vi) 1995. [28260]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The number of suicides—ICD1E955.0–E955.4 and E985.0-E985.4—in the United Kingdom involving the use of (a) a firearm and (b) a shotgun in 1980, 1985, 1992, 1993 and 1994 are shown in the table. Data for 1995–96 are not yet available.

  New Earnings Survey, April 1995 Employees on adult rates, whose pay for the survey period was not affected by absence

  England

  Great Britain

  Percentage of employees earning less than £1.50 per hour (excluding overtime)

  0.6

  0.6

  Percentage of employees earning between £1.50 and £2.50 per hour (excluding overtime)

  1.0

  1.0

  Percentage of employees earning between £2.50 and £3.50 per hour (excluding overtime)

  7.2

  7.3

  Percentage of employees earnings between £100,000 and £250,000 per annum

  0.1

  0.1

  Percentage of employees earning more than £250,000 per annum

  <0.1

  <0.1

  Profit-related Pay
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what is the average marginal rate of tax used in calculating the cost of tax relief on profit-related pay; [28541]

  (2) what is his most recent estimate of the cost of tax relief for profit-related pay for the tax year 1996–97. [28540]
  203
  Mr. Jack
  The cost of income tax relief for profit-related pay schemes is approximately estimated on the assumption that the distribution of participants by marginal rate of tax is similar to that for employees generally. The average marginal rate of tax for employees in 1996–97 will be about 27 per cent.

  Estimates of the cost of income tax relief for PRP tax relief for PRP schemes are published annually in table 1.6 of "Inland Revenue Statistics", copies of which are in the Library. An estimate of the cost in 1996–97 is not yet available.

  Paracetamol Poisoning
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many deaths relating to paracetamol poisoning have been reported to the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys in each of the last five years. [27761]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The number of deaths from paracetamol poisoning reported to the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys—the Office for National Statistics from 1 April 1996 following the merger with the Central Statistical Office—in 1993 and 1994 is shown in the table.

  The data for 1990–1992 are published, for each year separately, in table 10 of "Mortality statistics: injury and poisoning, England and Wales", Series DH4, nos 16–18, copies of which may be accessed in the House of Commons Library.

  Deaths from Paracetamol in England and Wales 1993 and 1994

  1993

  1994

  Deaths by poisoning—accident

  60 (14)

  56 (14)

  Paracetamol only

  42(8)

  36(9)

  Paracetamol and other drugs

  18(6)

  20(5)

  Deaths by poisoning—suicide

  155 (22)

  119(12)

  Paracetamol only

  65(6)

  61(4)

  Paracetamol and other drugs

  90 (16)

  58(8)

  Deaths by poisoning—undetermined

  89 (13)

  79(8)

  Paracetamol only

  59(3)

  49(5)

  Paracetamol and other drugs

  30(10)

  30(3)

  The figures in brackets indicate the number of paracetamol deaths with a mention of alcohol.

  Custody Services
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will extend the scope of the Financial Services Act 1986 to cover regulation of custody services following the consultation carried out by the Securities and Investments Board. [28959]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  I have accepted the recommendation of the Securities and Investments Board that the scope of the Act should be extended to those custody services covering the safekeeping and administration of investments. I believe that this will extend investor protection but am also concerned that it should not impose disproportionate burdens on authorised firms. I shall accordingly be seeking views on the terms in which the Act should be extended in a consultation paper which I hope will be issued shortly.
  204

  Stamp Duty (Unit Trusts)
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what stamp duty treatment he proposes for conversions of authorised unit trusts into open-ended investment companies. [28957]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  In response to the consultative document which the Treasury published last year with draft regulations to permit the creation of open-ended investment companies—OEICs—the Treasury has received a number of representations that conversions of authorised unit trusts into OEICs should be exempted from stamp duty and stamp duty reserve tax—SDRT—including conversions of two or more trusts into a single OEIC.

  When regulations are made to deal with the stamp duty and SDRT treatment of OEICs, I intend to include in them an exemption for conversions of an authorised unit trust into an OEIC or a single sub-fund of an umbrella OEIC. The regulations will also contain an exemption from stamp duty and SDRT, for a period of some two years, for conversions which involve a merger, such as the conversion of two or more authorised unit trusts into a single OEIC or sub-fund, or the merger of an authorised unit trust with an OEIC.

  We also intend to introduce legislation in the next Finance Bill to exempt mergers between authorised unit trusts from stamp duty and SDRT if the merger is carried out after the Bill becomes law and within a period of some two years thereafter.

  These measures will give unit trust groups a unique opportunity to rationalise their range of authorised unit trusts, and to convert some or all of them into OEICs if they wish. At the same time, the introduction of OEICs will continue to widen the opportunities for share ownership for the investing public.

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much was spent on official hospitality by his Department and all associated agencies in the financial year 1995–96. [28574]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Expenditure on official hospitality by HM Treasury and associated agencies responsible to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1995–96 is included in the published running costs.

SCOTLAND

  Closed Circuit Television
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which towns in Scotland currently have closed circuit television to assist with crime prevention; which will have schemes installed during 1996; what is his policy regarding further expansion of such schemes; if he will make further financial assistance available; and if he will make a statement. [27914]
  205
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The towns which currently have CCTV installations are:

  Aberdeen

  Airdrie

  Alloa

  Ayr

  Bathgate

  Bearsden

  Carnoustie

  Coatbridge

  Dalkeith

  Dumfries

  Falkirk

  Galashiels

  Glasgow

  Glenrothes

  Grangemouth

  Hamilton

  Inverness

  Kilmarnock

  Kirkcaldy

  Kirkintilloch

  Levenmouth

  Milngavie

  Motherwell

  Paisley

  Stirling

  Wishaw

  Towns which will have CCTV installed in 1996 are Nairn, Perth and Dundee. Towns planning to install CCTV, or to expand existing schemes, will shortly be submitting applications for funding from the Scottish Office closed circuit television challenge competition, which I announced on 13 December 1995. Some £4 million has been made available for the competition over the next three years—£1 million in 1996–97 and £1.5 million in 1997–98 and 1998–99. This will make a significant contribution to making further reductions in crime and the fear of crime in Scotland.

  Residential care homes

  Local authority

  Private

  Voluntary

  Nursing homes

  New council area

  Number of beds

  Percentage vacant

  Number of beds

  Percentage vacant

  Number of beds

  Percentage vacant

  Number of beds

  Percentage vacant

  Aberdeen City

  364

  10.4

  22

  0.0

  378

  7.4

  715

  6.0

  Aberdeenshire

  376

  8.8

  89

  15.7

  168

  13.1

  985

  10.5

  Angus

  197

  11.2

  346

  13.3

  72

  0.0

  541

  8.5

  Argyll and Bute

  173

  10.4

  433

  10.9

  72

  15.3

  303

  9.6

  Clackmannanshire

  32

  0.0

  0

  —

  12

  0.0

  100

  6.0

  Dumfries and Galloway

  274

  5.1

  271

  23.0

  99

  13.1

  519

  7.5

  Dundee City

  401

  4.2

  152

  8.6

  184

  15.8

  650

  26.2

  East Ayrshire

  127

  0.8

  71

  9.9

  79

  2.5

  775

  17.4

  East Dunbartonshire

  40

  0.0

  15

  0.0

  31

  0.0

  195

  8.7

  East Lothian

  169

  7.7

  80

  3.7

  100

  10.0

  396

  8.2

  East Renfrewshire

  43

  27.9

  57

  6.4

  105

  3.8

  620

  6.1

  Edinburgh, City of

  618

  7.4

  233

  5.0

  612

  11.8

  1,755

  12.9

  Falkirk

  214

  9.3

  63

  7.9

  50

  8.0

  446

  6.3

  Fife

  432

  8.6

  420

  4.9

  166

  7.8

  1,088

  21.2

  Glasgow, City of

  1,202

  4.3

  289

  8.6

  570

  5.5

  2,213

  13.9

  Highland

  370

  7.8

  495

  15.8

  222

  7.7

  1,137

  9.0

  Inverclyde

  64

  10.9

  69

  2.9

  103

  3.5

  245

  1.6

  Midlothian

  160

  11.9

  42

  7.1

  68

  7.4

  383

  43.9

  206

  Health Boards
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what allocations he has made of bridging finance for health care to each of the health boards in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [27915]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The total amount of bridging finance allocations issued to each of the health boards in Scotland in the financial years 1991–92 to 1995–96 are as shown:

  Health Board

  Allocation (£ million)

  Argyll and Clyde

  3.023

  Ayrshire and Arran

  2.051

  Borders

  0.791

  Dumfries and Galloway

  0.332

  Fife

  2.846

  Forth Valley

  1.791

  Grampian

  7.542

  Greater Glasgow

  18.083

  Highland

  3.936

  Lanarkshire

  3.616

  Lothian

  9.641

  Orkney

  0.210

  Shetland

  0.047

  Tayside

  2.182

  Western Isles

  0.497

  Total

  56.588

  Bridging finance continues to be an effective way of facilitating the Government's care in the community policies.

  Old People's Homes
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the number of places in(a) old people's homes and (b) nursing homes in the private, public and voluntary sectors for each of the new council areas in Scotland as at 1 April, indicating for each the vacancies. [27916]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The latest available information is for 30 September 1995 and is set out in the table:
  207

  Residential care homes

  Local authority

  Private

  Voluntary

  Nursing homes

  New council area

  Number of beds

  Percentage vacant

  Number of beds

  Percentage vacant

  Number of beds

  Percentage vacant

  Number of beds

  Percentage vacant

  Moray

  171

  11.1

  58

  5.2

  46

  0.0

  189

  4.8

  North Ayrshire

  128

  6.2

  186

  11.0

  71

  0.0

  846

  15.3

  North Lanarkshire

  437

  5.9

  146

  4.4

  45

  11.1

  996

  11.5

  Orkney Islands

  71

  5.6

  28

  21.4

  0.0

  —

  0.0

  —

  Perth and Kinross

  240

  5.4

  328

  16.0

  192

  13.5

  787

  14.7

  Renfrewshire

  266

  4.9

  197

  3.0

  88

  3.4

  525

  8.6

  Scottish Borders

  270

  10.4

  113

  8.8

  110

  10.0

  688

  19.9

  Shetland Islands

  61

  8.2

  0

  —

  36

  5.6

  0

  —

  South Ayrshire

  160

  5.0

  65

  4.3

  105

  1.9

  878

  6.8

  South Lanarkshire

  396

  9.3

  78

  5.7

  151

  10.6

  1,734

  15.8

  Stirling

  153

  2.6

  103

  5.8

  199

  11.1

  373

  6.7

  West Dunbartonshire

  257

  12.5

  30

  6.7

  38

  2.6

  63

  3.2

  West Lothian

  215

  8.8

  22

  9.1

  8

  0.0

  514

  30.4

  Western Isles

  182

  17.0

  6

  0.0

  14

  0.0

  65

  1.5

  Scotland

  8,263

  7.6

  4,507

  10.1

  4,194

  8.4

  20,724

  13.6

  Pre-school Education
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will conduct a survey of day care and pre-school education(a) to show how many in each category have (i) outdoor play space for their sole use and (ii) furnishings and fittings of a suitable size for pre-fives and (b) to establish whether they have to stow away equipment every day so that others can use the same premises. [27903]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The results of the first survey of provision for day care and pre-school education for young children in Scotland are included in a statistical bulletin published in March by the Scottish Office. Copies were placed in the Library. In deciding whether to register facilities under the Children Act 1989 local authorities have to satisfy themselves on the suitability of place spaces and equipment provided. There are no plans to conduct an additional survey to collect information about such detailed aspects of provision.

  Chernobyl (Farms)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which farms in Scotland are subject to restrictions because of fall-out from Chernobyl; what was the total compensation paid to all affected farms in each of the past 10 years; how long it is estimated restrictions will continue in force; what is his estimate of the total future cost involved; and if he will make a statement. [27917]
  208
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  Following the de-restrictions which took effect from 17 January 1996, 36 farms in Scotland remain affected by post-Chernobyl controls on the movement and slaughter of sheep. These farms are located in the following council areas: Stirling, 11 farms; East Ayrshire, 16 farms; East Renfrewshire, three farms; and Dumfries and Galloway, six farms.

  The sheep compensation scheme was introduced in July 1986 to compensate farmers whose enterprises had been disrupted as a result of statutory movement and slaughter restrictions. The total paid to date is detailed in the table.

  Financial year

  Expenditure £

  1986–87

  1,388,135

  1987–88

  160,987

  1988–89

  151,937

  1989–90

  178,206

  1990–91

  164,820

  1991–92

  141,307

  1992–93

  107,769

  1993–94

  98,044

  1994–95

  100,637

  1995–96

  80,827

  Restrictions are reviewed on a regular basis and are removed wherever the monitoring of sheep has revealed residual radioactivity to have declined to within acceptable levels. The downward trend in radiocaesium activity levels is welcome. However, it is not possible to indicate at this time when all restrictions may be removed or to estimate total future costs involved.
  209

  Forestry
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has to improve forestry consultation procedures. [29130]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  In our response to the Environment Committee's report on "Forestry and the Environment" we said that we would ask the Forestry Commission to review its procedures for consulting on planting and felling proposals. The Forestry Commission has now completed this review following consultation with the relevant statutory bodies and a wide range of environmental, land use and forestry organisations.

  The review revealed that the Forestry Commission consults on the vast majority of schemes but that consultation results in no substantive comment in most cases. Woodland owners and landowners said that the present procedures are time consuming and expensive and that the application of the procedures to small and non-contentious cases results in unnecessary delays; they said that the Forestry Commission should be able to determine applications in a wider range of circumstances than at present. On the other hand, local authorities, statutory nature conservation, countryside and environment protection bodies and environmental organisations were concerned that any changes to the procedures should not preclude consultation on sensitive cases and that the Forestry Commission should agree the circumstances in which consultation will take place. They were also concerned that the procedures should apply to all types of woodland planting including short rotation coppice and planting on set-aside land.

  Since the present arrangements were introduced in 1984 the background against which grant and felling applications are considered has changed considerably. We now have a grant scheme designed to deliver multiple purpose forestry and a series of detailed environmental guidelines. We operate a general presumption against the felling and conversion of woodland to other land uses. Large or very sensitive new planting proposals are subject to statutory environmental assessment. In addition, indicative forestry strategies give local authorities the opportunity to indicate in broad terms those areas which they regard as environmentally sensitive and those where they would like to see forestry positively encouraged. We have also introduced a public register of new planting proposals which enables interested parties to know what is proposed and to submit comments. As we announced in the 1996 sustainable development White Paper—"This Common Inheritance: 1996 UK Annual Report", Cm 3188—the Forestry Commission is preparing a set of forestry standards that we will use as a basis for monitoring and reporting on environmental standards in managed woodland.

  Against this background and in the light of the review we have decided to make a number of changes to the procedures.

  We believe that the public should be given a greater opportunity to comment on new planning and felling and restocking proposals. We have therefore decided to include felling proposals in the Forestry Commission's public register of applications and to make the register more readily accessible. As well as making the register available for inspection by the public in local authority planning
  210
  offices the commission will, in due course, arrange for the register to be accessed via the Internet. The commission will also send copies of the register to the relevant statutory bodies. Anyone with an interest in a woodland planting or felling and restocking proposal will be able to comment to the Forestry Commission, which will take account of all the comments it receives in determining an application.

  In addition, the Forestry Commission will consult relevant statutory bodies before deciding on new planting proposals in the following circumstances:

  planting proposals that affect a national nature reserve, site of special scientific interest, special protection area designated under the EC wild birds directive or special area for conservation designated under the EC habitats directive; with Scottish Natural Heritage, English Nature or the Countryside Council for Wales;

  planting proposals that affect a scheduled ancient monument; with Historic Scotland, English Heritage or Cadw;

  planting proposals of five hectares or more inside a national park; with the national park authority;

  planting proposals of five hectares or more in a national scenic area, area of outstanding natural beauty or heritage coast; with Scottish Natural Heritage, the Countryside Commission or the Countryside Council for Wales;

  in addition, planting proposals of 10 hectares or more; with the local authority.

  These arrangements for consulting on new planting proposals will apply to all types of woodland planting including short rotation coppice and planting on set-aside land.

  The Forestry Commission will continue to operate the present arrangements for notifying archaeological authorities of new planting proposals.

  Whereas new planting involves a change of land use, felling is part of the on-going business of woodland management and we believe it should be handled with a lighter touch. The Forestry Commission will consult local authorities and the relevant statutory bodies on felling proposals in the following circumstances:

  felling proposals that affect a national nature reserve, site of special scientific interest, special protection area or special area for conservation; with Scottish Natural Heritage, English Nature or the Countryside Council for Wales;

  felling proposals that affect a scheduled ancient monument; with Historic Scotland, English Heritage or Cadw;

  felling proposals that affect trees that are subject to a tree preservation order, with the local authority.

  Environmental sensitivity does not depend on size and location alone and there may be circumstances in addition to those I have set out when it will be appropriate for the Forestry Commission to consult local authorities or statutory bodies before determining applications for new planting or felling. The Forestry Commission may therefore agree other, special circumstances when it will consult local authorities or relevant statutory bodies where a local authority or statutory body identifies clear and objective grounds for doing so.

  In all those cases where the Forestry Commission consults a local authority or statutory body on a new planting or felling proposal the present arrangements for resolving objections will continue to be applied. In all other cases, the Forestry Commission will determine

  211
  applications in the light of any comments it receives, including any views it may decide to solicit from any organisation or individual.

  Concern was expressed during the review that the 1984 ministerial direction does not give the Forestry Commission sufficient powers to require new planting and felling proposals to comply with its environmental guidelines before consultation. This has resulted in the Forestry Commission consulting on proposals that do not meet the necessary standard. This wastes time and reduces confidence in the procedures. We have therefore decided that the commission should be able to reject an application at any stage if it does not meet the environmental guidelines or if, in the opinion of the commission, it would be likely to cause significant harm to the environment.

  The arrangements that we have announced today will remove unnecessary and unproductive consultation which is wasteful of everyone's time and off-putting to those wishing to plant or manage woodlands. The greater openness we are introducing, together with the Forestry Commission's existing environmental guidelines, statutory environmental assessment for large or very sensitive woodland planting proposals and the forestry standards which the Commission is currently preparing, will allow consultation to be focused on genuinely sensitive cases.

  I am confident that the new arrangements will eliminate much of the unnecessary bureaucracy inherent in the present system while, at the same time, maintaining the present high standards of environmental protection. The arrangements will come into effect on 1 August 1996.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group
  Sir Jim Lester
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the recent meeting of the Commonwealth ministerial action group. [28304]

  Mr. Hanley
  I have sent a copy of the concluding statement of the second meeting of the Commonwealth ministerial action group held in London on 23 April to the Library of the House. The group welcomed the transition to an elected civilian government in Sierra Leone in March. It appealed to the international community to assist the Gambia to complete its transition programme to civilian democratic rule. On Nigeria, the group regretted that the Nigerian Government had declined to pursue a dialogue with the Commonwealth since its first meeting and that the human rights situation had continued to deteriorate. Pending further discussion with the Nigerian Government over the next month, the group recommended to Commonwealth member Governments the adoption of a number of measures in order to register continuing disapproval of developments in Nigeria and agreed to consult the European Union, the United States and other members of the international community on possible other additional economic measures.
  212

  Government Communications Headquarters
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what services are currently being considered for outsourcing in GCHQ. [28531]

  Mr. Rifkind
  On 10 April 1996 the director of GCHQ announced that GCHQ's logistics and engineering support services would, from later this year, be contracted out to Vosper-Manteck. There are no current plans for further outsourcing.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the implications for national security of outsourcing at GCHQ; and if he will make a statement. [28532]

  Mr. Rifkind
  The need to continue to protect the security of GCHQ's sensitive work remains of paramount importance. The arrangements for the outsourcing of GCHQ's logistics and engineering support services will preserve its ability to meet that need. As with all commercial contractors whose service GCHQ employs, the staff of the new contractor will be subject to the same stringent level of security checking as GCHQ's own staff.

  Israel-Lebanon Peace Settlement
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps Her Majesty's Government have taken to ensure that European Union countries play a part in the negotiation and implementation of a lasting peace settlement between Israel and Lebanon. [28561]

  Mr. Hanley
  We and our EU partners are making a significant contribution to the efforts to achieve a lasting peace in the region. The EU provides economic assistance to Lebanon and is involved in the political process. For instance, it will participate in the consultative group on reconstruction in Lebanon.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a reply to his letter to the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) of 2 April—Foreign Office reference: GV100/31101—about his constituent. [28546]

  Mr. Hanley
  Replies were sent on 3 and 7 May.

  Armed Conflict
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he intends to put forward at the Council of Foreign Ministers on 13 May to make the European Union more effective in preventing armed conflict(a) between and (b) within states. [28451]

  Mr. David Davis
  I shall not be putting forward any proposals about the EU's role in conflict prevention at the 13 May Foreign Affairs Council. The EU's role in conflict prevention in Africa was considered at the 25 March Foreign Affairs Council. Officials are currently examining detailed proposals. The UK plays a leading role in conflict prevention—through national action, through the EU's common foreign and security policy, and through other international organisations, in particular the UN.
  213

  Cyprus
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last visited Cyprus. [28411]

  Mr. David Davis
  The last visit by a Foreign Secretary to Cyprus was in October 1993 for the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in October 1993.

  Mr. Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what advice his Department issues to hon. Members proposing to visit Cyprus. [28414]

  Mr. Davis
  We welcome the many visits hon. Members make to Cyprus. We encourage them to have contact, where possible, with both Cypriot communities. We advise hon. Members to give us good advance notice of their visits, so that we can offer appropriate assistance.

  Mr. Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards Cyprus; and if he will make a statement. [28410]

  Mr. Davis
  The Government remain committed to an active and leading role in the search for settlement in Cyprus within the framework of the UN Secretary-General's mission of good offices.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Royal Fine Art Commission (Report)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when Sir Geoffrey Chipperfield's report on the Royal Fine Art Commission will be made available to the House. [28960]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I have today placed in the Library copies of Sir Geoffrey Chipperfield's report and my conclusions. Sir Geoffrey has recognised the valuable work done by the Royal Fine Art Commission to improve the quality of design in the major developments which it reviews. He has considered ways in which this work might be done more effectively and has recommended closer links with the statutory planning system. We are discussing with the Department of the Environment how this may best be done and we shall jointly be consulting the local authority associations.

  The report also makes various recommendations for the more efficient running of the commission and its secretariat. We have considered these and implemented them where appropriate.

  The commission has a high rate of success in persuading developers to adopt suggested improvements, and it has over the years produced a series of influential seminars and publications. I am grateful for the large amount of time which the chairman and 17 commissioners give to this important work.

  Broad-band Communications
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on the future use of broad-band communications networks by libraries, museums and galleries. [29162]
  214
  Mr. Sproat
  The Government are determined to ensure that the latest information technology will be available to public libraries, museums and galleries to give greater access, by the general public, to information and our cultural heritage. With this in mind I held a series of meetings earlier this year with representatives of the cable industry. I am glad therefore to be able to welcome the Cable Communications Association's decision to contribute £50,000 to fund a feasibility study into the use of broad-band networks to ensure that libraries, galleries and museums are used to their full potential. The study will be managed by the Library and Information Commission, and will draw on expertise from the libraries, museums and education sectors.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Electricity Supply
  Mr. Stewart
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his policy on the supply of electricity from Scotland to customers in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement. [27841]

  Mr. Page
  Subject to the conditions of their licences, this is a commercial matter for the parties involved.

  Political Donations
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will prosecute under the Companies Acts the company whose name has been supplied to him for failure to declare political donations made by its subsidiary in the year ending April 1995. [28469]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  If allegations of non-compliance with statutory disclosure requirements are drawn to my Department's attention, my Department will look into them, and if there has been a failure to comply with those requirements, it will take appropriate action.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will amend the Companies Act 1985 to require Companies House to maintain a register of companies making political donations together with the sum donated and the recipient; and if he will make that register open to public inspection. [28309]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The Companies Act 1985 already requires companies to disclose, in their annual directors' reports, political donations exceeding £200.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the date by which gross domestic product in manufacturing will be at least 3 per cent. higher than in 1990. [28402.]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will set out his latest estimate of manufacturing output in the "Summer Economic Forecast" which will be published in July.

  Common Cold Unit
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the common cold unit at Harnham, Salisbury, closed; what were the duties and aims of the unit; for what
  215
  years since 1966 it published an annual report which was available to the public; and what means it used to advertise for volunteers. [28265]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The common cold unit, which opened in 1946, closed upon the retirement of its director, Dr. D. A. J. Tyrell, in 1990.

  In the earlier years, the work of the unit was directed at finding the viruses that caused colds. Late studies looked at how influenza viruses might be attenuated to produce a vaccine strain, and whether it would be possible to prevent or treat colds by giving antiviral drugs. In the last years of the unit, molecular techniques were applied to detect and analyse viruses and the response of the body to them.

  As far as I have been able to ascertain, the unit did not publish any annual reports.

  Up until the early 1960s, volunteers were recruited largely as a result of favourable press coverage and talks and lectures in colleges and voluntary groups, as well as through word of mouth. The publicity effort became more systematic from the late 1960s, first with the publication of leaflets for use in library and workplace noticeboards, then with advertisements in selected publications. A significant number of volunteers over the years came forward as a result of return visits.

  Balance of Trade
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish the net balance of trade between the United Kingdom and the rest of the EU for each year since accession [28175]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The net visible trade balance between the UK and the current 15 EU members for each year since 1973 is published by the Office for National Statistics in table A3 of the "Monthly Review of External Trade Statistics", a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. It is also available on the central shared database, which can be accessed from the Library of the House.

  Chemical Metrology
  Mr. Day
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the Laboratory of the Government Chemist's work for his Department regarding chemical metrology [28844]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  In the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Hargreaves) on 2 April 1996,Official Report, columns 149–50, regarding the sale of the Laboratory of the Government Chemist, I stated that LGC will continue to meet the Department's needs as the centre of excellence in chemical metrology. To ensure this, the Department will be guaranteeing work to LGC. The principal element in this will be the major programme in supporting valid analytical measurement—VAM—one of the programmes making up the national measurement system. LGC has acted as main contractor and co-ordinator for VAM since 1988. The Department has committed itself to support this work for a further five years. LGC will also be undertaking other projects, particularly in analytical innovation, biotehnology, and consumer safety, under the DTI's innovation and technology support budget. The
  216
  total of the guaranteed work to be placed at LGC is £33.5 million over five years. In addition, if the contract referred to in my answer of 2 April is not awarded to the purchaser, the guaranteed workload at LGC will be increased by £750,000 over the five-year period.

  Competitiveness White Paper
  Mr. Waller
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he will publish the KPMG study on outward investment commissioned in the first competitiveness White Paper; and what were its main findings [29129]

  Mr. Nelson
  The KPMG study on outwards investment was published by HMSO on Thursday 9 May. Copies are available in the Libraries of both Houses. The study's main findings were that outward investment is becoming increasingly important for UK firms of all sizes, in both services and manufacturing sectors; that the main factor influencing outward investment is the need to increase sales and develop markets; and that the effect of overseas investment on UK firms' employment levels is neutral to positive for all but a small minority of projects.

  Industrial Tribunals
  Mr. Waller
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the review of the scope for agency status for the industrial tribunals mentioned in chapter 7 of the Green Paper, "Resolving Employment Rights Disputes: Options for Reform." [29131]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Government have decided to create a new executive agency within the Department of Trade and Industry to provide the administrative support to the industrial tribunals and the Employment Appeal Tribunal with effect from 1 April 1997. The change to agency status will not affect the tribunal judiciary, who will remain independent of the Executive.

  Creating an executive agency will help the tribunals to build on the improvements they have been making over recent years and allow a stronger focus on performance. This will be important in order to deal with an increasing caseload and to improve the quality of service to tribunal users.

  South West Leisure Products Ltd.
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 29 February,Official Report, column 676, what checks were made at the time of the granting of regional development grant in 1989 to South West Leisure Products Ltd. (a) into the background of the directors and (b) as to whether the company had been placed in the hands of the administrative receivers; and if he will make a statement [24712]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 16 April 1996]: The only payments of regional development grant to the company were made in 1985 and then eight months before the appointment of administrative receivers in October 1988. Firms meeting the criteria for regional development grants would receive payment of grant automatically on the basis of providing assets or jobs in a development area relating to qualifying activities which would result in new or increased productivity, or would effect a change in the product or process. It was unusual for checks to be made

  217
  into the background of directors. In accordance with normal practice under the scheme the case file was destroyed—six years after the last action was taken.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 29 April,Official Report, column 363, what was the value of the money paid on demand from the creditors of South West Leisure Products Ltd. under the provision of the two loans guaranteed by his Department [28297]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 7 May 1996]: The loans guaranteed under the small firms loan guarantee scheme resulted in payments of £27,179.63 and £14,278.82 being made to the lender in November 1988.

  Business Links
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the sums of money paid by each business link for information technology systems and licences. [28147]

  Mr. Page
  [holding answer 7 May 1996]: This information can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the information technology system that is used in each operating business link [28146]

  Mr. Page
  [holding answer 7 May 1996]: All business links are required to have effective IT systems for office services, common client database, client management, and electronic mail. The systems used vary depending on the particular requirements of each business link and details could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  ROM-Data Corporation Ltd.
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his letters to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport dated 15 February, 24 March and 2 April, if his Department is currently conducting disciplinary proceedings following the collapse of ROM-Data Corporation Ltd.; and when he expects the process to be concluded. [28269]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 7 May 1996]: An inquiry under the Department's disciplinary procedures is presently in hand. It is not possible to say when this will be completed, but it is in everybody's interest that it should be concluded as quickly as possible, consistent with the principles of fair treatment for those members of staff involved and employment law.

  Meat Industry (Job Losses)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions he has had with the meat manufacturing/processing industry in respect of compensation for losses related to BSE; and if he will make a statement. [24102]

  Mrs. Browning
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend and I have had extensive discussions with all sectors of the meat industry about the difficulties they are currently facing.
  218
  It is not the Government's policy to offer compensation to businesses for losses associated with the BSE scare. The assistance which has been made available is intended to keep open the essential links in the beef supply chain while businesses adapt to the new circumstances.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Adventure Activity Facilities
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what resources are available to Tourism Quality Services Ltd. to enable it to carry out its functions adequately as licensing authority for persons providing facilities for adventure activities; and how many people it employs. [28097]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Tourism Quality Services Ltd. will receive income from licence and inspection fees. It is expected to become self-financing on a non-profit-making basis within two to three years. There is a provision in the Activity Centres (Young Persons' Safety) Act 1995 for the Secretary of State to make grants to TQS in respect of expenses which are not met by fees. Provision has been made in the supply estimates for 1996–97 for a grant of up to £238,000 if required. TQS expects eventually to employ between 30 and 40 people to meet the expected demand for licences.

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much was spent on official hospitality by her Department and all associated agencies in the financial year 1995–96. [28571]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The expected spend for 1995–96, rounded to the nearest £000, is:

  DfEE: £98,000

  Agencies (Teachers' Pensions Agency and Employment Service): £6,000

  Higher Education
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many students there are from ethnic minority groups in higher education; and what was the figure in 1979 and 1989. [28090]

  Mr. Forth
  Information on the ethnicity of higher education students in 1979–80 and 1989–90 was not collected centrally. Information for 1995–96 is as follows:

  Home entrants to higher education in higher education institutions in the UK 1995–96 (provisional)

  Ethnic group

  Number (thousands)

  White

  472.2

  Black Caribbean

  7.0

  Black African

  9.3

  Black other

  3.0

  Indian

  14.8

  Pakistani

  7.7

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the total number of students in higher education; and what was the figure in 1979 and 1989 [28088]
  219
  Mr. Forth
  The information is given in the following table:

  Total higher education students

  Academic year

  Number (thousands)

  1979–801

  708.2

  1989–901

  977.7

  1995–962

  1,650.6

  1 Great Britain, excluding the Open university.2 Provisional. United Kingdom, excluding the Open university.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many mature students there are in higher education; and what was the number in 1979 and 1989. [28089]

  Mr. Forth
  The information is given in the following table:

  Mature1 students in higher education

  Academic year

  Number (thousands)

  1979–802

  350.0

  1989–902

  532.1

  1995–963

  987.4

  1 Those aged 21 and over on an undergraduate course, and those aged 25 and over on a postgraduate course.

  2 Great Britain, excluding the Open university.

  3 Provisional. United Kingdom, excluding the Open university.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many women are now in higher education; and what was the figure for 1979 and 1989. [28225]

  Mr. Forth
  The information is given in the following table:

  Female students in higher education

  Academic year

  Number (thousands)

  1979–801

  253.4

  1989–901

  433.0

  1995–962

  828.9

  1 Great Britain, excluding the Open university.

  2 Provisional. United Kingdom, excluding the Open university.

  Her Majesty's Chief Inspector
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment under what criteria Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools is appraised; and what criteria determine the payment to him of a bonus. [28276]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The performance of Her Majesty's chief inspector is appraised each year by the permanent secretary for education and employment. This appraisal takes account of the published job description, a copy of which is in the Library, and the priority objectives for that year agreed between the permanent secretary and HMCI at the beginning of the year. HMCI can each year receive a non-consolidated bonus in recognition of his performance against these objectives.
  220

  Grant-maintained Status (Promotion Costs)
  Mr. Pope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much her Department(a) spent in 1995–96 and (b) plans to spend in 1996–97 on promoting grant-maintained status for schools [28211]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department provides factual information about grant-maintained status to schools and parents to help them look at the option in a balanced and objective way.

  We provide this information primarily through publications, "Going GM" conferences, GM open days, and other support. Expenditure on all these activities in 1995–96 was some £0.6 million. The budget for GM schools' information for 1996–97 allows for spending up to a maximum of £0.9 million.

  Conduct of Schools (Ministerial Powers)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when she next proposes to use her powers under section 220 of the Education Act 1993. [28958]

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I am today launching consultation on a proposal to transfer Langham school, Haringey, to the control of an education association.

  After an inspection in November 1994, Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools decided that this 900-pupil secondary school in Tottenham was failing to provide and acceptable standard of education to its pupils. The school's governors and Haringey local education authority prepared an action plan for the school's recovery. However, subsequent monitoring visits by Her Majesty's inspectors have found very limited progress at the school. The most recent visit in March recorded that GCSE entries and results declined between 1994 and 1995. The expectations of teachers and the achievements of pupils remain low. The standard of teaching has not improved. Indeed, while the 1994 Ofsted report found that "the majority of the teaching is generally satisfactory", the March 1996 Ofsted report, based on a smaller but still significant sample of lessons, found that "the quality of teaching was satisfactory in less than half the lessons".

  I have considered carefully the findings of Ofsted. I have also read carefully a joint response to Ofsted's findings submitted by the school's governors and Haringey LEA. In their response they point to a fall in exclusions and to improvements in behaviour but they accept the findings of Ofsted on the quality of teaching and pupils' achievements.

  Having considered all the circumstances of the school, I now propose to place Langham school under the control of an education association. However, before taking a decision on this, I am inviting comments from all interested parties by 14 June 1996.

  If the school is transferred to an education association, I have it in mind to place it under the control of the North East London Education Association, which was previously responsible for Hackney Downs school. I am therefore consulting the NELEA on this proposal on a contingency basis.
  221
  Although Langham school presents serious challenges, I very much hope that the action that I am proposing will result in its improvement to the point where it offers a good education to all its pupils.

PRIME MINISTER

  Office Space
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the square footage and cost of office space rented by his Department and its agencies and the number of his Department's or agencies' buildings partly or fully unoccupied together with the square footage of that unoccupied office space and its estimated rental value where available in each of the past five financial years. [27731]

  The Prime Minister
  For these purposes my office is part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given today by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service.

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 May. [27569]

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 May. [27570]

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

  European Union Flag
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister which Government offices displayed the European Union flag on 8 May; and if he will make a statement. [28592]

  The Prime Minister
  So far as I am aware, none.

DEFENCE

  Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what restrictions are placed on staff at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment in respect of testing chemical agents on themselves; when this policy was introduced; and if staff who break this policy are subject to disciplinary action. [28037]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 9 May 1996:

  I have been asked to reply to your question about staff at the former Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment testing substances on themselves since this falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency which includes CBD Sector in one of its divisions.
  222
  Staff in what is now called the Protection and Life Sciences Division, Porton Down are not permitted to test chemical agents on themselves. This has been a long standing policy of the establishment at Porton Down but we have been unable to find a date on which this policy was formally introduced. We are aware that some experiments were conducted involving staff and the incapacitating drug LSD in the early 1960s but we are unaware of any other formal studies since that time having been undertaken involving members of staff. If any member of staff was found to have deviated from the policy on self testing they would be subject to the same disciplinary action expected for any other infringement of workplace regulations.

  I hope this information is helpful.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the three-year review of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment as an agency of his Department finished. [28041]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 9 May 1996:

  I have been asked to reply to your question about the three year review of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment as Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency which now includes the former CBDE in one of its divisions.

  The three year review of the Chemical and Biological Defence Agency consisted of three elements: the evaluation of performance, reconsideration of Prior Options, and revision of the Framework Document. The evaluation of performance was carried out by Coopers and Lybrand in 1993 and their report was received in early 1994. The second phase involving reconsideration of the Prior Options coincided with the Defence Cost Studies being carried out by the Ministry of Defence as part of the Front Line First review. The Defence Cost Studies exercise recommended that CBDE should become an element of a new science and technology agency which became known as the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency and was launched as a trading fund on 1 April 1995. The move into the DERA therefore superseded the Prior Options reconsideration and the revision of the Framework Document.

  I hope this information is helpful.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if service personnel who take part in the service volunteers programme at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment are subject to(a) positive and (b) negative vetting; [28035]

  (2) if service personnel who take part in the service volunteers programme at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment are required to sign the Official Secrets Act 1911 during their stay. [28034]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 9 May 1996:

  I have been asked to reply to your questions about whether service volunteers attending the former Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down are security vetted and sign the Official Secrets Act. This falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency and I am answering both questions in this reply.
  223
  All those who take part in the volunteer programme at what is now known as the Protection and Life Sciences Division, Porton Down are serving members of the Armed Forces and as such will have signed the Official Secrets Act. The volunteers are not required to sign the Official Secrets Act again during their stay at Porton Down

  Since 1990 service personnel have had routine security clearances conducted as part of the recruitment process. No further levels of security clearances are required in order to take part in the studies conducted at Porton Down.

  I hope this information is helpful.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what details of experiments, when requested, are given to relatives of service personnel who took part in the service volunteers programme at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment in cases where the service personnel are no longer living. [28043]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 9 May 1996:

  I have been asked to reply to your question about providing information to relatives of volunteers at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment Porton Down since the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency now includes CBD Sector in one of its divisions.

  To date we have not received any enquiries from the relatives of deceased former volunteers. If we were to be approached by the close relatives of a former volunteer we would provide them with the same information we would have given the volunteer himself regarding their parent, child or spouse's experiences at Porton Down.

  I hope this information is helpful.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for which civilian organisations the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment has carried out work since 1966; and if it has been the objective of the establishment to increase its work for civilian bodies since 1966. [28042]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 9 May 1996:

  I have been asked to reply to your question about work done for civilian organisations by the Chemical and Biological Defence Sector (CBD) of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA).

  In common with the rest of DERA, CBD undertakes work for other government departments and the commercial sector. It does this primarily to maintain its scientific capability against a background of continuing budgetary pressures on the MOD. Without such work the scientific support essential for the defence of the realm in the face of an increasingly complex spectrum of chemical and biological threats would be compromised.

  A secondary motivation for CBD's involvement in non-MOD work is to facilitate technology transfer in line with UK Government policy. This aims to maximise the benefit of MOD expenditure on defence research through its application in other areas. Working with the civil sector on a commercial basis allows the MOD's technology to be valued as an investment and properly exploited to the good of the UK economy.

  I regret it would involve disproportionate costs to try and identify all the civilian organisations for which the establishment at Porton Down has conducted research since 1966.
  224
  I hope this information is helpful.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the responsibilities and objectives of the medical division of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment; when this division was set up; who have been the superintendents or heads of this division since 1966; and in which years they were superintendent or head of this division. [28036]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 9 May 1996:

  I have been asked to reply to your question about the medical division of the former Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down which is now part of the Chemical and Biological Defence Sector of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA).

  As part of the organisational changes which occurred when the former Cl3DE joined DERA the medical division was amalgamated with the former biology and microbiology divisions to form the Medical Countermeasures business centre. This department has the responsibility of carrying out research to increase the body's capability to withstand attack from chemical or biological warfare agents and to provide treatments should personnel be exposed to such materials. The research interests include biochemistry and toxicology, drug evaluation, vaccine research, physiology and human factors, and surgical and materials specialisations.

  The Medical division was first formally identified by that title in 1954 and had its roots in the physiology section which had existed at Porton Down since World War 1. Since 1966 it has had 5 superintendents who have held the posts for varying periods of time from one to thirteen years. Apart from acknowledging the head of the establishment I regret it is not our practice to name individuals who hold specific posts within the organisation.

  I hope this information is helpful.

  Defence Research Information Centre
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the responsibilities of the defence research information centre; what are the titles of the publications or bulletins which are published by the defence research information centre(a) regularly and (b) occasionally; and what is the function and nature of each of these publications or bulletins. [28044]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 9 May 1996:

  I have been asked to reply to your question about the Defence Research Information Centre which is now part of the Defence Support Services division of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency of which I am Chief Executive.

  The role of the Defence Research Information Centre, DRIC, based in Glasgow, is to act as a repository and source of information for all technical and scientific reports produced by or sponsored by the Ministry of Defence and its agencies. Some information is also held under international exchange agreements. Approved customers are entitled to draw on this information.
  225
  DRIC produces a number of bulletins for customers listing the information that is held. These and their functions are summarised in the table below.

  Item

  Title

  Frequency

  Nature (content)

  Function

  A

  DRIC Abstracts

  Monthly and Quarterly

  Citations to classified reports of a scientific or technical nature which have been received from UK or overseas sources

  Dissemination within, or on behalf of MoD, of classified results of MoD

  B

  DRIC Standard Profiles

  Monthly

  Subject specific subset of DRIC Abstracts

  Selected subject categories of above

  C

  Overseas Citations Lists

  Monthly

  Lists of bibliographic details of overseas defence research publications

  Similar to item A but based solely on citation lists received from overseas. Raises awareness of their defence research activities

  D

  DRIC Newsletter

  Quarterly

  Customer information

  Keeping customers aware of relevant development in DRIC's capabilities and indicating how they can obtain maximum benefit

  I hope this information helps.

  HMS Dasher
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will arrange for all papers relating to the loss of HMS Dasher on 27 March 1943 on the River Clyde, including the findings resulting from subsequent dives by the wrecks section of the Hydrographic Office, to be made available to interested parties. [28169]

  Mr. Soames
  HMS Dasher, an escort carrier based on a mercantile hull and built in the USA, blew up and sank on 27 March 1943, due to an explosion in her aviation fuel system. All papers relating to her loss have been available at the Public Record Office since 1972. A deep dive on this wreck was conducted in January 1982, on behalf of the Royal Navy Hydrographic Office. The purpose of the dive was positively to identify Dasher, which is lying close to another wreck, and to obtain an accurate fix of her position for charting purposes. The information now appears on Admiralty chart No. 2491.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will bring forward proposals for official recognition by the Royal Navy of the loss of HMS Dasher and the loss of human life. [28170]

  Mr. Soames
  The names of all those who died as a result of the loss of HMS Dasher, and whose bodies were not recovered, are commemorated on various official war memorials. The graves of those whose bodies were recovered are the responsibility either of their families or, if the bodies were not claimed at the time, of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. In line with the 226
  general practice, my Deaprtment has no plans for further recognition of the loss of HMS Dasher.

  War Crime Sites
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the role of British troops deployed with the United Nations implementation force—IFOR—in respect of their role in protecting suspected war crime sites at the request of the international tribunal of The Hague. [28273]

  Mr. Soames
  IFOR's primary mission in Bosnia is to ensure compliance with the military aspects of the peace agreement. It does not have the resources to guard suspected mass grave sites on a continuous basis without detriment to this mission. IFOR provides, however, a secure environment for the tribunal's work and logistic support and protection for its investigators on a case-by-case basis. In addition, IFOR conducts aerial reconnaissance and patrols in the area of suspected mass grave sites to monitor and report on any tampering or suspicious activity.

  The United Kingdom fully supports the work of the tribunal and British troops are closely involved in assisting their investigations. The tribunal's chief prosecutor has expressed full satisfaction with the level of support provided by IFOR.

  Defence Analytical Services Agency
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what performance targets have been set for the Defence Analytical Services Agency for 1996–97. [28961]

  Mr. Soames
  Key targets have been set for the chief executive of the Defence Analytical Services Agency for financial year 1996–97. The targets build on the progress already made by the agency since it formed in July 1992 and are as follows:

  Delivery of customer service and quality

  About three quarters of the agency's business is covered by service level agreements with customers, which set out the targets and standards for the level of service, timeliness and quality of work. For the remaining parts of the business, for which service level agreements are not appropriate, project agreements are in place. Key targets are:

  (a) To meet at least 95 per cent. of the timeliness and quality targets set in the service level agreements and project agreements.

  (b) To have at least 90 per cent. of customers saying they are at least satisfied with the timeliness, quality of work and helpfulness of staff in the annual customer satisfaction survey covering all aspects of the business.

  (c) To engage customers in a fundamental review of service level agreements to ensure they fully reflect current and expected needs.

  (d) To demonstrate a further, independently assessed, improvement in the quality of published output.

  227
  Efficiency and use of resources

  The agency plans to make significant savings in 1996–97 as well as meeting the demands arising from a number of important studies and initiatives. Key targets are:

  (e) To bring forward £136,000 "Competing for Quality" savings scheduled for 1997–98 to 1996–97.

  (f) To support the MOD's work on the Gulf health research programme, implementation of the Bett study, and civilian pay and grading from within existing resources.

