Sitting of 4 November 1996

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  DEATH OF A MEMBER
  Madam Speaker: I regret to have to report to the House the death of George Barrington Porter Esq., Member for Wirral, South. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will join me in mourning the loss of a colleague and extending our sympathy to the hon. Member's family and his friends.
Oral Answers to Questions
  WALES

    Youth Councils
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to set up youth councils in Wales. [278]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Jonathan Evans): None, but the Welsh Office funds the Wales Youth Agency, which is working collaboratively with local authorities and key local agencies to encourage and inform the development of effective local youth councils throughout Wales.
    Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer and that encouragement. I gather that in Barry, for example, an embryo youth council is already being enthusiastically supported by the Welsh Development Agency. Given that we are hearing from all sides that, in spite of best efforts, young people are still often apathetic and ignorant about the political process, will the Minister assure the House that his Department will do all that it can, both in support of the Wales Youth Agency and in other ways, to ensure that every opportunity is given to young people in and out of school throughout the Principality to learn that politics can be good for one?
    Mr. Evans: As one who joined the Young Conservatives at the age of 15, I endorse the hon. Gentleman's latter sentiment. I thank him for his remarks about the Wales Youth Agency. It is right that the Welsh Office funds it. He will know that the United Kingdom Youth Work Alliance's document, "Agenda for a Generation: Building Effective Youth Work", is to receive its all-party Welsh launch in the House later this afternoon. I intend to be present at that launch, and I hope that that is the encouragement that he is looking for.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that young people in Wales and elsewhere are interested in
    894
    policies that are relevant to their future, such as greater choice, lower taxation and a strong defence, and that only one party is willing to put forward those policies?
    Mr. Evans: I very much endorse my hon. Friend' s observations, which would apply to the entire population. It is clear that the involvement of young people with a number of organisations during the formative years can play an important part in developing good programmes for good citizenship. The Welsh Office is supporting that through the provision of £761,000 this year for 17 national youth organisations and for the Wales Youth Agency itself. I regard that work as supplementary, in a sense, to the important considerations to which my hon. Friend has drawn the attention of the House.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: I, too, will be at the launch this afternoon. Does the Minister recognise that the youth service—voluntary and statutory—plays a vital role in offering young people practical advice and guidance, imbued with moral purpose and direction, reflecting on their rights and duties as individuals, co-operating with others to create a new civic society in place of our present stressed and fractured one, in which, unfortunately, they are much more likely to have had experience of criminality, drugs and violence than people of my generation? Does he intend to do anything about that by bringing forward proposals to help the Wales Youth Agency and youth organisations and workers?
    Mr. Evans: I very much welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for what I have said in relation to the launch this afternoon of the paper to which I referred. It is not good enough to say that such activity is the responsibility only of central Government. I have described the support that we are giving to the Wales Youth Agency and the 17 national youth organisations and the rest of it, but the hon. Gentleman's friends in local government also have a responsibility. It really is not: good enough to mouth such words in the House when Welsh youth services do not get the support that they are entitled to expect to receive from Welsh local authorities.

    Local Government Responsibilities
    Sir Wyn Roberts: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to enhance the responsibilities of local authorities. [279]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. William Hague): Last month, following wide consultation, I announced measures for cutting central controls and extending the influence of local government in Wales. That initiative has been widely welcomed.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is considerable scope to build constructively on the relationship between the Welsh Office and the local authorities; that there is a challenge to the new unitary authorities to show their worth nationwide; and, finally, that his approach offers a better path to devolution than the mishmash of policies offered by the Opposition?
    Mr. Hague: Yes, I agree with my right hon. Friend. The measures announced last month give local government more responsibilities, and I am prepared to

    895
    go further if that will improve the quality and responsiveness of local services. Councils have been asked to supply new ideas for cutting central control and devolving functions by 20 December this year. I look forward to receiving more ideas. As my right hon. Friend has pointed out, that is real and worthwhile devolution to true local government instead of the creation of a whole new tier of administration, bureaucracy and elections, as favoured by some Opposition Members.
    Mr. Rowlands: Is it not already difficult enough to fulfil the responsibilities of local government, given the existing finances? If there are further cuts in local government finance, schools could close and teachers could