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much was spent on official hospitality by his Department and all associated agencies in the financial year 1995–96. [28568]

  Mr. Soames
  During financial year 1995–96 my Department spent £5.105 million on official hospitality. These figures include expenditure incurred by the Ministry of Defence itself, by formations and establishments of the armed forces at home and abroad, and by individual officers occupying command and international appointments for which entertainment allowances are payable. Where responsibility for such expenditure falls to the chief executives of my Department's agencies I have asked the chief executives to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Letter from J. R. Drew to Mr. Tony Banks, dated 9 May 1996:

  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about how much was spent on official hospitality in his Department and associated agencies in 1995/96 as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Army Base Repair Organisation (ABRO).

  During the financial year 1995/96 ABRO spent £5,886 on official hospitality.

  Letter from K. J W. Goad to Mr. Tony Banks, dated 9 May 1996:

  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence regarding official hospitality by his Department and all associated agencies in the financial year 1995–96. As Chief Executive of the Army Base Storage and Distribution Agency (ABSDA), I reply with the Agency's details.

  The total spend on official hospitality for my Agency as a whole (i.e. across all 10 main Depot locations and 24 smaller locations in Great Britain and Germany) in the financial year 1995/96 was £16,389.77.

  Thank you very much for your enquiry. I hope this is sufficient detail to meet your requirements. Should you require any further information please contact me.

  Letter from Paul Altobell to Mr. Tony Banks, dated 9 May 1996:

  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about official hospitality as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Defence Analytical Services Agency (DASA).

  DASA spent £769.24 on official hospitality in financial year 1995/96.
  228
  Letter from A. H. Roache to Mr. Tony Banks, dated 9 May 1996:

  As Chief Executive of the Defence Animal Centre (DAC) I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence regarding how much was spent on official hospitality by his Department and all associated agencies in the financial year 1995/96.

  The DAC did not expend Agency funds on official hospitality in the period indicated.

  Letter from Michael Roycroft to Mr. Tony Banks, dated 9 May 1996:

  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about expenditure on official entertainment, as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Defence Clothing & Textile Agency.

  Expenditure on official entertainment for the financial year 1995/96 was £2943.
  I hope this information answers your question, if I can be of further assistance to you please do not hesitate to contact me.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Tony Banks, dated 9 May 1996:

  The Secretary of State for Defence has asked me to reply on behalf of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) to your question about expenditure on official hospitality in 1995/96.

  In the financial year 1995/96 DERA spent a total of £47787 on official hospitality.

  I hope this information is helpful.

  Letter from T McG. Browne to Mr. Tony Banks, dated 8 May 1996:

  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence, the Rt Hon Michael Portillo MP, regarding the cost of official hospitality within the MoD and all associated agencies during financial year 1995/96.

  This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Defence Postal & Courier Services Agency. The official hospitality expenditure by my agency during 1995/96 was £2,100. This figure is provisional and, subject to audit, will be included in my Agency's Annual Report which will be laid before Parliament later this summer.

  I hope this information is helpful.

  Letter from M. G. R. Hodson to Mr. Tony Banks, dated 9 May 1996:

  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence, about official hospitality, as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Defence Transport and Movements Executive Agency.

  In the last financial year, the cost of hospitality, which is included in the running cost budget for my agency, was £2,120. This was somewhat higher than usual because I was honoured to host both the Chief Executives' and Agency Administrators' Conferences during 1995.

  Letter from Keith Ellender to Mr. Tony Banks, dated 9 May 1996:

  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about how much was spent on official hospitality in the financial year 1995–96, as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Disposal Sales Agency.

  The amount spent by my Agency on official hospitality in the financial year 1995–96 was £5,502

  Letter from W. E. Spreadbury to Mr. Tony Banks, dated 9 May 1996:

  In the absence on duty of the Chief Executive, I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence concerning expenditure on official hospitality.
  229
  This Agency spent £3207 on official hospitality in the financial year 1995–96.

  Letter from M. R. Pack to Mr. Tony Banks, dated 9 May 1996:

  1. You recently asked the Secretary of State for Defence a Parliamentary Question relating to the costs incurred by the Department and associated agencies in providing official hospitality during the financial year 1995–96. As your question relates, in part, to the Hydrographic Office it has been referred to us for a reply.

  2. In the normal course of events my Chief Executive, Rear Admiral Clarke would have replied to you personally but I am afraid he is presently absent from the Office on official duty so I have been asked to reply to you on his behalf.

  3. During the financial year 1995–96 a total of £22,387 was expended by the Hydrographic Office on official entertainment.

  4. I hope this information has been helpful.

  Letter from A. W. Pollard to Mr. Tony Banks, dated 9 May 1996:

  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the expenditure on official hospitality by executive agencies. As Chief Executive, this falls within my area of responsibility for the Logistic Information Systems Agency (LISA).

  This agency has incurred no expenses in regard to hospitality.

  If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

  Letter from J. C. R. Hunt to Mr. Tony Banks, dated 9 May 1996:

  As Chief Executive of the Meteorological Office I am replying to your recent question which asked how much was spent on official hospitality in the financial year 1995–96.

  The hospitality expenditure in 1995–96 was £24,524. It was spent in the course of winning some £20M worth of commercial business and maintaining in international fora the standing of the Office as a world class science-based organisation.

  Letter from M. J. Sands to Mr. Tony Banks, dated 9 May 1996:

  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about expenditure on official hospitality as this matter falls within the area of responsibility of the Chief Executive as far as the Military Survey Defence Agency is concerned. I regret that the Chief Executive is not available to reply personally due to absence on duty.

  The sum spent on official hospitality in this Agency in Financial Year 1995–96 was £6,354. This expenditure was primarily in support of the maintenance and extension of highly cost-effective arrangements for the international exchange of geographic material.

  Letter form W. S. Graham to Mr. Tony Banks, dated 9 May 1996:

  1. I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence, that asked how much was spent on official hospitality by the 'Naval Aircraft Repair Organisation (NARO)' in the financial year 1995–96 as the matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the NARO.

  2. The sum of £1,299 (One Thousand Two Hundred and Ninety Nine Pounds) was spent on official hospitality in financial year 1995–96.

  Letter from I. P. Somervaille to Mr. Tony Banks, dated 9 May 1996:

  The Secretary of State for Defence has asked the Chief Executive of the Naval Recruiting and Training Agency (NRTA) to reply to your Parliamentary Question about the expenditure on official hospitality in the NRTA in the financial year 1995–96. I am replying on behalf of the Chief Executive.

  The total expenditure on official hospitality in the NRTA in the financial year 1995–96 is £67,731.45.
  230
  Letter from Brian Raine to Mr. Tony Banks, dated 8 May 1996:

  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence on how much was spent on official hospitality by his Department and all associated agencies in the financial year 1995–96.

  Queen Victoria School total for 1995–96 was £4,766.82.

  If you have any further questions about this please do not hesitate to contact me.

  Letter from P. C. Ayee to Mr. Tony Banks, dated 9 May 1996:

  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about how much was spent on official hospitality by his department and all associated agencies in the financial year 1995–96, as this matter falls within my responsibility as Chief Executive of the Royal Air Force Signals Engineering Establishment.

  In 1995–96 the cost of hospitality, which is included in the running cost budget for my agency, was £975.

  Letter from A. A. Nicholson to Mr. Tony Banks, dated 9 May 1996:

  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about expenditure on official hospitality insofar as this bears on my responsibilities for the Royal Air Force Training Group Defence Agency.

  In the financial year 1995/96, the Training Group Defence Agency spent £1964 from its budget on official hospitality. Details of Hospitality Grants made from central funds direct in individual units are not included, but will be incorporated in the figures to be provided for the Department.

  I am sending a copy of this letter to the Agency's owner, the Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief Personnel and Training Command.

  Letter from T. S. Mitchelson to Mr. Tony Banks, dated 9 May 1996:

  1. I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of Defence about official hospitality as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as the Chief Executive of the Service Children's Education Agency. The information that I supply below for Financial Year 1995/96 relates to the Service Children's Schools (North West Europe) Agency which was subsumed by SCE on 1 April 1996.

  2. During 1995/96 £296.58 was spent on official hospitality.

  Letter from S. B. J. Wilks to Mr. Tony Banks, dated 9 May 1996:

  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the provision of hospitality in the financial year 1995/96, in the absence of the Chief Executive Army Technical Support Agency (ATSA), as this matter falls within his area of responsibility.

  ATSA launched in October 1995 but formed as a Directorate on 1 April 1995. During 1995/96 £11,300 was spent on official hospitality.

  Letter from M. A. Rowe to Mr. Tony Banks, dated 9 May 1996:

  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about spending on official hospitality where it relates to my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Pay Personnel Agency. I am also replying on behalf of the Defence Accounts Agency which ceased to exist on 1 February 1996, following the creation of the Defence Bills Agency on 1 January 1996 and the return of the Directorate of Financial Management Accounting Services to MOD HQ on 1 December 1995.

  The figures you sought, for the two Agencies, are as follows:

  Defence Accounts Agency: £608

  Pay and Personnel Agency: £137

  231
  Letter from T. R. Thurgate to Mr. Tony Banks, dated 9 May 1996:

  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about expenditure on official hospitality during the financial year 1995–96 as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of Defence Bills Agency. I can confirm that for the three months from the launch of the Defence Bills Agency on 1 January 1996 until the end of the financial year the total expenditure on hospitality was £46.00.

  I trust that this reply meets your requirements.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate his Department has made of the percentage of lone parents in(a) 1984 and (b) 1995 who are (i) divorced and (ii) widowed; and if he will make a statement. [27896]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The latest available estimates are for 1994–95.

  The estimates are:

  Percentage

  1984

  1994–95

  Divorced/separated

  68

  58

  Widowed

  12

  5

  Single never married

  20

  37

  Note:

  The estimates are based on sample survey data.

  Source:

  Department of Social Security data.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the reasons for(a) disregarding disability living allowance for assessment purposes under the Child Support Acts and (b) taking it into account in the severe disability allowance. [28033]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  Disability living allowance is paid in recognition of the additional needs of a disabled person. It is disregarded in the assessment of child support maintenance liability since it would be inappropriate to treat it as income available for that purpose.

  For this reason the allowance is disregarded in calculating entitlement to severe disablement allowance and the severe disability premium in income support. Severe disability allowance does not exist.

  Reduced Earnings Allowance
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the cost to the Benefits Agency of carrying out a trawl of its industrial injuries benefit cases to identify the retirement allowance and reduced earnings claimants who have attained pension age since April 1989 before the introduction of the changes to the reduced earnings allowance on 24 March. [28029]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The administration of industrial injuries benefit is a matter for Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.
  232
  Letter from Peter Mathison to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 8 May 1996:

  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent parliamentary Question asking what was the cost to the Benefits Agency (BA) of carrying out a trawl of their Industrial Injuries Benefit cases to identify the Retirement Allowance and Reduced Earnings claimants who have attainted pension age since April 1989 before the introduction of the changes to the Reduced Earnings Allowance on 24th March.

  £2,287,000 was allocated to BA Districts for this identification exercise. This figure is provisional and may be subject to change.

  I hope this reply is helpful.

  Motability
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what access Motability has to the funds of Motability Finance Ltd; [27540]

  (2) who is responsible for the financial reserves of Motability Finance Ltd. [27232]

  Mr. Burt
  Financial reserves are maintained by Motability Finance Ltd. as a normal business measure to safeguard the operation of its lease and hire purchase schemes. Those reserves are legally owned by MFL. Reserves held in excess of requirements have been transferred by way of gift into the Motability 10th Anniversary trust, which provides charitable support to the Motability scheme.

  Child Support Agency
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the percentage of Child Support Agency assessments cleared(a) within 13 weeks, (b) within 26 weeks and (c) in more than 26 weeks in each month since the Child Support Agency started to operate. [28055]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The information requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the average value of(a) social fund loans and (b) social fund grants to pensioners in the most recent year for which figures are available. [28339]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is set out below. AVERAGE VALUE OF SOCIAL FUND DISCRETIONARY AWARDS TO PENSIONERS: 1995–96

  Community care grants: £264.82

  Budgeting loans: £236.40

  Crisis loans: £66.45

  Note:

  The definition of the pensioner client group includes applicant or partner aged:

  60 or over with income support—IS—pensioner premium

  80 or over with IS higher pensioner premium

  60 to 70, disabled with IS higher pensioner premium.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the expenditure on(a) social fund grants and (b) social fund loans to pensioners in the most recent year for which figures are available. [28338]
  233
  Mr. Evans
  The information is set out in the table.

  Social fund grants and loans pensioner expenditure: 1995–96

  Community care grants: £13.5 million

  Budgeting loans: £6.5 million

  Crisis loans: £0.4 million

  Note:

  The definition of the Pensioner client group includes applicant or partner aged:

  60 or over with income support—IS—pensioner premium

  80 or over with IS higher pensioner premium

  60 to 70, disabled with IS higher pensioner premium.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average pay back period for social fund loans to pensioners; and what is the average weekly deduction from benefit. [28340]

  Mr. Evans
  The average pay back period for social fund loans to pensioners is not immediately available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The repayment terms for social fund loans are designed to be affordable to the applicant. The rate of repayment depends upon the applicant's individual circumstances. Although most loans are repaid within 78 weeks, the period of repayment may be extended up to 104 weeks.

  The average weekly deduction from pensioners' benefit is £6.25. This figure is calculated from statistics published in the income support statistics quarterly inquiry, May 1995 and is the latest information available.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners currently have more than one social fund loan; what is the current average value of(a) the loans outstanding and (b) the original sum borrowed. [28341]

  Mr. Evans
  The information requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much was spent on official hospitality by his Department and all associated agencies in the financial year 1995–96. [28566]

  Mr. Burt
  Expenditure information for the 1995–96 financial year has not yet been finalised but provisional figures indicate the total amount spent in that year on official hospitality by the Department of Social Security and all associated agencies was £105,541.

  Mortgage Interest Direct
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if adjudicating officers are implementing the R v. Secretary of State ex parte Golding judgment. [26510]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  [holding answer 24 April 1996]: The Department has taken further advice regarding the implications of the judgment. Contrary to what we thought at the time of the judgment we now understand that, pending the Department's appeal against the decision, paragraph 11 of schedule 9A to the claims and payments regulations is not an appropriate vehicle for recovering overpayments of mortgage interest direct
  234
  directly from lenders where the overpayment occurred prior to the new adjudication decision. The Benefits Agency has instructed local offices accordingly.

  Severe Hardship Payments
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many young people are claiming severe hardship payments currently(a) nationally, (b) in London, (c) in Waltham Forest, (d) in Redbridge and (e) in Leyton. [24137]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  [Pursuant to his reply 3 April, Official Report, column 419]: Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency is writing again to clarify his reply of 3 April 1996.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Harry Cohen, dated 8 May 1996:

  You recently asked the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the number of young people claiming severe hardship payments currently (a) nationally, (b) in London, (c) in Waltham Forest, (d) in Redbridge and (e) in Leyton. I am writing to clarify the information provided in my letter of 3 April 1996.

  I regret that the figure I quoted for the number of young people claiming severe hardship in the BA Districts which include the London postal area was incorrect. The figure should have been 617. This figure is provisional and subject to change.

  I apologise for any inconvenience this may have caused you.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Cultural Traditions Conferences
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the cost of the cultural traditions group's(a) varieties of Irishness conference, (b) varieties of Britishness conference and (c) varieties of Scottishness conference. [27887]

  Mr. Ancram
  The costs incurred by the cultural traditions group in organising each conference were:

  (a) Varieties of Irishness, March 1989, Portrush—£10,998, with an additional contribution from the American Ireland Fund;

  (b) Varieties of Britishness, March 1990, Enniskillen—£15,280, with an additional contribution from the American Ireland Fund;

  (c) Varieties of Scottishness, March 1996, Belfast—£7,966, with an additional contribution to travel costs from a private sector sponsor.

  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the budget allocated for the cultural traditions group's cultural diversity in contemporary Europe conference. [27888]

  Mr. Ancram
  The cultural traditions group's conference on cultural diversity in contemporary Europe, originally planned for 23–24 June 1996, has been postponed and will not now take place during the current financial year.

  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the cultural balance in the choice of speakers for the cultural diversity in contemporary Europe conference; and if he will make a statement. [27890]
  235
  Mr. Ancram
  The cultural traditions group's proposed conference on cultural diversity in contemporary Europe has been postponed. The organisers will choose speakers for a re-arranged conference at a later stage.

  Orange and GAA Halls
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if Orange and Gaelic Athletic Association halls will receive equality of treatment with regard to funding by Government agencies. [27889]

  Mr. Ancram
  Every application for funding will be treated on its merits and in accordance with the criteria which apply in the relevant schemes regardless of the source of the application.

  Irish Language
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary(a) have a knowledge of the Irish language and (b) are studying the Irish language. [28047]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information is as follows:

  (a) Classified as linguists: five

  Ordinary educational qualifications: 64

  Irish language familiarisation:132

  (b) Currently studying: 27

  Police (Sporting Ventures)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the joint sporting ventures between the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the individual constabularies of Scotland in the past year. [28308]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The following list includes also events in which the RUC participated and which were staged in Scotland.

  Angling

  Police Athletic Association fly fishing championships, Loch Leven, Edinburgh, 19 September 1995

  Boating/sailing

  Police Athletic Association shore sailing championship, the Clyde, 2 June 1995

  Badminton

  Police Athletic Association championships at Aberdeen, 19 April 1996

  Clay pigeon

  RUC -v.- Strathclyde police at Strathclyde, 5 July 1995

  Football (soccer)

  RUC -v.- Strathclyde police at Belfast, 21 February 1996

  Golf

  Dumfries and Galloway police -v.- RUC at Portpatrick, 5 July 1995

  Rugby

  Lothian and Borders police seven-a-side tournament in Edinburgh, 24 April 1996

  Shooting

  Scottish practical pistol championships at Galashiels, 30 June 1995

  Police Athletic Association long-range rifle championships at Lauder, 28 June 1995

  Graded practical pistol match at Galashiels, 8 March 1996

  Sea angling
  236
  Police Athletic Association championships at Portpatrick, 22 August 1995

  Skiing

  Police Athletic Association championships at Aviemore, 19 March 1996

  Swimming

  Police Athletic Association championships at Edinburgh, 23 April 1996

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much was spent on official hospitality by his Department and all associated agencies in the financial year 1995–96. [28567]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The Northern Ireland Office, Northern Ireland Departments and their agencies spent £679,512 on official hospitality in 1995–96.

  Deaf-blind People
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many deaf-blind people were resident in the area of each local authority at the latest date for which figures are available; how many local authorities do not currently offer basic rehabilitation and social work support services for deaf-blind people; what action he is taking to improve local provision for them; and if he will make a statement. [27143]

  Mr. Moss
  [holding answer 8 May 1996]: In Northern Ireland responsibility for rehabilitation and social work services lies with the health and social services boards and trusts. The number of deaf-blind people known to each board is as follows:

  Eastern: 189

  Northern: 25

  Southern: 127

  Western: 129

  A key objective of the regional strategy for Northern Ireland health and personal social services 1992 to 1997 was that each board should ascertain the number and needs of sensorily impaired people in its population and ensure access to specialist teams of staff to provide support for people with a hearing and/or visual impairment. Boards have identified services for sensorily impaired people as a priority in their purchasing plans in accordance with their regional strategy and rehabilitation and social work services are provided for deaf-blind people within each board area.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Office Space
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the square footage and cost of office space rented by his Department and its agencies and the number of his Department's or agencies' buildings partly, or fully unoccupied together with the square footage of that unoccupied office space and its estimated rental value where available in each of the past five financial years. [27723]
  237
  Mr. Willetts
  The Cabinet Office and its agencies occupy both freehold and leasehold property. The

  Cabinet Office including Office of Public Service

  Square footage of rented accommodation

  Cost (£)

  Number of partly, or wholly vacant buildings

  Square footage

  Cost

  1993–94

  34,498

  222,740

  Nil

  —

  —

  1994–95

  30,804

  398,429

  Nil

  —

  —

  1995–96

  49,542

  595,588

  Nil

  —

  —

  OPS agencies excluding Property Advisers to the Civil Estate

  Square footage of rented accommodation

  Cost (£)

  Number of partly, or wholly vacant buildings

  Square footage

  Cost

  1993–94

  207,600

  3,765,759

  nil

  —

  —

  April-August 19941

  203,804

  3,009,325

  nil

  September 1994–March 1995

  183,031

  3,009,325

  nil

  —

  —

  1995–96

  182,733

  2,174,325

  nil

  —

  —

  1 The Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency relocated to Norwich in September 1994 and gave up space as a result of the move.

  Property Advisers to the Civil Estate

  PACE came into existence on 1 April 1996. Property Holdings, the predecessor to PACE, was responsible for the Government civil office estate. The cost of occupied space was recharged to

  Costs of vacant buildings on the Civil Estate (£)

  Square footage of vacant space at end of year

  Vacant space as a percentage of the Civil Estate

  1993–94

  86,500,000

  8,180,000

  10.1

  1994–95

  90,900,000

  10,086,000

  12.5

  1995–96

  133,600,000

  10,947,000

  13.6

  Property Holdings also had its own accommodation, a headquarters building and seven regional offices. The information

  Square footage of rented accommodation

  Cost (£)

  Number of partly, or wholly vacant buildings

  Square footage

  Cost

  1993–94

  97,240

  2,455,000

  Nil

  —

  —

  1994–95

  88,200

  2,261,000

  Nil

  —

  —

  1995–96

  88,510

  2,066,000

  Nil

  —

  —

  Her Majesty's Stationery Office

  1993–94

  168,983

  512,239

  2

  16,838

  39,906

  1994–95

  168,983

  508,202

  2

  28,520

  49,196

  1995–96

  170,631

  478,733

  1

  42,867

  72,144

  Central Office of Information

  1993–94

  204,481

  1,532,461

  1

  4,094

  66,527

  1994–95

  148,938

  2,024,971

  1

  10,700

  173,875

  1995–96

  148,938

  2,050,065

  1

  15,363

  249,649

WALES

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) deputations and (b) representations he has received concerning BSE; and if he will make a statement. [28067]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Welsh Office has received numerous representations about BSE and we have met many individuals and organisations on this subject.
  238
  information requested on leasehold properties is available only from 1993–94 and is as follows:

  occupying Departments with the cost of vacant space filling to Property holdings. The cost of vacant space on the civil estate, both leasehold, which cannot be split, is as follows:

  in respect of Property Holdings own accommodation is as follows:

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what further steps he will take to tackle BSE in Wales. [28404]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Government are considering the possibility of selective culling to accelerate the decline in the number of BSE cases occurring in the future. Any such cull would have to lead to a genuine reduction in the future incidence of BSE if it was to be worth doing. The aim would be to target cattle most at risk of developing
  239
  BSE. A final decision on whether to take this approach will be made in the context of negotiations on lifting the current European Union ban on the export of British beef.

  South-East Wales Ambulance Trust
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultation he has had with the chairman of the South-East Wales ambulance trust about management redundancies; what provision will be made in the accounts for the year 1996–97 for the costs of the redundancies; and what assessment he has made of that impact on the delivery of services. [28081]

  Mr. Hague
  None; these are operational matters for the board of the trust. My officials will be discussing with the trust its plans for 1996–97 on receipt of its annual operational plan by the end of May 1996.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultation he has had with the chairman of the South-East Wales ambulance trust concerning plans to reduce the number of ambulance stations in(a) Powys, (b) Gwent and (c) South Glamorgan. [28082]

  Mr. Hague
  None.

  Staff in post (whole-time equivalent numbers) at 30 September

  Speech and language therapists

  Physiotherapists

  Chiropodists

  Old health authority area

  1991

  1995

  1991

  1995

  1991

  1995

  Clwyd1

  27

  35

  94

  93

  19

  17

  East Dyfed

  14

  16

  44

  49

  18

  17

  Gwent

  21

  23

  85

  111

  23

  27

  Gwynedd

  11

  16

  54

  65

  14

  15

  Mid Glamorgan

  22

  37

  86

  87

  37

  40

  Pembrokeshire

  5

  3—

  21

  3—

  8

  3—

  Powys1

  8

  9

  30

  30

  13

  16

  South Glamorgan1

  31

  30

  155

  142

  31

  27

  West Glamorgan

  14

  30

  81

  87

  33

  36

  WHCSA2

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  1 The 1995 data may exclude a small number of staff paid on local pay scales for whom no details of occupation are available centrally.

  2 Welsh Health Common Services Authority.

  3 As most staff in the relevant pay groups are paid on local pay scales and details of occupation are not available centrally, no reliable information can be given.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many staff he employs in(a) Wales and (b) London; and what were the equivalent figures since 1980. [28064]

  Mr. Hague
  The number of full-time equivalent staff employed in my Department in(a) Wales and (b) London is:

  Wales

  London

  1 April 1996

  2,266

  29

  30 June 1980

  2,406

  24

  Bridges
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the amount of money committed by his Department for carrying out assessments required to
  240

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he plans to meet the leaders of each of the unitary councils in Wales to discuss the consequences of his local government reorganisation; and if he will make a statement. [28065]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend and I have no plans to meet leaders of the unitary councils in Wales to discuss the consequences of local government reorganisation.

  Therapists
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for each health board area in Wales the number of fully-trained specialists in the NHS in(a) speech and language therapy, (b) physiotherapy and (c) chiropody for (i) 1990 and (ii) 1995; and if he will make a statement. [27895]

  Mr. Richards
  The information is given in the following table. Reliable data are not available for 1990 so 1991 data have been given. Staff employed by NHS trusts are shown in the health authority area in which the trust is situated.

  plan for the strengthening of bridges required under European Union regulations (a) for each local authority in Wales and (b) for Wales; and how much is committed for 1995–96 and for 1996–97 showing the totals as a percentage of overall local authority budgets; and if he will make a statement. [28156]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  It is estimated that some £4.5 million will be spent on the trunk road—including M4 motorway—assessment programme. Within this total, £706,000 was expended in 1995–96 and £473,000 is estimated for 1996–97.

  Local authorities are responsible for bridges on non-trunk roads. The bulk of local authority resources are not attributed to particular activities and it is for individual authorities to determine the level of resources to allocate to bridges, and other programmes, taking into account statutory responsibilities and local priorities.
  241

  River Pollution
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what research he has evaluated about the danger of acidification of the head waters of Welsh rivers as a result of emissions from power stations in(a) Pembrokeshire and (b) elsewhere. [27919]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  A report commissioned by the Welsh Office entitled "A Review of the Impact of Current and Future Acid Deposition in Wales" was completed in February 1993. I have arranged for a copy to be placed in the Library of the House. This review has led to a survey of acidification in rivers and lakes which is under way: it is planned to publish the results in 1997.

  Penyclipe Tunnel
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what maintenance costs have been incurred on the Penyclipe tunnel for each year of its operation. [28453]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The cost of maintenance for each full year of operation has been £240,000.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the overseas visits made by him and each of his Ministers since they were appointed to the Welsh Office; and if he will make a statement. [27900]

  Mr. Hague
  Ministerial colleagues and I make overseas visits from time to time to promote inward investment into Wales, to assist our businesses in the promotion of their international trade and in relation to European and other issues. A full list of such visits was placed in the Library of the House on Friday I March this year. I have subsequently led a short inward investment mission to the USA, and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State visited Luxembourg to attend an Agriculture Council meeting.

  Rail Services
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the rail links between(a) north Wales and London Euston, (b) north-east Wales and the channel tunnel and (c) Holyhead and Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [28408]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The provision of rail links in North Wales is a commercial matter for the railway operators.

  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will undertake discussions with the rail regulator with regard to the future levels of service between north and south Wales. [28272]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The franchising director has completed consultation on the south Wales and west draft passenger service requirement. He is assessing the representations he has received and will publish the final requirement in due course.

  Services to be provided in addition to the requirement will be a matter for the commercial judgment of the franchisee.

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much was spent on official hospitality by his Department and all associated agencies in the financial year 1995–96. [28565]

  Mr. Hague
  The amounts spent on official hospitality in 1995–96 were:

  Welsh Office: £22,090

  Cadw: £417

HEALTH

  Comptroller and Auditor General's Report
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give the name and address of the general practitioner fundholding practice mentioned in paragraph 43 of the Comptroller and Auditor General's report on the "NHS (England) Summarised Accounts 1994–95;" and if he will list the health authority and the job titles of the three members of staff who received relocation payments mentioned in paragraph 48 of the Comptroller and Auditor General's report on the "NHS (England) Summarised Accounts 1994–95". [22988]

  Mr. Malone
  No. It is not normal practice for Ministers to identify individuals mentioned but not named in such reports.

  GP Fundholders
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 30 April,Official Report, column 502, what was the grade of the ex-civil servant who carried out the independent inquiry into the circumstances leading to the failure to enact the secondary legislation in respect of the payment of management allowances to general practitioner fundholders; which branch of his Department that person worked in when last a civil servant; what was the cost of the inquiry; and if the work carried out was tendered for in open competition. [28118]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 25 April at columns 282–83. Mr. Strachan Heppell, a deputy secretary, was previously the head of the health and social services group in the Department before his retirement from full-time work in 1995. Mr. Heppell was asked to undertake the inquiry because of his prior knowledge of departmental and wider civil service standards and procedures and at no additional cost to the Department.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 30 April,Official Report, column 502, when the implementation team was set up; what grades of civil servant and how many in each grade have been assigned to it; and how long he expects the team will require to complete the action plan. [28119]

  Mr. Malone
  A small project team of senior managers has been set up, led by Department's principal establishments and finance officer, to take forward implementation of the inquiry's recommendations. Changes already in hand will address some of the problems identified. Others will require work over several months.
  243

  Breast Implants
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received on silicone breast implants in the last year. [28318]

  Mr. Horam
  We have received 33 representations from hon. Members, members of the public and manufacturers.

  Terminally Ill Patients (Prescription Charges)
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to change the rules with regard to exemption from prescription charges for terminally ill patients. [28557]

  Mr. Malone
  None. Many people who are terminally ill benefit from our extensive exemption arrangements, which are among the most generous in Europe. In 1996–97 we expect 85 per cent. of prescriptions to be dispensed free.

  Oral Contraceptives
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 7 March,Official Report, columns 321–22, (1) if the data on myocardial infarction from the Spitzer and Jick studies was made available to the Committee on Safety of Medicines on 13 October 1995; [27751]

  (2) if the interim data from the transnational study was made available to the Committee on Safety of Medicines at its meeting on 13 October 1995. [27752]

  Mr. Malone
  Limited data on myocardial infarction from the Jick study were made available to the committee. The committee considered the data on venous thromboembolism from the transnational study at its meeting on 13 October 1995, but no data on myocardial infarction from this study were available to the Medicines Control Agency or the Committee on Safety of Medicines at that time.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 25 March,Official Report, column 428, if his officials assisted the chairman of the Committee on Safety of Medicines in drafting the letter of 18 October relating to oral contraceptives containing desogestrel and gestodene. [27753]

  Mr. Malone
  The letter was drafted by the chairman of the Committee on Safety of Medicines on the basis of the committee's recommendations. Officials were involved in making minor amendments to the letter. The final version was agreed by the chairman.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reasons he is unable to make available the advice from the Committee on Safety of Medicines of 13 October 1995 on oral contraceptives. [27756]

  Mr. Malone
  The advice of the Committee on Safety of Medicines is considered to be a confidential communication between the committee and the licensing authority. Such communications are not normally published because they may contain information which is sensitive for commercial reasons or because their disclosure would undermine the policy-making process.

  However, on this occasion, in the interests of public health, the advice given by the CSM at the meeting on 13 October 1995 was sent out in a letter from the
  244
  chairman dated 18 October 1995 to all doctors and pharmacists. Copies of this letter are available in the Library.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those members of the transnational study team which his officials met on the afternoon of 9 October 1995. [27759]

  Mr. Malone
  Professor W. Spitzer and Dr. K. MacRae.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the Committee on Safety of Medicines has made an assessment of the safety of desogestrel and gestodene since the publication of January 1996. [27760]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 25 April at column 281.

  Mianserin
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 25 March,Official Report, column 427, if he will list the dates between 1981 and 1990 when the Committee on Safety of Medicines considered safety issues relating to the antidepressant mianserin. [27754]

  Mr. Malone
  Matters relating to the safety of mianserin were discussed at meetings of the Committee on Safety of Medicines on the following occasions:

  December 1981

  February 1982

  September 1982

  April 1983

  July 1985

  January 1986

  April 1986

  September 1987

  October 1987

  March 1988

  November 1988

  December 1988

  February 1989

  September 1990

  October 1990

  November 1990

  December 1990.

  Committee on Safety of Medicines
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the "Dear Doctor" letters sent since 1980 by chairmen of the Committee on Safety of Medicines to the medical profession, indicating for each the dates they were sent, the product concerned and the dates of any accompanying licensing action; and if he will make a statement. [27755]

  Mr. Malone
  The "Dear Doctor" letters sent by the Committee on Safety of Medicines to the medical profession since 1980 are shown in the table. Information regarding any licensing action taken in respect of some of the products listed in the letters is confidential. The relevant information for the others could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  245

  Title

  Date of letter

  Products containing the following drug substance(s)

  Combined oral contraceptives and thromboembolism

  18 October 1995

  Combined oral contraceptives containing gestodene or desogestrel

  High-lipase pancreatins—reports of colonic strictures

  21 December 1993

  High strength pancreatic enzyme preparations

  Withdrawal of triazolam

  1 October 1991

  Triazolam

  Terodiline (Micturin) and adverse cardiac reactions

  25 July 1991

  Terodiline

  Withdrawal of Pacitron and Optimex

  12 April 1990

  L-tryptophan

  Desensitising vaccines (Allergen extracts) and anaphylaxis

  8 October 1986

  Desensitising vaccines containing allergen extracts

  Reye's syndrome and aspirin use by children

  10 June 1986

  Paediatric aspirin products

  Phenylbutazone and oxyphenbutazone

  7 March 1984

  Phenylbutezone and oxyphenbutazone

  Use of combined oral contraceptive pills and cancer

  20 October 1983

  Combined oral contraceptives

  Etomidate (Hypnomidate injection and infusion)—PL 0242/0019,0082

  20 June 1983

  Etomidate

  Etomidate (Hypnomidate for infusion)—PL 0242/0082

  1 June 1983

  Etomidate

  Opren suspension of product licences

  3 August 1982

  Benoxaprofen

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which current or past members or chairmen of the Committee on Safety of Medicines have been appointed for longer than the period prescribed in paragraph 4 of the Medicines Commission and Committees Regulations 1970; and if he will make a statement. [27757]

  Mr. Malone
  None.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what occasions members of the Committee on Safety of Medicines have made representations(a) to him and (b) to the chairman of the committee indicating that the advice emanating from a subset of the committee which met on 13 October 1995 should be withdrawn. [27758]

  Mr. Malone
  None.

  Adoption
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to introduce legislation based on Her Majesty's Government's consultation document on adoption published in March of this year; and if he will make a statement. [28244]

  Mr. Bowis
  We hope to introduce new legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows.
  246

  Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) confirmed and (b) suspected cases of the new strain of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease there have been to date. [28521]

  Mr. Horam
  One further case of the new variant of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease has been confirmed since the announcement on 20 March that 10 cases had been identified.

  Surplus Property
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 23 April,Official Report, column 106, (1) if he will provide a list of (a) properties sold in each of the last three years and (b) properties that are currently for sale indicating their location, former use and market value; [27287]

  (2) if he will provide a list of properties that have definitely been identified as being for sale, indicating their location and market value. [27288]

  Mr. Horam
  [holding answer 30 April 1996]: Information on properties sold in the last three years is not available centrally.

  A list of non-trust national health service properties which are currently for sale will be placed in the Library.

  It would be inappropriate to quote market values for individual properties as this could prejudice negotiations with prospective purchasers.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Firearms Amnesty
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what happened to the weapons collected under the 1989 firearms amnesty; and how many were destroyed. [28115]

  Mr. Maclean
  Of the 47,902 firearms surrendered to police forces during the September 1988 amnesty, approximately 3,000 were allocated to suitably authorised, publicly funded museums and other public bodies with a legitimate interest in the historical or scientific development of weapons. The remainder were destroyed.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many weapons were collected under the 1989 firearms amnesty; and how many were self-loading rifles. [28114]

  Mr. Maclean
  The last firearms amnesty was held in September 1988. A total of 47,902 firearms were surrendered to police forces in Great Britain. Of these, a total of 342 were self-loading rifles.

  Prevention of Terrorism Act (Arrests)
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many arrests there have been under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Temporary Provisions) 1989
  247
  in each year; how many of those arrested have been charged; and how many have been convicted of an offence. [28113]

  Mr. Howard

  Great Britain

  Year

  Detained

  Charged

  Excluded, deported or removed

  19891

  181

  21

  12

  1990

  193

  28

  16

  1991

  153

  7

  11

  1992

  160

  38

  1

  1993

  152

  32

  4

  1994

  61

  9

  4

  1995

  34

  13

  0

  The table also shows figures for those who may not have been charged with an offence but were excluded, deported, or removed.

  Figures for convictions are not readily available on a year-to-year basis. From January 1989 to December 1995, 22 people detained under the prevention of terrorism legislation were convicted of offences under the Act(s)*, and 75 people were convicted of offences under other legislation.

  In addition, since 1989 nine people have been removed to Northern Ireland, charged and subsequently convicted of offences.

  Northern Ireland

  Year

  Detained

  Charged

  19891

  1,583

  360

  1990

  1,549

  370

  1991

  1,680

  386

  1992

  1,795

  460

  1993

  1,641

  382

  1994

  1,503

  367

  1995

  443

  108

  Figures on convictions in Northern Ireland are not readily available and would be collected in the time available only at disproportionate cost.

  1 The Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 came into effect on 22 March 1989. These figures may include some people who were detained and/or convicted under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 from 1 January 1989 to 22 March.

  Remand Prisoners
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current average time a prisoner spends on remand; and what was the figure in 1979. [28108]

  Miss Ann 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. Ian Pearson, dated 9 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 current average time a prisoner spends on remand; and what was the figure in 1979.
  248
  Information for 1995 is given in the attached table. Information for 1979 is published in table 2.1 of the 1989 edition of 'Prison statistics, England and Wales', a copy of which is in the Library.

  Estimated average time spent in custody for untried and convicted unsentenced prisoners, in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales in 1995(1) by sex.

  Type of custody

  Estimated average number of days in custody4 Male

  Female

  Untried2

  56

  43

  Convicted Unsentenced1

  34

  30

  1Provisional figures.

  2Time spent in custody before conviction.

  3Time spent in custody after conviction before sentence.

  4Estimated from number of receptions and average population in 1995.

  Notifiable Offences
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many notifiable offences were recorded by the police: how many persons were(a) cautioned by the police and (b) found guilty at (i) magistrates courts, (ii) Crown courts, (iii) both courts and (c) found guilty or cautioned in (1) 1980 and (2) 1995 in the Metropolitan police area. [28022]

  Mr. Maclean
  Information for 1980, 1994 and 1995 is given in the table below.

  Summary of criminal justice statistics 1980, 1994 and 1995

  Metropolitan Police Area

  1980

  1994

  19951

  Notifiable offences recorded

  584,137

  849,976

  840,478

  Indictable offences

  Cautions

  8,464

  37,167

  —

  Convictions—magistrates' courts

  68,659

  39,603

  —

  Crown court

  15,140

  13,156

  —

  All courts

  83,799

  52,759

  —

  Total cautioned and convicted

  92,263

  89,926

  —

  1 1995 cautioning and convictions data will not be available until the autumn 1996.

  Rifle and Pistol Clubs
  Mr. Touhig
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many approved rifle and pistol clubs there were in the United Kingdom during(a) 1980, (b) 1985, (c) 1992, (d) 1993, (e) 1994 and (f) 1995. [28264]

  Mr. Maclean
  There are currently 2,160 approved clubs in the United Kingdom. Information about the number of clubs in previous years is available only at disproportionate cost.

  Pursuant to my reply of 21 March to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr Corbyn), column 295, I should like to correct the figure quoted at that time for approved rifle and pistol clubs in England and Wales which is now known to be incorrect. The correct figure is 1,871.
  249

  Abusive Telephone Calls
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many convictions there have been in each of the past 15 years related to abusive and threatening telephone calls; and if he will make a statement. [27565]

  Mr. Maclean
  It is not possible, from the information held centrally to identify offences relating to "the sending, by means of public telecommunicating system, a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character" from other summary offences pertaining to the appropriate Acts.

  Police and Fire Services
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to establish police and fire service funds to meet future pension liabilities for new entrants to which both employers and employees would pay contributions; and if he will make a statement. [28247]

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government have no plans to make the police and fire service pension schemes funded ones. Like most other public service pension schemes, they are financed on a "pay-as-you-go" basis.

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much was spent on official hospitality by his Department and all associated agencies in the financial year 1995–96. [28572]

  Mr. Howard
  The provisional figure for expenditure on official hospitality by my Department and its executive agencies in the financial year 1995–96 is £32,331. This differs from the projected budget of £60,570 given in my reply of 18 December,Official Report, column 969, principally because of a significant reduction in forecast expenditure on hospitality by the Forensic Science Service executive agency.

  Table 1: Clear-up rates for violent crime1 by police force area 1991–95

  Police force area

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Avon and Somerset

  70

  65

  65

  71

  75

  Bedfordshire

  62

  62

  60

  61

  57

  Cambridgeshire

  80

  77

  77

  77

  73

  Cheshire

  89

  84

  84

  86

  86

  Cleveland

  74

  71

  71

  64

  68

  Cumbria

  86

  85

  90

  85

  88

  Derbyshire

  82

  82

  81

  81

  76

  Devon and Cornwall

  82

  57

  77

  77

  77

  Dorset

  83

  77

  85

  78

  85

  Durham

  83

  85

  83

  86

  83

  Essex

  75

  75

  76

  77

  74

  Gloucestershire

  81

  74

  69

  77

  75

  Greater Manchester

  65

  63

  58

  59

  53

  Hampshire

  78

  78

  78

  76

  78

  Hertfordshire

  87

  73

  71

  75

  77

  Humberside

  74

  67

  62

  63

  66

  Kent

  73

  76

  75

  79

  80

  Lancashire

  80

  75

  76

  74

  72

  Leicestershire

  74

  73

  71

  74

  75

  250

  "Wheelclamping on Private Land"
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he published "Wheelclamping on Private Land"; when the consultation period ended; and when he intends to bring forward proposals to deal with the issue. [28413]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 8 May 1996]: The consultation paper "Wheelclamping on Private Land" was published on 23 February 1993, with a request for response by 31 May 1993. The consultation exercise produced a great deal of useful information but no consensus about a solution. We are considering what action, if any, should be taken to regulate this activity.

  Clear-up and Conviction Rates
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what have been the conviction rates in cases involving a plea of not guilty for each police authority in each of the last five years in (i) violent crime, (ii) car crime, and (iii) other serious crime; and if he will make a statement. [28228]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 8 May 1996]: Information regarding plea data is not available.

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on conviction rates across England and Wales. [28234]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 8 May 1996]: Information is published annually in the Command Paper "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales" on the number of prosecutions and convictions, from which the conviction rate can be calculated. Copies of the Command Paper are in the Library.

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what have been the(a) crime clear-up and (b) conviction rates for each police authority area in each of the last five years in (i) violent crime, (ii) car crime, and (iii) other serious crime; and if he will make a statement. [28229]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 8 May 1996]: The available information is given in the following tables. Information on conviction rates for 1995 will not be available until the autumn.
  251

  Table 1: Clear-up rates for violent crime1 by police force area 1991–95

  Police force area

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Lincolnshire

  93

  83

  84

  83

  City of London

  66

  43

  38

  66

  Merseyside

  58

  56

  56

  55

  Metropolitan Police

  46

  44

  47

  50

  48

  Norfolk

  83

  82

  79

  83

  74

  Northamptonshire

  75

  79

  81

  88

  79

  Northumbria

  71

  65

  68

  67

  64

  North Yorkshire

  88

  91

  86

  79

  80

  Nottinghamshire

  71

  68

  68

  67

  72

  South Yorkshire

  79

  79

  69

  74

  71

  Staffordshire

  83

  83

  79

  84

  83

  Suffolk

  83

  87

  80

  88

  86

  Surrey

  77

  72

  75

  83

  80

  Sussex

  65

  70

  65

  62

  73

  Thames Valley

  69

  68

  73

  69

  72

  Warwickshire

  77

  80

  78

  82

  81

  West Mercia

  87

  85

  84

  82

  79

  West Midlands

  65

  60

  55

  51

  45

  West Yorkshire

  74

  77

  68

  70

  68

  Wiltshire

  2104

  94

  94

  94

  91

  Dyfed-Powys

  91

  94

  96

  96

  94

  Gwent

  90

  91

  91

  91

  92

  North Wales

  90

  89

  90

  90

  89

  South Wales

  83

  82

  81

  73

  74

  England and Wales

  68

  66

  65

  66

  65

  1 Includes the notifiable offence groups of violence against the person, sexual offences and robbery.

  2 Offences cleared up in current year may have been initially recorded in an earlier year.

  Table 2: Clear-up rates for vehicle crime1 by police force area 1991–95

  Police force area

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Avon and Somerset

  14

  7

  7

  10

  9

  Bedfordshire

  10

  10

  10

  13

  11

  Cambridgeshire

  32

  14

  13

  13

  7

  Cheshire

  27

  15

  12

  13

  12

  Cleveland

  32

  27

  24

  12

  14

  Cumbria

  27

  21

  22

  26

  28

  Derbyshire

  16

  12

  10

  11

  8

  Devon and Cornwall

  16

  8

  12

  14

  13

  Dorset

  39

  16

  15

  14

  10

  Durham

  18

  19

  17

  18

  19

  Essex

  25

  16

  20

  26

  21

  Gloucestershire

  16

  12

  8

  9

  13

  Greater Manchester

  31

  29

  29

  27

  17

  Hampshire

  16

  14

  12

  13

  13

  Hertfordshire

  23

  17

  14

  13

  20

  Humberside

  23

  16

  9

  8

  9

  Kent

  10

  13

  13

  14

  10

  Lancashire

  36

  25

  26

  22

  23

  Leicestershire

  22

  24

  22

  23

  18

  Lincolnshire

  34

  26

  26

  22

  28

  City of London

  11

  7

  13

  21

  9

  Merseyside

  42

  43

  34

  25

  15

  Metropolitan Police

  6

  6

  5

  8

  10

  Norfolk

  34

  26

  17

  22

  19

  Northamptonshire

  30

  28

  19

  21

  19

  Northumbria

  34

  8

  11

  16

  16

  North Yorkshire

  24

  19

  17

  13

  10

  Nottinghamshire

  17

  16

  21

  22

  12

  South Yorkshire

  31

  18

  11

  14

  14

  Staffordshire

  31

  24

  23

  23

  22

  Suffolk

  24

  20

  15

  17

  15

  Surrey

  14

  15

  10

  16

  23

  Sussex

  9

  9

  10

  10

  17

  Thames Valley

  12

  11

  12

  13

  15

  Warwickshire

  15

  15

  13

  13

  16

  West Mercia

  26

  25

  18

  19

  13

  West Midlands

  26

  22

  21

  19

  18

  West Yorkshire

  22

  18

  9

  10

  11

  Wiltshire

  23

  19

  16

  18

  14

  Dyfed-Powys

  45

  37

  35

  38

  42

  252

  253

  Table 2: Clear-up rates for vehicle crime1 by police force area 1991–95

  Police force area

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Gwent

  33

  23

  29

  29

  29

  North Wales

  25

  21

  25

  24

  18

  South Wales

  26

  26

  24

  18

  26

  England and Wales

  21

  17

  15

  16

  15

  1 Includes the notifiable offences of theft from a vehicle, theft or unauthorised taking of a motor vehicle and aggravated vehicle taking.

  Table 3: Clear-up rates for other serious crime1 by police force area 1991–95

  Police force area

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Avon and Somerset

  25

  19

  19

  22

  25

  Bedfordshire

  22

  22

  23

  23

  25

  Cambridgeshire

  34

  28

  26

  24

  20

  Cheshire

  43

  31

  28

  32

  34

  Cleveland

  31

  31

  26

  20

  26

  Cumbria

  42

  39

  40

  36

  39

  Derbyshire

  28

  22

  20

  21

  21

  Devon and Cornwall

  30

  19

  27

  28

  29

  Dorset

  40

  35

  36

  33

  30

  Durham

  32

  31

  32

  33

  31

  Essex

  31

  31

  34

  37

  34

  Gloucestershire

  41

  27

  23

  27

  28

  Greater Manchester

  37

  37

  35

  35

  25

  Hampshire

  30

  27

  27

  28

  29

  Hertfordshire

  35

  26

  22

  26

  28

  Humberside

  31

  22

  16

  17

  19

  Kent

  26

  29

  27

  30

  29

  Lancashire

  40

  40

  38

  36

  37

  Leicestershire

  28

  29

  27

  28

  29

  Lincolnshire

  45

  39

  36

  31

  37

  City of London

  20

  21

  22

  26

  24

  Merseyside

  44

  41

  39

  34

  28

  Metropolitan Police

  18

  17

  18

  24

  24

  Norfolk

  35

  34

  29

  35

  32

  Northamptonshire

  28

  27

  27

  30

  28

  Northumbria

  34

  18

  20

  22

  23

  North Yorkshire

  37

  34

  32

  26

  25

  Nottinghamshire

  27

  26

  29

  26

  22

  South Yorkshire

  35

  27

  21

  25

  25

  Staffordshire

  35

  28

  27

  28

  30

  Suffolk

  38

  40

  39

  35

  35

  Surrey

  23

  21

  20

  30

  29

  Sussex

  25

  26

  27

  27

  28

  Thames Valley

  24

  21

  23

  24

  24

  Warwickshire

  26

  24

  22

  26

  25

  West Mercia

  35

  34

  29

  29

  30

  West Midlands

  30

  26

  27

  25

  25

  West Yorkshire

  27

  25

  19

  21

  22

  Wiltshire

  40

  37

  36

  36

  32

  Dyfed-Powys

  46

  51

  48

  49

  54

  Gwent

  48

  47

  46

  49

  52

  North Wales

  35

  32

  34

  38

  32

  South Wales

  27

  28

  26

  23

  26

  England and Wales

  30

  27

  26

  27

  27

  1 All notifiable offences excluding violent crime, vehicle crime and criminal damage under £20.

  Table 4: Conviction rates for indictable violent crime1 offences by police force area 1990–94

  Police force area

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Avon and Somerset

  52

  47

  40

  38

  40

  Bedfordshire

  51

  45

  41

  38

  44

  Cambridgeshire

  58

  54

  54

  52

  45

  Cheshire

  71

  67

  62

  63

  63

  Cleveland

  63

  55

  49

  45

  45

  Cumbria

  71

  69

  65

  62

  60

  Derbyshire

  68

  61

  57

  52

  44

  Devon and Cornwall

  77

  65

  67

  57

  52

  Dorset

  63

  54

  55

  60

  51

  Durham

  53

  54

  52

  54

  54

  254

  255

  Table 4: Conviction rates for indictable violent crime1 offences by police force area 1990–94

  Police force area

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Essex

  60

  52

  47

  49

  42

  Gloucestershire

  66

  53

  54

  48

  48

  Greater Manchester

  64

  60

  54

  54

  49

  Hampshire

  66

  60

  56

  55

  54

  Hertfordshire

  66

  52

  41

  41

  38

  Humberside

  68

  67

  67

  61

  61

  Kent

  79

  75

  68

  59

  56

  Lancashire

  69

  64

  66

  54

  56

  Leicestershire

  66

  62

  56

  50

  43

  Lincolnshire

  69

  58

  63

  56

  61

  City of London

  57

  57

  50

  56

  51

  Merseyside

  48

  42

  38

  39

  35

  Metropolitan Police

  62

  55

  49

  38

  40

  Norfolk

  68

  72

  75

  66

  71

  Northamptonshire

  57

  49

  49

  43

  36

  Northumbria

  58

  56

  52

  51

  51

  North Yorkshire

  69

  59

  59

  57

  55

  Nottinghamshire

  59

  51

  49

  44

  36

  South Yorkshire

  64

  59

  56

  54

  51

  Staffordshire

  53

  53

  47

  45

  46

  Suffolk

  65

  65

  58

  61

  55

  Surrey

  62

  55

  49

  46

  45

  Sussex

  61

  57

  50

  51

  47

  Thames Valley

  62

  53

  55

  51

  45

  Warwickshire

  75

  74

  68

  64

  60

  West Mercia

  69

  67

  58

  59

  55

  West Midlands

  62

  56

  51

  51

  51

  West Yorkshire

  68

  60

  54

  54

  48

  Wiltshire

  66

  63

  57

  51

  49

  Dyfed-Powys

  56

  54

  52

  44

  40

  Gwent

  56

  54

  56

  47

  53

  North Wales

  71

  68

  57

  57

  54

  South Wales

  56

  54

  46

  48

  44

  England and Wales

  62

  57

  53

  49

  47

  1 Includes the indictable offence groups of violence against the person, sexual offences and robbery.

  Indictable offences only have been used as nearest equivalent to notifiable offences.

  Table 5: Conviction rates for indictable vehicle crime1 offences by police force area 1990–94

  Police force area

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Avon and Somerset

  57

  54

  50

  50

  62

  Bedfordshire

  65

  50

  62

  39

  54

  Cambridgeshire

  58

  62

  53

  53

  39

  Cheshire

  73

  63

  53

  69

  66

  Cleveland

  61

  57

  50

  58

  50

  Cumbria

  77

  61

  60

  73

  70

  Derbyshire

  56

  59

  57

  56

  60

  Devon and Cornwall

  82

  67

  63

  65

  62

  Dorset

  65

  68

  59

  55

  70

  Durham

  63

  49

  51

  52

  50

  Essex

  64

  59

  54

  47

  54

  Gloucestershire

  66

  64

  51

  53

  57

  Greater Manchester

  80

  69

  62

  74

  57

  Hampshire

  71

  66

  63

  63

  65

  Hertfordshire

  67

  65

  53

  50

  48

  Humberside

  77

  73

  64

  67

  72

  Kent

  79

  74

  75

  71

  67

  Lancashire

  76

  72

  74

  67

  64

  Leicestershire

  72

  60

  58

  55

  53

  Lincolnshire

  81

  81

  69

  68

  71

  City of London

  67

  2106

  35

  100

  62

  Merseyside

  36

  41

  42

  59

  56

  Metropolitan Police

  69

  63

  58

  61

  64

  Norfolk

  83

  82

  80

  68

  89

  Northamptonshire

  62

  58

  50

  57

  62

  Northumbria

  61

  54

  54

  62

  57

  North Yorkshire

  75

  58

  64

  58

  67

  Nottinghamshire

  62

  53

  52

  55

  60

  South Yorkshire

  68

  72

  64

  65

  63

  Staffordshire

  49

  52

  41

  57

  64

  Suffolk

  78

  69

  57

  74

  71

  256

  257

  Table 5: Conviction rates for indictable vehicle crime1 offences by police force area 1990–94

  Police force area

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Surrey

  57

  55

  50

  60

  51

  Sussex

  74

  63

  61

  56

  62

  Thames Valley

  67

  51

  55

  58

  63

  Warwickshire

  82

  60

  54

  47

  53

  West Mercia

  61

  57

  56

  52

  58

  West Midlands

  53

  47

  44

  53

  52

  West Yorkshire

  64

  62

  55

  57

  54

  Wiltshire

  81

  66

  76

  82

  74

  Dyfed-Powys

  78

  62

  47

  61

  54

  Gwent

  65

  55

  54

  54

  50

  North Wales

  82

  79

  62

  64

  66

  South Wales

  57

  59

  49

  63

  60

  England and Wales

  66

  61

  56

  60

  59

  1 Includes the indictable offences of theft from a vehicle, theft or unauthorised taking of a motor vehicle and aggravated vehicle taking.

  2 Will include persons proceeded against in earlier years or for other offences.

  Table 6: Conviction rates for indictable other serious crime1 offences by police force area 1990–94

  Police force area

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Avon and Somerset

  69

  68

  67

  60

  60

  Bedfordshire

  67

  66

  64

  61

  64

  Cambridgeshire

  77

  72

  73

  69

  64

  Cheshire

  81

  75

  75

  76

  76

  Cleveland

  74

  67

  64

  63

  67

  Cumbria

  82

  78

  76

  75

  75

  Derbyshire

  77

  70

  70

  67

  68

  Devon and Cornwall

  83

  74

  74

  72

  68

  Dorset

  76

  70

  69

  73

  68

  Durham

  69

  65

  66

  67

  66

  Essex

  72

  65

  67

  66

  65

  Gloucestershire

  68

  71

  67

  66

  67

  Greater Manchester

  82

  82

  79

  81

  71

  Hampshire

  75

  71

  72

  69

  71

  Hertfordshire

  78

  67

  64

  65

  63

  Humberside

  80

  78

  76

  75

  75

  Kent

  86

  90

  85

  81

  82

  Lancashire

  76

  77

  79

  71

  71

  Leicestershire

  72

  69

  68

  63

  61

  Lincolnshire

  80

  71

  77

  75

  78

  City of London

  69

  68

  61

  66

  65

  Merseyside

  71

  69

  65

  68

  64

  Metropolitan Police

  84

  78

  75

  68

  68

  Norfolk

  88

  83

  86

  87

  88

  Northamptonshire

  71

  69

  63

  65

  62

  Northumbria

  74

  68

  67

  67

  63

  North Yorkshire

  76

  71

  68

  71

  71

  Nottinghamshire

  73

  67

  67

  66

  66

  South Yorkshire

  77

  74

  70

  70

  68

  Staffordshire

  71

  70

  68

  66

  65

  Suffolk

  78

  74

  72

  71

  71

  Surrey

  72

  70

  67

  67

  66

  Sussex

  76

  72

  73

  70

  69

  Thames Valley

  74

  68

  66

  65

  62

  Warwickshire

  84

  79

  69

  69

  68

  West Mercia

  77

  77

  73

  71

  69

  West Midlands

  74

  68

  63

  63

  63

  West Yorkshire

  75

  72

  66

  63

  63

  Wiltshire

  77

  74

  74

  75

  74

  Dyfed-Powys

  70

  68

  66

  67

  60

  Gwent

  70

  68

  72

  66

  69

  North Wales

  81

  83

  70

  70

  72

  South Wales

  70

  69

  66

  66

  66

  England and Wales

  77

  73

  71

  69

  68

  1 Includes the indictable offences excluding violent and car crime offences as in tables above.

  Indictable offences only have been used as nearest equivalent to notifiable offences.

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are his definitions of(a) crime clear-up rates and (b) conviction rates. [28230]
  258
  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 8 May 1996]: The clear-up rate is the number of offences cleared up as a percentage of the number of offences recorded, excluding

  259
  offences of criminal damage value £20 and under. The conviction rate is the number of convictions at all courts as a percentage of prosecutions.

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the changes made to the crime clear-up rates statistical methodology over the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [28238]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 8 May 1996]: There have ben no changes to the statistical methodology for clear-up rates. Since 1994, the Home Office has adopted the Audit Commission definitions of primary and secondary clear-ups, but this has no effect on the number of offences cleared up or on the overall clear-up rate. The definitions are given in note 4 of Home Office statistical bulletin 3/96, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Prisons (Drugs)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been successfully prosecuted in each of the last six years for smuggling illegal drugs into prisons; and if he will make a statement. [28232]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 8 May 1996]: The location of an offence committed under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 is not recorded centrally.

  Ministerial Group on Juveniles
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Ministerial group on juveniles met; and what(a) reports and (b) initiatives have been published as a result of the meeting. [28239]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 8 May 1996]: The ministerial group on juveniles met on 18 January and 13 March. A press notice published after the group's inaugural meeting announced a programme of work, which is now being taken forward, to strengthen measures for intervening effectively with those children who are most at risk of offending. This work will include the publication of practical guidance to help local agencies ensure a co-ordinated approach to identifying and dealing with these children.

  Child Abuse (North Wales)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what consultations he has had with the chief constable of North Wales concerning compensation payments to alleged victims of child abuse at North Wales children's homes in circumstances where no proceedings have been taken against those allegedly guilty of the abuse; [27624]

  (2) how many alleged victims of child abuse in North Wales children's homes have been paid compensation by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board; and how many such payments involved victims allegedly abused by persons against whom no police proceedings have taken place. [27627]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answers 8 May 1996]: I have not had any consultations with the chief constable of the North Wales police on this matter.

  I understand that to date the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board has made 27 awards of compensation and refused 14 applications. The number of
  260
  payments made where no prosecution resulted is not readily available. However, the standard of proof required under the compensation scheme is that obtaining in the civil courts, namely "the balance of probabilities", not the stricter standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" required in the criminal courts. It is accordingly within the board's discretion to make awards in cases where no prosecution is brought.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Beef Exports
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of United Kingdom beef exports is represented by beef exported from Northern Ireland. [27466]

  Mr. Baldry
  Beef exports from Northern Ireland accounted for approximately 28 per cent. of total UK beef exports in 1995.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress he has made in promoting the full resumption of the international beef trade; and if he will make a statement. [27471]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement I made on 1 May,Official Report, columns 1147–48.

  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on developments in European Union beef markets. [27472]

  Mr. Baldry
  EU beef markets are, to say the least, extremely turbulent at the present time.

  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made on the implications of the EU ban for the future of the beef industry. [27476]

  Mr. Baldry
  The United Kingdom's long and distinguished history as a trading nation has benefited considerably in recent years from a significant export trade in beef and beef products. The cessation of that trade directly threatens thousands of British jobs, severe financial hardship for those involved and possibly irreparable damage to the structure and profitability of the British beef industry.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has made to his German counterpart about the European Community ban on British beef. [27477]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have been in contact with my German counterpart, Joachim Borchert, on numerous occasions over the last few weeks during which time I have consistently and forcefully impressed upon him the fact that the export ban is unjustified and should be lifted forthwith.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the penalties for a breach of the EC ban on the export of British beef and beef products by a British exporter, and about how such penalties would be enforced. [27350]
  261
  Mrs. Browning
  It would be an offence under the Products of Animal Origin (Import and Export) Regulations 1992 (SI 1992 No 3298), as amended, to export or to consign for export to another member state, British beef or beef products without the necessary export health certification. These export certificates have been withdrawn by the Government following the EC ban. A copy of the regulations is available in the Library of the House. The penalties applying are set out in regulation 28. Enforcement of the regulations is shared between the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the local authority concerned. In practice local authorities generally take prosecutions under the regulations. Under regulation 3 the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and in some circumstances the Secretaries of State for Scotland, for Wales and for Health, have powers to act where a local authority has failed to enforce.

  All export certificates required by third countries to accompany consignments of British beef and beef products have also been withdrawn. Operational staff at all Customs export stations have been informed of the terms of the EC ban and have been instructed to refuse to release for export to third countries any goods covered by the ban. Customs' legal powers in respect of properly declared goods of the descriptions covered by the Commission decision extend no further than refusing permission to export. Failure to present goods for such export, however, is an offence under the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979.

  In the case of wilful breach of Customs controls, for example by misdescription of banned beef and beef products, powers in the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 provide for the prosecution of offenders and in some circumstances the forfeiture of goods. The commissioners of Customs and Excise will consider prosecution of such offences in individual cases using the criteria that they apply in all prosecutions.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met consumers' representatives to discuss measures to control bovine spongiform encephalopathy. [27467]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Yesterday.

  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met with consumers' representatives to discuss measures to control bovine spongiform encephalopathy. [27475]

  Mr. Hogg
  Yesterday afternoon.

  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met farmers' representatives to discuss bovine spongiform encephalopathy. [27480]

  Mrs. Browning
  My ministerial colleagues and I are in frequent contact with farmers' representatives. We are always willing to discuss the current difficulties and to listen to their views.

  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice he has given to knackers' yards and the rendering industry in relation to implementation of new BSE regulations. [27484]
  262
  Mrs. Browning
  The rendering industry and knackers' yards have been kept fully informed of the requirements of the new BSE regulations as they affect these sectors.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will initiate a comprehensive inquiry into the cause of the duration of the problems in respect of BSE. [27473]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The ruminant feed ban introduced in 1988 has been instrumental in reducing the number of confirmed cases by 75 per cent. since the peak in 1993. It is clear that the ban was not completely watertight and it has been progressively tightened, most recently to prevent mammalian meat and bone meal being fed to any farm animals. But the benefits of the more recent measures will take some time to see, as the disease has a long incubation period.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the effect of the culling proposals agreed at the Council of Ministers at Luxembourg on 29 and 30 April on the incidence of BSE in Untied Kingdom beef and dairy herds. [28305]

  Mrs. Browning
  No agreement was reached at the Agriculture Council on 29 and 30 April on culling cattle. The impact of the proposals we put forward cannot be estimated with precision but could in theory reduce the number of cases in 1996 by up to a third and should in practice achieve a reduction of between 15 and 30 per cent.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research his Department has carried out into BSE in each of the last 10 years; and how much of this research has been to identify the BSE infective agent. [24420]

  Mrs. Browning
  Details of BSE research funded by MAFF since 1991–92 will be placed in the Library today. The projects which involve work to identify the BSE infective agent are listed separately.

  Research records prior to 1991 are not held on computer; to provide the information for the period requested could only be done at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the number of suspected BSE cases per year since 1988 as a percentage of the national herd in that year. [24240]

  Mrs. Browning
  The number of suspected BSE cases per year since 1988 as a percentage of the national herd in that year are detailed in the following table:

  Year

  Percentage

  1988

  0.066

  1989

  0.220

  1990

  0.442

  1991

  0.770

  1992

  1.140

  1993

  1.112

  1994

  0.751

  1995

  0.445

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what scientific evidence the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee decided that
  263
  masseter and temporal muscles in cattle heads over six months of age should be treated as specified bovine offal; and if he will make a statement. [24215]

  Mrs. Browning
  The Government sought advice from the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee on this point. The committee recommended that the removal of bovine head meat from bovine heads should be prohibited because they were concerned at the possibility of such meat being contaminated with brain material following stunning and pithing, rather than because of concerns about the safety of meat itself.

  Animal Slaughter
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what support his Department is offering to the abattoir sector; and if he will make a statement. [27469]

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. and learned Friend announced on 16 April a £110 million package of support for the slaughtering sector. Following consultation, we have revised the operation of the stock purchase element of this scheme, in particular to maximise the help it gives to companies involved in the export trade. I am placing details in the Library.

  Farm Animal Welfare
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received concerning the welfare of farm animals. [27470]

  Mrs. Browning
  We continue to receive a high volume of comment on animal welfare issues.

  Set-aside
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the benefits to wildlife of the set-aside procedure. [27474]

  Mr. Baldry
  The Ministry is funding an evaluation of set-aside which examines its impact on plants, insects and birds. Research has shown that set-aside land can support significantly more wildlife than nearby cropped fields.

  Dairy Imports
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of(a) milk and (b) dairy products in the United Kingdom is imported from other EU nations. [27478]

  Mr. Baldry
  The figures are as follows:

  Imports from EU

  Percentage of total UK availability (domestic production plus total imports)

  Milk

  1

  Butter

  22

  Cheese

  33

  Skimmed milk powder

  11

  Full cream powder

  8

  Condensed milk

  6

  264

  Dairy Sector
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the impact of the fall in domestic consumption of beef and the European Union world-wide ban on British beef exports on the United Kingdom dairy farming sector. [27479]

  Mr. Baldry
  The crisis of confidence in British beef and the EU ban on UK beef exports will have affected the dairy sector in several ways. Continental markets for surplus dairy calves have been lost completely and markets at home for beef calves and store cattle knocked back. As a result of the export ban, and national measures to keep out of the human food chain meat from animals aged more than 30 months, there is no longer any market outlet for dairy cows which have reached the end of their productive lives. Measures which provide alternative outlets for male pure-bred dairy calves and cattle aged over 30 months have announced by my right hon. and learned Friend on the 28 March and 16 April respectively.

  Cattle Slaughter (Costs)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the average cost of the slaughter and destruction of a cow. [27481]

  Mrs. Browning
  Meat and Livestock Commission estimates suggest that the average cost is between £55 and £60 per animal.

  Common Fisheries Policy
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met representatives of the fishing industry to discuss the common fisheries policy; and if he will make a statement. [27482]

  Mr. Baldry
  I met representatives of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations at its annual general meeting on 3 May when we discussed the common fisheries policy and other current issues.

  Arable Area Payments
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the value of payments made under the arable area payments scheme in 1995. [27483]

  Mr. Baldry
  Payments under the arable area payments scheme in the United Kingdom in the 1995–96 financial year are estimated to total £1,304.9 million.

  Organophosphates
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research(a) he has commissioned and (b) evaluated which has been carried out into the effect of organophosphates upon (i) humans and (ii) animals. [28095]

  Mrs. Browning
  Between 1991 and 1994 the national poisons unit, London, was funded by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to conduct studies into the effects on human health from acute exposure to organophosphorus sheep dips. Jointly with the Department of Health and the Health and Safety Executive, MAFF has also awarded a contract worth £500,000 to the Institute of Occupational Medicine in Edinburgh to carry out an epidemiological study designed
  265
  to detect well-defined, predetermined chronic effects in humans of dipping sheep with OP sheep dips. This study is expected to be competed in April 1999.

  No current research into the effects of organophosphates on animals is being undertaken by MAFF. Every veterinary medicine must satisfy statutory criteria of safety, quality and efficacy, and responsibility for undertaking or providing information on the necessary research to meet these criteria rests with applicants for marketing authorisations. That research is evaluated as part of the authorisation process. We have, however, agreed two major research projects, worth £1.2 million over three years, on alternatives to organophosphorus sheep dips.

  There is also a very large quantity of published scientific literature on organophosphates, including papers on the effects in animals and humans, which is considered by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate as part of the continuing review of the use of OP sheep dips by the Veterinary Products Committee. References to these are widely available from commercial databases.

  Slaughterhouses
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many slaughterhouses have closed since 1 January 1993 on the grounds that they did not meet the structural requirements of directive 91/497/EEC. [27863]

  Mrs. Browning
  No figures are available to show how many slaughterhouses have closed since 1 January 1993 on the ground that they did not meet the structural requirements of directive 91/497/EEC. Slaughterhouses can close for a number of reasons, including commercial pressures arising from the significant overcapacity in the red meat slaughtering industry. In addition, if one operator decides to close, the premises may be taken over by another.

  Meat Hygiene Service
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many customers are currently disputing the bills submitted to them by the Meat Hygiene Service; [28335]

  (2) how many customers to date have refused to pay some or all bills submitted to them by the Meat Hygiene Service since the inception of the service. [28334]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 7 May 1996]: I have asked the chief executive of the Meat Hygiene Service to reply.

  Letter from Johnston McNeill to Mr. Edward O'Hara, dated 9 May 1996:

  As Chief Executive of the Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) your questions to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food concerning the number of customers currently disputing and refusing to pay the bills submitted to them by the MHS has been passed to me for reply. (28335 + 28334)

  124 customers are currently disputing the bills submitted to them by the MHS. 125 customers have refused to pay some or all bills since the launch of the MHS on 1 April 1995.

  As you may be aware the majority of these outstanding debts relate to payment strikes by some plants in support of the Woodspring Case, a civil action brought by Woodspring District Council against Bakers of Nailsea to recover unpaid meat inspection
  266
  charges. The Association of District Councils calculated that by the end of the 1994–5 financial year, local authorities would be owed some £2.5 million in unpaid charges. The High Court found in favour of Woodspring Council in 1994, but the case is under appeal and also being considered by the European Court of Justice. A judgement is expected in the autumn of 1996. However, I would like to stress that the MHS continues to provide a 100% inspection service to all customers regardless of whether there is a dispute over the charge for the services. The MHS also allowed for debt arising from the Woodspring Case in its 1995–96 Business Plan. Costs arising as a result of Specified Bovine Material enforcement action by the MHS are paid for by central Government.

  The Agency does operate rigorous debt recovery procedures. Invoices which remain unpaid after 21 days and which are not subject to query are passed to the Legal Department of MAFF who issue a warning "letter" before action. The intention is that a summons will be issued 14 days later unless payment has been received in the meantime.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Stewart
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the annual cost to the United Kingdom of membership of the common agricultural policy. [28403]

  Mr. Baldry
  Exchequer expenditure on the common agricultural policy reflects payments in the Untied Kingdom and contributions to expenditure in other member states through our net contribution to the EC budget. Our theoretical share of the cost of the CAP budget for 1996 would be around £3.6 billion after the Fontainebleau abatement is taken into account and assuming receipts estimated at £2.8 billion.

  In addition the CAP imposes costs on consumers estimated for 1993 at some £3 per week per person. A note setting out the calculations of the costs to UK taxpayers and consumers has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Set-aside Scheme
  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will state the area of set-aside in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) France in each year since set-aside began; and if he will state the percentage of agricultural land which this represents in each year and the total payment in each country in each year. [28563]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 8 May 1996]: I list the information requested which relates to set-aside under the arable area payments scheme.

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Set-aside area (thousands)

  UK

  573

  662

  597

  France

  1,590

  1,934

  1,727

  Set-aside as a percentage of land on which AAPS claimed

  UK

  113.7

  115.4

  114.0

  France

  112.3

  114.6

  113.1

  Total set-aside payments (mecu)

  UK

  189

  254

  233

  France

  517

  792

  722

  1per cent.

  267

  Fishing Vessels (Decommissioning)
  Mr. Merchant
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what provision he has made to decommission fishing vessels in 1996; and if he will make a statement. [29215]

  Mr. Baldry
  I have laid before the House the fishing vessel decommissioning scheme 1996 which comes into force today. We want decommissioning to provide real long-term benefits to the fishing industry. By reducing pressure on fish stocks, the scheme can help conservation and improve fishing prospects for the future. To this end, we must ensure that expenditure is effective and provides good value for money.

  We have determined the criteria to be used in the 1996 decommissioning scheme in the light of comments from the industry on our recent consultation paper and the cumulative value for public money obtained from the schemes so far and changes in the structure fo the fleet. The 1996 scheme will be opened up to more vessels on improved terms which take account of the comments made by the industry itself.

  Key changes being made are:

  a reduction to 75 qualifying days fishing in each of the two previous years;

  the removal of the current restriction on licence type;

  the extension of eligibility to the nephrops and distant water segments.

  the possibility of allowing historic decommissioned vessels to remain afloat if donated to a registered museum.

  268
  Some £13 million is now available for decommissioning this year and, as in the 1995 scheme, provision is made to cover the possibility of more than one round of decommissioning during the year. Decisions on the amount to be spent and the number of tenders will take account of value for money represented by the bids received.

  Other criteria for the 1996 scheme are similar to the 1995 scheme. The deadline for receipt of grant applications is 25 June 1996.

  Small Food Businesses
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the impact of the Government's policies to promote small businesses on United Kingdom farmers and small food businesses. [27464]

  Mrs. Browning
  The Government are taking a significant number of steps to help small firms—and this includes farming and food businesses—though the Ministry has not made a sectoral study of the impact of this support.

  Food Safety
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on Government policy on food safety. [27468]

  Mrs. Browning
  Our objective is that food sold in the United Kingdom should be safe for consumption. We have systems for identifying food safety risks, taking prompt action and announcing results. They are described in the 1996 departmental report (Cmnd. 3204) which was published recently.

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

AEA Technology plc: Privatisation Plans
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have for the privatisation of AEA Technology plc.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, following vesting on 31st March 1996, AEA Technology plc is now fully legally separated from the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority. Her Majesty's Government plan to privatise the company later this year.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that Answer, and start by wishing her a happy Europe Day. Is the noble Baroness aware that, although vesting day was on 31st March, the Government's intention of splitting the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and of privatising that part of the business which is now AEA Technology was mooted over two years ago? That uncertainty has now been hanging over the business for two years. Is not the noble Baroness aware that the kind of business undertaken by AEA Technology, which is technical research and the provision of scientific services, is very competitive and that that uncertainty is a competitive disadvantage to the company? Will the noble Baroness speed things up and give us a date on which something will happen?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his good wishes. Although I could find better ways of spending Europe Day than in answering his Question, I shall nevertheless do my best. As I have already said, Her Majesty's Government plan to privatise AEA Technology plc later this year but, as the noble Lord said, no timescale has been formally announced. The Government will sell AEA Technology as soon as it is ready to be sold. The Government have consistently said that the decisions that they will take on the sale will be in the best interests of AEA Technology as a business, and in the best interests of its employees and the taxpayer. Those things take time, and the Government take the time that is necessary.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, does my noble friend recall that back in 1980 or 1981 the Government's first privatisation measure by law was to privatise another part of the Atomic Energy Authority; namely, Amersham International? That has grown and grown to
200
be an extraordinary success within the private sector. Is there any reason why this part of the company should not do the same?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. I am happy to repeat that privatisation is in the best interests of companies and their employees.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, will the noble Baroness cast her mind back to what happened to INMOS when it was privatised some years ago? That company in the microchip industry was quickly flogged off to the French, who have exploited it ever since, much to our disadvantage. Although we were originally one of the leaders in the microchip industry, we now have to go abroad for that commodity. Can the noble Baroness give an undertaking that that will not happen in this case and that we shall not once again lose one of our industries of excellence?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, that has nothing to do with the Question. Furthermore, I am happy to say that that happened before my time.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that AEA Technology has taken great strides to improve its efficiency and that it is now an effective company which has responded enormously to the opportunities of the Bill that was recently passed? Does my noble friend further agree that it is important to keep that company as whole and effective as possible so that it can play the important role that it should play in the world marketplace?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. The vesting was a significant milestone in that company's history and plc status will give AEA Technology greater flexibility to respond to customer needs. Perhaps I may remind my noble friend that my noble and learned friend the Minister of State announced on 23rd October last year that the Government had no intention of breaking up AEA Technology in advance of the sale. He went on to say that the Government aimed to sell the business as a single whole. That remains the position.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, are the Government aware of the existence of over 40 technology clubs which are run by AEA Technology and which deal with groups of small businesses, teaching them about the technology to keep their businesses up to date? How will the Government ensure that that situation continues? In view of the Government's commitment to the wellbeing of smaller businesses, surely it is important not only that the uncertainty should be removed quickly, but that those clubs should continue.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, we have every confidence that the management of AEA Technology will deal with that matter. Whenever companies are privatised they always seem to do very much better in that respect.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that the Joint European Torus at Culham will

201
continue its research into nuclear fusion? Given that this is Europe Day, does she agree that that is a prime example of the United Kingdom leading Europe in atomic technology?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I have to confess that I am not absolutely sure of the answer to that question. Perhaps it would be safer for me to write to my noble friend rather than stand here at the Dispatch Box and make what could only be a good guess.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, perhaps I may suggest a rather innovative approach to the drafting of the Bill which the noble Baroness has promised the House later this year. In view of the worry about standards in public life, would it be in order to include a clause in the Bill to state that any Member of your Lordships' House who votes in favour of the privatisation of that company should not be allowed to buy shares in it?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, that is rather an unusual suggestion. I am sure that the noble Lord would not expect me to respond to it.
Earl Alexander of Tunis: My Lords, what would be the Government's view if the controlling shareholding should fall into foreign hands?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, as your Lordships know, the Government welcome foreign investment. The Government will consider in due course the need for safeguards against unwelcome purchases. It follows that the Government will consider the need for a special share, a golden share, and any other form of protection that is necessary in the light of decisions on the method of sale and discussions with the business's major partners.
Lord Peston: My Lords, is the—
Lord Strathclyde: Next Question‡
Lord Peston: I beg your pardon—
Lord Strathclyde: We have already had seven minutes on this Question.
Lord Peston: I should have thought that I might as well ask a question and throw some light on the subject.
May I ask the noble Baroness what she meant by, "As soon as it is ready to be sold"? If the company is doing so well and has been set up as a separate plc, surely it is ready to be sold. Will the noble Baroness clarify another matter on which I got a little lost? Will legislation be required for this sale or is it one of those enterprises which can now be sold directly? I think that it is important for your Lordships to know the answer to that.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, no decisions have yet been taken on the method by which AEA Technology will be sold. The Government have said consistently that all options, including flotation, remain open. That remains the position. It is too early
202
to say whether a flotation or a trade sale will offer a better return to the taxpayer and would be in the best interests of the customers, particularly government customers. That decision will be taken with regard to the performance of the business and the market circumstances. When they are ready to deal with it, it will be dealt with.
Lord Molloy: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I wonder whether the time has come for us to move on.

Southern Lebanon
3.10 p.m.
Lord Moyne Lord Moyne asked Her Majesty's Government:
What measures they are taking to end the occupation by Israel of parts of southern Lebanon in contravention of United Nations Security Council Resolution No. 1039 of 29th January.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, we fully support UN Security Council Resolution 425, and other resolutions on this issue, including Resolution 1039 to which the noble Lord refers. We call for the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Lebanon, as envisaged in the Taif Agreement of 1989. We believe that the Middle East peace process provides the best chance for a lasting settlement in the region, and will continue to work actively in support of it.
Lord Moyne: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his fairly reassuring reply. Can he confirm that the Government are telling the Israelis fairly sharply that by continuing to occupy this area they are promoting Hizbollah from the status of a terrorist organisation to that of a legitimate resistance movement?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government support the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Lebanon. Our support over the years of Resolution 425 of 1978 has been unswerving, but the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon is part of the overall question of the Middle East peace process. The solution will come only from a comprehensive settlement. We greatly support the talks which will begin shortly between Syria and Israel and between Lebanon and Israel as the best way to achieve a lasting settlement.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the Government support the resolution drafted by Lebanon under consideration in the Security Council today which demands compensation for Israel for the recent attacks? If not, why not?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, the question of compensation is a matter for the Secretary-General rather than the Government to determine.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, although I am sure that much valuable work has been done behind the

203
scenes recently, from now on will Her Majesty's Government adopt a much more open profile, working closely with the French, to ensure that steps are taken to build on the ceasefire and bring about lasting peace? Will my noble friend bear in mind that both the French and the British have a long tradition in, and understanding of, the countries in the area and therefore have a special role to play? Is not the first and most important step that all countries concerned should recognise the integrity of one another's boundaries?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, that is exactly what Resolution 425 and succeeding resolutions are all about. We warmly welcome the ceasefire and hope that it is the start of a full and final solution. We totally supported, and were actively engaged in, activities behind the scenes, but we felt that it would not be useful to have a number of different approaches being made at the same time. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister met Minister Hariri and discussed Lebanon in Moscow with Presidents Clinton and Chirac. President Hrawi transited London and was seen by my right honourable friend Mr. Hanley. The Foreign Secretary spoke on the telephone to Messrs. Barak and Christopher and exchanged numerous messages with others. We have kept in close touch with the Israeli, Lebanese and Syrian governments and also with the Americans and our EU partners.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, is the Minister aware that Israel's only demand is that the Lebanese Government should take effective control of their southern region? Does he agree that this is particularly important in view of the fact that there are 40,000 Syrian troops in Lebanon?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, that is very much what we have been saying. We fully support the integrity of Lebanon, but the only way to achieve it is by discussion with Syria, Lebanon and the Israelis.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I very much welcome the ceasefire. Does the Minister recall that it was necessary for the warring militias to be disarmed in and around Beirut? Do not similar considerations apply to southern Lebanon?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, this is part of a long lasting peace process. I do not believe that it can be exerted on its own without an extended process beyond that.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the only power which can exercise decisive influence in that part of the world is the United States, particularly since the origin of the problem is the weapons channelled from Tehran via Damascus to Hizbollah? Does he agree that only the United States is in a position to put an end to that traffic?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, possibly the greatest support we can give is in the form of international
204
efforts to exert pressure on Iran and Syria to control Hizbollah and not provide it with arms or a route by which arms can be provided to it.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, can the Minister comment on remarks made by Sheik Ndurdin, a senior representative of Hizbollah, that Hizbollah would recognise Israel in exchange for the withdrawal of Israeli troops from southern Lebanon? Is that not a step forward which requires a positive response from the Israeli Government? Further, can the noble Lord inform the House whether or not the UK Government have been pursuing this either in the United Nations or with the US Government?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I can assure the noble Baroness that we are pursuing all possible avenues, particularly in the United Nations from which we believe the Middle East peace process will devolve.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is it not well established by now that whenever the Israelis have occupied their neighbours' territory, whether in Syria, the West Bank or Lebanon, they have aroused intense hostility which has undermined rather than strengthened their security?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, that is an interpretation which the noble Lord may choose to make. However, it does not take us forward. We are trying to achieve a total and fulfilled peace process in the Middle East, and one that will last.

George Blake Memoirs: Judgment
3.18 p.m.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford Lord Wyatt of Weeford asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their view, if any, of the comment of Lord Justice Scott, when deciding that Mr. George Blake should receive £90,000 in royalties from his memoirs, that the Government's insistence on a lifelong duty of fidelity from members of the security and intelligence services represented "an interference with rights of free expression".
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, it would not be right for me to comment on the judgment in the Blake case while an appeal is under consideration. However, I would refer the noble Lord to the following passage in the judgment:
"I would readily accept that former members of any of the security or intelligence services owe the Crown a lifelong duty not to disclose confidential information acquired by them in the course of their duties".
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that in the judgment it is also said that no one is entitled to expect lifelong fidelity as to the matter of keeping secrets? Has he not also observed that Lord Justice Scott, who headed the arms for Iraq inquiry, denounced the Government for

205
claiming that there were state secrets involved? Therefore, was he not an unwise choice to head this inquiry?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I do not believe that the noble Lord is making an actual quotation from the judgment in Blake. The judgment runs to some 18 pages. I do not imagine that your Lordships will find it convenient if I read all of it out at this stage, but it is a public document which I believe will repay careful study. As far as concerns the choice of Sir Richard Scott to head up the inquiry, the noble Lord has his view of that; I am sure that there are also other views.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, since we have heard from my noble and learned friend that this matter is now sub judice in the Court of Appeal, would it not be best to close the discussion?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the judgment has been given. An appeal is under consideration. Strictly technically I believe that the matter is not sub judice according to the rules of the House, but I accept the sense of what my noble and learned friend said, which is why I thought that it would be inappropriate for me to comment upon the terms of the judgment. While conforming to that precept, which I laid down for myself, I thought I could give what I believe to be an entirely accurate quotation from part of the judgment.
Lord Richard: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that taking six words from an 18-page judgment and trying to form a conclusion from them is almost as fallacious as taking six words from a columnist in The Times and extrapolating from that what is meant to be the policy of the paper as a whole?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am sure that there is some underlying connection between the latter part of that question and the Question on the Order Paper. I think, and I am sure that many would agree, that if one is going to get the sense of a judgment of 18 pages one probably has to read more than six words of it.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that I must declare an interest in asking this question as I appeared for Mr. Blake at his trial in a professional capacity and secured for him the longest term of imprisonment that has ever been handed down by a British court? From that somewhat equivocal position, may I ask the noble and learned Lord to confirm that on no occasion has the Crown sought to suppress this book or contended that any secret or confidential information was disclosed? Was not the trouble here the fact that the security services failed to take the elementary precaution of seeing that there was an undertaking in Mr. Blake's terms of employment not to disclose material without express permission? In those circumstances, did not the learned Vice-Chancellor decide the case, as learned
206
judges still resolutely decide cases, according to law, without fear or favour, whether the defendant happens to be a spy, a journalist or even a Minister of the Crown?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am glad to notice that the noble Lord considers that Ministers of the Crown should enjoy justice. The first part of his question is extremely sweeping. I am not in a position to say precisely what happened at all stages, but it is true, as he said, that he represented Mr. Blake, as a result of which, but no doubt not in consequence of his representations, that very long sentence was passed. The reasons for the judgment are, as I say, expressed succinctly in 18 pages. It would be inappropriate for me to try to summarise them further.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, did Mr. Blake receive legal aid in order to help pay the fees of the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson? If he did, is it possible to recover that money from the royalties of £90,000 which Mr. Blake will receive if that is allowed?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the occasion upon which the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, represented Mr. Blake at his trial was some considerable time ago. I am unable to say whether the noble Lord was supported by the Legal Aid Fund at that stage. He nods, suggesting that he probably was. So far as concerns this case, Mr. Blake did not have legal aid. If he had had legal aid, the Legal Aid Fund could be reimbursed in so far as there was money being paid to Mr. Blake as a result of success in the action.

Reading: Improvement of Teaching
3.25 p.m.
Lord Quirk Lord Quirk asked Her Majesty's Government:
What further measures they consider necessary to improve the teaching of reading.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, following the Ofsted report on the teaching of reading in three London boroughs, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has announced a number of additional measures designed to identify and tackle poor teaching standards, and to monitor the performance of local authorities and teacher trainers.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, but does he not share with me the grave anxiety felt, especially by parents, and the acute frustration felt by employers and the rest of us, that after years and years of highly welcome educational reforms at government level, so little has apparently percolated down to school level that we cannot even grapple with the problems of basic literacy? Is it not appalling that, in this report to which the Minister has referred, Mr. Woodhead found that four-fifths of children, after

207
two years of education, did not get to where they ought to have got, and that one-fifth did not seem to get anywhere at all?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord is right to highlight the pretty damning evidence that comes from the report. He is right to point to the importance of some of the Government's reforms percolating down to the LEAs and the schools. I should like to emphasise and underline what he said, which underlines what Her Majesty's Chief Inspector said in his latest report and in his earlier report about the importance of adopting the right methods of teaching, laying particular stress with regard to reading on teaching by means of phonics. It was a distinct lack of the use of phonics in the 45 schools in those boroughs which created many of the problems that he has highlighted.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the serious problems would probably not have arisen had there been a strong professional organisation for teachers such as exists in other professions, and would the Government consider supporting the formation of such an organisation?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not agree with my noble friend that that would be the simple solution to the problem. The simple solution is for teachers to adopt the right teaching methods. To ensure that that takes place it is important that the teacher training institutions address initial teacher training and ensure that teachers are taught in the appropriate methods and can teach by means of phonics. To that end my right honourable friend has asked the Teacher Training Agency to look at the methods that the initial training institutions are using and at further improvements in in-service training.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, if the Government really care about reading standards in primary schools, why has it taken 17 years for them to see what is going on under their very nose? Why did they withdraw support from the highly successful reading recovery scheme knowing full well that local authorities could not possibly pick up the bill? While he is at it, could the Minister kindly explain to me why the Ofsted report on Tower Hamlets, Islington and Southwark has still not been delivered from his department to the PPO in your Lordships' House? I should like to know where the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, obtained his copy.
Lord Henley: My Lords, my apologies to the noble Lord for not being able to obtain a copy of the report. I shall see that he obtains a copy immediately after this debate even if it is only my own copy. I shall find another. Perhaps I may point out to him that we have done a considerable amount over the past 17 years. Much of what we have done has been opposed by the party opposite, particularly in terms of raising standards and improving inspection regimes. I point out also to the noble Lord—I do not like to bring party politics into this matter—that the report relates to 45 schools in three
208
authorities in London. Those authorities are Islington, Southwark and Tower Hamlets, all of which are under Labour control, I believe, and have been for aeons.
Baroness Young: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one of the most valuable reforms has been the establishment of Ofsted, which took the place of HMI inspections which occurred only infrequently, if at all, in primary schools, and that the valuable information that we have received is a most important result of one of this Government's many educational reforms?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her comments about the importance of the work of Ofsted. Some of the remarks which come from some of the friends of the party opposite accusing Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of political bias in his report are highly regrettable. That is merely trying to evade responsibility. These are matters that they should address in their authorities and we will seek to ensure that they do so.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is the report in the Guardian that passages were deleted from the report before its publication substantially correct? If so, can any of us be asked to give the report any academic credence?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the report is one by Ofsted, a body which is independent of the Government. It is for Ofsted to put together its report. Obviously, a report goes through a number of different drafting stages and the body concerned will produce its final report, as has been done. The noble Earl has suggested, as have his colleagues in the party opposite, that the report is politically biased. That is nonsense and nonsense in the extreme. Those authorities ought to be addressing the very serious problems that Her Majesty's Chief Inspector, Mr. Woodhead, has raised and seeking to improve standards in their schools.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, will the Minister agree that Her Majesty's Chief Inspector, Mr. Woodhead, said that, while he did not accept that class size mattered for most ages, it is a relevant factor for very young children? Will the Government accept responsibility for cutting during the past four years the funding available per capita for primary school children and the increase in class sizes? Will the Minister also accept that many members of his party buy such class sizes for their own children?
Lord Henley: My Lords, obviously, class size is important but, as Her Majesty's Chief Inspector made clear, it is not the sole factor. The most important factor is the method of teaching employed in schools. I can assure the noble Baroness that funding in all three authorities that I mentioned is considerably higher than in other parts of the country. The noble Baroness's Leader in another place and the spokesman for health in another place have been sending their children to schools in Tory-controlled authorities and not to those in their own local education authorities.

Business
3.32 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Lucas will, with the leave of the House, repeat in the form of a Statement an Answer to a Private Notice Question in another place on the district auditor's report on Westminster City Council.

Education Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate the Education Act 1944 and certain other enactments relating to education, with amendments to give effect to recommendations of the Law Commission. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

School Inspections Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate provisions of the Education (Schools) Act 1992 and Part V of the Education Act 1993, with amendments to give effect to recommendations of the Law Commission. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

King's College London Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time.
Clause 5 [Transfer of property, etc.]:
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham)The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham) moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 5, line 32, after ("include") insert ("such interests as the Schools may have in")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1, I shall speak to all the proposed amendments.
All the proposed amendments, which are technical, are to references to properties or to interests in property owned by the United Medical and Dental Schools of Guy's and St. Thomas' Hospitals, later called "the Schools", and specified in the schedules to the Bill.
Clause 5 provides that all the property of the schools will transfer to King's College, London, later called "the
210
College", on the appointed day. Subsection (4) of that clause goes on to provide that the property which would be transferred includes the properties and interests in property specified in Schedule 1.
Clauses 6 and 7 would restrict the use by the college of certain of the transferred properties, including the properties specified in Schedule 2. The proposed amendments to Clause 5(4) and Clause 6(6) cater in general terms for the possibility that before the appointed day there may be alterations to the land holdings of the schools specified in Schedules 1 and 2. They prevent inconsistency arising between the property interests which are actually transferred—that is the property interests owned by the schools at the relevant time—and the property interests referred to in the Bill as listed in the schedules.
The proposed amendment to paragraph 15 of Part IA of Schedule 1 is to take account of a change in an interest held by the schools in a particular property which has taken place since the Bill was deposited. The Bill as deposited has a description of an interest which is no longer correct and the amendment would rectify that.
The proposed identical amendments to page 11, line 18, and to page 19, line 8, rectify an error in the Bill as deposited. The title number of a particular property included in both Schedules 1 and 2 is incorrect and the amendments would substitute the correct title. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 [Constitution of Continuing Trustees of Schools]:
The Chairman of Committees The Chairman of Committees moved Amendments Nos. 2 and 3:
Page 6, line 16, after ("means") insert ("such interests in")
Page 6, line 17, after ("Act") insert ("as are transferred to the College under section 5 (Transfer of property, etc.) of this Act")
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Specified freehold or leasehold properties and other interests in property and trust funds transferred to the college]:
The Chairman of Committees The Chairman of Committees moved Amendments Nos. 4 and 5:
Page 11, line 18, leave out ("101653") and insert ("101683")
Page 11, leave out lines 43 to 45 and insert—
("(15) An interest in Phase 3 of Guy's Hospital Redevelopment")
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Specified properties subject to restrictions]:
The Chairman of Committees The Chairman of Committees moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 19, line 8, leave out ("101653") and insert ("101683")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move that, the Bill do now pass.

211
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Westminster City Council: Auditor's Report
3.36 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer to a Private Notice Question that has been asked in another place about the auditor's report on Westminster City Council. The reply is as follows:
"Madam Speaker, the appointed auditor for Westminster City Council, Mr. John Magill, has today published his findings in relation to the objections to the accounts of Westminster City Council in the form of a public interest report, made under Section 15(3) of the Local Government Finance Act 1982. He has at the same time published a statement of reasons on which his decisions are based.
"This case is still subject to the due process of law. In these circumstances, it is appropriate for me to inform the House about the auditor's decisions, but not to comment on them.
"The auditor's decisions are that he has issued a certificate in the sum of £31,677,064 to each of Mr. Graham England, Mr. Peter Hartley, Mr. Paul Hayler, Mr. Bill Phillips, Dame Shirley Porter and Councillor David Weeks under Section 20 of the 1982 Act. They are jointly and severally liable for this amount. He has decided not to uphold the objections in respect of Councillor Judith Warner, Mr. Barry Legg MP and Mr. Robert Lewis.
"The auditor has now issued his certificate. Those surcharged have 28 days from the date they receive the auditor's statement of reasons to appeal against his decision to the High Court. I understand that they intend to do so.
"I have made it clear that I would condemn utterly any failure to meet the highest standards of propriety whenever it is found and whoever is found guilty.
"If the decisions in respect of Westminster are upheld by the courts I shall not hesitate to condemn those responsible, as in any similar case. But neither the Government nor this House nor I should pre-judge the findings of the courts".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.38 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for repeating in the form of a Statement the response made to a Private Notice Question in another place. I agree with the Minister that Members on all sides of the House are anxious to preserve the highest standards of propriety in local government. Nevertheless, the district auditor's report confirms that Conservative councillors on Westminster City Council were guilty of unlawfully using
212
£31.6 million of public funds for the benefit of the Conservative Party. They conspired to deny housing to homeless families and instead to sell council flats which fell empty to those who they assumed would he Conservative voters.
The scale of this is enormous. The loss to public funds is difficult to exaggerate: £31.6 million would buy more than 600 new homes or 10 new schools; it would pay the salaries of 1,200 extra teachers. No fewer than 272 councils in England have less to spend in one year on services for all the people in their area than the Westminster Conservatives squandered on this scheme.
This is probably the biggest single financial scandal in the history of local government. But it is a scandal not just about money. It shows how a Conservative council, with the support of massive subsidy from a Conservative Government, conspired to deny decent homes to homeless families; to treat homeless families harshly; and to drive them out of Westminster to be rehoused elsewhere. The report is not just an indictment of the Conservatives in Westminster; it is an indictment of the Tories in government. They will stoop to anything to win elections.
Lord Tope: My Lords, first, I must apologise to the Minister because I missed the Statement. It came rather sooner than I expected but I heard it being made in the other place. I find the Statement predictable but no less disappointing for that. I feel that we are in great danger of allowing the quite proper process to obscure the real issues we should be examining. After many years of investigation, the district auditor has found proven a number of practices which, whether, in the end, found lawful or unlawful, nevertheless fall far below the standards we expect from all parties in local government. That is beyond question, whatever legal technicalities may arise.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, describes it as probably the biggest scandal in local government. My noble friend Lady Seear whispered to me, "What about Lambeth?" Let us not argue about the scale of how had this is. We are talking about a magnitude of proven and deliberate wrongdoing in local government the like of which we have not seen before. We are not talking about obscure councillors but about leading councillors deliberately using their council for electoral purposes and for gerrymandering to the disadvantage of those least able to help themselves.
From time to time things happen in councils controlled by any of our parties of which we are not proud, although never on this scale. One of the true tests is how the party deals with such issues. Whatever may be the end of the legal process, I hope that the Minister will accept that many in this House and in local government will look to the Conservative Party to see how it deals with an issue where leading members of that party have fallen far short of the standards expected of them.
Finally, I wonder whether the Minister is aware that the district auditor in this case, John Magill, has recently been appointed district auditor to the council which I lead. In the light of that, I wish to conclude by asking the Minister for an assurance that the Government accept that Mr. Magill, my council's district auditor, is without question

213
independent and a man of integrity and that we may accept his judgments because today the Government appear to be casting some doubt upon them.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am frankly astonished and greatly disappointed that the noble Lords, Lord Williams and Lord Tope, seem to presume the guilt of those people who are charged. That is frankly disgraceful. People in this country are innocent until proved guilty. They are yet to have their day in court. When that is concluded, we may comment upon their guilt or otherwise. To do so in the terms which noble Lords have used is disgraceful and a discredit to themselves and to this House.
As regards the question which the noble Lord, Lord Tope, asked, I shall certainly not question the integrity of the auditor or the accuracy of his report today. I shall not seek to interfere in any way with the proper process of law or to abuse parliamentary privilege. I am afraid that may rather restrict my answers to questions by Back Benchers but I am sure that the House will understand.
3.44 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, as one who many years ago had the opportunity to make some criticisms of the administration of Westminster City Council, I should like to make a few comments on the observations which have fallen from the lips of the noble Lord. I believe, and my colleagues believe, that innocence should be presumed in the absence of satisfactory proof which may culminate in legal action. But the intimation of an intention to appeal does not make the matter sub judice. When the actual appeal is entered and process has begun, then and only then is the protection afforded to the accused.
I express astonishment—this time genuine and not synthetic—at the observations made by the noble Lord. When the affairs of Lambeth and other unfortunate Labour councils were subjected to exactly the same criticism, and public criticism, by auditors, I did not notice any reticence on the part of members of the Conservative Party either in this House or in another place. One thing of which I am sure—and, on reflection, I am sure the noble Lord will have some sympathy with this—is that no Member of this House in his heart of hearts wants anything other than justice to be done. I am hopeful that on reflection, when justice is done and seen to be done, retribution will be served on those who have perpetrated those crimes against society equal to the indignation felt by those on this side of the House.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am saddened that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, should have made those last remarks because up to that point I thought that he was being quite sensible and reasonable. A grave accusation has been made but as yet there is no proof in a court of law that there was a crime, let alone that anyone in particular committed it. That is the right principle under which we all live in this country; namely, that a man is innocent until proven guilty. In this case, it is not even proven that there was a crime. It is clear that we should all try to hold to that principle.
214
In relation to the other remarks made by the noble Lord, I understand that the matter is not yet sub judice but that does not alter my opinion about how we should conduct ourselves. As regards other councils and misdemeanours, I hope that we have always been restrained in our opinions and remarks until matters are decided in a court of law.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. It is obviously a difficult situation for him to be in and he has my sympathy. I must declare an interest as a resident of Westminster. Therefore, I shall not ask the question about the district auditor's surcharge because, as an interested party, it would obviously be improper for me to comment. But I do have a technical question for the Minister regarding the fact that the findings of the district auditor suggest that poor people who became homeless within Westminster and who had a right to be rehoused and carry on living there were denied that right. Does the Minister know whether those people who were refused the right to live in Westminster have any redress for their individual grievances?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the noble Lord trespasses a little on the principle that we should presume innocence. However, it is quite clear that that accusation is made. No, I do not know what individual remedy these people would have if indeed the district auditor's accusations were correct, but I shall write to the noble Lord on the matter. I should say that the noble Lord is extremely lucky to live in Westminster; indeed, it is one of the best run councils in the country. He has my congratulations.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am sorry to trespass on Back-Bench time, but very little time has so far been taken on the matter. Perhaps I may try to lay one particular canard to rest. As I understand it, the procedure whereby district auditors investigate the affairs of local authorities is laid down in the provisions of an Act passed in 1982 when, if my memory serves me correctly, a Conservative Government were in power. The purposes of such investigations are to ascertain whether or not public money has been spent properly. The district auditor will, prima facie, investigate the matter—and may, as in this case, take a long time in doing so—and will eventually bring forward his conclusions. Under the 1982 Act that is, in effect, an alternative to judicial investigation. That is the point that the Minister has not grasped.
The legislation also provides for some form of judicial appeal from the decision of the district auditor—I emphasise the word "appeal"—but not a trial at first instance. Therefore, what we have before us and what we are considering today is not just an allegation which is being made against these people; what we have is a conclusion from the district auditor reached in accordance with the provisions of the 1982 Act passed by a Conservative Administration. To hear the noble Lord opposite tell us that that is similar to an indictment in a criminal trial is, frankly, nonsense.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the noble Lord's memory and imagination serve him well in all but one respect. We have always, I hope, followed the principle that when the district auditor comes out with his conclusions that is not the proof of guilt: the proof of guilt, if it is taken to appeal, is the decision by the court. So far as I know, we have not trespassed on that principle in the many other cases that have occurred under those provisions.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that, from the very moment that the investigation started, the provisions of the 1982 Act mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, were flagrantly abused by the district auditor? I shall justify that statement. Is my noble friend also aware that the 1982 Act required that a report of a district auditor should not be published without the consent of those named in it? Is my noble friend further aware that the first report was published with the maximum of publicity, and a very highly publicised press conference by the district auditor, with no such consent and that when he was challenged as to why he had failed to observe the law, the district auditor said that it was not his report and that it was merely a draft report that he was minded to make?
Is there not some suggestion that the district auditor somehow got himself hooked on this very early on when he made such public statements? Surely that must cast some doubt as to whether his report is indeed as valid as the party opposite seems to think. The law was not obeyed in the first instance.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, neither I nor the Government will question the integrity of the district auditor, his actions or the accuracy of his report. If we wish to review this particular incident, we shall do so when the process has reached its end; and not before.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the Minister invite his noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding to repeat the points that he has made outside the Chamber—that is, outside parliamentary privilege—so that the district auditor himself can take account of them?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, should be careful of repeating what he said outside the House.

Asylum and Immigration Bill
3.55 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 Blotch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
216
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Strabolgi) in the Chair.]
Clause 9 [Entitlement to housing accommodation and assistance]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Before calling the first amendment, I must inform Members of the Committee that if Amendment No. 97 is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 99 or 100.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 97:
Page 6, line 40, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall, with the leave of the Committee, speak also to Amendments Nos. 112, 114, 117, 119 and 121. In Clause 9, we come to a most extraordinary clause and a quite extraordinary tactic of government in proposing legislation to Parliament. Members of the Committee will be aware that the Housing Bill which we are due to debate on Second Reading next week would, under Clauses 160 and 161, actually repeal Clause 9 of this Bill. In other words, Parliament is being asked to debate, deliberate, consider and, indeed, approve two different versions of government policy on the basis that whichever reaches the statute book first may be overturned by the second Bill. I find such a situation quite extraordinary, both in terms of public policy and in terms of the degree of respect which the Government appear to have for Parliament, its time and its processes.
In terms of public policy, the issue is not unimportant. We have two differing versions of what the Government wish to do with respect to the housing entitlements of those whom they offensively call "immigrants". I say "offensively" because that is what the Bill before us says, although I acknowledge with gratitude the undertaking by the Minister at a previous stage in Committee to bring forward amendments at a later stage which would remove that offensive word.
However, the result is that those who have to implement the legislation—and we are talking about local authority housing departments—have to prepare themselves for two alternative versions of the law. 'They have to prepare themselves in terms of briefing, in terms of understanding, government regulations, guidance and advice notes and as regards all of the procedures which they will have to observe in order to implement the law under the provisions of this Bill and under the provisions of the Housing Bill which is at present in this place. Therefore, there is a very considerable extra and totally unnecessary expense involved due to the fact that those two versions of proposed law are being put before Parliament at the same time.
In addition to the public policy aspect, I ask Members of the Committee to consider whether there is any precedent for two different versions of government policy being put forward as alternatives in two separate Bills before Parliament. If there are, of course we must examine those precedents and consider whether they justify the present situation, but my understanding is that there are not, and that Government are simply seeking

217
to protect themselves against their own indecision and their own inability to pursue legislation with due diligence and speed, and they are doing so at the expense of this Chamber. Therefore when we consider Clause 9 as a whole, in a clause stand part debate, I propose to explain briefly—because I do not wish to rehearse at length the arguments I have just been putting—why it is improper for this clause to be in the Bill at all.
Having said that, I consider that it is our duty to look at Clause 9 in detail and to consider the extent to which the proposals made in the clause can be justified or ought to be amended. These amendments seek to remove one of the two principal elements in Clause 9. Clause 9 is designed to exclude those people who are called "immigrants" first of all from the provisions of what is called the "accommodation part" of the Bill and, secondly, from the provisions of the "homelessness part" of the Bill. However, I should not refer to the Bill in this regard but rather to the relevant legislation in England and Wales, in Scotland and in Northern Ireland. We are concerned in these amendments with the accommodation part, which is what in ordinary terms we would refer to as the allocation of houses and the waiting list. I remind the Committee that the term "immigrant" which is still in the Bill includes, under the definition in Clause 12, all of those who not only require leave to enter or remain in this country but also those who have leave to enter or remain in this country. That is qualified in Clause 9 which refers to those who also fall within,
"a class specified in an order made by the Secretary of State".
It is my understanding that the Government's intention in such an order is to exclude from the scope of this clause those who have leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom. I invite the Minister to confirm that when she responds to this debate. But even if she confirms that, it does not explain the extraordinarily roundabout way in which the Government reach a definition of who is to be covered by the clause. First of all, they define those people widely in Clause 12 and then that definition is restricted by order in Clause 9. Even if the Minister says that that is the intention of the Government, I am afraid that will not satisfy me that the Government's intention is adequately restricted and that there is not power for a future Secretary of State to take a different view of who should be covered by the order because the power is given in Clause 9 as drafted.
I must make it clear that in housing legislation we must be careful not to state that entitlement—that is, housing need—should allow the possibility of different treatment for different kinds of people. Those who have equal housing need ought to be treated equally as regards housing legislation. It should not be a matter of their immigrant status, the colour of their skin, or any other consideration. Yet the clause as drafted makes it possible for one group of people with equal housing need, who may be neighbours of another group of people with equal housing need, to be treated differently. That is simply not acceptable. Housing legislation should be about housing need and not about immigration policy.
It is not as if a significant sum of public funds were involved. As we know, over the years public subsidy for public housing has been diminished almost to the point of non-existence. Public housing is no longer heavily subsidised in this country. The argument of the protection of public funds is not a valid one with respect to this clause, or any part of it. The Conservative Party is supposed to be the party of the family. According to the definition in Clause 12, we are talking now about people who are legitimate, permanent, or long-term residents of this country. We are saying that their right to housing of a quality which is necessary for good family life will be inferior to that of other people with the same housing needs. I cannot think that that is the correct policy for a party which claims to be the party of the family. This is legislation which sets priorities not on the basis of housing need or of family need but on the basis of the colour of someone's skin or someone's immigration status.
Where does this legislation leave us? We are left in a situation where local authority staff do not know which Bill they should pay attention to. They are faced with costs not only in the provision of accommodation but also administration costs which are quite unnecessary. In addition to the indecision to which I have already referred, we are left with the possibility, when this legislative exercise is completed, of severe injustice and the distortion of housing need. I suggest to the Committee that we should not allow this part of the clause, or indeed any part of the clause, to pass into law. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Earl Russell: Before I say anything else I wish to thank the noble Baroness for the concession she made on the use of the word "immigrant" in the Bill. That is a welcome concession, but to understand the significance of this clause we shall have to wait to see exactly what form of words is to be put in its place. That, I understand, we may hope to discover at the Report stage.
The next point that concerns me, if I want to discover who exactly will be covered by this exclusion from housing waiting lists, is the phrase to which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, has referred; namely, someone,
"who is of a class specified in an order made by the Secretary of State".
It is a little like the famous example of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, of the company promoted during the South Sea Bubble, for a purpose hereafter to be disclosed. It is of course also true that we do not know what will happen in the way of future Secretaries of State. We do not know how long this clause will be on the statute book, if indeed it gets there. Whatever the intentions of the present Secretary of State, we have to take into account that we are creating the vires to do something which may be far-reaching and which may affect people who pay tax and national insurance and work here and have been here a pretty long time.

219
I am sure that the Minister will have a great deal to say about the interests of the taxpayer. Before she does so, I remind her that I am a taxpayer myself. However, one should take into account the interests of actual taxpayers who may suffer under this clause.
We need to think also about the difficulty of turning local authorities into immigration officers. We have been over all this ground in the debate on the British Airways amendment as regards Clause 5, and in the debate on Clause 8. It does not make the points any less true that we have said them before. We have already had reports in the Department of the Environment's research on the application of the code of guidance, published quite recently, that the immigration checks required of local authorities under the 1993 Act are putting a pretty significant burden on local authorities. I do not think that we all appreciate quite how desperate the burdens on local authorities now are, nor how much worse they will be made by the Bill. The Minister, I am sure, in her reply will make reference to illegal entry. But that is entirely redundant because under a 1993 judgment, those who enter illegally, or who have overstayed their leave, are not entitled to any local authority housing under the existing law. The Minister looks puzzled. The 1993 judgment to which I refer is The Secretary of State v. Tower Hamlets. The new effect of the clause will only be in respect of those who have a perfectly legal right to be here, some of whom may be living here for the remainder of their lives.
In exercising the duty to conduct immigration checks, local authorities are under conflicting pressures. On the one hand, they must not infringe the clause. On the other, they have a duty under the Race Relations Act 1976 to promote harmonious relations between the communities in their local authority area. So either they must have a series of checks which are so officious that they cause considerable resentment, or they have to risk discriminating against specific racial groups, and putting themselves in danger of the lot. They are, if I may so put it, "damned if they do and damned if they don't". It is a burden from which I believe they will have some difficulty finding their way out.
I wish to cite a case about which I wrote to the Minister yesterday. It bears on Clause 8 rather than Clause 9, but the principle is the same. On Monday, I stood at a bus stop and looked at the window of my local Jobcentre. I observed an advertisement for waiters or waitresses, all of whom of any nationality were being required to produce ID and passports. Not every British subject possesses a British passport. It costs £20 to obtain one and not everyone on income support can afford £20 to get a passport. Shall we have a burden like that—proving your immigration status—under Clause 9? The noble Baroness shakes her head; I am glad to see that she does. However, if that shake is to be compelling, she must tell me exactly what local authorities are supposed to do to check immigration status under this clause. That would make the answer compelling; and I would find that interesting.
We are told that one of the reasons for the clause is to make seeking asylum in this country less attractive. I am not sure that seeking asylum is ever a particularly attractive prospect. Neither am I sure that the details of
220
local authority housing eligibility in Brent are necessarily common knowledge in the back streets of Jaffna or in East Timor. I am not quite certain whether the proceedings of our House really receive that much attention. We risk flattering ourselves.
I also believe that we risk severely exaggerating the attractiveness of our welfare system. I once said that the Department of Social Security regards itself as a honey pot surrounded by benefit-seeking wasps. That attitude now seems to be spreading into the Home Office and indeed, as appears from this clause, into the Department of the Environment. The level of our welfare benefits is one of the lowest in the European Union. If people are being attracted to claim asylum by the generosity of the benefits and the social protection that they receive, they will be drawn to Norway, Sweden, France, Belgium and even Ireland long before they are drawn to this country. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, shakes his head. I shall look forward with a great deal of interest to hearing his reasons for saying that I am wrong.
Moreover, a great many such people were much better off in the countries from where they came than they are ever likely to be now. Some noble Lords may remember the evidence from Turkish doctors to which we listened in the debate on torture before the Division as regards Clause 1. Two of those doctors will go on trial in Turkey next Friday on the charge of running an illegal medical centre. Running an illegal medical centre means that they did not tell the security forces all about the medical details of the victims of torture whom they were treating—so they were being required to commit a breach of medical confidentiality. When those doctors escape ultimately from prison, as I hope they will do in due course, should they apply for asylum in this country I do not believe that they will be drawn to give up the life of a doctor in Turkey by the prospect of accommodation in the Chalk Hill estate in the London Borough of Brent. It really defies belief.
We need to remember that many of these people may be in this country for the rest of their natural lives. They may eventually become British. It is the way that many of our ancestors arrived here and the way that I hope many people will continue to arrive in future. It does not mean that they come to this country with the idea that it is a particularly generous place. Bearing in mind that all the English are immigrants within the British Isles, and that there is a great deal of feeling now about what happens to Englishmen with second homes in Wales, the Committee may understand what I am getting at when I say that this clause sounds as though it has been drafted by Meibion Glyndwr.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Hylton: The noble Earl, Lord Russell, made an important point when he told us that illegal arrivals and over-stayers in this country do not have a right to local authority housing. We should all be grateful to him for that.
I am sorry to say that I am driven to the conclusion that Her Majesty's Government have become completely hostile both to asylum seekers and to a

221
variety of classes of immigrant. First, they will not allow such people to take work even if it were available to them during the first six months of their stay. Secondly, they deprive them of social security benefits. In this clause they now seek to deprive them of all access to local authority housing.
What are likely to be the consequences of these measures? It seems to me that there will be destitution, despair and suicide; and there is already some evidence for that in recent events. For example, an asylum seeker tried to throw himself into the Thames from, I believe, Tower Bridge.
The consequences in the case of asylum seekers and immigrants with children will be the breaking up of families and the taking into care of children. I support the amendments.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): Perhaps I may start by reminding the Committee what council housing and housing association housing is for. It is a valuable asset. It is there for people who are here on a long-term basis, including people who have been here all their lives, and their fathers, grandfathers and so on before them. It is for their use and, if they are allocated such a house, it gives them a tenancy of a house gained for life. The person who gains tenancy can stay there for as long as he wants. He also acquires succession rights whereby he can pass the tenancy on to a close relative, and certain rights of assignment. He can exchange the property with another tenant elsewhere; and, thanks to this Government's legislation, he can acquire the right to buy that property.
So the Government are concerned that such housing should go to those with clearly established long-term needs—people who have the right to remain in this country indefinitely. I was slightly puzzled by what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said. He seemed to cast doubts on the last point that I made: that people who have a right to remain in this country indefinitely will be entitled to apply for and receive local authority housing and housing association housing. For example, people who have been granted asylum, who have exceptional leave to remain or who have leave to remain on a long-term basis will not be affected by the proposals before the Committee this afternoon. The classes of immigrants whom we propose to exclude from council housing are listed in the papers before the Committee. We state clearly—
Earl Russell: I am grateful to the Minister for the assurance about people with exceptional leave to remain. However, am I correct that the vires permit subsequent Secretaries of State to disentitle those people under future regulations?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am used to the noble Earl showing extreme suspicion of future Secretaries of State. It is the normal line of argument that he takes whenever secondary legislation is considered. However, the issue is more complicated than he usually suggests. As he knows, governments cannot just use secondary legislation for any old thing.
222
The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments is careful in ensuring that it is used in the way set out in the original legislation. In addition, people can look back at what Ministers said and are saying as regards the groups we have in mind for the regulation. I quote from the Background Notes by the Home Office:
"The main categories excluded from council housing would therefore be…illegal entrants".
I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, asks us to believe that illegal entrants ought to have the right to be considered for council housing, the long-term tenancies which I mentioned at the beginning of my speech. The document continues:
"overstayers and persons given temporary admission; asylum seekers; visitors, students and all others given limited leave on the basis that they could support and accommodate themselves without recourse to public funds".
Those are the classes of immigrant whom we propose to exclude from council housing. They are all generally here for a limited period only and if they have a need for housing it can only be on a temporary basis. We believe that that can properly be met in the private rented sector and not by them becoming long-term council tenants.
Most of the groups whom we propose to exclude from entitlement to social housing are already excluded from other forms of social assistance. There is no reason they should be entitled to housing created with public assistance, particularly when there are people with settled residence seeking such housing. That applies equally to immigrants here on limited leave and asylum seekers. I remind the Committee, from speeches I have made on the subject before, that only a tiny proportion of asylum seekers—less than 8 per cent.—are granted full refugee status. Double that number are granted exceptional leave to remain. However, I underline the point that, if those two groups are granted leave to remain, they then acquire the same rights to council housing as people with settled residence. If I heard him correctly, I fear that that is something which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, did not appreciate. I hope that I have been able to reassure him on the point.
We do not have a comprehensive picture of the distribution of people with limited leave across the country, but if we look at the most visible subset—asylum seekers—we find that the vast majority, probably 90 per cent., are in the London area. That is precisely the part of the country where housing pressures are greatest and waiting times for council housing longest. For established residents to see temporary immigrants—people who are here for only a short time and who have not been given asylum or exceptional leave to remain—being allocated permanent social housing is not fair.
We spend a great deal of money on housing. The Government have this year invested about £2 billion in the creation of new housing and the improvement of existing stock. The expenditure should go to help the housing position of the established population. That includes people from abroad who come here and have leave to remain. But it should not include those who do not have leave to remain in the longer term. That is the important point.

223
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, drew the Committee's attention to the forthcoming Housing Bill and asked how this Bill's provisions relate to it. First, it is naturally an immigration issue rather than a housing issue. Secondly, the Housing Bill extends only to England and Wales, but we wish these provisions to operate on a UK-wide basis. Thirdly, we wish the provisions to take effect as soon as possible after Royal Assent in order to relieve the burden on local authorities following the change to housing benefit entitlement which came into force on 5th February. We expect that the Bill will reach the statute book earlier than the Housing Bill. Moreover, all the Housing Bill's homelessness provisions will need to be commenced together, which may take a few months longer than the Royal Assent to the Housing Bill. Also, the corresponding powers in the Housing Bill, which will he found in Clause 144 on housing allocations and Clause 165 on homelessness, are cast in broader terms. That is because we wish to use the powers to catch European Union benefit tourists as well as people who require leave under the Immigration Act 1971. The two different provisions will achieve the same effect. They will not involve two rounds of implementation. We shall issue guidance on implementation of the Asylum and Immigration Bill which will in most respects be valid when the Housing Bill comes into force.
I turn to the problem raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on how local authorities screen. Anyone who knows local authorities realises that when councils accept someone on the council list, questions have to be asked. Applicants must be asked where they have lived for the past five years and other questions in order, if a points system is operated, to ascertain how many points a person may be able to accumulate. So local authorities must ask questions. That already happens and the Department of the Environment issued a revised homelessness—
Earl Russell: Is the Minister aware that a number of people have been asylum seekers for more than five years and their claims are still not determined?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am not sure about the figure for those who have been here that long looking for asylum. I suggest that part of the reason their claims have not been determined is that they have managed to spin out the procedure, for example, by asking for adjournments and the like during the appeals procedure. In any case, on the more general point, the noble Earl underlines the argument that I have put before the Committee on other occasions. It is that if we try to reduce the number of people coming here looking for asylum with no justifiable reason, we will be able to treat genuine asylum seekers much more quickly and better than at the moment.
I turn now to the Department of the Environment's revised homelessness code of guidance for local authorities. In 1994 it was drawn up in consultation with the Commission for Racial Equality. It contains advice on the subject, and we have every reason to believe that the procedure works well and has not given rise to complaints.
224
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked why people should come here when our benefits system is not all that good. He may recall what I said when we debated the general proposition of excluding asylum seekers who do not seek asylum at the port of entry from our benefits system. I explained what other countries do against the background that, until the Government's changes, someone seeking asylum here had immediate eligibility for benefit and sometimes had had that eligibility for a long time while they went through the first decision process, the appeal process and the tribunal process. All that could be spun out to some extent. In Belgium and France the benefit stops after a year. In Denmark, France, the Netherlands and Spain asylum seekers are not allowed to work, whereas after six months in Britain they are allowed to work. As the noble Earl knows, the rest of Europe has tightened up procedures and we have seen their figures for asylum seekers decrease while ours have increased considerably.
For all those reasons, this seems to me to be a fair and equitable way to proceed. People who come from abroad and have a settled right to live here should, along with the natives—if I may call them that—of this country, have the right to seek council housing. I do not think that those who are here with limited leave to remain, or whose leave to remain is still questioned because they are asylum seekers and no decision has yet been taken, should have access to long-term council housing. I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment. If he does not withdraw it, I trust that my noble friends will support me in the Division Lobby.
4.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister concludes where he started with an entirely specious argument about the long-term benefits of council housing. He rightly referred to the fact that people in council housing in this country have the right to stay there, have certain rights of nomination and succession, and certain rights to buy in certain circumstances. I hope that he is not suggesting that those rights, which have existed ever since public housing started in this country, are now at risk and that the Government think they are matters that could possibly be changed.
The suggestion he makes by his repeated reference to the phrase "long-term" is that, somehow, the rights of those in public housing are superior to the right to remain in this country. He appears to suggest that the long-term rights somebody has because he is in a council house are somehow more important than his right to remain in this country, and if he loses his right to remain in this country those rights would then disappear. That is clearly not the case and is not suggested in the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: There may be confusion here; perhaps I intervened a phrase too soon in the noble Lord's remarks. I make it clear that anyone with a settled right to remain here, from wherever in the world that person comes, has the right, along with any other British citizen, to apply for and receive a council

225
house. It is people who do not yet have any settled right to remain here who we believe should not be eligible for council housing.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: At this stage of my speech, as the Minister said, all I have referred to is the quite specious use of the word "long-term" as applied to the rights of those in public housing. Clearly, there are no rights that are longer term than the right to remain in this country.
I turn to the separate issue of what is meant by the Bill and to whom the clause applies. The Minister has now given me, in terms, the assurance for which I asked; namely, that those who have the right to enter, or remain in, this country are not covered by the clause. He will recall that we debated earlier in Committee the extraordinary approach of the Government which means that Clause 12 contains a very wide definition of "immigrant". It includes those who have the right to enter or remain. The definition is half restricted in earlier clauses by the statement that the Secretary of State may by order restrict that right. I believe in the sincerity of the Minister's assurance that that is the Government's intention at the present time. However, that is not a protection against future Secretaries of State changing the provisions under Clause 9 and using the protection given to the Secretary of State by the definition in Clause 12. So we object as strongly as we did before to the process of having a wide definition in statute constrained only by ministerial statements about what will subsequently be contained in orders.
The Minister referred to the potentiality for conflict between the Housing Bill and the Asylum and Immigration Bill. He gave references to Clauses 144 and 165—although, I notice, not to Clauses 160 and 161—of the Housing Bill. He rightly pointed out that the Housing Bill refers only to England and Wales, and that there are other real differences.
The wording of the Housing Bill is entirely different from the wording in this Bill. It is very difficult for those working in local authorities to know to which they should pay attention. The Housing Bill refers to a person from abroad who is ineligible for social assistance. It refers to an asylum seeker or dependant of an asylum seeker if he has any accommodation in the United Kingdom, however temporary. These are words in housing legislation, and the Minister claims that the present Bill is not housing but immigration legislation.
We are entering the realms of absurdity. The Government must make up their mind what it is that they want to enact and must decide to put forward a coherent and consistent view before Parliament in one piece of legislation. It must not rely on ministerial explanation from any Front Bench, however conscientious and sincere, to tell us which piece of legislation should be prepared for by local authorities. I am not satisfied with the argument of the Minister that it depends on which piece of legislation is enacted first. It is up to the Government to get their legislation through in the order they think fit. It is not up to us to try to support it; and it is certainly not up to local authorities to prepare for any possible deficiencies in the Government's business management.
226
The Minister referred to the requirements on housing departments'to obtain information from applicants about where they have lived for the past five years. When it was pointed out to him by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that some asylum seekers had been in the queue for more than five years, he responded as though it were entirely their fault. In practice, people who applied for asylum before 1993 and who are on the waiting list have been kept in the backlog precisely by the timetable imposed by the 1993 Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act, which has given priority to subsequent applications. That is why some people have been in the queue for more than five years and why they would not necessarily appear to local authorities as asylum seekers.
I said that I should not be satisfied with the assurance as to what the Government mean to do with this legislation. We have to deal with the legislation as it is presented to us. As it is presented, it is both unfair and incompetent. I ask the opinion of the Committee on Amendment No. 97.
4.37 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 97) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 95; Not-Contents, 142.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Addington, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Hooson, L.

Avebury, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Bath, M.

Hughes, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L

Berkeley, L.

Hylton, L.

Blackstone, B.

Jeger, B.

Borrie, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Bridge of Harwich, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Kennet, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Kissin, L.

Chorley, L.

Lockwood, B.

Clancarty, E.

Longford, E.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

McCarthy, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

McNally, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Mayhew, L.

Diamond, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Methuen, L.

Donoughue, L.

Molloy, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Monkswell, L.

Dubs, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Eatwell, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Exeter, Bp.

Nicol, B.

Ezra, L.

Peston, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Feversham, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Flowers, L.

Redesdale, L.

Gallacher, L.

Richard, L.

Geraint, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Halsbury, E.

Haskel, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Healey, L.

Sandwich, E.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Seear, B.

227

Sefton of Garston, L.

Tope, L.

Serota, B.

Tordoff, L.

Sewel, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Shaughnessy, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Stallard, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

White, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Taverne, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Winston, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Harvington, L.

Abinger, L.

Hemphill, L.

Addison, V.

Henley, L.

Ailsa, M.

HolmPatrick, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Howe, E.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Ampthill, L.

Inchcape, E.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Inchyra, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Inglewood, L.

Balfour, E.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Kimball, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Kitchener, E.

Beloff, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Berners, B.

Liverpool, E.

Blake, L.

Long, V.

Blaker, L.

Lucas, L.

Blatch, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Boardman, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Bowness, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Brightman, L.

Marlesford, L.

Burnham, L.

Merrivale, L.

Butterworth, L.

Mersey, V.

Cadman, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Milverton, L.

Campbell of Cray, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Monson, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mottistone, L.

Carnock, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Munster, E.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Nelson, E.

Cockfield, L.

Newall, L.

Coleridge, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Northesk, E.

Courtown, E.

O'Cathain, B.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Oliver of Aylmerton, L.

Crathorne, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Cumberlege, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Parkinson, L.

De Freyne, L.

Pender, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Denham, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Plummer of St Marylebone, L.

Digby, L.

Prior, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Rawlings, B.

Eden of Winton, L.

Rennell, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Renton, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Elton, L.

Rodney, L.

Erroll, E.

Romney, E.

Finsberg, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Seccombe, B.

Gage, V.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Gainford, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Goold, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Goschen, V.

Strange, B.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Harmsworth, L.

[Teller.]

228

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Westbury, L.

Sudeley, L.

Wilcox, B.

Swansea, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L

Teviot, L.

Wise, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Tollemache, L.

Wynford, L.

Trumpington, B.

Yarborough, E.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.46 p.m.
[Amendment No. 98 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 99 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 100:
Page 6, line 43, at end insert ("and whose status has been notified to the housing authority by the Secretary of State").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 104. The two amendments are concerned respectively with the accommodation and the homelessness part of the housing legislation. They are concerned with one particular aspect of the difficulties that local authority housing departments will have with the legislation as it is drafted.
In London there are approximately 4,000—possibly even more—families in temporary accommodation. As the Committee knows, that usually means bed and breakfast accommodation. They are awaiting a Home Office decision on their refugee status. That could be a decision on the original application or on the appeal. The average time-scale for an original decision has been of the order of eight months and the average time-scale for an appeal has been of the order of 10 months, although, as we know from previous debates in Committee, the number of outstanding appeals is rising dramatically month by month and presumably that average 18-month figure will be surpassed very rapidly.
As drafted, the clause puts local authorities in a considerable dilemma. They have the duty of determining eligibility status in order to decide what to do to fulfil their statutory duties under the housing legislation. Without going over all the ground that we covered on the previous amendment, the nature of their statutory duties under housing legislation is subject to the possibility, even the probability, of change under the Housing Bill which will be debated at Second Reading next week.
In order to decide how to fulfil their statutory duty and, indeed, what that statutory duty is, local authorities depend on information from the Immigration and Nationality Department of the Home Office. With an average delay of 18 months between the time an asylum application is made and the time it is finally determined, it will be obvious that they are dealing with a considerable number of cases. Of course, some of those people are vulnerable for other reasons than being asylum seekers and therefore do not come into the consideration. Also, some of them have been accepted

229
into this country and have then applied for asylum status on the basis that they have sufficient funds to cover themselves. I recognise that those people will not be applying immediately to local authorities for housing.
The dilemma which local authority housing departments face is that, if they accept the duty to house, and it turns out that the applicant is not entitled, then the council tax payers will have paid for something which is not in accordance with the statutory duty of the local authority and will therefore not be accounted for in the revenue support grant. If the local authority takes the decision to deny that it has such a duty, then it could be liable for failing to comply with its statutory duty.
In order to deal with that Catch 22 situation in which they find themselves, local authorities should be aware of the status of an applicant and therefore the Immigration and Nationality Department of the Home Office should give the information to the local authority housing department so that it can make a proper decision.
I am not suggesting that this amendment deals with anything other than a matter of administrative efficiency. It is not an issue of huge principle, but if there are two departments in public life, one being a local authority housing department acting under housing law and the other being the Home Office acting under immigration law, and the Home Office has the relevant information, it should be required to share it with the housing department so that statutory duties can be properly and efficiently fulfilled. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: This amendment is designed as a solution to the problem I raised on the previous amendment: how a local authority is expected to know whether the person concerned is of the class specified by the Secretary of State. I noticed that the noble Baroness shook her head when I said that it would create a burdensome procedure. I invited her to explain how else it should be done. She resisted that invitation. But if the Ministers are to resist this amendment, they will have to answer that question now.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: As was explained, the intention behind these amendments is to require the local authority to apply the housing provisions of the Bill only to those cases where the immigration status of the applicant has been notified to the authority by the Secretary of State, which means in practice by the Home Office Immigration and Nationality Department. I understand the arguments put forward, but do not believe that they provide a realistic solution.
We do not generally require immigrants here on limited leave to live in a particular area, nor do we tail them from place to place. They are free to come and go in just the same way as any British citizen. So there is no practical way that the immigration department could know that a particular immigrant was applying to a given authority for housing or assistance under the homelessness legislation.
The only way in which the immigration department could ensure that housing authorities are aware of the immigration status of anyone approaching them would
230
be for the department to send details of all immigrants falling within a class specified by an order under this clause. Given the very large numbers of people who visit this country each year, the vast majority of whom are entirely self-supporting and not interested in seeking social housing, it would be an impossible task for the department to send out such details to around 400 housing authorities throughout the United Kingdom, for authorities to monitor them and for that list to be kept up-to-date.
We are aware of—and respect—the concerns that a number of authorities and welfare organisations have about the screening of applicants for housing for immigration status and its possible effects on race relations. Indeed, the noble Lord raised this issue and I answered him briefly during the last debate. But that concern can be overstated. In December 1994 the Department of the Environment issued a revised third edition of its Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities, which contained advice on how to screen persons making an application under the homelessness legislation for illegal entrants (who have no entitlement under the homelessness legislation), and for asylum seekers (who have a more limited entitlement). The guidance was prepared in consultation with housing practitioners and the Commission for Racial Equality, and has, we understand, been well received.
The Department of the Environment will build on that experience by issuing revised guidance on how to screen for people without an entitlement to housing when this legislation commences. That will cover both people seeking assistance under the homelessness legislation and those seeking council housing through the waiting list. It will also cover the procedures to be adopted in liaising with the immigration department to establish immigration status.
The Government are sensitive to the concerns expressed about intrusive inquiries and good race relations. But the only practical way of implementing this legislation is through the screening processes of the housing authorities, through which everybody who applies for council housing has to go. We will ensure that procedures are in place to that end before this part of the Bill is enacted.
I hope, with that assurance of how we propose to proceed and a remembrance of the guidance already issued to local authorities, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will be able to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Russell: The Minister gave us a considered answer. He may possibly be right that this procedure will not work. But it is not incumbent on those of us on this side of the Chamber to put forward a procedure that will work. We do not want this clause working at all. However, it is incumbent on the Minister to put forward something that will work. He has not convinced us that the screening process can work without great labour and a risk of discrimination. Those answers are not enough.

231
I hoped that he could say a little more about how the screening process would be used. I fear we are disappointed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Though I listened carefully to what the Minister said and he knows that this was only a probing amendment concerning an administrative issue rather than an issue of principle, I was a little taken aback by one of his objections to the amendment.
The Minister said that asylum seekers are free to live anywhere they like and that they are not tracked from place to place. I understood the position to be that aliens settled in this country are required to register with the police in the areas where they settle and to notify any changes of address using the green card system. That appears to be in conflict with what the Minister said. I understand that in London aliens register with the Aliens Registration Office. Is it not easier, therefore, to keep track of aliens settled in this country than the Minister suggested in his original answer?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Without going into detail, the point is this. Many people come to this country for a limited time and are allowed in by the immigration authorities—people from all parts of the world with every intention of going back. They create a formidable list of people. To send that list to every local authority would be impossible. It would be difficult to keep track of such people, although one could send a list to the local authority in which they are believed to be living on the offchance that they may apply for council housing.
I understand what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is saying. However, it is far better to provide a sensible screening process for local authorities who are used to dealing with these matters rather than, dare I say, implementing the impossible system suggested by the noble Lord.
5 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not think the Minister can brush away the problems I have raised by calling them details. I was responding to the precise statement that he made about the inability of the Home Office to track aliens living in this country. My understanding is that it is possible to track aliens living in this country. I think that the Minister's original answer was, of course unintentionally, misleading. I do not think it is wrong for me to press the matter when the noble Lord has responded to the problems I have raised as if they were details.
Of course there are difficulties in what is being proposed here. I am not suggesting otherwise and I was not proposing to press the amendment to a Division. But I wonder whether the Minister would not feel able to think about this matter a little more constructively than he has done so far. If it is not possible for the original notification to be made by the Home Office to all local authorities—I understand the difficulties—is it not possible for the Home Office to have a register that is available on request to local authorities which seek to use it? I can see that there could be civil liberties
232
difficulties about that as well. But if the Minister is to approach the matter constructively, he ought to consider alternative ways of achieving the same objective as he appears to accept that local authorities will have legitimate concerns in dealing with these applications.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I accept the concerns that the noble Lord has raised but I have outlined the way to deal with them which has been in use since 1994 in certain cases where local authorities use the homelessness code of guidance. We have no indication that that has not worked in a perfectly reasonable and humane manner. I indicated that many people come to this country as visitors and so on. We are talking about more than 6 million people every year. It would be impossible to track them as it would be to send a list of more than 6 million names to every local authority in the country. Local authorities would be the first to complain if they had to monitor 6 million names to see whether someone who had applied for one of the council houses or had come to them under homelessness legislation was one of them. Even the power of the modern computer would still find that a fairly time-consuming operation.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am beginning to suspect, reluctantly, that the Minister is not treating this amendment seriously. He cannot be serious in suggesting that the amendment deals with 6 million people. There are 6 million visitors to this country each year but we are talking here only about people who are aliens settled in this country. It is a very much smaller number of people. The figure of 6 million is simply a diversionary tactic.
I should like to think about what the Minister has said. I do not think he has been as helpful or constructive as he should be and I do not think he has been as receptive to the real concerns of local authority housing departments. Perhaps they should be expressed to the Home Office more clearly than they have been, in which case we can see to it that that is done. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 100A:
Page 6, line 43, at end insert—
("(1A) This section shall not apply to students from overseas who have leave to enter for a limited period and who comply with their conditions of entry.").
The noble Earl said: Before saying anything else, I must declare an interest in this amendment as a university teacher. I should also like to thank the Minister's honourable friend Mr. Curry for a meeting this morning and for giving very careful consideration to the arguments behind the amendment.
This is a classic case of the law of unexpected consequences from legislation. One does not normally think of students in the category of local authority housing. Indeed the case to which this amendment refers is one about which I knew nothing myself as recently as Second Reading. But it transpires that a number of universities, a high proportion of them in Scotland, have leased accommodation from local authorities in areas

233
where there is a very small housing demand. The Gorbals turns out to be one of the cases in point. There are areas where there is not a sufficient body of applicants to justify keeping accommodation for the waiting list and where universities are able to use it for students with families, some of whom are from overseas and some of whom are not. It is a perfectly constructive arrangement in the interests of all parties, a classic case of public/private sector partnership of the kind of which the Government usually approve. The overseas students, who are only a part of this, earn this country more than £1 billion a year for our balance of payments, something I for one would rather not do without.
The Government's concern in this is that these students should not have recourse to public funds. It seems to me that this is met in this case. Universities are not public bodies; they are not nationalised industries; they are private corporations. The university leases these properties and the students are the tenants of the university. Under existing legislation universities are not allowed to subsidise student rents. So it appears to me that this is not a case of public funds being involved. If we can find a suitable form of wording—I have no wish for the wording of the amendment to be set in stone—it ought to be possible to reach a perfectly satisfactory form of words to deal with this case. I should also be extremely grateful for an assurance that property leased to universities by housing associations would not be involved under this clause. I beg to move.
Lord Goold: I wish to support the amendment and add my name to the thanks to Mr. David Curry for meeting us this morning. I must also declare an interest as chairman of court of the University of Strathclyde.
This clause, in aiming to prevent access to local authority housing to oversees students, will have a very serious effect. My university rents 290 flats in and around Glasgow from local authorities. This is not a cost to the taxpayer. Generally, the flats are in poor condition, in poor areas and are often empty. They are flats people do not want. The university pays to improve them. They are then occupied by overseas students and often their families. When the university vacates them they revert to the local authority, and in better condition than we got them.
Unfortunately, there are not sufficient private rented flats at prices students can afford. If access to council flats is denied, many overseas students will not be able to come to universities in Britain, with considerable consequent damage to the economy of the universities and of the country, to say nothing of the loss to research. I hope that my noble friend the Minister may be able to accept the amendment or produce a similar one at Report stage.
Lord Dainton: I wish to support the amendment. I was present yesterday and I heard the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, from the Government Front Bench commenting on the fact that there are 100,000 overseas students in this country. We have heard that each overseas student brings in around £10,000, which makes £1 billion, which I presume was how the noble Earl, Lord Russell, came to the figure of £1 billion. It seems
234
to me that we are doing ourselves harm here. Overseas students in British universities are good for British students. They enlarge their horizons and they change their outlooks in a significant way, even though it is not a matter which is within the curriculum. More important than that, many of those overseas students return home and go on to have distinguished careers.
I have just come back from my almost annual visit to Singapore. Perhaps I may tell the Committee about Singapore's two major universities, which I had a hand in establishing some years ago. The chief executive of the National University of Singapore is a medical man who was trained in this country at Cambridge. The same is true of Nanyang Technological University. It is headed by an engineer who was trained at Cambridge. The man who runs that great endeavour, Jurong Town Development Corporation, was also head of that country's defence forces and was a student at Sheffield where he had a distinguished record in engineering. One cannot omit the senior minister, who is still a man of very great influence and power, Lee Kuan Yew. He received his education in this country and has never failed to acknowledge the debt that he owes to us in that respect.
We would be cutting off our nose to spite our face if we were to impose any impediment which made it impossible for able students from abroad to come to this country. They are now all self-financing and are not a charge on the taxpayer in this country. They often have different accommodation needs from our own students. Having left their own country, often many miles away, they do not return in the vacations and need to occupy accommodation for much longer periods of the year than home students. In addition, they are often older and married, sometimes with children. It is for that reason that many universities in this country have seen them as having a special problem for which they wish to cater by whatever means they can.
The rise in student numbers in this country over recent years has been so great that the universities have looked everywhere within their means to be able to provide accommodation for those much-valued students. The method by which they lease accommodation from local authorities or housing associations and sub-let it to the students is admirable. It brings into good use accommodation which, as has already been said, might not otherwise be used. Such accommodation is also useful for foreign students who come here for brief periods. I feel sure that the noble Lord, Lord Winston, who is at the Royal Postgraduate Medical School, will probably remind the Committee that most of the distinguished foreign medical people who go there are housed in housing association accommodation.
It would be a very great pity if, by this legislation, we were to deny foreign students the accommodation that they need. It would harm foreign students in the short term, but I beg the Minister and the Committee to consider carefully the long-term damage that it would do to the standing of this country overseas. This is not a trivial matter. It is an extremely serious matter.

235
Therefore, I hope that an exception can be made by the Government in due course, perhaps along the lines of this amendment.
Lord Winston: I rise briefly to support all that has been said already. I have nothing much else to say except to point out that many overseas students are postgraduate students. As such, they are often here for a postgraduate degree of, say, three years or occasionally more. One of their most common questions to us is whether there is accommodation for their families. The usual university accommodation is simply not appropriate for them.
I am sure that it is not the Government's intention to exclude that important source of immediate wealth to us or to ignore the long-term investment implications for this country. I beg the Government to consider a way of making sure that students can continue to come here and to occupy such accommodation.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: The noble Lord, Lord Dainton, has already made, only very much better, the very points that I had wanted to make. Therefore, I strongly support the hope that some way may be found to solve this problem in favour of students.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: As I explained in our other two short debates, our general position on this subject is that persons from abroad who have entered this country on the understanding that they should have no recourse to public funds should not be entitled to assistance under the homelessness legislation; and that persons from abroad who are here only for a limited period should have no call on social housing created with public money to meet long-term needs. This is what Clause 9 of the Bill provides for generally, both for students and for others here on limited leave. I appreciate that noble Lords are not suggesting that overseas students are in some way a special category deserving a general exemption from those provisions.
I totally agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, and echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Winston, and my noble friend Lady Park, that we have had a long and honourable tradition of providing education and training for people from a wide range of countries. We welcome overseas students, but we admit them on the same basis as anyone else who is granted limited leave; namely, that they should support themselves, including meeting all of their housing costs.
I understand that the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals is concerned that the provisions may bite on certain universities and colleges which have arrangements under which they lease accommodation from a local authority which they then let on to their students, some of whom may be from overseas. I know of the interest in this matter of my noble friend Lord Goold which relates to his position at Strathclyde University. There are number of houses in Glasgow which the local authority finds it hard to let; nobody particularly wants to live in them. A mutually beneficial deal has been struck between Strathclyde University and the local authority whereby those houses remain in
236
occupation and, as my noble friend said, are improved. Students then make use of them. I understand the issue entirely.
We should be clear that that happens only when a local authority does not require the housing—either because its housing list is not long enough and no one demands the house or because of other factors, which I shall not go into. However, in the case of the Glasgow example which was mentioned by my noble friend, it is probably true to say that most people on the council waiting list would rather wait for a house in a different part of the city than be housed in the accommodation to which we are referring. There are circumstances where an authority may genuinely not have a use for all its housing stock and may find difficulty in letting it. If the authority is simply leasing out accommodation that would otherwise be standing empty, and there is little or no local demand for the accommodation, there may be scope for flexibility.
I discussed the matter a few hours ago with my honourable friend Mr. David Curry, the Minister responsible for housing and local government. Before I spoke to him, he met the noble Earl and my noble friends Lord Goold and Lord Jenkin. Perhaps I may assure the Committee that we shall consider the need to bring forward at Report stage an amendment to the order-making power in this clause to enable local authorities to continue to lease surplus accommodation to universities and colleges for use by overseas students who are here lawfully. I hope that with that assurance the noble Earl will be happy to withdraw his amendment.
Earl Russell: I am most grateful for that reply by which I am entirely satisfied. I look forward to seeing the draft of that amendment. It appears to meet absolutely fair and square the point that I was making. I accept the condition that the Minister makes about where there is little or no demand. After all, I too am aware that there are social needs to be considered. That is a fair condition.
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken on this amendment and for the way in which the debate has been conducted entirely irrespective of party. I should like to thank again Mr. Curry and the Minister, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Before I call Amendment No. 101, I must inform the Committee that if that amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 103 to 106 inclusive.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 101:
Page 6, line 44, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 101, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 113, 115, 116, 118 and 120.
I listened carefully to what the Minister said on the first amendment, Amendment No. 97. I assume that the Minister still stands by the three categories of individual to whom this part of the Bill refers; namely—I hope that I have got this right—overstayers, illegal entrants and

237
asylum seekers. He also referred to people who came to this country and had recourse to public funds, having given an undertaking not to do so. I am puzzled by what the Minister has said because it does not quite stack up.
Before I go into the details, perhaps I may set the context. In the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 provision is made for the housing of asylum seekers and their dependants. The Act provides that nothing in the homelessness legislation shall require a housing authority to secure that accommodation is made available for occupation by asylum seekers or their dependants. That power gave local authorities the option not to provide homelessness accommodation for asylum seekers or their families. It did not make it mandatory. I suppose that the reason why the Government have introduced this much tougher provision in the Bill is that they have found to their dismay that too many local authorities have done the right and proper thing and provided homelessness accommodation to these priority categories in need. The Government are saying that the 1993 Act is not tough enough and they are introducing a tougher measure.
We are dealing with the right of a very limited number of persons to homelessness accommodation. As far as I am aware, neither overstayers nor illegal entrants are likely to be given homelessness accommodation by local authorities. There is already guidance from central government that they should not do so, and there is no evidence that it is happening. We are talking about the third category as identified by the Minister: asylum seekers. We are concerned with a very small proportion of asylum seekers, that is, those in priority need, broadly households with children or sick, disabled or elderly adults. Those priority groups account for a very small proportion of all asylum seekers.
What is to happen to such people who quite properly and legally come to this country because they have a well-founded fear of persecution? Where are they to live while the Home Office decides on their status? These are vulnerable people who may well have suffered intolerably in the countries from which they have fled. We are now saying that there is no accommodation or anything for them. They do not come with money so that they can buy their way into the private market.
The Minister has said that the United Kingdom is more generous than other European countries. I contend that in this particular instance that is certainly not the case. I ask the Minister to list European Union countries as regards what they do in the provision of accommodation for such priority groups. I believe the Minister will find that many European countries provide at least some kind of hostel accommodation through whatever local government structure is in place. That is the case in the Netherlands, Germany and, I believe, in Denmark. If this provision is agreed what will happen to these vulnerable people? Are they to sleep in the streets? I believe that the Government are making a mistake. Even if the broad premise underlying the Bill is accepted—I do not accept it—it may be said that there
238
is absolutely no need to be so harsh and inhumane to the small number of highly vulnerable asylum seekers who will be caught by the provision. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The question that we must address in considering this amendment is whether people who have sought leave to enter this country on the understanding that they should have no recourse to public funds should be entitled to set aside that undertaking. The immigration rules state quite explicitly that the homelessness legislation falls within the definition of public funds. This extends to those people who sought asylum after entering this country, since to obtain leave to enter they would have had to satisfy the immigration officer that they had the resources to maintain themselves in this country.
The purpose of the homelessness legislation is to ensure that families and vulnerable individuals who lose their homes through no fault of their own are provided with a proper safety net. It is one component of a wider set of welfare provisions that we have in place to help people through a crisis and allow them to continue their normal lives. But it focuses naturally and rightly on those people who are settled in this country.
The principle behind the provisions in subsection (2) is by no means new. In 1993 the Court of Appeal held in the Tower Hamlets case that a person not lawfully in the country because he had entered it illegally or had overstayed his leave was not entitled to assistance under the homelessness legislation. The Home Office is entitled to cancel leave to remain granted to anyone who entered the country lawfully but subsequently breached an undertaking not to have recourse to public funds. To that extent what we are doing here is no more than translating a well established principle in the homelessness legislation.
Your Lordships will be aware that the purpose of this measure is to align entitlement under the homelessness legislation with entitlement to housing benefit, which was withdrawn from most groups of immigrants here on limited leave in 1994 and from asylum seekers earlier this year. Local authorities rely on housing benefit to support a substantial part of the costs they incur. As we have seen from their protests over the past few months, following the withdrawal of benefit entitlement from certain asylum seekers—in particular those who claim in country—it is not tenable to leave the homelessness duty with them in the absence of housing benefit support.
As the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has pointed out, it is true that other countries have different kinds of provision. For example, Germany and Holland provide accommodation in camps and benefits are mainly in kind. We have decided not to go down that route. Those people who seek asylum at the port of entry are eligible for benefits while the Home Office is considering their applications for asylum. If they are turned down and appeal, in those circumstances they are not eligible for benefit. We contend that they should not be eligible to be considered under homelessness legislation either. Similarly, those who enter the country under the strict

239
condition that they will not be a burden on public funds are not eligible if they decide after weeks or months in this country that they wish to apply for asylum.
We believe that we have an effective welfare system in this country which is geared to meet the needs of the most vulnerable members of society, but we must resist attempts to exploit it by people without a proven case and a permanent base in this country. I am afraid that I cannot accept the amendment of the noble Lord. If he decides not to withdraw it and to put it to the Vote, I trust that my noble friends will support me in the Lobby.
Lord Dubs: Having listened to what the Minister has said, I feel he is not his usual persuasive self. I notice that the Minister has dropped his argument about illegal entrants and overstayers as regards this group of people. (Perhaps he was persuaded by what I said earlier.) Let us confine ourselves to asylum seekers. What he seeks to do is to draw a distinction between those who claim asylum at the port of entry and those who claim asylum after they pass through immigration at Heathrow or Dover and, a few days later, make a claim. I understand why he does that. He seeks to bring it into line with some of the other measures which have been introduced by the Government and those in this Bill. One will still be left with people who are vulnerable and who are without accommodation. It is not clear to me from the wording of this particular clause that asylum seekers who claim asylum at the port of entry, and do it properly by the Government's book, will be entitled to homelessness provision. I find it hard to interpret the measure in that way. Perhaps the Minister can give further assurance on the point.
Nevertheless, the noble Lord has said that the Government do not intend to go down the route followed by countries such as Germany and the Netherlands. He made reference to camps. I think that they are more likely to be hostels than camps, but it may be both. Therefore, he is saying that nothing will be done for these people. It is my contention that when we are dealing with people who are so vulnerable, as a humane, civilised country, we are under an obligation to do something. We talk about those people who fail to claim asylum at the port of entry but do so later. We have all heard the arguments as to why, reasonably and understandably, some asylum seekers do not understand the importance of the distinction. Even if we say that people should apply for asylum at the port of entry, and because they have not done so they will be punished, what about their children? Should they be punished as well because one asylum seeker failed to make the right statement to immigration when coming into the country?
We are dealing with people who are vulnerable, who have not made themselves homeless intentionally, and who are clearly a priority group. They are people who, in most cases for reasons beyond their control, find themselves sleeping on the streets of London and other cities. Surely we do not want that to happen to the small number of vulnerable people who are victims of persecution in the country they left. We are going to make them the victims of the Bill when they get here.
240
That is not the way we should go forward. Perhaps the Minister would be good enough to comment on my query about the two groups of asylum seekers.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Seear: Before the Minister replies perhaps I, too, may ask a question. I understood the Minister to say that people who said that they could maintain themselves and came into the country on that undertaking, and who subsequently claimed assistance, were not to be supported. They might have come in with a well-founded, genuine belief that they would be able to support themselves. They might have work in prospect or a generous relation who was going to fork out. Both of those optimistic futures might be denied them. They might start in a job and lose it. The relation who is going to help might help for a while and then abandon them. They would then be penniless and homeless. Are we going to do nothing about those people even if they were genuine when they first arrived?
Lord Avebury: Perhaps I may ask the Minister a question before he replies to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, asked about the children. I should like to know whether local authorities, under legislation relating to children, would be obliged to take the children into care. If that is so, has the cost of doing so been taken into account in the Financial and Explanatory Memorandum, because I cannot find it anywhere there? The assumption is that anyone who has applied too late, after going through immigration control procedures—whether he has three, five or eight children—will be denied the housing to which he would otherwise have been entitled under the homelessness legislation.
In those circumstances will the local authority have to pick up the pieces by offering the children places in a local authority home or by fostering them? If so, has the Minister any idea what that will cost this country's ratepayers and taxpayers?
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: As we all seem to be raising points for my noble friend to reply to, I should like to follow up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. As I understand it, a common pattern that local authorities find is that people arrive with a letter from someone guaranteeing to support them and that they will be no burden on the state. As I understand it, we take that on face value in this country.
A few minutes ago I met a woman who works in the House. She told me that she was very pleased because the Australian immigration authorities had just agreed to allow her to go there. It has been quite a battle, and I have been involved in it. She said that her daughter was paying the money. I asked her what she meant. She said, "Oh well, I have to put up"—I wrote it down on my hand because I was called out of the Chamber to have a word with her—"3,500 dollars plus 1,500 dollars for my husband and 1,500 dollars for my mother. That is 6,500 dollars to ensure that we do not claim state benefits for a period of two years. We have to pay a further 800 dollars per person to be sure that we do not call on the health service".

241
This country does not demand that people put up a guarantee in the form of a bond or money. We take people's word when the letters say that they will be supported. It is a great breach of trust if that is not true. It is happening all the time: people arrive, and a few days later they claim all these benefits. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said that it could go on a long time and that people could run out of money. That is different. If it goes on a long time, they might qualify for some entitlement from the local authority. People arrive deliberately with documents assuring everyone that they will be no burden on the state when they have every intention of being such a burden. We cannot accept that.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I shall respond to the questions that I have been asked. My noble friend Lady Gardner made a good point. We should look at what other countries do. We accept what people say abroad when seeking a visa to enter this country, or what they tell the immigration officer at the port of entry when they say why they are here. If they say that they are here for this reason or that reason and will not be a burden on public funds, I like to think that we can continue to live in a world where we take them at their word, and do not have to go down the road of asking them, so to speak, to put down deposits as a mark of their good faith.
But it is a problem when people turn round a few days, weeks, or months later and say, "Oh, by the way, all that I said about not being a burden on public funds and coming here for a holiday, to see my relatives, or whatever it is, was not true. I am coming here because I want to seek asylum". That is not right. The provision that we have made is clear.
Baroness Seear: Perhaps I may interrupt the Minister. That is not the question that I was asking. I hope that my question will not be confused in the reply that he is giving. I was talking about people who came here genuinely, who may have obtained a job, and who months later, as so easily happens, lost it and became in need. They may be genuine people. I agree with the Minister that if they are trying to fool the authorities, and two or three days later turn round and say that the offer is not valid, their request should not be considered. But if they are genuine, and have been here for months, and then fall on bad times, are we saying that we cannot do anything for them?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: If the noble Baroness had been patient for a moment or two she would have saved herself a second speech; I was coming to that issue. I was addressing a point made by my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes. I shall turn to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, in a few moments. First, perhaps I may turn to her noble friend Lord Avebury who asked about the duties of local authorities under the Children Act. Local authorities have a general duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in need within their area. That involves a general duty to promote the upbringing of such children by their families.
242
It is for individual local authorities to decide what form that assistance will take. They can make cash payments in exceptional circumstances, but those can be for a limited period only. They may decide not only to take a child into care, but also to help the parents and the family to house themselves and the children. Under the Children Act we cater for children who enter in those circumstances. We will come later to the question of the costs.
In previous debates on income support and housing benefit we made it clear that we would be in discussion, as we are, with the local authorities, to quantify the additional costs, and that we are prepared to pay them up to 80 per cent. of what we identify jointly as the additional costs arising from their obligations.
Lord Avebury: Which does the Minister think will be more expensive: for the local authority to offer the parents of the asylum application family accommodation so that they can look after their own children, to take the children into care in a local authority home, or to foster them? Which will be more expensive?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I believe that I covered almost all those eventualities. I said that it was a matter for local authorities to decide. As regards a child who has come to this country alone, fostering or care might be the only option. However, if a child has come as part of the family the most sensible course of action for a local authority might be to help the family with housing. Those costs are being discussed between ourselves and the local authorities with a view to arriving at a sensible arrangement.
I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, made my case for me. The people to whom she referred came to this country and said why they were coming. They were not intent on seeking asylum. They came here to visit relatives or to find work. Many people who come here cannot obtain a visa in order to find work; they must go through more hoops than that. However, many people, for whatever reason, come to this country, go about their business and fall on hard times. They cannot just turn around and say—or can they?—"Wait a minute! I know how to get out of this dilemma. I will claim asylum". We are not talking about people who come here to claim asylum. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, made my case for me in relation to people who make in-country applications. When many of them enter the country, making a claim for asylum at the port is the furthest thing from their minds. They come here to do all kinds of other things. But for a variety of reasons, when many of them are here they decide to claim asylum.
I turn to the main point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. I hoped that I had made this clear. The categories of immigrants which will be specified in regulations under this subsection will make it clear that the orders will not apply to asylum seekers who claimed asylum on arrival during the period when their claim was under consideration by the Home Office. That provision is entirely consistent with the availability of income support and housing benefit to asylum seekers at the port of entry and for the duration of the time

243
during which the Home Office is considering their application. I hope that that explanation clarifies the position.
However, I know that, although the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, may be pleased to hear that clarification, he would prefer to retain the position which existed before we made any changes; that is the position in which all one had to do was to come here and either at the port of entry or after having lived here for some time claim asylum and then be able to claim income support, housing benefit and the protection of the homelessness legislation. We are proposing to remove most of those concessions to people from abroad but we intend to keep available income support, housing benefit and the application of the homelessness legislation to those people who claim asylum at the port of entry.
Lord Dubs: I thank the Minister for that clarification but I take issue with the fundamental argument that he is putting forward. Perhaps I may try to clear up some confusion. It is clear that the clause applies to asylum seekers, but it appears to apply also to people who seek properly to come to this country as migrants on the condition that they do not have recourse to public funds. An intermediate group of asylum seekers does not claim asylum at the port of entry. They are, therefore, in the Minister's eyes, by implication, arriving on the condition that they do not have recourse to public funds and they then make a claim. There are three groups of people and perhaps I may disentangle the arguments relating to them.
I shall deal first with people who come to this country on a planned basis in the way in which the Minister would wish. Those people have the resources to look after themselves but may find themselves in changed circumstances before their immigration status has been confirmed. They will not be eligible for the homelessness provisions, even though the change of circumstance, such as a house being burned down, is beyond their control. That is one group of people.
In relation to them and in reply to a comment made by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, I understand that when people arrive in this country we do not take sponsorship letters or such undertakings at face value. Before giving entry clearance, the Home Office scrutinises the financial support that is available. Therefore, the issue is not quite as simple as the noble Baroness maintained—
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord for clarification. If the Home Office makes a check and discovers that the financial support exists, why do so many of those people appear on the doorstep of the council to claim housing benefit or other support?
Lord Dubs: I am not aware that many such people do, but there may be some. The noble Baroness may be talking about asylum seekers who are faced with difficulties. There may be a dispute between us about the figures, but I have seen no indication that that happens other than on a very small scale.
I turn now to the two groups of asylum seekers. The Minister will be aware that, of the asylum seekers who do not claim asylum at the port of entry, the vast
244
majority, some 80 per cent., make their asylum claim within a week of being in the country. As a result of that gap of one week they are to be penalised in the way proposed. I contend that that is unjust. We tried—and we may try again on Report—to put into the Bill a safeguard that they will be covered provided that asylum is claimed within a short period. As yet that provision is not on the face of the Bill. I believe that to punish people in such a way is very harsh. It may also result in local authorities having to bear heavy costs of caring for children who must be taken into care because there is no accommodation for them.
Surely a clear principle is involved. We are talking about people who are vulnerable, who represent only a small minority of asylum seekers and for whom a little decency in terms of the way in which we treat them will not be a magnet for asylum seekers, or those purporting to be, the world over. I am talking about the way we treat people who have a well-founded fear of persecution.
Another group will fall through the net because, even on the Minister's own statement, if asylum seekers claim asylum at the port of entry and are then refused asylum by the Home Office and wish to exercise their right of appeal, they will lose all benefits between the date of the Home Office refusal and the date of the appeal hearing. That may be many months, if not years. I can interpret what the Minister said only as meaning that if during that period the local authority has provided them with accommodation for homeless people, they will be thrown out of it because they will no longer be eligible under the terms of the Bill. This is a miserable measure and I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.
5.48 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 101) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 79; Not-Contents, 144.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Addington, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Halsbury, E.

Avebury, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Haskel, L. [Teller.]

Blackstone, B.

Hayman, B.

Broadbridge, L.

Healey, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Chichester, Bp.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hooson, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Hylton, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Diamond, L.

Jeger, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Donoughue, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Kennet, L.

Dubs, L.

Kissin, L.

Eatwell, L.

Liverpool, Bp.

Exeter, Bp.

Longford, E.

Ezra, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Gallacher, L.

McNair, L.

245

Mallalieu, B.

Sandwich, E.

Mayhew, L.

Seear, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Sefton of Garston, L

Methuen, L.

Serota, B.

Mishcon, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Molloy, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Monkswell, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Taverne, L.

Phillips of Ellesmere, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Tope, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Redesdale, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Richard, L.

White, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E

Russell, E

Winston, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Henley, L.

Addison, V.

Holderness, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

HolmPatrick, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Howe, E.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Ashbourne, L.

Inchcape, E.

Astor of Hever, L.

Inchyra, L.

Balfour, E

Inglewood, L.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Kimball, L.

Berners, B.

Kingsland, L.

Biddulph, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Blaker, L.

Lauderdale, E

Blatch, B.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Boardman, L.

Leigh, L.

Bowness, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Liverpool, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Long, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lucas, L.

Burnham, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Butterworth, L.

Lyell, L.

Cadman, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor]

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Camock, L.

Merrivale, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Mersey, V.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Miller of Hendon, B.

Clark of Kempston, L

Milverton, L.

Cockfield, L.

MonkBretton, L.

Coleraine, L.

Monson, L.

Coleridge, L.

Mottistone, L.

Courtown, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cranbome, V. [Lord Privy Seal]

Munster, E.

Crickhowell, L

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cross, V.

Nelson, E.

Cumberlege, B.

Newall, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Norfolk, D.

Denham, L.

Northesk, E.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Digby, L.

Orkney, E

Dilhorne, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Eden of Winton, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Ellenborough, L.

Parkinson, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Peel, E.

Elton, L.

Pender, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Goold, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Goschen, V.

Prior, L

Greenway, L.

Quinton, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Rawlings, B.

Harmsworth, L

Rennell, L.

Hemphill, L.

Renwick, L

246

Rodney, L.

Swansea, L.

Romney, E.

Swinfen, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Tebbit, L.

Seccombe, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Selsdon, L.

Thurlow, L.

Shannon, E

Tollemache, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Trumpington, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Vivian, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Westbury, L.

Stockton, E.

Wilcox, B.

Strange, B.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Stratncarron, L.

Windlesham, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Wise, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Wynford, L.

Sudeley, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L

[*The Tellers for the Not Contents reported 144 names. the Clerks recorded 143 names.]
Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.57 p.m.
[Amendment No. 102 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 103 and 104 not moved.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 105:
Page 6, line 46, leave out ("or assistance").
The noble Lord said: This is a very simple amendment. It is intended to probe the Government on the meaning of one specific phrase in Clause 9. As it stands, the clause states that the person:
"shall not be eligible for accommodation or assistance".
I should like to know what the words "or assistance" mean.
The fear is that it may prevent local authorities from giving any advice at all to an asylum seeker of whom they have knowledge and who is in housing difficulties. That is the interpretation of the present drafting of Clause 9. And yet it is difficult to believe that that could be the intention because we have referred already today to the Housing Bill. In Clause 154 of that Bill, which I understand will supersede this provision when the Bill receives Royal Assent, local authorities will be under a duty to provide such advice. Therefore, I am rather puzzled as to why, for the period between now and the time at which the Housing Bill receives Royal Assent. assistance or advice cannot be given by local authorities. It can be given in the present situation and it will be possible to give it again when the Housing Bill becomes law. Perhaps the Minister will clarify that point. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The Government fully recognise the importance of housing advice in preventing homelessness and helping people to find suitable accommodation. In that respect, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and I are fairly well in agreement. The provisions in the Housing Bill, shortly to come before this House, give local authorities a new general duty to provide advisory services for the prevention of homelessness which will be available to everyone in the authority's area, including immigrants who have no substantive rights under the homelessness legislation.

247
The provisions of this Bill amend the existing homelessness provisions in Part III of the Housing Act 1985. Broadly, these place a duty on local authorities to secure accommodation for applicants who are homeless and who have, or appear to have, a "priority need" for accommodation. Where homelessness is established but there is not a priority need for accommodation, the authority owes a lesser duty to provide advice and assistance.
The effect of the amendment would be inequitable. It would mean that homeless immigrants who had a priority need for accommodation would be owed no duty at all, while those who did not have a priority need would he owed a duty of advice and assistance. I know that that is not the noble Lord's intention. As I said earlier, I have some sympathy with what I believe to be the noble Lord's intention; namely, that everyone should have access to housing advisory services, regardless of their immigration status or whether they are entitled to substantive housing assistance.
As I said, the provisions in the Housing Bill will place a general duty on housing authorities to provide advice for everyone in their district. We would expect to see those authorities which are not already providing advice services to begin doing so in the autumn, when that legislation takes effect. It would not make sense to require them to establish services at an earlier date solely for persons subject to immigration control.
Therefore, I should like to assure Members of the Committee, and especially the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, that when the new duty to provide advice takes effect it will extend to people with limited leave to remain here and to asylum seekers. On the basis of that assurance, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment and that he will also be able to support me when I come forward with a proposition under the Housing Bill.
Lord Dubs: I thank the Minister for his response; it is indeed most welcome. I shall certainly support him when he brings forward that proposition under the Housing Bill. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 106:
Page 6, line 47, leave out from ("Part") to end of line 4 on page 7.
The noble Earl said: The above amendment would remove from the Bill the part dealing with homelessness. Therefore, it would restore to asylum seekers what they had before under the Private Member's Bill moved by my late noble friend Lord Ross of Newport, who is sadly missed. It would give them back the same entitlement to help with homelessness as enjoyed by the rest of the population. The Government will undoubtedly produce a strong series of moral arguments on the issue. However, when the Government start being moral, I cannot help wishing that they were capable of being a little more practical at the same time. We really must consider exactly what will happen when homelessness help is withdrawn from
248
people who are affected by the clause. It means that, if their houses are burned down, no one will give them anywhere else to live.
Sadly there has recently been a great rash of arson cases around the country; indeed, there has been a considerable number in my own area. If we think of the reaction of those unpleasant people to whom the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, referred on Second Reading, it seems to me that they may think that this is a temptation to indulge in arson. They do it often enough already. Therefore, to argue that people in that situation should be left on the streets without any help as regards homelessness seems to be a little perverse. It will shift burdens, not remove them, within local authorities from the housing departments to the social services. The burden on local authority social services is already pretty severe. Moreover, the operation of social services is necessarily a great deal more complex than that of a housing department merely because of the degree of individual assessment involved. Therefore, it will create more pressure, more expense and more work while not necessarily saving very much money in the end.
Under the homelessness powers we have a situation with which we shall deal under a later amendment, but which is also relevant to this issue—where help with homelessness is withdrawn from those British subjects who are married to a person deemed to be homeless under the legislation because they fall to be treated under the Bill as if they were single. That will bear most heavily on those Asian families who have a habit of arranged marriages with people from, say, Pakistan, and so on. Apart from the hardship, it is a disincentive to marriage. We have heard a great many times in this Chamber about the need to support marriage. Imposing so strong a penalty on marriage is not quite the sort of consequence one believes that the Government intended. I wonder whether they thought it through. That situation would occur under subsection (2)(b).
What will happen to those people who are made homeless and who receive no help? One presumes that they will sleep on the street. However, obviously there comes a point when even the streets are liable to become overcrowded. It is not particularly good for any country to have a large proportion of its population sleeping rough. Quite apart from any argument about inhumanity, it tends to spread illness. I must remind the Government—I have said this before, but it bears repeating—that the rate of TB among the homeless on the streets of London is 200-times the national average. Leaving aside any issue of humanity, I do not believe that spreading that sort of danger is a good idea. Therefore, even from sheer, crude and practical self-interest, once people are here and homeless it is better to give them help than not to do so.
The fact that I tackle the matter on a practical front does not necessarily mean that I accept the moral arguments put forward by the Government. The people to whom we owe help are the people who are actually there and to whom hardship is happening. One cannot limit it by nationality in the way intended by the legislation. That is an abnegation of a responsibility which, because it is in front of us, I do not think we can give up. The late George Brown sometimes reminded

249
me of the girl with the curl in the middle of her forehead. It is true to say that when he was good he could be very, very good. I shall never forget him speaking at the eve of poll rally at the Layton by-election in 1965. He was facing 200 National Front hecklers and said to them, "Now then, if you want to have go, you can have a go; but you must come one at a time". One of the hecklers happened to be sitting next to me. George Brown baited him until the whole audience was watching. He then turned round and asked: "How far back can you trace your English ancestry before you find something else?" The man turned white as a sheet and was silent for the rest of the evening. However, when he left at the end of the meeting, he murmured to me that he was "most impressed".
As it happens, the very first nationalist agitation against immigrants in British politics was started by Simon de Montfort who was himself a Gascon. I wonder what people who start that sort of agitation about our own people are really trying to prove. All of us come from somewhere else at some stage. If one looks at a pool by the seaside, if the tide does not flow back into it it will become stagnant and the water will become bad; nothing will live in it. If one studies The History of the World by my former tutor Professor John Roberts, one will see that he considered the question of what made certain areas flourish, succeed, grow prosperous and intellectually adventurous. He concluded that the one great force for development was the mixing of populations by migration. Therefore, if we adopt the philosophy involved in the Bill, I believe that we stand to lose a great deal more than we realise. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Under the homelessness legislation, a local housing authority has an obligation to secure accommodation for applicants who have become homeless unintentionally and who fall within a priority need group. Such applicants may have a priority need in their own right—perhaps because of vulnerability through old age or disability—or because priority need is conferred by a vulnerable member of their household, such as a pregnant wife or a dependent child.
The provisions in Clause 9(2)(a) will exclude immigrants who are in this country on limited leave or are here unlawfully from entitlement to assistance under the homelessness legislation. I have already explained that in some detail. This will ensure that no duty is owed to such immigrants who make a homeless application. The underlying principle is that people admitted to this country on the basis that they will make their own arrangements to support and accommodate themselves should not have access to public funds.
The same principle underpins the provisions in Clause 9(2)(b). These will ensure that no duty is owed where entitlement under the homelessness legislation depends solely on the presence of someone in the applicant's household who is an immigrant on limited leave or who is here unlawfully. It cannot be right that someone who entered this country on the basis that he would have no recourse to public funds should then rely on public funds when he wants to make a claim.
250
The noble Earl, in his usual way, gave a number of examples. I shall consider one of the examples and perhaps confirm his worst fears. However, at least I shall make the position clear. Let us consider the position of a British citizen who contracts a marriage overseas and starts a family there. He decides to return to this country and his wife and child subsequently decide to join him. Typically they will be granted visas on the understanding that they should have no recourse to public funds. It cannot be right that the presence of that child should then be used as the basis for claiming that the household is in priority need. This is no different from the position which the Court of Appeal held (in the 1993 Tower Hamlets judgment) as regards a situation which already exists where a homelessness application relies on the presence of an illegal entrant to confer priority need.
Let me make clear that the provisions of Clause 9(2)(b) will not prevent a duty being owed to any homeless applicant where there is an entitlement to assistance which does not depend upon an immigrant on limited leave. Nor will they prevent an authority from taking account of such an immigrant in assessing whether accommodation provided as a discharge of a homelessness duty was suitable for the whole household, for example, by reference to its size.
I shall take a hypothetical example of a family comprising two adults and a dependent child. The family is originally from overseas but all have indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom. The family is visited by a cousin who lives overseas and enters the UK on limited leave. While the household is host to the cousin it becomes unintentionally homeless. The local authority is satisfied that homelessness and priority need are established, disregarding of course the presence of the visiting cousin. In such a case the authority would owe a duty to secure accommodation for the whole household. I hope that explanation helps to explain how authorities will deal with certain cases, although I doubt whether they will be many in number.
As usual, the noble Earl paints a vision of the streets being full of people sleeping on them. He overpaints that. Indeed at the present time, under present circumstances, single people and those without children have no entitlement to accommodation under homelessness legislation. They do not generally sleep on the streets. The previous count in November 1995 showed that only 272 people were sleeping rough on the streets of central London. The rough sleepers initiative has been extremely successful in helping and encouraging people to get off the streets and finding them somewhere to stay.
This amendment would remove the provisions in Clause 9(2)(b), leaving housing authorities with a commitment to secure accommodation where homelessness or priority need was established as a direct result of the presence of someone on limited leave. The amendment would, therefore, undermine the whole purpose of Clause 9(2) and I am afraid I must ask the Committee to reject it.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Avebury: Will the Minister deal with the case that was mentioned at the end of the previous debate where someone has entered the country as an asylum seeker and has validly made an application at the port of entry; therefore he is not included among those to whom the noble Lord referred who assure the immigration authorities that they will not have recourse to public funds during their stay here? They brought everything out into the open at the point of entry. They were admitted as asylum seekers but their applications were later refused. According to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs—the Minister did not correct him—such people would then lose the entitlements under this clause at the point when the Minister refused the application for asylum.
If the asylum seeker—and his family—was duly accommodated for the period during which the application was considered by the Secretary of State, at the point when a refusal was issued he would suddenly become ineligible and the local authority would have to evict him from the accommodation which it had previously offered him as a legitimate person who had become unintentionally homeless. Can it really be the purpose of the Government that the asylum applicant, having been here legitimately according to the Government and having made an application in the form which the Minister has said is required, is then denied the provision we are discussing during the period of his appeal hearing? That may be a long process, as we all know. It has been conceded that some asylum applicants can be here for as long as five years. Is it the case that during the whole of this four-and-a-half years—or whatever the time is between the refusal notice being given by the Secretary of State and the appeal being finally heard—this family which had become unintentionally homeless is not entitled to the benefits of the homeless accommodation which would be available to anyone else? I hope that the Minister will deal with that point before we decide whether we wish to vote on this amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I do not think anything I shall say will convince the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, not to vote in favour of this amendment. I thought I had made the position clear over and over again, not only today but on previous occasions when we have debated the interaction of asylum seekers and social security. The position is simple. When someone applies for asylum at the point of entry, he is entitled to income support, housing benefit and, if this is needed, he is entitled to be considered under the homelessness legislation. If, however, a person enters this country and makes his application after entry, he is not entitled to income support, housing benefit or consideration under the homelessness legislation. I return to the person who has made an "at port" application. It is worth reminding the Committee that in 1995, out of every 100 applications to the Home Office only five were granted refugee status. A further 16 were granted exceptional leave to remain and 79 out of every 100 were refused. At that stage people can appeal, as indeed United Kingdom citizens can make an appeal against any other decision as regards social security.
252
I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that citizens of the United Kingdom who make an appeal in those circumstances against decisions of the social security system do not receive benefits while they are awaiting the results of that appeal. We believe that a negative decision by the Home Office to withdraw the income support and housing benefit from a person stands four square with the way the system deals with appeals from people in the United Kingdom against other parts of the social security system and other decisions of adjudicating officers and the like. The noble Lord is quite right that after the Home Office has turned down an application the person is no longer eligible to receive income support and housing benefit—which is what we decided at the end of January when that was voted upon in this Chamber—and he is not eligible for consideration under the homelessness legislation.
Lord Avebury: I hope that the Minister will answer the other point that I raised, which is whether a local authority, having granted the asylum applicant and his family emergency housing under the homelessness provisions during the time when his application was pending before the Secretary of State, would be obliged to evict him on the day when the Secretary of State issued his refusal.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: It would be up to both the local authority and the family themselves to decide what they would do in those circumstances.
It is well worth saying that in 1995 only 3 per cent. of those appeals were successful. It cannot be right that we should continue to pay benefit, which, quite frankly, encourages people to remain here and appeal, when only 3 per cent. at the end of the day are found to have a legitimate right to be here and to be successful in the refugee status.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Perhaps I may seek clarification from the Minister. Let us consider a family who receive benefit because they applied for asylum status at the port of entry and as a result were in accommodation, receiving housing benefit which covered it. Subsequently they lost the decision to be considered as asylum seekers, or to be granted exceptional leave to remain. At that point, housing benefit would stop. They would not be able to pay the rent, so they would become homeless.
Under the Children Act 1989, do social services immediately take over the responsibility of rent payment in lieu of the housing benefit they would otherwise have received on the ground that in that way they ensure the continued health and development of the child, as they are required to do and as the Minister in another place, John Bowis, insisted that they would do under the legislation? That would be a cheaper way of ensuring that aim rather than taking those children into care.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The noble Baroness heard me explain at length the benefit changes that came about on 5th February. The position is, as I again make clear, if the Home Office decides that the person should not have either refugee status or be granted exceptional leave to remain, that person ceases to be eligible for

253
income support and housing benefit. If the local authority was housing the family under the homelessness Act—not all families will be housed under the homelessness Act—at that stage it would be up to the local authority to decide what it should do. Indeed the people themselves have some responsibility. They have come to this country; they must have worked out what they were going to do. They have made the application and it has been found wanting. They are given the right to appeal.
I made it clear earlier that if there are children, it is indeed the case that the Children Act can then trigger in and the local authority can come to their aid under the Children Act. If that is what the local authority decided to do, it could pay the rent. I made that perfectly clear in a previous answer. That is the position.
In case anyone asks the next question, I repeat the answer that I have already given: we are discussing with local authorities the costs which will arise. We have made it perfectly clear that we will be prepared to reimburse them on agreed costs up to 80 per cent.
Earl Russell: Before I reply to the Minister, I have, first, to make a Statement on behalf of the party. I hope that it will not take long, but it is, I think, of some importance.
We have decided that this Bill contains so much that is offensive to the freedoms of genuine asylum seekers that we cannot support any part of it. We would repeal it and replace it with such legislation as is necessary to reform and improve the system for processing asylum applications—a system which the present Government have grossly mismanaged and allowed to deteriorate into a state of crisis. We do not believe that any clause, or any line of the Bill, goes any distance towards meeting those objectives.
The Minister tempted me with his statistics to repeat myself. I heard his noble friend Lord Lucas on the last day in Committee. I shall not do so. He knows what my answer to that point is. I do not think that he needs to hear it again.
As regards his counts of rough sleepers, he ought to remember the sad case of the Irishman's pigs. The Irishman could not count them because they never stayed still. But if you are sleeping on a stone surface, you sometimes want to move in the middle of the night. Those counts of rough sleepers are notoriously unreliable, especially since some individuals tend to move as soon as they see anyone coming.
The Minister made a point about rough sleepers which tends more to illustrate our arguments than his. The rough sleepers' initiative was set up because so many people appeared on the streets. The Department of the Environment identified the significant factor in street homelessness as the removal of benefit from 16 and 17 year-olds and the fact that most people, being single, were not able to gain help from their local authorities. That is what we expect to happen again. In the light of that precedent, I believe that it is a realistic fear.
254
I understand that Ministers are allowed to have imagination only when they are off duty. I do not blame them for that. But I cannot help regretting it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 107 and 108 not moved.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 109:
Page 7, line 7, at end insert—
("( ) No order under this section shall be made unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that no racial discrimination contrary to the Race Relations Act 1976 and the Local Government Act 1985 will result from the order.
( ) Before making any order under this section, the Secretary of State shall consult organisations appearing to him to be representative of the authorities concerned and other relevant organisations.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that local authorities accept their responsibilities to promote good race relations when making orders under Clause 9 and to make sure that they consult with the relevant organisations first.
The fear is that this provision will lead to discrimination against our ethnic minorities and that a local authority will have to vet the immigration status of an individual to see whether he or she, or the family, qualifies for homelessness accommodation or whether the local authority has to reject the application under the terms of the Bill.
The likelihood is that a local authority will be far more concerned to vet and possibly refuse the applications of people whose skins are black because it will say, "It's much more likely that a person with a black face is not eligible under the terms of this Bill". The result is that people who may have lived in this country, who may have been born in this country and who happen to have black skins will be faced with a discriminatory process when they apply to a local authority for housing. That is surely an outcome which no one in this Chamber wants because it would lead to the most blatant forms of discrimination.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that before an order is made under this section,
"the Secretary of State shall consult with organisations appearing to him to be representative of the authorities concerned and other relevant organisations",
having an interest. The Secretary of State must ensure that he does not make an order unless he is satisfied that no racial discrimination will result from such an order. It is a simple proposition. I beg to move.
Baroness Seear: I strongly support the amendment. It is not that racial discrimination will necessarily take place. But there is no doubt whatsoever that the ethnic minority community will believe that it is taking place. On the basis of my experience up to now, there are good grounds for it to expect that that will be the case. We need to take every conceivable step to ensure that there is no justification for those fears.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I begin by saying, as I did in an earlier debate although in different words, that we are alive to the need to ensure that the application of the housing provisions does not damage race relations.

255
But while I appreciate the concerns behind Amendment No. 109, outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, I doubt that we need the provision envisaged in the amendment.
As the Committee may be aware, there are already restrictions in place on access to the homelessness legislation by certain persons from abroad. Twice today I have mentioned that the Department of the Environment issued a revised Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities in 1994. It was drawn up in consultation with the Commission for Racial Equality and contains advice on the subject of concern to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness.
The code suggests a screening procedure applicable to everyone applying for assistance under the homelessness legislation that allows a housing authority to filter down to people who have spent a significant amount of time abroad in the past few years. Only those people are asked further questions about their immigration status. That avoids the need for housing officers to make a preliminary judgment on whether to probe an applicant's immigration status solely on the basis of his ethnic origins, accent or the style of his name.
So far as we are aware, the procedure has worked well and given rise to no complaints. It is the kind of procedure that the Department of the Environment proposes to commend to local authorities in applying the new legislation. In preparing its guidance, the department consults, as a matter of course, the local authority associations and other interested parties.
The experience we have had of the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities and the way it has worked over the past two years, as well as the consultation we shall have with interested parties and local authorities, give us confidence that we will be able to bring forward procedures for local authorities to follow. Those procedures will not give rise to the problems which the noble Lord and the noble Baroness fear. We have a good record of race relations in this country which we wish to preserve. We believe that we have the means of doing so in this case, with the code of guidance which has already been in operation for the related subject of homelessness. I hope that with that assurance and explanation the noble Lord can withdraw his amendment.
Lord Dubs: I thank the Minister. I am still apprehensive about the way in which the clause will work in practice, but I wish to consider what the Minister said in more detail. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 110:
Page 7, line 7, at end insert—
("( ) No order under this section shall be made unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that no disproportionate extra costs will be incurred by local authorities fulfilling their social services responsibilities under the Children Act 1989 or providing services as community care services within the meaning of section 46 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 as a result of the order.
256
( ) Before making any order under this section, the Secretary of State shall consult organisations appearing to him to be representative of the authorities concerned and other relevant organisations.").
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment because it is concerned with an issue which the Minister has already mentioned this evening: the reimbursement of the additional costs which local authorities will incur. In principle, we believe that transfers of responsibility from central to local government are good, but in this case, with geographical distribution, the responsibilities fall largely on a few London boroughs and a few other local authorities. That makes implementation impossible unless there is reimbursement. I emphasise the limited scope of the amendment. We are only concerned with the Children Act 1989 which deals with children at risk in terms of their health and development, and with the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, in particular Section 67.
I recognise that the word "disproportionate" is not suitable to be put into the statute because it could mean anything according to one's wish. On 11th January, the Secretary of State, Mr. Lilley, said that unavoidable additional costs involved because of the homelessness legislation and the Children Act would be reimbursed. The Minister has confirmed that the reimbursement would be, he now says, up to 80 per cent., rather than 80 per cent.
The local authority associations, particularly the Association of London Government, already know that they must provide income sufficient to meet the rent and living expenses for families who find themselves in a difficult position. The figures from 5th February, when the regulations came into force, to 30th April are pretty low. I understand that in London there have been of the order of 300 claims. However, the trap which was set on 5th February has not yet been fully sprung because it needs the legislation to be complete. The Association of London Government expects there to be 7,000 claims in the current financial year. The costs could be of the order of £50 million, so it is important that, even though we shall not press the amendment to a vote, the Minister should agree with the second part of the amendment to consult with the local authority associations or,
"organizations…representative of the authorities concerned and other relevant organisations".
I beg to move.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I shall not comment on the wording of the amendment; I intend to speak on the principle raised by the noble Lord. On many occasions when Bills have been discussed in this House I have spoken on the issue of how the burden falls by chance on one authority or another. It is sometimes related to whichever ethnic minority has friends or relatives living in a certain place. As the Committee knows, Earls Court was originally "Little Poland" and then "Kangaroo Valley" and so on. It seems that when the first person arrives, everyone else follows. I remember the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, supporting me when I said that it was almost a national responsibility.

257
As I understand it, at present unaccompanied children are the greatest expense for local authorities. The education and social service costs and special counselling are quite a worry. I support the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that it is important to discuss the issue with local authorities and agree on a basis which is fair. It is impossible for people to set a council tax rate without knowing what new burden might fall on them.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I wish to express my thanks and those of other noble Lords to my honourable friend Mr. Curry who met some of us this morning to discuss the issue. My noble friend Lady Gardner mentioned Kangaroo Valley. It reminds me of another more historical migration. People often ask why so many Irishmen are to be found in the London area of Kentish Town round to Kilburn. The answer is that it was as far as they could carry a suitcase from Euston or Paddington. That is where they stopped.
There are concentrations of people in areas and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is right that costs fall on relatively few local authorities quite disproportionately. A number of consequences flow from that and Mr. Curry was helpful in explaining and discussing the problems. The matter cannot be dealt with by one-off payments. The collective memory of Whitehall remains hung up on the jumbo jet full of refugees from Skopje in the former Yugoslavia. It arrived at Stansted Airport some years ago and the leader of the Uttlesford District Council said firmly to Her Majesty's Government that his council could do absolutely nothing. It is a small rural district and it could not look after the people without help. That was an extremely effective tactic and the council received a substantial one-off special grant for that purpose.
In London we are dealing with a regular process which has gone on year after year and the result of the legislation will be to impose additional costs on the local authority. The first point I make to my noble friend is that special grants are not the right way to deal with the problem. They must be specific grants which form a regular part of the system whereby central government support the expenses of local government. Happily, my noble and right honourable friends have recognised that in relation to the Children Act. The announcement by my right honourable friend Mr. Lilley in January has already recognised that there is to be a specific grant to local authorities which incur costs under the Children Act.
The trouble is that, as so far drawn up, that proposal does not give a great deal of help. The grant is cash-limited to £3 million, while the local authorities believe that their expenditure (I do not differ from the figure given by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh) may well amount to £50 million or more. Secondly, the grant is subject to a very substantial threshold.
I should perhaps declare an interest, along with the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. We are joint presidents of the Association of London Government. That body has estimated that for the local authorities in London that are specifically affected, that may mean a
258
threshold of £1 million of expenditure before the specific grant comes in. As was said, only 80 per cent. of the expenditure above that threshold will be reimbursed. So, while one must not be ungrateful for small mercies, it is perfectly fair to point out to my noble friends that this a very small mercy indeed.
The central point, made quite forcefully by my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes, is that this is a matter of national policy. I spoke at Second Reading, and I support the major provisions of the Bill. I was very interested in the remarks made a moment ago by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in relation to his party's view on the matter; we shall no doubt see that carefully spelt out in the party's manifesto when it comes to fight the election, and I wish it good luck. As I said, I support the Bill. But as a result of national policy, additional expenditure will be faced by local authorities. It will be incurred as a result of the Children Act, the Housing Act and the National Health Service and Community Care Act; and other provisions may also be relevant. That being the case, it is up to national government to use part of the savings that they are making under the change in social security legislation to see that disproportionate costs—to use the words of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, whose misgivings I share—do not fall onto the shoulders of local council taxpayers in relatively few local authority areas.
It is important to have some of these points on the record. Mr. Curry told us this morning that the Government are now ready to come forward with specific proposals, but they wish to discuss them with the local authorities first. I am advised that appointments are being sought for next week so that the local authority associations can meet Ministers. We must understand the difficulties that Ministers have had in this respect. After all, this is a policy being promoted, perfectly properly, by the Home Office and the Department of Social Security. The additional costs will fall on the Department of the Environment in relation to housing, and on the Department of Health under the National Health Service and Community Care Bill which will be a consideration in relation to its public expenditure allocation. So I can well understand that my right honourable friend the Chief Secretary has had quite a difficult job to try to juggle, as it were, all the different departmental budgets. It may well mean switching some costs from one department to another.
If the figure of £50 million is anywhere near right—and it may well be of that sort of order; indeed, the first few months of the effect of the social security regulations suggest that that is not in any way an exaggeration—and the Department of Social Security is saving £200 million (the figure given to us), the Government ought to be pretty pleased with their £150 million and not leave any part of the balance to fall on the shoulders of local council taxpayers in those relatively few London authorities and possibly one or two outside London, in Kent and so on, to bear the burden.
The thresholds should therefore be purely nominal. The figure of 80 per cent. should in fact be 100 per cent.; or if insisted that some amount should fall, it should be a very small percentage indeed. I hope that

259
when my noble friends discuss these issues with the local authorities next week, they will listen very carefully to what the local authorities have to say. Those who are in full support of the policy would find it very difficult to defend higher council tax payments in a few boroughs such as Hammersmith and Fulham, Hounslow, Camden, and, I am told, Croydon. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, mentions Haringey. I am told that that is not one of the "big ones" at the moment, but it could well be. It would be difficult to defend the idea that they should pay extra as a result of what is essentially a piece of national policy brought to bear through this legislation.
My noble friend will not he free to respond very fully this evening. However, I hope that the concerns expressed in all parts of the Committee will impress upon my noble friends and their right honourable friends the need to meet this requirement fully and in that way to win the support of people in local authority areas for the overall policy of the Bill.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Avebury: The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, underlined how ill considered this legislation is. He remarked on the figure of £50 million, which is not even in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum. He talked of discussions to be held with the local authority associations next week to try to resolve the question as to what is to be done as between the Government and the local authorities. It is extraordinary that we are three-quarters of the way through the Committee stage and we still do not know the answers to those questions. Nor can the Minister, who replied to the previous amendment but one, tell us exactly what happened at every stage in the process. He says these are choices that have to made on the spot. The particular example we were then discussing was of an asylum applicant family that had been successful in gaining emergency housing under the homeless provisions but was to be deprived of entitlement on the day when the Secretary of State made the decision that the application was not well founded. From that point onwards until the date of the appeal, the applicant was not entitled to any benefit.
The Minister said that this question would be dependent on the choice of the parties. First, he said that the asylum applicant himself had a role to play in the decision—as if someone with absolutely no resources was in a position to make any choice whatsoever. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, just underlined, the local authority will have to make some very important choices. As I understand it, it has an option of allowing the family to remain in the accommodation, notwithstanding the fact that they would be disentitled under the homeless provisions; in some way, extra-statutorily, the local authority may allow the family to remain in the accommodation and to continue to pay for the cost of the accommodation so as not to have to incur the additional, or larger, costs of taking the children into care or fostering them with another family. The Minister assured the Committee that, if it is decided to take the children into care, the
260
local authority will be reimbursed as to 80 per cent. of the cost (not of the additional cost, but the total cost) that will be incurred thereby.
That raises a further question; namely, local authorities then have an incentive to have such children taken into care or have them fostered, since they will then receive 80 per cent. of the money back from the Government; whereas, if they continue to leave such families in homeless accommodation, they will not receive the 80 per cent. Perhaps the Minister will correct me if I am wrong. It is important to have this spelt out. As I say, the fact that so many of these matters have to be dealt with across the Floor of the House by means of assurances from the Minister indicates that the Bill should not have come before us in this form. These points should have been properly spelt out and we should have been able to know exactly what the financial effects were before we agreed to this clause.
Earl Russell: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, for the trouble that he has taken over this amendment. I do not think he would believe me if I were to say that I agree with everything that he said. But I agree with practically everything he said that related specifically to local authorities. This is, after all, a matter of all-party concern. It is something which we all have to make work and we all experience common difficulties.
The noble Lord made the point that the burden fell on a small number of local authorities, mostly in London. It is a point of considerable substance. For some local authorities that burden can be very heavy. My own local borough of Brent is one of those affected, as are Westminster, Lambeth and Southwark. What may be quite a small burden for the Exchequer when spread over the whole of national resources, may be very heavy indeed if it is all concentrated on one point in Southwark or Lambeth.
On 4th March I asked a Question on this subject which was sympathetically answered by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. She came up with the formula that the Government would meet 80 per cent. of the costs above a certain threshold. I appreciate that the Minister may not be able to tell me tonight, but I should be interested to know the threshold and the reasoning by which it was settled. No matter how much practical help a local authority receives, it will depend very heavily on the level of that threshold.
I also want to know why it has been decided that it is necessary to have a threshold. One would imagine that the theory was that the local authority had a certain amount of spare fat. But that is not true of most local authorities now. Most of them, faced with an additional financial burden, will have to do things like sacking teachers. One would have thought that in an election year the Government might possibly wish to avoid such a consequence. Indeed, we might all wish to avoid it.
I should like to have answers to two specific points. First, I should like to know whether obligations under the National Health Service and Community Care Act will be recognised as well as obligations under the Children Act. Secondly—this is a question on which I have received representations from the London Borough

261
of Sutton—what exactly will be the position in relation to school meals? There has recently been a Written Answer to my noble friend Lord Tope which, on the whole, was reassuring. But we have all had Answers which were, on the whole, reassuring. Government Answers need to be looked in the mouth. We need something specific because in the diet of those people, and therefore in the capacity of the children to learn and keep the school running, the school meal will be very important indeed.
It has been quite a long time since 4th March. I am very glad that it seems that an announcement will not now be long delayed. I hope that it is genuinely imminent. I should be grateful for an assurance that, when it comes, it will be retroactive to 5th February when that burden took effect, because quite a lot of money has been spent already.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I shall try to respond to the various points made in relation to the amendment. My noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding looked ahead to the amendment in the name of himself and some of his noble friends; namely, Amendment No. 123.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: Perhaps I may intervene for a moment. That amendment will be separately debated. It raises a separate point about the procedures. I hope that I shall be allowed to move that amendment later.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I suspected that my noble friend would move the amendment. However, there is quite a considerable overlap between the two amendments. I expect that I shall address some of the same points again later tonight.
We recognise that our reforms to social security benefits for asylum seekers result in some additional costs falling on local authorities and, indeed, on certain local authorities. We recognise that aligning the scope of the homelessness legislation with the benefit rules will result in a further shift of some of those costs to social services authorities. That is why we have announced our intention to make special grants available to local authorities for 1995–96 and 1996–97.
I hope that that answers—I suspect perhaps indirectly—one of the points about 1995–96 put to me by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. Clearly, I should only say that if it were going to cover the time between the coming into force on 5th February of the social security provisions and the end of the financial year.
The special grant for housing authorities will end when we use the order-making power in Clause 9 to align the scope of the homelessness legislation with the rules on housing benefit. However, in recognition of the fact that social services authorities will still have to bear costs, the special grant for social services authorities will continue for the remainder of the year. We shall also consider how we should support any such expenditure by social services authorities in the future.
Officials from the Department of the Environment and the Department of Health have been discussing details of the grant with local authority associations. As
262
my noble friend Lord Jenkin said, they plan to hold a further meeting on 20th May to consider the draft grant report and hence the full details of the grant. We expect to see that report approved before the Summer Recess.
On a number of occasions I have mentioned that reimbursement will be at 80 per cent. of the additional unavoidable costs. I say again to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that local authorities will he expected to act in the most cost-effective manner when deciding what to do with children who come within the ambit of the Children Act. I believe he is asking whether it will be cheaper for the local authority to put the children into care or keep them where they are. That will be for the local authorities. Part of the reason for their having to fund the 20 per cent. is to concentrate their mind on the matter. It will be for the local authorities to find the most cost-effective manner in which to fulfil their obligations under the Children Act.
Lord Avebury: Will the local authorities be obliged to act in the most cost-effective manner irrespective of the needs of the children?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I did not say that they would be obliged. I said that we would expect them to act in the most cost-effective manner, taking other factors into account. They will take them into account. I hope that that answers the noble Lord. They will act sensibly as one would expect them to do. But, obviously, one hopes they will not opt for the most expensive solution if there are no great merits in it. That is the point that I am trying to make to the noble Lord.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, raised a point about school meals. I should prefer to write to him rather than give him an answer this evening in order to make sure that I am correct in my reply. He also asked about community care. That is not covered because there is no evidence of any need of community care legislation by asylum seekers. The cases put to us largely seem to have involved families of young children who would fall within the Children Act and not within the community care Acts.
As with so much of this debate, painting of a black nature has been placed on the canvas about what will happen when people find that their application to the Home Office has been turned down and they are no longer eligible for benefits and the cover of homelessness legislation. But, as I said when we last discussed this matter, currently more than three-quarters of those who apply for asylum end up at the end of some road or other being refused. So, three-quarters of all those who apply already have to face the kind of problem—if it is a problem—that noble Lords predict will happen as a result of this legislation. I ask rather rhetorically: what does happen to them? They seem to manage. There is no great evidence that the people turned down after appeal form a huge pool of people sleeping on the streets or whatever the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, thinks they do. They appear to be able to look after themselves. It is to be hoped that most of them return to their countries of origin. They do not seem to cause the problems that noble Lords have conjured up in their imagination about these issues.

263
Therefore, we can reasonably assume that the arrangements that those people make at the end of their appeal they will also make at the end of the Home Office decision if they receive a negative answer. They will be able to do whatever it is they do now to look after themselves.
7 p.m.
Earl Russell: The Minister has a great deal of confidence in those counts of rough sleepers, but his evidence does not accord with what many others involved find. Does he expect everybody who is afraid of proceedings under various immigration legislation to hoist a notice saying, "I am an asylum-seeker"?
The Minister talks about the National Health Service and Community Care Act. I was disappointed by that answer. He has considerable experience of mental health problems among those who have escaped from great hardship, which is common among victims of torture but can occur with other forms of hardship such as where family members have been killed in their presence and situations of that sort.
This is not something that should be dismissed out of hand. I beg the Minister to allow it to be at least considered in the negotiations with local authorities. In regard to the 80 per cent. threshold, the Minister talks about concentrating the minds of local authorities. If they are any more concentrated than they are, they will be invisible.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I had understood that the Minister would respond in particular to the powerful speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and would discuss consultation with local authorities.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I thought I had responded to my noble friend. I will be responding to him again later on, but I confirmed, as my noble friend was told by Mr. David Curry this morning, that the next meeting between the Department of the Environment, the Department of Health and local authorities is scheduled for 20th May. We hope to make progress towards seeing a result by the Summer Recess. Those consultations are going on and that is the assurance that my noble friend was asking me to put on record, establishing what the costs are for the various local authorities.
I feel that I responded to my noble friend, and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will accept that. But as I am on my feet, perhaps I can say that my figures in relation to rough sleepers have been questioned twice by the noble Earl, who obviously suspects that government apparatchiks have gone out at night and made this count. Of course, they do not quite see double; they only see in halves because they do not want the count to be very high. However, the rough sleepers count that I mentioned was made by the voluntary organisations which support rough sleepers. If the noble Earl does not
264
believe the figures, he should take the matter up with those organisations and not accuse the Government of being unable to quantify the numbers.
Earl Russell: I have discussed the counts with them. They do not have the confidence in them that the Minister does.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to the Minister for his repeated assurance. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 111 to 121 not moved.]
The Earl of Courtown: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage of this Bill be resumed not before five minutes past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Proceeds of Crime (Northern Ireland) Order 1996
7.3 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 16th April be approved.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of this order is to strengthen the measures available to deprive convicted criminals of the profits of their criminal activity. It will provide more effective powers at all stages of the confiscation process—enhanced investigation powers, more effective confiscation procedures in the courts and improvements to the enforcement powers once a confiscation order has been made.
The proposed order will update and restate Northern Ireland's legislation relating to the confiscation of the proceeds of drug trafficking and other serious crime. It seeks to bring Northern Ireland broadly into line with the rest of the United Kingdom by introducing provisions already in force in England and Wales by the enactment of the Criminal Justice Act 1993 and the Proceeds of Crime Act 1995. The order will also introduce additional investigation powers into the proceeds of crime which are not generally available in other parts of the UK.
As your Lordships will appreciate, many of the provisions in this order either re-enact provisions already in force in the Criminal Justice (Confiscation) (NI) Order 1990 or replicate measures which are already in operation in England and Wales. I shall therefore comment briefly only on the main changes to the law in Northern Ireland which this order will introduce. Those include: an obligation on the court to confiscate the proceeds of offences where that is requested by the prosecution; an obligation on the court to assume that all property in the possession of the convicted drug

265
trafficker and property which has passed through his hands in the past six years represents the proceeds of drug trafficking; the abolition of the £10,000 threshold for confiscation orders in respect of crime other than drug trafficking; and where a person has been convicted of at least two qualifying offences, discretion for the court to make the statutory assumptions about the origins of the defendant's property.
The order will also ensure that a convicted criminal cannot satisfy a confiscation order by opting to serve a prison sentence instead of paying the amount due. Other changes will be to give the court the power to reconsider making a confiscation order in a case where it did not previously do so or to revise its original assessment of an offender's proceeds of criminal conduct within six years of a conviction. The court will also have power to make a confiscation order against the estate of a convicted criminal who has died or against a defendant who has absconded. In addition, the order will extend to general criminal conduct the investigative powers currently available only in drug trafficking cases.
The order also provides for additional powers of investigation which are not generally available elsewhere in the UK. Under Article 49 of the order the court is empowered to appoint a financial investigator to assist the police in specific inquiries where it is considered that the investigation could be more effectively carried out with the involvement of specialist assistance. It is the Government's view that those powers are necessary in Northern Ireland due to the existence of a racketeering problem which is different in nature and extent to that which exists elsewhere in the UK.
Much of the racketeering which goes on in Northern Ireland involves terrorist organisations or persons linked to them. That activity includes armed robberies, drug dealing, extortion, protection rackets and counterfeit goods and money. The Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 contains additional powers of investigation—the authorised investigator provisions—into the finances of terrorism. Similar additional powers of investigation in relation to the proceeds of crime, whether or not it is connected to terrorism, are now proposed in this order. These provisions will be at least as wide as the existing terrorist finance powers which they will replace when the current EPA is repealed.
In conclusion, the measures contained in this draft order are designed to provide a more effective system for depriving convicted criminals of their profits. As some noble Lords will be aware, honourable members on all sides in the other place gave this proposed order a warm welcome. I hope that your Lordships will see it in a similar light. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th April be approved.—(Baroness Denton of Wakefield.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I speak from the Dispatch Box as my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn, who, as noble Lords will know, speaks from these Benches on Northern Ireland matters and is unable to be with us this evening.
266
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, for identifying and explaining the key new provisions of this complex and extremely important order which was promised by the noble Baroness in the course of the Second Reading debate of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill on 21st March. I have also benefited considerably from reading the debate on the order which took place in the Fifth Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation in the House of Commons on 2nd May when, as the noble Baroness has said, it was not challenged. On the contrary, it was warmly welcomed.
While the order re-enacts some provisions of existing law which are to be found in three different pieces of Northern Ireland legislation, it more importantly brings Northern Ireland law broadly into line with that of the rest of the United Kingdom and also introduces the significant new powers which the Minister has outlined. It should therefore provide a powerful weapon in the fight against serious crime referred to by the Minister and the investigation of the proceeds of such crimes and their confiscation. It meets a very important need. I am aware that there has been a particular sense of outrage at the present state of affairs which seemed to allow paramilitary organizations and international organisations in Northern Ireland and the shadowy figures associated with them too easily to enjoy the financial proceeds of serious crime.
Among the other important provisions, the order empowers the court to confiscate benefits—whether they be large or small—acquired in consequence of crime. The basis on which that power rests is not novel. I recall that almost 60 years ago the distinguished Law Lord, Lord Atkin of Aberdovey, a part of the country I know well, ruled that public policy requires that,
"The Court should not recognise a benefit accruing to a criminal from his crimes".
That is the dictum of Lord Atkin of Aberdovey. It seems to me that the confiscation of the proceeds of criminal conduct is a development of Lord Atkin's principle.
I have one question of detail that I wish to raise with the Minister. I tried to follow her speech very carefully. Would she be good enough to clarify whether the court can make a confiscation order where the prosecutor has not asked for such an order under Article 8?
I now turn to a point which has fuelled some concern. Will a confiscation order made under this legislation be legally enforceable against assets overseas? Legal rules differ between jurisdictions. The Minister will be aware that anxiety has been expressed that the recovery provisions contained in the order may not always be enforceable where the assets are situated in some countries overseas. This is a difficult and taxing matter. The Ministerial colleague of the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, in the standing committee in another place said, when questioned on this issue, that the matter went,
"beyond the confines of the order".
I am not so sure. It would certainly assist if we could have information, to the extent that the Minister is able to give it, as to whether the powers in the order will be available against assets in all the countries which are

267
signatories of the Brussels and Locarno Conventions. Subject only perhaps to the question of burden of proof, to which I shall come, I find it difficult to believe that the enforcement in another jurisdiction of an order of confiscation made under the terms of this legislation would be contrary to any reason of public policy in any democratic country. If international law is insufficiently developed in this respect, I venture to hope that the problems experienced in Northern Ireland, together with the order, will be an incentive for other countries to cooperate decisively to confiscate the proceeds of criminal conduct.
Although the order is uncontroversial, I should put down a marker for a point that is potentially controversial. We are aware that some people of unblemished character are much concerned that the burden of proof on the prosecution in confiscation proceedings against a convicted drug trafficker has been shifted from guilt beyond reasonable doubt to that of the balance of probabilities. That is a significant shift. They would argue that even in the context of Northern Ireland the fundamental human right of the presumption of innocence should prevail. That may present a moral question and it may present also a legal question. I do not wish to press the point too hard but I would mention that before very long it may well be the subject of comment and possibly censure in the Strasbourg court. However, to my own mind—not that my personal view is relevant—the need for this provision is of sufficient importance in the context of Northern Ireland to warrant overriding a fundamental human right of the individual living in a democratic society.
With those few comments I welcome the order on behalf of the Official Opposition in this House.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene in the debate. My noble friend Lord Holme of Cheltenham, who normally speaks on Northern Ireland for the Liberal Democrats, was taken ill with 'flu last night and I therefore stand in his stead to welcome this order, which very much follows the lines which Liberal Democrats have supported in this House and in the other place in recent years. It is a useful consolidating measure and as such we all welcome it.
My concerns, so far as I have them, very much echo those of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, in terms of the burden of proof and the international aspect. It seems clear that what we now face in Northern Ireland, as we have faced in Italy for some time and as we appear to be facing in Bulgaria, Russia and elsewhere, is that peculiar mixture which is partly terrorist, partly criminal, partly drug trafficking and partly money laundering which overlaps criminal activities, political activities and financial fraud. In the nature of the case, that is rarely confined to one country. I remember a member of the Serious Fraud Office saying to me some years ago that there was no longer any such thing as domestic financial fraud—all financial fraud was, in the nature of the case, international. I therefore have a question for the Minister on Articles 42 and 43, which refer to the extraterritorial and international dimension. I wish to know whether they are strong enough as they stand, and how far they
268
relate to co-operation, particularly with other European Governments under what is now Pillar 3 of the Maastricht Treaty, in terms of ensuring that we have full co-operation with other governments which often face similar concerns across Europe and beyond.
I am also a little concerned about shifting the burden of proof. Mention has already been made of a case in the High Court which may go further, in which the question of whether confiscated property had been clearly shown to have been accumulated in the course of crime or in other ways is being challenged. It seems to us that on civil liberties grounds—and even where terrorism in Northern Ireland is concerned—we must be careful before shifting the burden of proof from the criminal standard to something much more like the civil standard.
Having said that, I welcome the order. We give it our full support. Again, I apologise that my noble friend Lord Holme of Cheltenham is unable to be here this evening.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Wallace of Saltaire, for their welcome for the order. It is important in building a peaceful future for Northern Ireland. Attention has rightly been drawn to the tightrope that needs to be walked in terms of protecting people's rights while ensuring that those rights are not taken away by terrorism.
We have always been fortunate in this House in that when absence is unavoidable members of the substitute bench, if I may put it that way, are welcome to our debates and are knowledgeable on the issues raised. However, I should like to send the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, the wishes of the whole House for a full and speedy recovery.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, asked me to clarify whether the court could ask for confiscation if the prosecution did not. I can confirm that the court will have discretion to ask for confiscation if the prosecution does not do so.
Both noble Lords expressed concern on the question of balance. There is no intention to change the standard of proof in determining guilt for an offence. That remains the criminal standard. It has always been the case that the confiscation procedure should operate to the civil standard of proof. That has been the case since 1990. However, the assumptions that the court makes are rebuttable. If the defendant can prove that his property was legitimately paid for, the court may not make that assumption. I hope that that gives noble Lords some comfort.
Both noble Lords also referred to the necessity of working closely with other countries. The problems that we have experienced are not, unfortunately, unique to Northern Ireland. This problem has spread throughout the world. Like just about everything these days, the financing of terrorism in its various forms has global connotations. There is no such thing as isolation of activity.
The order makes provision for reciprocal arrangements with other countries for the enforcement of each other's restraint and confiscation orders, but any

269
such activity involves two partners. The United Kingdom has ratified the 1988 United Nations Drugs Convention and the 1990 Council of Europe Confiscation Convention and has, I am pleased to say, concluded bilateral co-operation agreements with many countries, particularly those where the question of drugs is relevant, such as Holland. We are also concerned about the possible paths that criminals might take to the United States with which we also have a bilateral agreement. We continue our work to bring forward such agreements. We see evidence that people are moving towards signing such conventions and thus participating in that co-operation. Like both noble Lords, we believe that those provisions are important to the success not only of this order but of other such legislation throughout the United Kingdom. This is a high priority. We hope that in due course all the necessary signatures will be put to the conventions.
I thank the noble Lords for their support for the order and commend it to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.5 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.25 to 8.5 p.m.]

Asylum and Immigration Bill
House again in Committee.
Clause 9 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 122 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 122A:
After Clause 9, insert the following new clause—
INCOME SUPPORT
(".—(1) Section 135 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 shall be amended as follows.
(2) At the beginning of subsection (1) there shall be inserted the words "Subject to subsections (2A) and (2B) below,".
(3) At the beginning of subsection (2) there shall be inserted the words "Subject to subsections (2A) and (2B) below,".
(4) After subsection (2) there shall be inserted—
"(2A) In relation to a person who submits a claim to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, which is not finally determined, for asylum under the Convention, no amount (or aggregate of such amounts) may be prescribed which is less than the amount (or aggregate of such amounts) which would be applicable to him if he was not such a person, except that, in the case of income support, the amount in respect of himself or, if he is a member of a married or unmarried couple or of a polygamous marriage, the amount in respect of both or all of them may be reduced by no more than 10 per cent.
(2B) For the purpose of subsection (2A), "Convention" means the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees done at Geneva on 28th July 1961 and the Protocol to that Convention.".").
The noble Earl said: The Minister will not be surprised to hear me utter the word "vires". Vires are like the Hydra: if you cut off one of the Hydra's heads, it grows 10 more. If one wanted to kill the Hydra one
270
had to break its back. If one wishes to get rid of regulations it is no good revoking them; one has to get rid of the powers under which the regulations are made. That is the purpose of this amendment. The amendment addresses the power to provide a nil applicable amount of income support for asylum seekers.
It is a good principle that appeals are allowed on grounds of important fresh evidence. I will not attempt to reopen the arguments that we had on 30th January but I will attempt to bring forward fresh evidence of what has happened since 30th January; indeed, since the regulations came into force on 5th February.
In dealing with a previous amendment the Minister suggested that one did not find the number of asylum seekers in difficulties that had been suggested. That is not our experience from collecting information since 5th February. I have here a considerable number of cases—I assure the Committee that I will not quote all of them—which have come to light since 5th February. The Refugee Council has come across no fewer than 300 people altogether without anywhere to sleep except the street. In many cases all that it has been able to do is to provide those people with blankets. There is also a considerable number of people who, although they may have had help from local authority social services, have obtained it in a piecemeal way, often in a way that gives rise to a considerable number of legal problems.
To take one particular case—one wonders whether it has been rightly decided—an asylum seeker from Zaïre arrived here in August 1991. He still has not had a decision on his application. He had been working for most of the time since he came here but was made redundant in January 1996, paid two weeks in lieu of notice and claimed benefit on 12th February 1996. It is not clear whether that person had ever before claimed income support as an asylum seeker. If he had done so, he would be entitled to income support under the saving provisions. If not, he is a person who has earned and paid British taxes and national insurance but who has been refused the protection which normally goes with that. I wonder whether that case was correctly decided.
It appears from the case law that when a couple claim benefit and then split up only the one who claims the benefit is able to go on claiming after 5th February 1996. That surprised me. I am sorry that I did not notice that when the regulations were dealt with. It immensely increases the danger faced by those women who turn out to be married, as some do, to violent partners. It has the effect of turning marriage into a prison, which is not what it is supposed to be.
We have another case: applied for asylum on 2nd February, but did not claim benefit until 7th February; refused under the new rules. Again, I cannot help wondering whether that case was decided correctly. That person has been refused help by social services, presumably because the local borough was facing extreme pressure. He is living on a certain amount of food provided by the local Sikh temple. It is not an adequate way of keeping alive.
Another case arrived on 9th February and applied for asylum two days later; was counted to be an in-country applicant, from which the point arose that "on arrival" in the regulations is not defined. I should have thought that that was about as immediate as one could get.
I shall not detain the Committee with many more of these cases. But I wonder whether we are doing anything sensible here, or whether we are creating a great deal of hardship which will lay up problems for us as well as for them in the future, and serving no useful purpose. From a number of those cases the fact that a number of them did not claim at the port, and indeed in some cases say that they were given no hint that it made any difference whether they claimed at the port, it should emerge that the assumption that all asylum seekers are market sensitive to changes in our regulations is, as I have been arguing all day, wide of the mark.
We have gross hardship here. That is already clear. Considering that it is so early for evidence to come in, we should be surprised by the amount that has come in. I beg the Minister to consider it possible that he may be mistaken. I beg to move.
8.15 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We on these Benches support the amendment which would restore income support, removed by regulation, to asylum seekers. Both Opposition Benches resisted its withdrawal in the debate on 30th January when I prayed against the regulations. Nothing that has happened since has suggested that any of our fears were exaggerated, any of our alarms were unnecessary, or that any of the Government's promises have been fulfilled.
Why did we resist that withdrawal of income support? Why do we seek to reinstate it through the Bill? There are three reasons. First, when the Government removed the right to means-tested benefits from those who applied for asylum after they had entered the country, they did so because they were making a distinction between those who sought asylum at the port of entry and those who sought asylum in-country. It is a distinction which we believed then, and believe now, is bogus. The evidence supports us.
That distinction does not separate the genuine from the fraudulent. If it did, we might have rather more sympathy for it. What the distinction does is merely separate the confident—those who apply at port of entry—from those who are not confident or who are insecure or frightened, who apply once they are safely inside the country. It separates those who can speak and read English who apply at port of entry, from those who do not and cannot. It separates those who already have friends here from those who do not.
The fact, as my noble friend Lord Dubs said earlier this evening, that over 80 per cent. of all those coming to the Refugee Council apply for asylum within one week of being inside the country shows that all the mythology of benefit tourism, people on holiday, people changing their stories in order to live here gratis, courtesy of the British taxpayer, is rubbish. They do what you or I or, I hope, my children would do in a
272
similar situation: first get inside the country, seek help, and then apply immediately to legitimise one's status. That is the sane and sensible thing to do. It is what so many asylum seekers have done.
We know, too, that at least the same proportion, if not a higher proportion, of those who apply once in-country, as opposed to applying at port of entry, subsequently gain refugee status or exceptional leave to remain. They are more likely to be genuine asylum seekers if they apply in-country than if they apply at the port of entry. The statistics show it. Therefore, to have the test of whether one obtains benefit depend upon where one applies, is not a good enough test for the giving or withdrawing of benefit.
So far as I am aware, no other European country draws the distinction—not Scandinavia, not France, not Germany, not Italy—that one's fate depends upon where one applies rather than upon the test of one's need. We are the only European country which refuses all welfare assistance to those who apply one day or two days after they have entered this country and not at the port of entry.
The first argument for trying to reinstate income support was that the distinction that the Government drew—those who apply at the port of entry are genuine; those who apply later are changing their story and are fraudulent, and it is therefore legitimate to drive that wedge between them—was bogus, and remains so. All the subsequent evidence shows it to be so.
The second argument that we advanced—it still remains true—is that much of the problem that we experienced with benefit is due not to asylum seekers' "fault" but to our fault—the fault of all of us around the Chamber and on the Government Benches—which is the delay in processing asylum applications.
At December last, 15 per cent. of all those who applied in 1991 had still not been heard; 15 per cent. of those who applied in 1992 had still not been heard; 15 per cent. of those who applied in 1993 had still not been heard; 25 per cent. of those who applied in 1994; and 25 per cent.—this is more understandable—of those who applied in 1995 had still not been heard. If the Home Office fails to resolve the status of asylum seekers when it should—and it does not—it is unreasonable, unfair, and improper to expect the DSS to sort it out by denying them benefit.
Because asylum seekers are not having their applications heard on time on asylum grounds, we seek to deter them from remaining on financial grounds. Because we do not hear them when we should, we try to avoid having to hear them at all by refusing them the benefit upon which they might live in the meantime and by forcing them into destitution. That is an appalling basis upon which to make public policy.
The third reason for opposing this regulation back in January—all the evidence subsequently confirms that we were right to do so, and all that we have heard this evening shows that we were right to do so—is that as members of a civilised society none of us can allow these families literally to starve. Churches, charities, and, above all, local authorities using their powers under the Children Act are obliged morally to respond to

273
families with children. The Children Act 1989 gives local authorities no choice. The cost of taking a child into care if unaccompanied, or sustaining a family in a bed-sit life, will be horrendous.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, will be able to persuade the Government that it would be right to reimburse local authorities to 100 per cent. of their costs. That would be the right and proper thing to do. We believe that the costs incurred by local authorities are likely to outweigh the savings in benefit hugged in by government, especially given the concession tonight that local authorities will sustain families in the housing that they are in.
For those reasons we support the amendment, because we believe that restoring the benefits cuts effectively would be cost neutral, that it is our responsibility, that we have failed to accelerate the time in which hearings should be determined, and, above all, because we and, I hope, every Member of the Committee recoils from being a member of a society where families with children are left destitute to live on and off the streets.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: I support the amendment and the reinstatement of the means-tested benefits. There is a worrying movement by which a growing number of claimants are being excluded from the basic means-tested benefits which exist to protect people from destitution or to provide essential housing costs. That is not questioning what the Minister said about there being an end of the road when an appeal was turned down. These are asylum seekers.
I believe that we are crossing a line by introducing a regulation to remove the whole safety net from a sizeable group; namely, those asylum seekers. The phrase has been used "people without a proper case". That is arguing in circles. The point is that someone is appealing, hoping to prove that there is a proper case. The steady proportion of those who appeal does prove that they have a proper case.
In autumn last year I led a delegation from all the Churches to see the Home Secretary when the removal of benefits was only an idea. I asked him how someone should expect to live while they were appealing. He said that a person could pursue an appeal from outside the country. In the reality of the situation, that is no right at all.
Those regulations would have serious consequences on the health and welfare of some of the most vulnerable people in the world. I give as an example pregnant women and babies left without financial support, or with inadequate financial support, or who receive financial support from local authorities which is far lower than the payments of income support.
An Afghan refugee arrived in this country on 9th February this year and applied for asylum on 14th February. He had received no advice at the port of entry that there was a requirement to apply there. The family consists of a couple. The woman was pregnant, the baby being due on 14th April. They were placed in a hostel by Ealing Council and were refused assistance by social services. With the intervention of an advice
274
bureau, social services paid a total of £65.25 a week partly in food vouchers. The advice bureau got together pots, pans, blankets and towels. The clients did not have much clothing. Under the urgent cases' provision of income support once the child is born, the family would be entitled to £94.68 a week, which is a substantial difference.
Your Lordships' House has another interest in the matter. During debates on the Social Security Bill 1986, Lady Faithfull, moved an amendment providing that in urgent cases income support should be payable. From the Government Front-Bench, the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, accepted that some of the needs should be met by the social fund but others should be met within the weekly benefits system. As a result of that undertaking, the amendment was withdrawn. Will the Minister tell me what is happening to that undertaking, which was of some importance in your Lordships' House?
How effective is such an Act in achieving what it set out to achieve? After all the publicity about the withdrawal of benefits, the number of applications for asylum increased from 2,900 in February to 3,145 in March. People are not coming to seek asylum because of the benefits that they might receive. I believe that a high proportion are coming out of desperation and our regulations will not change that.
Lord Hylton: I support what has been said by the right reverend Prelate about the practical difficulties of conducting an appeal from a third country against a decision given in the United Kingdom. How on earth are such appellants supposed to obtain adequate advice in order to present their case in the best possible light? How are the problems of interpretation and translation of documents to be overcome? Surely it is completely illusory to expect that in Holland or Denmark, for instance, such experts will be available. The right reverend Prelate made a most important point.
Baroness Rawlings: Having read the amendment with great care, I wonder whether it would not destroy all the previous legislation and, in reality, support the statement made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, before withdrawing Amendment No. 106?
Earl Russell: No. The effect of the amendment is simply to withdraw the power to prescribe the nil applicable amount for refugees. It allows the 10 per cent. deduction which existed under the previous law and restores the position to what it was before 30th January last. That is all it does.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: That answer from the noble Earl to my noble friend Lady Rawlings means, "Yes, it does destroy the legislation we passed at the end of January by secondary legislation". I make no complaint about that. Ironically, it does not destroy it in the way in which the noble Earl intends because it attacks only the income support part of the regulations. It leaves the housing benefit and council tax part as we agreed on 30th January. I am sure that that is more of an oversight on the part of the noble Earl than a deliberate policy.

275
The regulations which came into force on 5th February were widely debated in this House. I apologise to Members of the Committee if I repeat some of the arguments tonight. If the amendment, which is narrowly drawn to income support although not in cost terms, were accepted, the taxpayer must continue to find more than £100 million a year in order to provide social security benefits for people who come to the UK claiming to be asylum seekers. I return to my argument about the numbers because the huge majority are found not to be asylum seekers.
Perhaps I may say to the right reverend Prelate that I would be more concerned about the validity of his argument if the statistics were not so clearly in favour of the case that most of the people who come here do not succeed either in obtaining refugee status or being given exceptional leave to remain. It may be that the right reverend Prelate, the noble Earl and the noble Baroness will argue that what is fundamentally wrong is the fact that we do not recognise those people as refugees the moment they knock on the door and say, "I am a refugee". Given the attacks which are made on the way in which we deal with asylum seekers, I remain a little puzzled about what would be put in place of our immigration and asylum-seeking procedures.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: The Minister asked what might he put in place. No one on either side of the House is saying that there should be no regulations. Strict regulations have been in place for a very long time. The noble Lord argued about percentages. Last week I had the percentages at my fingertips but tonight I have not. However, I can tell him that what is now a 79 per cent. rejection of applications for exceptional leave to remain and for asylum was of the order of 20 per cent. or less under the same Government with their regulations a few years ago. What has happened is not that fewer legitimate asylum seekers have come but that the regulations have been changed and tightened.
Lord Hylton: Perhaps I may make a point in support of the right reverend Prelate. The fact is that the onus of proof has been shifted since 1987. A far greater burden has been put on the applicant in a climate which has been totally changed by disbelief and the minute questioning of every single assertion in an application.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The figures are quite simply that in 1995, the Home Office decisions resulted in 5 per cent. being granted refugee status and 16 per cent. being granted exceptional leave to remain. Therefore, 79 per cent. were refused either. That was the outcome after careful consideration.
The problem is not just those statistics. If Members of the Committee had their way, it would seem that the people coming here should receive all our benefits while they stay here, right to the end of their appeal hearings which can sometimes take quite a long time—and I shall return to that. Therefore, they can come here and do that, but at the same time they are clogging up the procedures which we have in place to deal with asylum seekers.
276
Members of the Committee need to address the serious figures in relation to what is happening in the rest of Europe. Most of our friends in the European Union, have, over the past two or three years, tightened their procedures. In the main European countries, the numbers have shown a very steady and quite dramatic decline over the past four or five years. In our case, it has been the opposite. Our figures have actually shown a considerable increase. No matter how hard we try to deal with applications as quickly as possible—and that is our objective—if we receive even more applications, we will literally be trying to run hard in order to stand still.
For example, the Home Office has increased the number of case workers since 1988 from 100 to 700 and £37 million has gone from my budget to the Home Office and to the Lord Chancellor's Department in order to expand their work. We are making every attempt to speed up the procedures, but every attempt, including that extra expenditure and those extra people, is being confounded by the increases in the numbers of people here and claiming asylum. There were 57.000 last year as opposed to 42,000 the year before. That is a 10-fold increase over the numbers 10 years ago. Over the 10 years to 1994, our share of all European asylum claims trebled.
In a recent report, Amnesty International said that the truth of the matter is that since 1992, immigration controls and asylum procedures, particularly those applied at the border, have been tightened far more in some European countries than in the UK. It added that no doubt that works to make the UK a more attractive destination than some other European countries for would-be asylum seekers.
Baroness Seear: I believe that I am right in saying that until very recently, Germany had practically open immigration, so it is no wonder that it has tightened its rules.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am glad to hear that the noble Baroness does not approve of open immigration policies. But other countries in Europe are exactly the same. When we discussed this matter on 30th January, I told the House that the same downward trend applies in all the major countries in Europe while our trend continues to be an upward trend.
If it were an upward trend because people were genuine, then we should be seeing a quite different figure from the 5 per cent. granted refugee status by the Home Office which we are now seeing. It may be that the Members of the Committee contend that that is far too tight a test and that they wish to weaken the test and let through many more asylum seekers, including many who would not fulfil the tests which comply with our international obligations.
Therefore, in my view the position is perfectly clear. The number of people coming here is increasing. More important, a very large percentage-75 per cent. or 80 per cent.—are found after a very long procedure not to fulfil the qualifications for refugee status or indeed even to fulfil the qualifications for exceptional leave to remain.

277
The noble Baroness usually uses the word "traumatised" when referring to people coming to this country and the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, goes along the same track. They reach the port of entry which they consider to be a safe haven. After all, why have they come here if they do not believe that it is a safe haven? Why have they crossed other countries, including many of our European Union partners, to get here if they do not consider it to be a safe haven? They have gone to a lot of trouble to reach this country. They have arranged their journey carefully and have obtained papers, if they need them, whether they are genuine or false. They have planned their entry and have made up a story, true or false, to satisfy the immigration officers that only a visit is intended. They know what they are doing. If they are genuine asylum seekers, they are coming here because they believe that it is a safe country. If that is their belief, I cannot understand the argument that for some reason or other, they should not apply for asylum at the moment at which they arrive here.
If they do that, we shall consider them for all our benefits including income support, housing benefit and consideration under the homelessness legislation. That is the position for those who come into the country and appeal in-country. If they are genuine asylum seekers, they have the opportunity to apply when they get here.
I have heard the figures before. The noble Baroness says that 80 per cent. apply within a week. That was a very narrow study and looking at all the figures, as we do, Home Office figures show that 60 per cent. of people who apply for asylum after entry have not applied within a month of arrival, and 40 per cent. have not applied within three months of arrival. That underlines the point which I made earlier. Many of them come here and after a time they decide that the way to stay here is by applying for asylum. That is often done while being advised, aided and abetted by people who make quite a lot of money out of that business. That is the simple fact of the matter. The Government cannot turn a blind eye to that situation.
I do not like to contradict the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool, but it is interesting to note that over the past few months there has been a decline in the numbers compared with the comparable month of the previous year. There is a variation month by month and we have seen a decline since January over the previous January, February and so on. Indeed, although the figures are only provisional, in April there was quite a dramatic decline in the numbers not only over last April but over the first three months of this year. I suggest that that may indicate that the people who are the links—and there are links—between this country and overseas countries, especially those countries from where the majority of asylum seekers come, are telling people that it is not nearly as easy to come here and when here to claim the benefits; to appeal when refused; to manage to spin out the amount of time which they are allowed in this country; and to be paid income support, housing benefit and so on.
I do not blame people who come from some countries for wanting to come here as economic migrants. It is sensible for them to want to do that. It is perfectly
278
understandable, even if they only receive social security. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, always tells me that it is at a disgustingly low level although I do not believe that her party is making any promises that in the unlikely event of being elected, it will do anything to change the current level. It will then suddenly become an acceptable and proper level, given all the checks and balances which governments have to put in. Those people come here and, frankly, it is a good deal better than the countries from where they have come. I understand that. It would be nice if we could let many more of them in on that basis, but I do not believe that we can.
Earl Russell: I do not believe that the Minister was in the House on Thursday night when the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, asked us not to repeat ourselves. I have tried to take that advice. There are many amendments before us. Perhaps the Minister will also take that advice.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am happy to take that advice but the noble Earl has tabled an amendment which seeks to undo the work which we did on 30th January. Clearly the speech that I made then fell on deaf ears. I am sorry that I am repeating myself, but I do so in the hope of conveying what I believe—and on that occasion the House believed—was the perfectly sensible case which the Government were putting forward on the subject of changing the way in which the benefit system impacted on asylum seekers.
If the noble Earl does not wish to hear my case any more, I hope that he will take to heart his own advice for the rest of the evening and will not repeat himself, because during most of today I have heard nothing but repetition of the arguments put forward on 30th January. Just to show that I do take advice, I recommend to the Committee that the amendment be rejected. If it is not withdrawn, I urge my noble friends to join me in voting against it.
Earl Russell: I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 123:
After Clause 9, insert the following new clause—
REPORT BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE ON THE REIMBURSEMENT OF COSTS OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES
(". The Secretary of State shall, following consultation with local authorities, make an annual report to Parliament on his proposals for reimbursing the additional costs placed on local authorities as a result of their duties to refugees and asylum seekers under the Housing Acts 1985 and 1996, the Children Act 1989 and the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990.").
The noble Lord said: I can assure the Committee that I shall heed the advice just given by the noble Earl; indeed, I shall not repeat any of the arguments that I advanced when speaking to Amendment No. 110. The proposed new clause seeks an opportunity for Parliament to be informed and to have a chance to discuss the arrangements for the support of local authorities such as they may turn out to be.
During the earlier debate my noble friend mentioned that that would be achieved by the device of a special report for local government grant. Of course, he would be entitled to say that that would provide the opportunity for Parliament to discuss whether the arrangements were working properly. However, I should like to make two remarks in that respect and then I shall sit down. First, it appears that the argument that they should be specific rather than special grants is being won and that, therefore, they will form part of the entire SSA settlement in normal years. With the enormous interest that always focuses on the aggregate figures and the effect that they are likely to have on the levels of council tax in different authorities, my guess is that Parliament would probably not spend too much time on discussing the rather narrower questions which have engaged the Committee tonight. Therefore, that is one reason for having a separate report; namely, to enable us to scrutinise the issue carefully.
Secondly, it has become apparent—and I do not believe that this is a matter for which anyone can be regarded as blameworthy—that there are considerable uncertainties as to what the effects will be. Mr. Curry informed the noble Earl, myself and my noble friend Lord Goold this morning that it is the view of the Treasury that the whole of the legislation will ultimately reduce local government expenditure because of the impact that it will have on the total numbers coming in and, therefore, on the demand for services. That may well be right. But it may not be right in the early stages, because the first three or four months have shown a significant increase in the expenditure of those authorities which are particularly affected.
However, given the fact that there is uncertainty and that there may well be some quite sharp trends both as regards the number of people applying for asylum and those not entitled to social security payments, housing benefit and so on and who will, therefore, be thrown on the resources of the local authorities, there are likely to be quite substantial variations. I believe it is appropriate that this Chamber should have an opportunity to look at the process.
If it is part of the normal rate support grant settlement, or whatever it is called these days, it will in fact be a matter only for debate in another place; indeed, such matters are not normally debated in this Chamber. If we had a report on the asylum provisions and the asylum effects of the sort suggested in the amendment, we would have an opportunity to discuss the matter. Therefore, for both those reasons—first, the variation and the uncertainty and the likely variability in the figures; and, secondly, the fact that I believe it is something which each place will want to look at as regards the effect of what is obviously controversial legislation—I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be prepared to consider whether such a subject should be put in an annual report to be placed before this Chamber each year so that we can follow its progress. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am fascinated by what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, says about the privileged information that he received from the
280
Minister this morning. If the noble Lord looks back at the figures for asylum applications, I believe that he will find, although I am sorry to say this, that the Treasury is likely to be wrong. That is not to say that legislation does not have an immediate effect but rather that the effect wears off rather quickly. That is the reason why we have an Asylum and Immigration Bill only three years after the last one.
However, whether or not there is a case to be made for a total reduction in public expenditure, the argument put forward by the noble Lord for his amendment and for proper scrutiny of the real costs to local authorities was very well put. Without repeating what was said on my previous amendment, I do not know whether such costs are significant in total in relation to public expenditure; they are probably not. Nevertheless, they are enormously significant for those few local authorities which are immediately affected by the entry into this country of asylum seekers. I strongly support the amendment.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Taking the strictures of the noble Earl to heart, I shall try not to repeat some of the remarks that I made earlier when we discussed this subject in relation to previous amendments. However, as I indicated, I understand my noble friend's concern that local authorities should have the opportunity to explain to the Government their views on financing any additional expenditure which they expect to incur in discharging their statutory responsibilities towards refugees and asylum seekers and that Parliament should be able to consider and discuss the issue.
I should like to reassure my noble friend—as, indeed, I believe I have already—that those objectives are met by the current statutory and practical arrangements for the local government finance settlement in England and by comparable procedures operated elsewhere.
Each year local authorities have ample opportunity, through service working groups and in other consultative fora, to inform central government of their views about any additional costs they may face and how such expenditure should be financed. Local authorities are then consulted about the Government's proposals for supporting local authorities' expenditure before the final proposals are laid before the House of Commons in the Local Government Finance Report and debated. My noble friend asked me whether such matters could he debated in this Chamber. I am afraid that that is not possible because, as he knows, finance matters are normally the province of the other place. Such a matter is clearly a finance matter and, therefore, would not fall to be debated here.
As I have already said this evening, officials from the Department of the Environment and the Department of Health have been discussing the details of the grant with local authority associations. They are planning a further meeting on 20th May. A draft grant report will be considered then. At that time full details of the grant will also be considered. We would expect to see that report approved by the Summer Recess.

281
Of course I accept that it is possible that other issues may arise late in the day. However, I believe the procedures are there to deal with them. We have also announced that we will make available a special grant for local authorities to cover a substantial part of their unavoidable additional costs. The provisions under which such a grant is made (Section 88B of the Local Government Finance Act 1988) require that the grant may only be paid following the approval of the report setting out the details of the grant by resolution in another place. Therefore, proper scrutiny will be given in the other place to the matter.
I do not believe that it would be sensible to create an additional bureaucracy by establishing the new statutory procedures which the amendment proposes. That would only duplicate the effect of existing provisions and practices. Without going on and thereby raising the eyebrows of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, by repeating myself, I hope that that reassures my noble friend and that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment, thus enabling us to get on speedily with the rest of the Bill.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I am most grateful to my noble friend the Minister. Obviously it is most difficult to form a judgment on the matter until we have the details of the Government's proposals, which will be laid before local authorities on 20th of this month. However, there will be further opportunities for us to reconsider the matter at later stages when all the information is available. Therefore, in the circumstances I am sure that the right course for me now is to beg leave to withdraw the amendment. In that way we will be able to get on and complete the Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 [Entitlement to child benefit]:
[Amendment No. 124 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 125 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 126 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
On Question, Whether Clause 10 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Henderson of Brompton: As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, was not present to move his amendment to,
"leave out ("immigrant") and insert ("relevant person")—
Noble Lords: This is the clause stand part debate!
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I was talking about Amendment No. 125. I realise that it was not moved because the noble Earl, Lord Russell, was not present. I wish to refer to "immigrant" and not to "relevant person" during my remarks. This is a clause which I am quite sure we should do without. I have no hesitation in asking the Committee to vote "Not Content" when the Question is put. This clause, together with Clause 9 which we have just debated, and social security regulations which came into effect in February this year,
282
withdraw social security entitlements which would otherwise enable immigrants to live free from destitution.
The question is: do we wish immigrants and their children—not all, but some—to live in destitution and thereby reduce their chances of living long enough in this country to exercise their rights of appeal? I submit that the answer must be, no. I believe that these legislative proposals are coercive and inhumane, and none more so than Clause 10 which we are discussing, which denies child benefit to any child immigrant unless he satisfies prescribed conditions. What those prescribed conditions are we do not know, so what we are being asked to do is to buy a pig in a poke.
The clause is indiscriminate, and I do not believe that legislation should be. I wish as much as anyone to attack welfare tourism and bogus asylum seekers, but not at the expense of genuine asylum seekers who flee from terror at home. There must be some better way than this of attacking bogus applicants without exposing to force majeure—because that is what it amounts to—those who are in genuine need. This is legislative overkill. This proposal to remove Clause 10 has all-party support. I am glad to see the right reverend Prelates are present. I feel confident that the late Lady Faithful!, if she were still with us, would have been the first to advise the Committee against this clause, which particularly affects children. I know that other Conservatives wish to support the proposal to remove this clause. I ask the Committee to vote against the clause and remove it from the Bill.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: My noble friend the Bishop of Ripon is not able to be here today and has asked me whether I would support this amendment. I do so from the heart. I support what the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, has said. It is something we can do without. In the Glidewell Panel report Barnardo's submitted that,
"the withdrawal of benefit would leave many families with no way of paying for accommodation or for feeding or clothing their children".
Barnardo's estimate, based on Home Office statistics, was that this might affect more than 4,000 dependent children. The Children Act obliges local authorities to provide assistance to children in need and to accommodate any child in need because the person caring for that child has been prevented from providing suitable care and accommodation.
The object of saving public money would hardly be achieved if local authorities had to take 4,000 children into care, let alone the effect on the children and families! Child benefit is much less expensive than social services. It is easy to administer; it is cheap to run and it does not distinguish between people. There is no stigma to being on benefit. Those involved in Church community projects say that people with a perfectly legitimate right to be here are now facing detailed questioning and form filling from staff in local benefit offices. That annoys, frustrates and frightens both clients and DSS staff. How does that help race relations? Scores of people are now becoming dependent on Churches and charities for accommodation, food and clothing. It has been described to me as a creeping crisis as resources are used up.

283
A Government Minister, Ann Widdecombe, from another place stated in a letter to William Powell, MP,
"The Government do not wish to see NGOs providing support to destitute asylum seekers as this would mean that the incentive to economic migrants would remain".
I had not thought of the Church before as an NGO (non-government organisation) but I suppose that is what we are. This seems to me to be a case of the Government not only ordering their officials to pass by on the other side but to stop a Good Samaritan from helping some of the most vulnerable people. I must assure the Committee that this NGO will not obey the Minister.
In the judicial review of 25th March this year, which found that the Government had not acted unlawfully in issuing the regulations, Judges Beldam and Buxton acknowledged that the removal of access to benefits under the regulations,
"operates, and is intended to operate, as a disincentive to asylum seekers from using the appellate procedure".
We heard the Minister make much play on numbers. He appeared to be close to saying that we have to find a quota that is acceptable. While of course there is a genuine concern for proper and fair regulations to be in place, the cause of justice being properly done must be maintained.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We on these Benches wish to be associated with the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, that this clause should not stand part of the Bill. Child benefit is different in all sorts of ways from all other benefits in the benefit book. First, one may be eligible for it only after one has already been in the country for six months. Therefore no one can argue that the hope of child benefit is an incitement for people to become benefit tourists. One only obtains it if one has already been here for six months.
Secondly, I argue that child benefit is a matter of right. Something like 29 per cent. of refugees—we believe as many as those who are asylum seekers—are in employment after those first six months. They are paying to, and contributing to, national insurance and taxation—in just the same way as British citizens—from which child benefit is paid. Child benefit as a tax allowance is a recognition of the responsibilities of those without children to those who have children. It should apply within the immigrant community as it applies within the British national community. It is a matter of right.
Thirdly, it is also a matter of poverty. Child benefit was not just a tax allowance; it was also a tax allowance together with family allowance. It is paid to the mother to help support the child. These families and these children we are discussing have lost income support and housing benefit, and they may lose school meals. At least child benefit would give a couple with two children £25 a week. That is all we are talking about, but it may help them escape the worst poverty.
The fourth reason for supporting this amendment concerns public expenditure. Under the Children Act 1989 these families will have to come within the purview of the local authority as regards the Children Act. That Act was designed for children who are
284
damaged by their parents, not for children who risk being damaged because their parents would have to remove themselves from them. Child benefit would enable those families to stay together to prevent the very damage that the Children Act is in place to avoid. If child benefit were withdrawn it would save only £15 million of a budget of £90,000 million in social security. However, payment of benefit might allow many families to stay together.
What is the alternative? We shall see children, as in the Victorian period, wide eyed, with begging bowls on the street, plucking at your sleeve in cafés, plucking at you as you go by, selling their bodies if they are sick and selling their bodies if they are well, in order to survive. We do not have to allow that. We can support child benefit. I hope that Members of the Committee tonight will support the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, in seeking removal of the clause from the Bill.
9 p.m.
Baroness Seear: There is no point in saying more. On these Benches, we strongly oppose this clause.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: As Members of the Committee will know, this clause is intended to bring payment of child benefit for people from abroad into line with conditions of access which now apply, as from 5th February, to recipients of the other non-contributory social security benefits. It provides powers to make regulations. These are currently absent in respect of this category of cases, and but for this the change to child benefit would have been made at the same time as the change to other non-contributory benefits, and agreed to by noble Lords on 30th January. It was our clearly stated intention to exercise those powers to do for child benefit what the House has already approved for other benefits—no more, and no less.
As I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, I wondered why we had not divided on the previous amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: If the Question had been put, I would have divided on it. However, the Question was clearly not posed.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I had thought that the amendment was, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: The amendment was not moved.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: It was not moved, and it was not put to the test on that point. I was chided a little while ago about not getting on very quickly. I am happy to stay here for an hour to discuss this important matter and then parade the arguments. But I do not think that that would be popular, so I do not intend to do so. However, before the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, intervenes to stop me, I intend to be as brief as I can.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have no desire to detain the Minister, but we had an assurance from the

285
noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, earlier in the course of the Bill that the word "immigrant" would not appear in the Bill, and amendments would be moved. That is why these amendments were not moved.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am afraid that we are at cross purposes. I am talking about the substantive amendment, Amendment No. 122A, moved by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. That amendment would have removed what we agreed on 30th January so far as concerns income support. If the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, were really serious about the points he made, that is the amendment that he would have wished to pursue to a Division because that is the kernel. What we are now doing is bringing child benefit into line with the decisions we made on income support—
Earl Russell: Before the Minister reproaches me for not calling a Division, he might remember that this is only Committee stage of the Bill.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I suppose that I should have kept my mouth shut. Normally the Chamber is more than happy to hear me at length, but clearly tonight there is some pressure on the timetable. However, the Committee will be happy to hear that I do not intend to repeat the arguments that I put forward briefly in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and in response to the right reverend Prelate. We believe those arguments to be valid. The Government cannot ignore the increasing numbers of asylum seekers and the large numbers found after our exhaustive procedures not to merit either refugee status or exceptional leave to remain.
Child benefit could not be dealt with in the same way as we dealt with income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit on 30th January. So we are dealing with it in this Bill this evening.
We have not prescribed conditions on face of the Bill because we would like to keep the conditions under which child benefit is paid to those from abroad in line with those applying to the other non-contributory benefits. To have the detailed conditions for access to child benefit set in primary legislation when they are in secondary legislation for other benefits would not be compatible with this aim.
We have laid before the Committee an outline of the regulations likely to be made under the clause. I hope that this will reassure noble Lords that the powers will only be used to mirror in child benefit the provisions already applying to other benefits.
That is the point. We are putting child benefit on all fours with the income support system for asylum seekers.
I listened, as I always do, with great interest and admiration to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, as she expanded on the importance of child benefit to families, the importance of it being paid to the mother, and so on. I agree with her in many regards about child benefit. It is important. That is why we have kept it and uprated it in this Parliament, as we said we
286
would do in our manifesto commitment. Perhaps the noble Baroness might be well advised not to say too much for the next few minutes because I find it ironic that the Labour Party will divide this Chamber, I presume, in order to vote for child benefit for people coming from abroad with only limited leave to be here. Those people will be testing whether they can obtain leave to stay here for a long period as refugees or can be given exceptional leave to remain, with most of them not achieving that status.
Earl Russell: If the noble Lord will forgive me, the decision as to whether the Committee should divide rests neither with the Labour Party nor these Benches, but with the mover of the amendment who is on the Cross-Benches.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I think that we are beginning to nit-pick. However, I come back to the point that I was making, whether or not we have a Division. If we have a Division, it will be interesting to see whether the party opposite goes into the Division Lobby with the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, in favour of paying child benefit to people who have just arrived in this country and who have no settled right to remain here when, at the same time, that party is committed to taking child benefit away from 16, 17 and 18 year-olds.
Baroness Seear: It is not my business—it is the last thing I want to do—to defend the Labour Party. But that is the weakest argument I have heard from the Minister this evening, and we have had some pretty weak arguments.
At its very worst, the Labour Party has never suggested taking child benefit away from anybody except people over 16. That is a very poor line to take.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: That is exactly what I am saying. The Labour Party proposes to take child benefit away from people in this country with a settled right to remain: Englishmen, Scotsmen, Welshmen and Irishmen whose children stay on at school after the age of 16. It will put a tax of £500 to £600 a year on families who encourage and approve of their children staying on. That is what it comes to. Yet tonight, if a Division is called, perhaps they will go into the Lobby in support of child benefit being paid to people who have just arrived in this country.
I see noble Lords opposite are about to go into the Lobby to vote to keep child benefit for people who have just arrived in this country, while at the same time their party proposes to take it away from 16, 17 and 18 year-olds. I find that incomprehensible. The Government's position is perfectly logical and correct and I am convinced that my noble friends will support me.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I now find myself involved in party politics, much to my surprise. I wish to thank the right reverend Prelate particularly for describing the Church of England as an NGO. I am sure that it is and I shall cherish the expression. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, for giving the Labour

287
Party's view and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for her speech. As for the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, I merely wish to echo King Lear who said to his ungrateful daughters:
"Oh reason not the need!".
I hope that the Committee will go into the "Not-Content" Lobby when the Question is put.
9.9 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 10 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 112; Not-Contents, 98.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Addison, V.

Howe, E.

Ailsa, M.

Inglewood, L.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Annaly, L.

Kenilworth, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Kingsland, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Balfour, E.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Leigh, L.

Berners, B.

Long, V.

Biddulph, L.

Lucas, L.

Blaker, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Blatch, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Blyth, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Boardman, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Bowness, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Bridgeman, V.

Merrivale, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Burnham, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Butterworth, L.

Mountevans, L.

Byron, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Moyne, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Munster, E.

Carnock, L.

Murton of lindisfarne, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Northesk, E.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

O'Cathain, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Colwyn, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Courtown, E.

Peel, E.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal]

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Crickhowell, L.

Plummer of St Marylebone, L.

Cuckney, L.

Portman, V.

Cumberlege, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Denton of WakefiekL, B.

Rawlings, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Renton, L.

Dudley, E.

Renwick, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Rodney, L.

Elles, B.

Seccombe, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Selsdon, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Goold, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Goschen, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Greenway, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Stewartby, L.

Hambro, L.

Stockton, E.

Hardwicke, E.

Strathcarron, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller]

Harris of Peckham, L.

Swansea, L.

Henley, L.

Tebbit, L.

Holderness, L.

Teviot, L.

288

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Westbury, L.

Trumpington, B.

Wilcox, B.

Wynford, L.

Vivian, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Kennet,L.

Addington, L.

Liverpool, Bp.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Longford, E.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

McCarthy, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Berkeley, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Blackstone, B.

McNair.L.

Borrie, L.

McNally, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mallalieu,B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mayhew, L.

Carter, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Meston, L.

Chandos, V.

Mishcon,L.

Chichester, Bp.

Molloy, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Monkswell, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L. [Teller.]

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Nicol, B.

Desai, L.

Ogmore, L.

Diamond, L.

Peston, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Donoughue, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dubs, L.

Rea, L.

Harwell, L.

Redesdale, L.

Exeter, Bp.

Richard, L.

Falkender, B

Rochester, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Falkland, V.

Russell, E.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

St John of Bletso, L.

Gallacher, L.

Seear, B.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Serota, B.

Hamwee, B.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Haskel, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hayman, B.

Taverne, L.

Healey, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Thurso, V.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Tope, L.

Hollick, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Hooson, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Howell, L.

Whaddon, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

White, B.

Hughes, L.

Wigoder, L.

Hylton, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Winston, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 10 agreed to accordingly.
9.19 p.m.
[Amendment No. 127 not moved.]
Clause 11 [Other amendments and repeals]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 127A:
Page 7, line 40, after ("Act") insert ("and a related amendment of the Immigration Act 1988").
The noble Baroness said: As my colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, indicated earlier, I shall deal with Amendment No. 127A which, although it would amend Clause 11, is closely related to Amendment No. 133ZA in Schedule 1.
The first of this pair of amendments is a minor enabling amendment which is consequential to the amendment to the Immigration Act 1988 proposed in Amendment No. 133ZA. It will have no effect if Amendment No. 133ZA is rejected; and therefore it seems sensible to explain the intention behind that amendment.
It should be clear that one of the aims behind the non-asylum provisions contained in this Bill is to harmonise our approach towards different kinds of immigration offender. We intend to ensure that complementary and appropriate measures and powers are available to deal with all kinds of offender. The amendment continues that approach. Section 5(1) of the Immigration Act 1988 states that those who have breached the conditions attached to their leave will have only a restricted right of appeal against any decision to deport them. That right of appeal focuses solely on the question of whether there is a power in law to make a deportation order for the reason stated in the notice of decision.
Paragraph 1(2) of Schedule 1 to the Bill extends liability to deportation to those who obtain leave to remain by deception. This amendment would mean that those who have obtained leave to remain by deception would have only a restricted right of appeal against any decision to deport them, just like those who have breached the conditions attached to their leave.
That must be right. I cannot think of any compelling reason why those who obtain leave to remain by deception should be provided with wider rights of appeal than those who have infringed our immigration laws in other ways. I commend both amendments to the Committee.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister and the Committee will know that we have very grave doubts about the decisions taken by this Committee in earlier consideration of the Bill about the phrase "obtaining leave by deception".
We have always said that there are circumstances in which perfectly genuine asylum seekers cannot possibly reach the position of seeking asylum in this country without some form of deception in order to get out of their own country and, on occasion, to get into this country. However, I do not feel that we should have that argument again. It is clear that the amendments are in line with the position taken by the Government on earlier clauses of the Bill. We do not wish to divide the Committee against them.
Earl Russell: Following the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, I too shall not repeat myself. I ask a question only of clarification.
The amendment speaks of deception. Is it speaking of attempting to obtain leave to remain or asylum by deception, or is it speaking of entering through the port as an ordinary entrant and then applying for asylum in
290
the country? Is the second deception within the meaning of this amendment or not? It makes a big difference to the reaction of these Benches as of the other Benches.
Baroness Blatch: In answering the noble Earl, I shall also reply to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. We have never said that there is not often very good reason why somebody should, by deception, leave their own country and even travel en route to this country. It may be the only way that such person can escape from his country of origin.
We are talking about deception at the port of entry into this country; that is to say, deceiving the immigration officials at the port of entry. Some people who come in by deception continue that deception in the country. Those are the people who enter by deception and who would be caught by these amendments.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Does the amendment say that? Does Section 5 of the Immigration Act 1988 say that?
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord knows that there have been two newly created offences. One is coming in by deception and one is staying by deception. We say that anybody who is an offender under this new Bill shall be treated equally. Therefore, these amendments bring that new offence into line.
Earl Russell: The noble Baroness knows that I think that her position is in contravention of Article 31 of the UN Convention on Refugees. She knows that I am of another opinion. The international court will be the judge between us.
Baroness Blatch: May I ask the noble Earl what is in contravention? If somebody seeks leave to enter this country and remain by deception, how does that fall foul of that particular section of the convention?
Earl Russell: That section specifically states that it shall be lawful to enter for the purpose of claiming asylum and it shall not be an offence to have done so by deception. It says that people may enter and "then" without delay claim asylum.
We have been through this argument many times. It will have to go to court. The Home Office has not done well on court cases. We shall see.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 [Short title, interpretation, commencement and extent]:
[Amendment No. 128 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McColl of Dulwich): If Amendment No. 129 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 130 and 130A.
[Amendments Nos. 129 and 130 not moved.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 130A:
Page 8, line 6, leave out from ("Kingdom") to end of line 7 and insert ("and for whom such leave has not been given").
The noble Earl said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill, who is unable to be present for reasons beyond his control, I rise to move this amendment for the purposes of asking a question. I understand that since the word "immigrant" is to be replaced, we will need to redraft the clause. It seems foolish therefore to divide on an amendment to amend it now.
I wish to ask about the words at the end of the clause,
"'immigrant' means 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)".
Why are the words,
"whether or not such leave has been given",
necessary? What is the objection to people to whom leave has been given? I do not understand this and never have. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: Amendment No. 130A would have the effect of limiting the application of Clauses 8, 9 and 10 to people who require leave to enter or remain in this country and to whom such leave has not been granted. In effect, those clauses would bite only on people who are granted temporary admission from a port or who are in breach of our immigration laws by entering illegally or staying beyond their leave. While we welcome the implicit acceptance that employers should not be permitted to employ such persons and that such persons should not have access to housing and child benefit, the amendment would limit the scope of the relevant clauses too narrowly.
For example, it would be an offence for an employer to employ an illegal entrant or overstayer, but it would not be an offence to employ a person who had been admitted as a visitor on condition that he would not engage in employment. But surely a person who gives such an undertaking and then breaches it is just as culpable. If we cannot use Clause 8 to strengthen the enforcement of employment restrictions, then much of its value will be lost.
Similarly, the amendment would mean that the restrictions on access to council housing and entitlement under the homelessness legislation could not be applied to people who had been admitted, for example as visitors, on the basis that they will maintain and accommodate themselves without recourse to public funds. That, too, is unacceptable, just as it is unacceptable that such people should retain entitlement to child benefit.
I am surprised that the noble Earl should seek to advance an amendment which would enable people with impunity to gain access to employment, housing and benefit in breach of undertakings given on admission.
In response to the noble Earl's question, I am advised that the provision deals with people who are here illegally, without leave.
Earl Russell: We are having a dialogue of the deaf. In the way of justice, none of us should see salvation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 131 to 133 not moved.]
Clause 12 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Amendments of the 1971 Act]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 133ZA:
Page 9, line 19, at end insert—
("( ) In subsection (1) of section 5 of the Immigration Act 1988 (restricted right of appeal against deportation), after paragraph (a) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
"(aa) by virtue of section 3(5)(aa) of that Act (leave obtained by deception); or".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 133A not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 133AA:
Page 9, leave out line 26 and insert—
(".—(1) After subsection (2) of section 14 of the 1971 Act (appeals against conditions), there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(2ZA) A person shall not be entitled to appeal under subsection (1) above against—

(a) a variation of his leave which adds such a condition as is mentioned in section 3(1)(c)(ii) above; or

(b) a refusal to vary his leave by revoking such a condition."

(2) In subsection (2B) of that section, for").
The noble Baroness said: This is a minor technical and transitional amendment which is consequent to the measure in paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 1 to the Bill which will allow a condition requiring a person to maintain and accommodate himself and any dependants without recourse to public funds to be attached to the grant of leave to that person.
This amendment is concerned with those people who already have leave in the United Kingdom which is not subject to the condition referred to above in anything other than an understanding of their entry into the country. If the condition requiring non-recourse to public funds was attached to subsequent grants of leave to such people, they would receive a right of appeal against the variation of the conditions attached to their leave. These appeals would be of little value and would create additional, nugatory work for the already overstretched appellate authorities. The amendment would remove the right of appeal if it was available solely on the ground that a condition requiring non-recourse to public funds had been added to the leave of a person who had been granted leave previously without such a condition.
It is not our intention to impose any new requirements on foreign nationals. It has long been a requirement of the Immigration Rules that certain categories of people such as students, visitors and the dependants of people settled here should be able to maintain and accommodate themselves without recourse to public funds. The Bill provides a power to make this requirement a condition of leave to enter or remain, and for such a condition to be placed, where appropriate, in a person's passport. The Government are not seeking to impose any requirements other than those already contained in the Immigration Rules and there would be nothing to be gained by preserving a right of appeal in such cases.
In conclusion, it is worth emphasising that this is essentially a transitional measure. In future, when leave to enter is granted, a condition requiring maintenance and accommodation without recourse to public funds can be attached formally to the grant of leave. The same condition can be attached to any subsequent variation of that leave, and there will be no question of an appeal right in these circumstances. The amendment simply avoids the prospect of a considerable amount of unproductive work altering the conditions of people who are already here. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 133B not moved.]
9.30 p.m.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 134:
Page 10, line 22, at end insert—
("Powers of detention
6A. In sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 16 of Schedule 1 of the 1971 Act (detention pending examination), after the words "refuse him leave to enter" there shall be added the words "for a period of seven days".").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 137A, which is consequential upon it. There is a fundamental point of principle here. In this country we do not deprive individuals of their liberty unless there is due process of law. Except for those unfortunate individuals who are detained under Immigration Act provisions I can think of no circumstance in which, on the decision of an official, people can be locked up and denied their liberty without any judicial process. I cannot believe that this point is properly understood; otherwise I do not believe the Government would have persisted with this policy. It is in breach, so far as I know, of every international human rights convention. As a country which has always prided itself on the rights of individuals and a proper sense of justice, how can we allow people to be deprived of their liberty without any judicial safeguards?
Under the Prevention of Terrorism Act individuals can be detained for not longer than seven days without the Home Secretary giving his assent. Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act a person may not be detained for more than 36 hours before being charged, at which point a court has to say that detention may continue, and never more than 96 hours in any case, with a second provision at 72 hours. Yet here we have people against whom there is no criminal charge, people who are in every sense innocent, who can be detained indefinitely under the present provisions. That is surely wrong in principle.
The amendment is very modest indeed. All it says is that when an individual is detained under Immigration Act provisions, after seven days an immigration adjudicator should give his or her agreement for that detention to continue. That is all. It is surely a minimal safeguard against an abuse of power. I am not saying that Home Office officials abuse their powers deliberately, but sometimes mistakes happen. An individual person detained has no proper recourse. It can
294
be argued that he could apply for bail. That is true. But that itself is a very difficult issue because sometimes the sum of money people have to raise to be let out on bail—around £2,000 in the case of many asylum seekers—is so large that it would be the equivalent of about £500,000 for most ordinary people. That is simply untenable. It is impossible to expect asylum seekers to raise such a sum of money. They do not have the resources themselves and they do not have affluent friends. When the amount of money that has to be raised for bail is set so high, we are not really talking about bail at all. It is my contention that this is a process of detention outside the judicial process and without any safeguards.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has issued some guidelines on the detention of asylum seekers. There are three procedural safeguards. The first is that the detained person shall have the right to be informed of the reasons for detention. That is reasonable and it probably happens in most cases. The third is the right to contact the local UNHCR office. I am not sure whether that happens, but it would not be difficult to arrange. It is the second procedural safeguard which is the key. It refers to,
"the right to challenge the lawfulness of the deprivation of liberty promptly before a competent, independent and impartial authority, where the individual may present his arguments either personally or through a representative".
The amendment seeks to do precisely that and no more. It seeks to provide one hearing before a special adjudicator to decide whether or not the detention should continue.
I have visited Campsfield House which is one of the places where asylum seekers are detained. Being there is a depressing experience, as is talking to the people there—sometimes through an interpreter. Having reached what they thought was a free country, they are utterly bewildered at being detained without any knowledge of what has happened to them and whether they have any chance of being released. It is a deeply depressing experience. I think that it is a blight on this country that we lock up innocent people at Campsfield House and other such centres.
This is a modest amendment. Frankly, if it were earlier in the evening I suspect that the Committee would support it, but perhaps the Committee will not be minded to do that at this hour. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McColl of Dulwich): I should point out that the first line of the text of the amendment should refer to,
"paragraph 16 of Schedule 2 of the 1971 Act",
and not to "Schedule 1" as is printed on the Marshalled List.
Lord Hylton: It seems to me that the amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has moved and spoken to are better, more comprehensive and more far-reaching than my amendments to which we shall come shortly. For those reasons, I support them.
Baroness Seear: We on these Benches very strongly support these amendments, which stand also in the name

295
of my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill, who is unable to be here tonight. We believe that the provisions breach an absolutely fundamental human right. When we think of the anxiety with which we have discussed the question of the detention of terrorists, it seems appalling that we should be so indifferent to the rights of people who are not even suspected of anything of any seriousness.
Baroness Blatch: I should perhaps start with a technical point. I am sure that Amendment No. 134 seeks to alter paragraph 16(1) of Schedule 2 of the 1971 Act. Although the amendment actually refers to paragraph 16(1) of "Schedule 1" of the 1971 Act, that must be a drafting error because Schedule 1 did not contain 16 paragraphs and was, in any case, repealed by the British Nationality Act 1981. The amendment makes sense only if "Schedule 1" is read as "Schedule 2" to the 1971 Act, as was pointed out by the Deputy Chairman of Committees.
I turn now to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, about his visit to Campsfield House. I can only say that the noble Lord cannot have availed himself of the stream of information that is given out there routinely on a daily, weekly and monthly basis. There is nobody there who does not know what they are doing there, why they are there and what they can expect to happen next. I can tell the noble Lord that great efforts are systematically made to keep the people there well informed, including in their own language. They are seen regularly by senior members of the Immigration Service as well as routinely on a daily basis by other officials. I believe that it does the officials and the service a discredit simply to say that there are people there who from week to week do not know what is happening to them.
The intention behind this pair of amendments is fundamentally to alter the existing arrangements for the release from detention of passengers who seek to enter the United Kingdom. Currently a passenger who may be required to submit to examination by an immigration officer may be detained on the authority of the immigration officer pending examination or a decision on whether to grant or refuse him leave to enter. Once seven days have elapsed from the date of his arrival in the United Kingdom, it is open to the detained passenger to apply to an adjudicator for release on bail. If accepted, these amendments would turn the current arrangements on their head. Instead of the detained applicant seeking bail from an adjudicator, the immigration officer, after the passage of seven days, would have to seek an adjudicator's authority to maintain detention.
Decisions to detain are not taken lightly and are subject to regular review by the Immigration Service. Requiring an immigration officer to seek the authority of an adjudicator to maintain detention would undermine the integrity of the on-entry control and would create a bureaucratic and inefficient system. Such a system would place extra burdens on the Immigration Service and the already hard-pressed appellate authority without producing any obvious benefits.
296
The bail system currently in operation for those detained under powers in the 1971 Act clearly sets out the arrangements for seeking and granting bail and the responsibilities of the various parties to the system such as the adjudicator and immigration officer. The change proposed by Amendment No. 137A removes this clarity and replaces it with a void—absolutely nothing. Are we to understand that once an immigration officer has successfully argued in front of an adjudicator that detention should be maintained that is the end of the matter? The detainee's right to seek bail would have been removed, and in a long running on-entry case it is possible to imagine a passenger remaining in detention for a very long time without access to any kind of independent review if this change is accepted.
It seems very strange that a change of this type is being proposed when measures have been included in this Bill to ensure that in future everyone detained under powers in the 1971 Act will have the right to apply for bail. We were conscious that small sub-sets of people had previously been denied the right to apply for bail because of the circumstances or position of their cases. But we have now taken the opportunity in this Bill to ensure that in future anyone detained under powers in the 1971 Act will be able to seek bail. For those reasons—not simply because the amendments are flawed—I hope that the Committee will not accept them.
Lord Dubs: I regret that there is a technical flaw in the amendments, for which I apologise to the Committee. But, having said that, I am sorry that the Minister has taken the attitude that she has. I did not seek to criticise the staff at Campsfield House. I am aware of the trouble to which they have gone to try to inform the people detained there. I went there some time ago. Despite all the trouble to which the staff went to inform those detained there—after all, it is a prison surrounded by barbed wire 12 or 16 feet high—the people were bewildered.
I refer the Minister to the recent report by Judge Tumin, Her Majesty's Inspector of Prisons. He specifically criticised the lack of information at Campsfield regarding individual cases and the legal position in general. I did not make that precise criticism. I said that in Campsfield House and the other place where people were detained there were bewildered individuals. The Minister appears to be sceptical. Perhaps she would care to go there, if she has not been recently, to find out for herself.
However, the key point is the liberty of individuals. The Minister has said that these amendments would drive a coach and horses through the procedures. I cannot understand that attitude. One is talking of denying liberty to people against whom there are no criminal charges. As a country are we to continue to do that? Over the past two or three years people to whom I have spoken in various European countries are appalled by this policy. People are appalled that this country, which is supposed to be the bastion of liberty, should say, "Never mind, some official can keep you locked up, and that's it".

297
The Bill may improve somewhat the scope for bail, but I repeat, if the limit is set at £2,000—it often is—that is meaningless to people who do not have that sort of money. Bail does not mean anything if the amount of money that has to be raised to achieve one's liberty is so large that it is beyond reach. It is meaningless. No matter that there are procedures, and that this is important, the liberty of the individual has surely to count for something. I had a meeting about this matter some years ago with the Immigration Minister when I was at the Refugee Council. I tried to persuade him that the system in Scotland, where the amounts required as a condition for bail are normally set at a low level, could be applied to England and Wales. I was told that that was not possible for some reason.
Let me now run the risk of repeating myself. We are talking about the liberty of individuals who have not committed any offence. All the Minister's arguments against that proposition are secondary. If this country does not believe in the liberty of individuals, what in heaven's name do we believe in?
9.45 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: I wonder whether I may ask the Minister to explain something. She said at one point that the amendment would create a bureaucratic system. I think I listened carefully to what she said. My understanding was that the present proposals of the Bill are that the decisions are all taken by officials. Is not that a bureaucratic system? I understood that the amendment was seeking that there should be recourse to a court if someone's liberty is taken away and—the point has properly been made—no criminal charge is brought.
Baroness Blatch: We are saying that it can be dealt with simply. We have given the right of appeal to all people detained under the Act, which is something that we had hoped might have been welcomed by the right reverend Prelate and others in the Chamber. Secondly, the matter can be dealt with by a senior immigration official. Under the amendment, there would have to be an application to the adjudicator, the case would have to be made, there would have to be consideration of that case, and it would be bureaucratic and cause delay.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: Perhaps I may make my point. Is the Minister saying that the proposal in the Bill is not bureaucratic?
Baroness Blatch: I am certainly saying that. I am saying that it is simpler, it is fair, and it is not bureaucratic. To accept the amendment would add considerably to the bureaucratic procedures, given that an adjudicator rather than a senior immigration official would have to take the decision.
Baroness Seear: Could the Minister name any other circumstance in which someone in this country is deprived of his liberty without going to a court in any shape or form, or being handled by the police? Can she
298
give an example of where a person's liberty is taken from them by an official and not someone in the judicial system?
Baroness Blatch: If the system did not allow people an appeal. Context is important in replying to the noble Baroness and others who have raised these points. First, detention is used extremely sparingly. We are talking about possibly one case per week. Out of 80,000 cases which are awaiting decision or appeal, we are talking at the most of about 700 cases. The great majority of detained asylum seekers have already had their claims refused by the Asylum Directorate. We are not talking about the first stage; we are talking mostly about people who have already had their cases considered substantively and had their claims refused.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, used the Prevention of Terrorism Act as an analogy. The difference between this and the Prevention of Terrorism Act is that this provision is about people whose right to be here has not been established—that is important—whereas the Prevention of Terrorism Act powers relate in general to people who are entitled to be here. There is a very real difference in that. We have extended the right to seek bail and that should be welcomed. There is a system for releasing people from detention if that is thought appropriate. I believe that that is as far as we should go. To add yet another bureaucratic system is not consistent with what we are trying to do in the Bill.
Earl Russell: I believe that there is a drafting error in the Bill. I have been looking at the repealing schedule. It should have included the Habeas Corpus Act 1679, the Petition of Right Act 1627 and Magna Carta.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: I tried to listen to the Minister most carefully. She said that the provision would greatly increase bureaucracy but she then told us that there was only one case a week. Are we to believe that justice is such a cheap or difficult thing that one case a week is something that this country cannot afford?
Baroness Seear: The Minister has not answered my question. Can she give any other case in which someone can be deprived of his liberty without any kind of judicial process? The fact that that is done by a bureaucratic or an administrator—let us not use the word "bureaucrat", which has unfortunate connotations—is extraordinary and quite contrary to the principles of justice in this country.
Lord Hylton: A small matter may have been overlooked. It is that an adjudicator is a quasi-judicial person appointed by the Lord Chancellor.
Lord Dubs: It is true that some 700 people are detained at any one time. Some are detained for only a few weeks but some are detained for much longer. The net effect is that several thousand people a year are detained under these powers by the processes that have been described.
The Minister said that the present system is simple and fair and that the alternative that I have proposed in the amendment would be more bureaucratic. Those are

299
trivial arguments when set against the rights and liberties of an individual. I do not believe that we can dismiss the concept which is fundamental to what this country is or ought to be about simply by saying, "It's a hit complicated. It's a bit difficult for us".
Over the years I had meetings with Home Office Ministers on this issue and I was given assurances that there was a thorough internal scrutiny of people detained by Home Office officials. I suggest that that internal scrutiny would take at least as long as it would take to go before an adjudicator and establish the point made in the amendment.
The Minister said that the point about the Prevention of Terrorism Act is different because it relates to people whose status in this country is not in doubt. After all our arguments about the Prevention of Terrorism Act, is the Minister really saying that asylum seekers who are accused of nothing, who have no charges against them, are somehow to have less liberty than people who are detained under that Act? Surely that makes a nonsense of our whole system. I am talking about innocent people and I say to the Minister that it would take just a little trouble to protect the liberty of individuals. Will the Minister please think again now?
Baroness Seear: Perhaps I may add that I was appalled to hear the Minister say that only one person a week was detained. Justice is justice, whether it is one person or 1,000 people.
Baroness Blatch: I do not believe that we are talking about something that is unjust. We are talking about people who have not established a right to stay here. Most have had their cases for staying considered and they have not been proven. They are waiting for appeals and a judgment has been made that they ought to be detained because, rightly, someone has considered that there may be a risk of disappearance. We have extended the right to apply for bail, which will be a consideration for all people subject to the 1971 Act. I should correct myself. It is not one asylum seeker per week but 1 per cent. of asylum seekers. However, I am sure that the noble Baroness would still wish to make the same point. All asylum seekers, whether on the fast track or the normal track, are given rights of appeal. Therefore, they are not being denied rights of appeal in relation to their particular case for asylum.
I have already made the point in relation to the Prevention of Terrorism Act that under that Act we are talking about people who have a right to be here. In this case we are talking about people whose right to be here has not been established. Therefore, they are still in the asylum application system and their right to appeal is already established under this Act. I believe that noble Lords are rather labouring their point. I have made the point very carefully that people who are detained are usually detained for very good reasons indeed.
Earl Russell: If I repeat myself, it will be only briefly. Throughout this Bill I have been asking the noble Baroness to explain the priority which she gives to keeping asylum seekers away from this country. It seems to us altogether disproportionate and unintelligible. I do not understand why this country is
300
thought to be in such great danger from a few weak, helpless asylum seekers. Is our fabric really so weak that they can tear it all down? I genuinely do not understand.
Baroness Blatch: In the course of this debate the noble Earl has asked us more than once not to be repetitive. I should like not to be repetitive. But the noble Earl constantly poses questions in a very repetitive manner. I say just once more that there is a fundamental difference between those of us on this side of the House—I exclude from that right reverend Prelates who are at one with Members of the Committee opposite on this issue—and Members of the Committee opposite. There are 84,000 cases awaiting the conclusion of their consideration. The number of those applying is about 40,000 per year. That is more than the number of cases which we can process. Even with an eight-fold increase in staff and a massive increase in the amount of funds made available for that processing, we are not keeping pace with the number of applicants.
The final point that I wish to make, which is the rationale for the Bill, is that the number of people who turn out to be genuine asylum seekers is very small indeed. Those given exceptional leave to remain outnumber those who qualify under the 1951 convention. For those reasons, we wish to have a fair system—a system which is fairer and quicker, so that we can process more efficiently those genuine asylum seekers who we believe are disadvantaged by the present clogging-up of the system.
Lord Dubs: I am very sad to hear what the Minister said—that people are detained for only very good reasons. The only thing that this amendment asks for is that those reasons should be stated to a special adjudicator. Special adjudicators are judicial appointments by the Lord Chancellor in the same way as judges. They are independent of the Home Office. Surely those people could consider whether the reasons are good. If the reasons are good, they will allow the detention to continue. It is a simple proposition.
I am sorry that the Minister is not prepared to agree to what I believe is a significant point of principle. I shall beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but I reserve the right to return to this matter on Report because I believe that the Minister is speaking without the support of the majority of people on her Benches. I have looked at their faces. If people are honest, I do not believe that there is that level of support for what she says. I may well wish to return to this matter on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness O'Cathain Baroness O'Cathain moved Amendment No. 135:
Page 10, line 25, at end insert—
("Liability for the expenses of the first seventy-two hours of detention
7A. In sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 19 of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act (liability for the expenses of detention) for the words "at any time after his arrival" there shall be substituted the words "for the first seventy-two hours after his arrival.").
The noble Baroness said: Amendments Nos. 135 and 136 deal with what I have referred to already in Committee; namely, injustice and unfairness. In this

301
case, they relate to an aspect of the Immigration Act 1971 which airlines and ferry companies have long felt was unjust. Again, I declare an interest as a director of British Airways. The issue that I am addressing is the fact that carriers are expected to bear the detention costs of any passenger stopped and detained by the Immigration Service when he or she arrives in the United Kingdom, irrespective of how long such detention lasts. In other words, there is an issue of indefinite liability. Amendment No. 135 seeks to impose a cut-off point at which carriers cease to pay detention costs and Amendment No. 136 seeks to exempt carriers completely when the circumstances are patently beyond the carrier's control.
As I stated in Committee on 30th April (col. 1616 of Hansard), carriers accept responsibility, albeit a trifle reluctantly, when they make a mistake and transport passengers who have invalid documentation. They are fined. But they happen to spend significant sums of money trying to ensure that mistakes do not occur; but, if they do, they accept the penalty. However, passengers can arrive with completely valid documentation and still be detained. Actual cases that have occurred are, for example, someone clutching a return ticket who arouses suspicion because he or she is carrying very little cash; someone who fails to give a convincing reply when questioned about how long he or she intends to stay; someone who behaves in what could be described as a shifty manner, thereby arousing the suspicion of the immigration officer; or, indeed, someone who simply triggers off what one would call the sixth sense of the immigration official.
As an aside, what I am about to say is not a criticism of the Immigration Service. Indeed, I should like to pay tribute to the immigration staff because they have a horrendously difficult job to do. I have in mind all the responsibilities that legislation puts upon them, with the need to be, in effect, trained sleuths or psychologists, with their unenviable task of dealing with huge numbers of people who are tired after travelling—we all know about the red-eye as a result of overnight flights—and with situations which must tug on their heartstrings, reminiscent in fact of the words on the Statue of Liberty in New York Harbour:
"Your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to break free".
Yet those people are always conscious, as, of course, they have to be, of the responsibility placed upon them by legislation. It is not an easy job; it is not an easy job for anyone, be they trained immigration officials or untrained check-in staff or ferry staff dealing with passengers who wish to travel to the United Kingdom.
If a passenger arrives at a port or an airport in the United Kingdom having disposed of his or her documents between the time of boarding the ferry or the aircraft and arriving in the UK—sadly, this is quite a common occurrence—the carrier is liable to a fine of £2,000. I am not questioning that for the moment because that has been dealt with under a previous amendment. The issue is the fine plus the costs of detention which can last indefinitely. The passenger may be detained for three hours, three days, three weeks,
302
three months or even longer. It is entirely up to the Immigration Service. That is patently an unsatisfactory loophole in the 1971 Act. It provides little incentive for speedy resolution of the case and is to the detriment of the passenger, who is left in a state of insecurity about what is going to happen; and that also applies to the carrier.
I submit that there must be a point where the responsibility for such a situation is transferred from the carrier to the Immigration Service. A cut-off point has never been agreed, but the organisation called the Board of Airline Representatives, which represents some 90 airlines operating into the United Kingdom, believes that three days is a reasonable period for carriers to pay detention costs. That is the reason for the 72-hour limit on liability included in Amendment No. 135. However, there are many circumstances where, I submit, carriers should not be expected to pay any detention costs whatsoever, and where indeed it is quite unjust to expect them to do so. I have previously referred to cases where passengers have all the correct documentation hut are still detained. Most interestingly, in these circumstances the immigration service refuses to tell the carrier why the passenger is detained; in effect stating that it has nothing to do with the carrier. If it has nothing at all to do with the carrier, it seems to me a prima facie case of the detention costs having nothing to do with the carrier either.
Carriers have guidance from UK immigration. I quote from a letter which I have received:
"It is our normal practice to say to carriers … that it remains a matter for them to decide whether or not to carry passengers who appear to have genuine documents, but who nevertheless arouse the suspicions of check-in staff'.
As I described in Committee on 30th April at col. 1617 of the Official Report, six seconds per passenger does not give much time to check the validity of tickets and passports, to allocate seats, to check in bags and to accommodate the relatively new requirement of asking questions relevant to security—for example, "Did you pack this bag yourself? Has it been left anywhere since you packed it? Is there anything electronic in this bag?", and other questions. The letter from which I have just quoted suggests that in addition to all of that the check-in staff should take into account,
"unusual levels of nervousness or anxiety on the part of the passenger, or an amount of luggage not commensurate with the proposed length of journey".
There is a classic example of this, of which I was made aware when I went to Frankfurt recently to observe the workings of the check-in staff attempting to comply with UK immigration requirements. There were 40 Indians who came on a shopping trip to Frankfurt. They flew from Bombay to London to Frankfurt. At London they only transitted and so they did not go through the immigration procedures. When they arrived at Frankfurt the German immigration officials let them in and there were no questions asked. One week later, having completed their "shopping trip"—note the word "shopping"—they checked in late at the British Airways desk at Frankfurt to commence their return journey Frankfurt/London/Bombay. Between the 40 of them there were eight pieces of luggage. I repeat that they

303
were supposed to have been on a shopping trip. This did not look right to the eagle-eyed check-in staff. Alerted to a possible problem, they phoned immigration at Heathrow and sent by fax copies of the Indians' passports. In response to the question, "Do we allow these people to travel? they were told, "It is up to you". As the staff at Frankfurt were still concerned, they contacted the British Airways staff at Heathrow. We must remember that this was all carried out within minutes of the scheduled departure time of the aircraft. The British Airways staff at Heathrow, mindful of their obligations to transport passengers who had paid for their tickets—in effect, a contractual obligation—took the decision to agree to their transportation.
Obviously all these shenanigans had alerted the prospective travellers that they were being scrutinised and suddenly they decided not to travel. That was rather strange. The following day the British Airways staff at Frankfurt contacted the local police to inquire what had transpired. They were told that, mysteriously, tickets and passports for all but six of the 40 passengers had been lost. The point of this story is that if the passengers had travelled it seems quite likely that they would have tried to claim asylum as they transitted London and the carrier, having received no guidance from immigration, would have been liable to unlimited detention costs for the UK immigration's 40 Indian guests. Those costs would probably have totalled more than £5,000 per night.
The proposal that carriers should not pay detention costs when passengers are carrying correct documentation is supported by the International Air Transport Association. The international civil aviation organisation is currently considering adding a recommended practice to its code of conduct, based on IATA's suggestions, stating that operators should not be held directly responsible for any costs related to official detention of passengers where admittance is denied for reasons beyond the control of the carrier.
There is no opportunity for a carrier to avoid paying detention costs or to appeal against them. There is no incentive for UK immigration to provide proper guidance on whether or not individual passengers will prove acceptable once they land in the United Kingdom. There is no incentive for UK immigration to process detainees quickly, as it does not have to finance the costs of such detention out of its budgets.
I submit that there are good reasons to support my amendments. I am unaware of many good reasons against them. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I support the amendments to which I have added my name. There are three reasons why people at present can be prevented from entering the United Kingdom or be expelled from it. The first relates to incorrect documentation, in which case those people are denied entry by the immigration service. I do not necessarily argue with that. The second relates to correct documentation but, because the immigration service is suspicious, it denies entry. The third relates to people who, having entered as businessmen or students, overstay their visit.
304
The amendment deals with the second situation. People come with perfectly correct documentation but because the UK immigration authorities have reason to be suspicious they are denied entry. In that case the carrier is liable for the costs of detention, however long that may be. I believe that it is perfectly reasonable that the authorities should take a view on this. However, it seems unreasonable that that view should be for longer than a certain length of time. Whether 72 hours is the correct period, or whether a little longer might be correct, I am not certain. But if the immigration authorities take longer than 72 hours, the blame should hardly be put on the carrier.
As my noble friend said, at present the system hardly presents an incentive for officials to process such cases speedily. It is neither in the interests of the passenger nor the carrier that there is no incentive to process these cases reasonably quickly. The carrier gets the bill at the end of the day.
My name is also down to the second of my noble friend's amendments. It deals with the anomaly whereby carriers are required to pay detention costs even when detailed passengers are properly documented on entry or the carrier can prove that valid documents were presented at the point of embarkation.
Airlines and shipping staff are not immigration officials and should not be expected to do their job for them. No airline or shipping company will deliberately seek to incur a fine if it makes a mistake. There are genuine reasons why it should not wish to do so—not least that it can be fined £2,000 each time that it makes a mistake.
A number of airlines have gained what I understand is called approved gate-check status at foreign airports. I believe that that would be the best way to deal with the problem. If the airlines are fulfilling those requirements at the foreign airport, they should not have to be responsible for those individuals who might destroy or lose those documents in the course of their journey. There have been many cases where documents have been deliberately lost. For example, with a ferry company it is particularly easy to throw one's documents overboard. Yet when the ferry arrives, the carrier is liable for the detention costs for that period. It does not seem to be fair, if the airline or shipping company has done everything it can to ensure that documents are in order, yet when the immigrant arrives something has gone wrong and someone has deliberately destroyed or lost the documents. I therefore support the amendments.
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Seear: I strongly support the amendments. The whole policy of putting obligations on the airline companies is quite unacceptable. I can see no reason why airline companies should carry the responsibility for finding out whether or not people are legal immigrants. I realise that that is not the major point of the amendment, but I wished to put it on record.
I also believe that it is totally unsuitable that the future of would-be immigrants should be decided by check-in staff. As the noble Baroness said, they have

305
many other things to do and are in no way trained to make proper judgments as to whether or not people are suitable, genuine immigrants. It seems an appalling way to carry out the Government's policies on immigrants.
Lord Mountevans: I too am happy to support my noble friend Lady O'Cathain, as I did earlier in the Committee stage. I speak for myself and also on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, who would have been here if he had not suffered a bereavement. He would have put the argument for the shipping companies. We have tended to believe that it is an airline argument, but it is not because shipping is also involved. It is more burdensome on shipping companies because if someone is charged £10 to go from Calais to Dover as opposed to £200 or £300 to fly from Paris to London, the £2,000 penalty is that much more vicious.
Last week I supported my noble friend, tonight I am happy to do so again. I wish to put on record my endorsement of her concept. An open-ended commitment over which the airlines and ferry companies have no control is something which I find morally indefensible. That is my principal reason for supporting the amendment. I simply repeat a point first made by my noble friend Lord Brabazon and also by myself. The penalty on airlines is morally indefensible, and it is much more difficult for shipping companies. At the end of the day their staff should not be the first line of our immigration control.
Baroness Rawlings: I agree with my noble friend Lady O'Cathain that carriers should not be responsible for the fine if the traveller has managed to be accepted by the local immigration officer, even if that person is proved later to have used false documents. However, it would be totally wrong to waive the fine completely as the carriers would then have little incentive to check all their travellers' documents as diligently as they do now. It would make it that much easier for the illegal asylum seekers. We are not discussing the genuine asylum seekers here but the illegal ones. That is surely wrong.
Lord Hylton: Is the noble Baroness aware that we are not discussing fines on this occasion but detention costs?
The Earl of Kinnoull: It seems almost unfair to support the amendment when so many others have already done so. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, made the point that it was unfair that a carrier's check-in staff should make a judgment about people while checking them in. They are not making a judgment, they are only checking the tickets and passports.
Baroness Seear: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but we were told that the check-in staff could object on the grounds that a person looked nervous or had luggage which seemed excessive. The staff are making judgments about people.
The Earl of Kinnoull: I shall leave my noble friend to reply to that point but I understood that the staff only checked that the passports and visas were in order as well as the tickets.
306
I support my noble friend's amendment. She made a very powerful plea for my noble friend the Minister to examine this burden on carriers. It is an indefinable contingency liability that has continued for 25 years. It is interesting to note that, in 1971, the onus of the cost was considered fair. I suspect that it was regarded as a mild form of discipline on carriers.
Twenty-five years later the whole situation has changed considerably. There is a boom, an explosive growth, in travel—and particularly in air transport. Heathrow had one-fifth of the passengers in 1971 that it handles today. It may handle even more. With this massive growth in travel comes the growth in the numbers of immigrants wishing to enter this country either by fair means or by foul. It must be an absolute jungle when the criminal, the desperate and the economic elements are mixed, with all the cross-frontier complications that can occur within Europe.
My noble friend covered the ground very thoroughly. It was interesting to note how responsible carriers have been. She mentioned in particular British Airways. They have been very responsible in the training of their staff. In fact, one wonders whether immigration officers, if invited to man some of the check-in desks at the approved check gates, would be as successful as airline staff presently are.
I ask my noble friend, in replying, to say whether Immigration has a firm policy, and resources, to step up the approved gate check policy and whether the current 66 airports will be increased fairly rapidly over the next few years.
Like others, I feel that the present situation leads to what could be described as a dubious form of income which, I imagine, is passed to the Treasury. Does the Treasury therefore have to be consulted if any change occurs under the 1971 Act as a result of my noble friend's amendment?
Natural justice can hardly be served at the present time when a traveller shows correct documents to a carrier and, as my noble friend said, that carrier becomes liable for detention costs, the cost of security escorts and even the danger that passengers may not be accepted and may be flown back to their original destination. I hope my noble friend will look favourably upon this amendment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I support these amendments. We have debated this subject not only in relation to this Bill. I remember debating it years ago. Even then, we were very much in favour of life being made a little easier for the airlines. It is right that there should be some sanction against an airline. There was a time when no one looked at any documents. Now, as an Australian passport holder, my visas are checked and required for pretty well every country in the world that I visit. I am therefore accustomed to that time and detail. It must be totally impossible for any check-in staff to know whether the visas in my passport are real, or are very good forgeries. I certainly would not know when looking at someone else's passport. We cannot expect them to have that expertise.

307
Most worrying statements have been made as to how people get on board having their documents checked and they are all apparently in order. When they arrive, they dispose of them, perhaps down the toilet on the aircraft or overboard from a boat. Therefore no one has any way of checking whether they were real or were forgeries.
That brings me to the point of the approved gate procedure, which sounds excellent. At least it means that someone with a degree of responsibility should be doing the checking there. It is also very important that someone monitors those doing the checking on the approved gate. It could be a marvellous money-spinner for someone. I have heard so many stories from friends who have been to Africa. A patient told me that, when he wanted to fly out, he was told, "You are not on the manifest, I can't see your name". The man said, "Yes, I am. There is my name". The airline man picked up a pencil, drew a line through his name and said, "No, that is not you". After his palm had been crossed with silver he pulled out a rubber and said, "Oh yes I can see that you are on the flight after all". If people are going to do that simply when getting on a plane, there is an opportunity for corrupt documents—forgeries—to be accepted.
A dentist who once worked with me went to Ghana just when the revolution was taking place. He said that no one could forge any documents because there were no exit visas at all and no one knew what to forge. But the day the first exit visas were issued, forgeries were rife. It is a major industry in some countries.
Returning to the amendment before us, 72 hours seems a very fair compromise. It would mean that there is still some sanction against the carrier, yet it would not be so onerous that it would be quite off-putting. I think it is fair to support the amendment.
Lord Dubs: I give my support to these very modest amendments. I am not happy that either airline staff, in the case of this amendment, or local authority housing staff, in the case of an earlier amendment, should be used as a front line of immigration control.
Anything that provides a safeguard for an intending passenger is a good thing. I bear in mind that asylum seekers may have forged documents as the only proper way in which they can escape. It can happen that these provisions prevent a person who is escaping from fear of torture, imprisonment or death from flying to safety.
For that reason, rather more than the well-being of the airlines—although I believe that it is a burden on the airlines which they should not have to that extent—I give my support to these amendments, which I believe are very modest.
Baroness Blatch: I note that both the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, do not consider that there is any case for liability whatsoever. The noble Lord said that he does not believe that the airline should be regarded as part of the process of making sure that people do not travel illegally and arrive illegally in this country. The noble Lord should know that it has been known for whole aeroplanes to be filled
308
with people trying to gain entry into this country. Therefore, there ought to be some liability on the carrier in such a situation. However, noble Lords disagree.
In reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, we do not ask the airlines to act as immigration officers. We ask them to check documentation. That is the particular responsibility of the airlines. We should like to think that the airlines are responsible for checking the documentation of any passenger coming in, irrespective of whether or not somebody may at the end of the day be seeking to enter this country. It is an important function. I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Dubs: I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. She puts words into my mouth. I said that I was unhappy about airline staff (or housing staff) being used as a front line of immigration control. I stick by that proposition.
I am fully aware that there are difficulties and understand why the carriers' liability Act was introduced. I gave the example of an asylum seeker with forged documents seeking safety. I am concerned that the way in which the carriers' liability now operates can have a damaging effect on the ability of an asylum seeker to find safety, because the documents may not be accepted by the airline.
I was more enthusiastic about the amendment put forward the last time we were in Committee which would have exempted airlines from the fine if the individual could have demonstrated his right to stay here on one basis or another. I believe that that was the more important amendment. It is not the amendment that is before us tonight. I rest my case on that other amendment. There is an argument, but I did not go as far as the Minister said.
Baroness Blatch: I simply take the words that I heard from the noble Lord. We all read Hansard and I have no doubt that, on reflection, we shall return to this debate. These are not straightforward issues. A decision to detain a passenger is not taken lightly. Temporary admission is granted readily if the individual appears likely to comply with its terms. It is not our policy, for both humanitarian and financial reasons, to keep passengers in detention for any longer than required. Cases are kept under constant review at senior levels to ensure that detention does not continue unnecessarily and removal is effected as soon as is practical. Some delays are inevitable; for example, where representations have been made, asylum has been sought or where there are documentation problems. But passengers are not detained where there is no impediment to their removal.
The total annual cost to carriers of detention is not significant in real terms; it is only about £1.8 million. Nor are carriers liable for detention costs in all instances; in a great many cases the cost already falls to the taxpayer. Where someone has an entry certificate, visa or work permit the costs of detention are met out of public funds. Additionally, the legislation already protects carriers from unreasonable costs; the appeals system does undoubtedly have the effect of prolonging

309
detention but the provisions of paragraph 19(4) of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 effectively "stop the clock" while an appeal is outstanding.
Carriers do feel strongly about this—I understand that—and a number have begun to take matters into their own hands. Many already limit the amount they pay, in clear defiance of the law. That begs the question: is it right to water down legislation which is already ignored, or should steps be taken to reinforce it? There is a very large debt—some £3.1 million—owed to the Government, which will need to be addressed whatever the outcome of the proposed amendments.
Certainly the proposed amendment seeks to accept cost for only 72 hours of detention. I am sympathetic to the difficulties experienced by carriers where substantial delays have been caused either by administrative action or where the person concerned attempts to exhaust every avenue of appeal. In those circumstances I sympathise with the view that it does not seem fair to expect carriers to continue to carry liability on an "open-ended" basis. The Government are already keen to look closely at this to see how we might effectively reduce this burden by simple administrative means.
The proposed Amendment No. 136 would have the effect of restricting liability for detention costs solely to the narrow band of cases where a passenger is found to be improperly or inadequately documented. That defeats the purpose of paragraph 19 of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act.
In a number of areas regarding the relationship between the carriers and the Immigration Service the Government see little scope for change. The Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 is one of those. The principle there is too important for us to contemplate any change. But in the wider case of detention costs under the Immigration Act 1971 I have some sympathy with some of the concerns this amendment represents, and that have been spoken to by Members on all Benches.
The present system of collecting costs is not particularly satisfactory. The Government agree that it is not right for carriers to have to cope with an open-ended commitment to meet costs, particularly where the delay is caused by administrative issues, or where a substantial amount of time has passed between entry and detection.
I believe that my noble friend's proposals go too far and I cannot support them. But there is merit in her concerns, and we will look further at the point to see if we could put some limitation on the period of liability for detention costs. If we think that it would be appropriate to amend the 1971 Act in this way we will bring forward an amendment during Report stage. I know that my noble friend is also concerned about the related point about detention costs which arise in the case of detected illegal entrants who are admitted by an immigration officer and then removed some time later.
I will report the concerns which have been raised today to those of my colleagues who are responsible for discussions with the carriers. Those discussions need to
310
cover all the liabilities which the carriers have, including the important issue of outstanding charges awaiting payment.
I accept the principle of the cut-off point, and the issue of a person who both travels and arrives by deception—another point made by my noble friend—is one that I shall discuss further as a defence that can be produced by airlines against the costs. I hope that my noble friend will withdraw the amendments while those discussions continue.
Baroness O' Cathain: I wish to express my gratitude to the seven noble Lords on all sides of the Committee who supported the principle of my amendments. There were a couple of errors in people's interpretation of the amendments but that was not surprising because this is a quite difficult situation and has been confused with the situation dealt with by the amendment moved by me and then withdrawn last Wednesday.
The carriers accept that they are liable if they make a mistake. My noble friend Lord Brabazon raised the issue of the gatecheck status. It would be wonderful if every airport in the world had gatecheck status, but I do not think that is feasible. We cannot dictate to other countries how they should build or run their airports. It is a case of negotiating and seeing how far we can get the status improved. The gatecheck status would not have met my concern about the people coming through with proper documentation then being faced with an immigration official in the UK who has what I call the sixth sense and is suspicious. The gatecheck status would not help in that case. The carriers—the ferry companies and the airlines—are trying to do their best to transport people. That is their job.
I was greatly heartened by what my noble friend the Minister had to say. Of course, as she said, airlines accept their responsibilities and accept the fines. I agreed with that in Committee on 30th April. However, I take mild issue with her assertion that check-in staff are not immigration personnel. The check-in staff I have met and talked to at great length believe that they are unpaid immigration staff. That is what they call themselves. That is their perception on the ground. It is not for me to say that they are or are not, but that is their perception. My noble friend is right that the sums of money, when we consider the whole value of tourism and the amounts of money spent by ferry passengers and air passengers, are not that significant. However, as I said right at the beginning, those sums are unjust and unfair.
I am grateful for my noble friend's assertion that she is very sympathetic regarding delays in detention. I am greatly heartened by the fact that she will look at how the burden could be lessened. My noble friend also stated that the present system of collecting costs is not satisfactory. I can understand that she is not prepared to accept 72 hours just like that. I suspect that this is a matter for negotiation. I am also very grateful to my

311
noble friend for saying that we shall discuss this matter further. I shall read Hansard very carefully tomorrow morning. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 136 to 137A not moved.]
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton moved Amendment No. 138:
Page 11, line 3, after ("released") insert—

("(i) into the care or supervision of a voluntary organisation, or

(ii)").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I wish to speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 139 and 140. These amendments are designed to minimise the practice of detaining asylum seekers, and also in some cases immigrants, in custody. The first objection to this practice is that it is extremely costly. Here I am sure I have Her Majesty's Government on my side. I say that because I think that just about every Minister responsible for immigration since 1988 or thereabouts has assured me personally that detention is used only sparingly and as a last resort. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, more or less repeated that form of words again earlier this evening. I would also add that I accept and see that detention is necessary in certain cases as a preliminary to deportation so that the person does not avoid being expelled from this country. Like the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, I have visited Campsfield House near Oxford. I have also visited Harmondsworth detention centre near London airport. Both places strike me as being extremely claustrophobic and unsuitable for detaining people for more than very short terms.
A second reason why the practice is essentially unsatisfactory is that solicitors and barristers experienced in asylum and immigration matters are concentrated principally in and around London. The same applies to interpreters who are often needed to ensure that those trying to enter this country have a fair opportunity to do so. If the time of those experts and advisers is wasted by having to travel to remote places such as H M Prison Haslar, near Gosport in Hampshire, or Maidstone or other distant prisons, that is a bad use of a specialised expertise.
The third reason why detention is unsatisfactory is that it is deeply distressing to people who may have experienced persecution, imprisonment and victimisation in their home countries. Because it is so distressing, it delays the rehabilitation of the person in question and makes more difficult the obtaining of true case histories.
Fourthly, the practice of detention tends to criminalise those who experience it. It reinforces the incorrect perception that exists among some members of the general public that all asylum seekers and immigrants are somehow illegal or not quite within the bounds of the law. I suggest that it is important to have on the face of the Bill certain ways by which detention can if possible be avoided, but certainly minimised.
Amendments Nos. 138 and 140 point to the use of voluntary organisations. We are fortunate in this country to have a vast range of voluntary organisations from the
312
British Refugee Council and its specialised affiliates, via ethnic and community organisations on to housing associations and providers of hostels, not forgetting the importance of the Churches. I urge the Government to make far greater use than has been the case up to now of the voluntary organisations for the purpose of supervising asylum seekers while their applications are being processed and considered. I am confident that the voluntary sector would rise to that challenge and ensure that asylum seekers presented themselves when required to do so.
Amendment No. 140 is a concession to the Government. It enables the Secretary of State to pick and choose and to decide which NGOs he will accept for that important purpose.
Amendment No. 139 seeks to ensure that bail will be an effective alternative to detention. It must be wrong to have a theoretical possibility of bail and then to find that it is set at such a high level that it is beyond the means of those it is intended to help. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, quoted the practice in Scotland. I hope that that will be studied and, if possible, applied in England and Wales. In any case, the means and circumstances of those seeking bail must surely be considered when the amount is being set.
I suggest that the Government have at least two ways of reducing the costly use of detention. I very much hope that they will accept both methods and write them on to the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Dubs: I warmly support these three amendments which represent a different but very worthy way of dealing with the terrible question of detention.
Earl Russell: I, too, support these amendments to which I have put my name. I give four reasons: it is cheaper; it is more humane; it is more likely to provide people capable of interpreting in the relevant language; and the Home Office will need every bit of detention space that it can get. I also endorse very strongly the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, about the high quality of our voluntary organisations. Whether or not the churches are voluntary organisations, I include them in that remark. I thought that I knew all this before we got to the Bill—I did not know the half of it.
Baroness Blatch: I am happy to endorse what the noble Earl has just said. Having had responsibility within my portfolio for the voluntary sector, I have nothing but the highest regard for voluntary organisations. Anything that I say in response to these amendments is not intended to be critical or disparaging about the voluntary sector. However, it is unclear why, when this Bill contains proposals which will widen access to bail to include all of those who are liable for detention under powers in the Immigration Act 1971, it is thought necessary to introduce a further method of obtaining release from detention. Release on bail

313
operates within a prescribed framework where adjudicators are charged with the responsibility of determining the conditions for release on bail. There is no indication that this system does not operate effectively; the major complaint about the bail system is that groups of people are currently excluded from it because of their immigration status, and this omission is being addressed by various proposals already contained in the Bill.
The system of release into the care or supervision of a voluntary organisation specified for that purpose by the Secretary of State promoted by these amendments is unstructured and apparently without any limits. There are no pre-conditions attached to such release, and there is no indication of how a person released under such an arrangement would have any incentive to comply with any subsequent requirement to appear at the required time and place. The bail system promotes compliance through the use of appropriate financial guarantees. Close supervision by a specified voluntary organisation would undoubtedly incur additional costs, and there is no indication of how such costs would be met. The amendments would also require that in the setting of any recognizance or bail bond regard should be paid to the personal circumstances of the applicant. This amendment appears to be superfluous. Subparagraph (2) of paragraph 22 of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act already gives adjudicators complete control over the conditions of release on bail, and the power to dispense with sureties if that is appropriate. Currently, when sureties are required they are normally provided by the applicant's friends or relatives, so the applicant's own circumstances and means are to that extent irrelevant.
The amendments add only confusion to a system which generally operates well and which, with the widening of access to bail provided by various measures proposed in the Bill, should operate even better in future. We have praised the quality of our voluntary sector. I also praise the professionalism with which our officials operate in this respect. They use detention very sparingly. Because of its costs there is downward pressure to ensure that no one remains in detention any longer than necessary. If a person is detained, there are usually very good reasons. The notion behind these amendments that such individuals should be allowed out into the voluntary sector unconditionally, without the kinds of control that would be necessary if bail were allowed, is simply unacceptable.
Lord Hylton: I am surprised that the Minister should say that the detention system works well. I have known a number of cases over the years, and I have the impression that people linger in there until the case eventually reaches the Minister's desk. However, I am heartened by what she said about the power to dispense with bail. Perhaps she would be kind enough to write to me to tell me how often that power has been used in practice. I shall of course study what she has said
314
carefully. At this time of night I have no intention of pressing the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it unless the Minister wants to tell me something else first.
Baroness Blatch: I want just to correct what I said. I said dispense with sureties if that was appropriate.
Lord Hylton: Does the Minister mean other people putting up their money, or what?
Baroness Blatch: If the people approving it believe that bail is appropriate and sureties are not appropriate they can be dispensed with. Sureties are often put up by friends or relatives and so the applicant's particular circumstances are irrelevant.
Lord Hylton: The Minister will be well aware that a high proportion of asylum seekers have no friends or relatives in this country when they arrive. Nevertheless, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 138A:
Page 11, line 3, leave out ("by an adjudicator") and insert ("in accordance with this paragraph.
( ) An immigration officer not below the rank of chief immigration officer or an adjudicator may release a person so detained").
The noble Baroness said: Amendments Nos. 138A and 140A are designed to extend the powers already available to immigration officers of the rank of chief immigration officer and above to release on bail those who are detained under powers in the Immigration Act 1971. Consequently, I hope that they will be welcomed, along with the other measures already contained in the Bill which provide a right to apply for bail to all those who are detained. The inclusion of these measures in the Bill was delayed by the need for a trial to establish their effectiveness.
Currently, chief immigration officers are able to release on bail only those who have lodged an appeal which is still outstanding. These amendments would extend their powers to release on bail all of those who can be detained under paragraph 16 of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act.
We see two potential benefits. First, it should remove some pressure from the appellate authorities who would otherwise have to consider the requests for bail. Secondly, it would provide chief immigration officers with a greater degree of control when making a decision to release than is provided by the temporary admission arrangements.
I commend these amendments to the Committee as the last piece in the jigsaw which ensures that bail rights are as widely available as possible to all of those who are detained under powers in the Immigration Act 1971. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister invited us earlier this evening and now to welcome the bail provisions. I think that she will acknowledge that we did so on Second Reading and we do so again now. It seems a little curious, when my noble friend Lord Dubs has been objecting to bureaucratic procedures and

315
officials locking up people, if we now say that we have no objection to officials releasing people. But there is a real difference. There can be no objection to this further extension of the bail provisions.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 139 and 140 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 140A:
Page 11, line 9, at end insert—
("( ) In sub-paragraph (2) of that paragraph—

(a) for the word "adjudicator", in the first place where it occurs, there shall be substituted the words "immigration officer or adjudicator"; and

(b) for the word "adjudicator", in the second place where it occurs, there shall be substituted the words "officer or adjudicator".

( ) In sub-paragraph (3) of that paragraph—

(a) for the word "adjudicator", in the first place where it occurs, there shall be substituted the words "immigration officer or adjudicator"; and

(b) for the word "adjudicator", in the second and third places where it occurs, there shall be substituted the words "officer or adjudicator".").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment 141 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 142 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Repeals]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 143:
Page 13, column 3, leave out lines 14 to 16.
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 143 is purely consequential on government Amendment No. 1. The amendment replaces Clause 1 with a new version re-enacting paragraph 5 of Schedule 2 to the 1993 Act. That was in response to what was said by my noble friend Lord Renton. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
House adjourned at five minutes before eleven o'clock.

  NATO: Defence Capabilities Provided by US
  Lord Kennet
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they will list the defence capabilities that European members of NATO currently obtain from the US which they would have to "spend double their defence budgets to obtain" for themselves as stated by the Foreign Secretary on 21st March 1996 (HC Deb., col. 521).

  Lord Chesham
  For any European member of NATO to achieve a defence capability comparable to that of the US would require more than a doubling of their defence expenditure. A list of the most important specific capabilities which currently only the US can provide to the Alliance would include satellite intelligence and strategic Heavy Lift.

  European Commission for Democracy through Law: Conference
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they will list the states whose representatives participated, as members or observers, in the conference organised from Strasbourg in June 1995 by the European Commission for Democracy through Law, on the theme "Constitutional Justice and Democracy by Referendum"; and whether they will give the reasons for the lack of participation by the United Kingdom.

  Lord Chesham
  The following states were represented, as either members, associate members or observers, at the seminar on "Constitutional Justice and Democracy by Referendum", organised by the European Commission for Democracy through Law:

  Belgium

  Bulgaria

  Canada

  Croatia

  Czech Republic

  Finland

  France

  Hungary

  Italy

  Japan

  Lithuania

  Moldova

  Netherlands

  Poland

  Romania

  WA 20

  Russia

  Slovakia

  Slovenia

  Spain

  Switzerland

  Turkey

  Ukraine

  United States

  The United Kingdom is not a member of the European Commission for Democracy through Law. It was not invited to send participants to the seminar.

  Local Authorities: Assistance with Software Modification Costs
  Lord Methuen
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  In cases where local authority finance has been capped, whether any allowance has been made to enable local authorities to cover the costs of modifying their software systems to address the problems caused by the year 2000.

  Lord Lucas
  No. But we would consider representations where authorities consider that modification of their software represents a significant and unpredicted new burden.

  Habitats Directive
  Lord Pearson of Rannoch
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Which European Union countries have so far failed (a) to transpose the provisions of the Habitats Directive into their national laws; and (b) to deposit with the Commission their lists of special areas of conservation which the directive requested them to do by June 1995, and what effect these delays will have on the future operation of the directive.

  Lord Lucas
  There is no official information available to the Government on member states' implementation of the Habitats Directive.

  The directive required member states to transpose its provisions by June 1994. Member states may choose the means of transposition into their national laws. It is for the European Commission to judge the extent to which such transposition in respect of the Habitats Directive has taken place.

  As far as the Government are aware, although all member states are actively engaged in site selection and consultation, Belgium, Germany, Greece, Spain, France, Ireland, Luxembourg and the Netherlands have not so far submitted any part of their national lists of sites.
  WA 21
  Transposition and communication of the national lists of sites are essential to ensure that the Habitats Directive is implemented coherently across the Union. The Commission may take infraction proceedings under Article 169 of the Treaty against those member states which are considered to have failed to comply with their obligations.

  Food Safety
  Lord Kennet
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food should adopt the precautionary principle in cases where clear-cut evidence about the safety of food products is not available and cannot be obtained.

  Lord Lucas
  The Government already follow the precautionary principle in relation to the safety of food products. They require evidence of safety when a novel food is produced or when a new substance is added in the course of food production. If prima facie evidence is found of a new risk in established foods, the Government take action which leaves a significant margin of safety.

  Environment Agency Code on Enforcement Practice
  Lord Lyell
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether the Environment Agency has now prepared its Code on Enforcement Practice.

  Lord Lucas
  The Environment Agency's Code on Enforcement Practice was adopted on 23rd April and copies have been placed in the Library of the House. It takes the form of a statement of enforcement policy which sets out how the agency will operate, and detailed guidance for warranted officers, setting out their responsibilities. The documents will be revised over time in the light of experience and comments from all the agency's customers.

  Tug Deployment Trials
  Lord Murray of Epping
  Forest asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they have completed their review of the results of trials of tugs in the Dover Strait and at Stornoway; and when they will publish those results and their intentions for the future.

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen)
  The 1995–96 trial period for the two tugs finished on 30th April 1996. The results of the trials are currently being analysed and will be published in due course. We will make public our intentions for future tug deployment on completion of our consideration.

  British Coal Recreational Land
  Lord Gisborough
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether the future use for sport and recreation of British Coal recreational land is now safeguarded from conversion to other uses, and, if not, whether any other deadline for the transfer of such sites to new owners and occupiers has been set; and

  Given that British Coal has refused to transfer any sites to the National Playing Fields Association, what alternative arrangements are being made for this land.

  Baroness Miller of Hendon
  The Government's objective remains that British Coal land in active use for sport and recreation will be retained for those purposes. Discussions continue with British Coal and the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation as to how this can best be achieved. Those discussions will be concluded as soon as possible.

  Lord Gisborough
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they will provide a full listing of sites in the British Coal recreational package giving names, locations, current occupiers and current uses.

  Baroness Miller of Hendon
  This is a matter for British Coal.

  Benefit Changes: Second Order Effects
  Earl Russell
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Further to the Answer given by Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish on 30th April (H.L. Deb., col. 1472), whether they will place in the Library a list of research papers dealing with the second order effects of benefit changes, stating to which benefit change each paper relates.

  The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish)
  It is not possible to identify all those research papers which may prove useful for assessing the public expenditure consequences of benefit changes, including second order effects. An example of how research informs these assessments can be found in Options for Equality in State Pension Age (CM 1723, December 1991). Paragraphs 18 and 19 of Appendix 3 describe how the available research was used to estimate the indirect effects on public finances of changing state pension age. All the publications in the department's research report series are placed in the Library and the Research Yearbook provides details of individual projects commissioned by the department.

  Unemployment Comparisons
  Lord Acton
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What was the rate of unemployment in the United Kingdom in May 1979, and what is the current rate of unemployment in: (a) the United Kingdom; (b) the United States of America and (c) Japan.
  WA 23
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish
  The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) publishes figures based on the internationally standard definition of unemployment recommended by the International Labour Organisation (ILO). It is the ILO definition of unemployment that provides the best basis for international comparisons. According to the available figures published by the OECD, the United Kingdom's ILO unemployment rate stood at 5.0 per cent. in the second quarter of 1979. In January 1996 (the latest available date for the comparison requested) the UK rate stood at 8.4 per cent., compared with 5.7 per cent. in the USA and 3.4 per cent. in Japan.

  Social Charter: Additional Protocol
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they intend to ratify the additional protocol to the European social charter providing for a system of collective complaints; and, if not, why not.

  The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley)
  The Government do not intend to ratify the additional protocol to the European social charter providing for a system of collective complaints. The Government do not consider that the protocol would improve the charter's supervisory system.

  Literacy Centres and Books and Teaching Materials for Schools
  Baroness David
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether, following the establishment of literacy centres, they have any specific plans to improve the availability of books and teaching materials in schools.

  Lord Henley
  The specification against which local education authorities bid for GEST funds to host literacy centres included funding for the purchase of books and any IT or other equipment related to the school's strategy for raising standards in literacy.

  Education for 16 to 19 Year-Olds: Books and Teaching Materials
  Baroness David
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether following the review of education at 16 to 19, they have specific plans to ensure that the necessary new books and teaching materials are provided for students and libraries.

  Lord Henley
  It is for schools and colleges to prioritise their spending depending on local needs and the overall resources available to them. We have asked for advice from the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority and the National Council for Vocational WA 24
  Qualifications on the implementation of the Dearing proposals for 16–19 qualifications. Detailed plans for following up the Dearing Review will take account of that advice.

  Law Commission Recommendations: Implementation
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they intend to take steps to rectify the continuing failure, referred to in the Law Commission's Thirtieth Annual Report 1995 (Law Com. No. 239), to implement the Law Commission's reports on criminal law; and, if not why not; and

  Whether they intend to implement the Law Commission's report on Conspiracy to Defraud 1994 (Law Com. No. 228); and if not, why not.

  The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch)
  The Government value the work of the Law Commission, which has led to many valuable reforms of the criminal law. One measure currently before Parliament is the proposal to abolish the year and a day rule in homicide, which I hope will become law this session.

  Final decisions have yet to be taken on four other Law Commission reports relating to the criminal law, and these are currently under consideration. In particular, we are undertaking further work to assess the Law Commission's proposals for reform of the law on offences against the person.

  The Government are committed to introducing a Bill to combat loan fraud, as recommended by the Law Commission in their report, Conspiracy to Defraud, as soon as a suitable legislative opportunity arises.

  Singh and Hussain: European Court of Human Rights Judgments
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they intend to respond to the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights in the cases of Singh and Hussain by introducing legislation to comply with those rulings; and if not, why not.

  Baroness Blatch
  The Government have already announced that they are considering the implications of the judgments and will announce what changes will be made to take account of them as soon as possible.

  Northern Ireland: Wheelchair Service
  Lord Holme of Cheltenham
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether the wheelchair voucher scheme announced by Mr. John Bowis on 23rd February 1996 will be available to people in Northern Ireland; and if not, why not.
  WA 25
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Baroness Denton of Wakefield)
  The announcement on 23rd February referred only to England. In Northern Ireland, the Department of Health and Social Services is currently exploring with the four health and social services boards how the wheelchair service might be improved. In this context they will be considering the implications for Northern Ireland of the proposals for a voucher scheme.

  Anti-personnel Landmines
  Lord Hylton
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  How many non-self-destructive anti-personnel land-mines they hold in stock at the most recent known date.

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe)
  It is our established policy for security reasons not to reveal information relating to stock levels of munitions held or planned. However, as stated by my noble friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 23rd April 1996,Official Report, col. WA 89, we intend to reduce quantities by almost half as soon as is practicable.

  If agreement is reached for an international ban on all anti-personnel mines, or if viable alternatives to anti-personnel mines emerge, we will commence destruction of our remaining anti-personnel mines (none of which has a self-destruct capability).

  Creutzfeld-Jakob Disease
  Lord Kennet
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether any further cases of PrPCJ Disease have been identified since January 1996 and whether there is any reason to suppose the incubation period for this form of CJ Disease does not exceed 10 years [Lancet, Vol. 347, 1996, p. 924].

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege)
  One further case of the new variant of Creutzfeld-Jakob Disease has been confirmed since the announcement on 20th March that 10 cases had been identified.

  The incubation period for CJD is thought to range from five to 20 years.

  Organophosphates and Neuropathy
  The Countess of Mar
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether, they regard the "hen test" as a reliable predictor of irreversible neuropathy caused by organophosphates.
  WA 26
  Baroness Cumberlege
  The test in hens, as done according to modern protocols (e.g. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development guidelines) is the most satisfactory test generally availablefor the prediction of ability to produce organophosphate-induced delayed peripheral neuropathy. Hens are more sensitive to the development of the syndrome than laboratory rodents.

  The Countess of Mar
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they are satisfied that studies of long-term exposure to organophosphates in animals may confidently be extrapolated to humans.

  Baroness Cumberlege
  Some caution is necessary in extrapolating animal studies to humans. It is important to consider factors such as metabolism and pharmacokinetics when making such extrapolations. The expert members of the Government's advisory committees and the department's professional staff are aware of these constraints when considering data from studies before advising the Government.

  The Countess of Mar
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether it is necessary for organophosphates to age before neuropathies result.

  Baroness Cumberlege
  The term aging refers to the enzyme neuropathy target esterase (NTE) not to organophosphates. The production of organophosphates-induced delayed peripheral neuropathy (OPIDN) appears to be associated with but not necessarily caused by phosphorylation, with consequent inhibition of NTE. OPIDN appears to occur only when inhibition of NTE is greater than 70 per cent. and this is followed by monodealkylation (aging). There is some evidence that the underlying mechanism may be different with some phosphoramidates—for example, the phosphorothioamidate pesticide methamidophos; with this substance, at high doses, aging does not seem to be obligatory for the development of OPIDN.

  The Countess of Mar
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What is known about the effects of exposure to organophosphates in humans upon enzymes other than neuropathy target esterase (NTE).

  Baroness Cumberlege
  The acute effects of the organophosphates are caused by the ability of these compounds to inhibit various esterases, in particular acetylcholionesterase. Some, if not all, organophosphates have non-anticholinesterase effects; diisopropyl phosphorofluoridate (DFP) influences dopaminergic and somatostatinergic pathways in the rat and leptophos affects Gamma amino butyric acid (GABA) regulated chloride channels, as may sarin. Furthermore, parathion, parathion-methyl and malathion affect camodulin-dependent phosphodiesterase activity.

  Pesticides: Use in Combination
  The Countess of Mar
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether, in view of the findings of scientists at Duke University Medical Centre and University of Texas Medical Centres that the action of carbonates is heightened when used in combination with other pesticides, they will require manufacturers to ensure that formulations of pesticides are safe for humans who may be exposed to them, and that these formulations are not used in combination with other pesticides.
  WA 28
  Baroness Cumberlege
  I understand that the work referred to has not been fully published as yet. When publication has taken place the Government will consider whether the findings have implications for the regulation of pesticides. In approving pesticides the possibility of additive or synergistic effects in mixes are considered. The safety margins are such that any risks of adverse effects are small. It is not possible to test for synergistic effects using all possible combinations but such effects are very unlikely at very low doses and where observed in animal experiments they are generally due to metabolic causes.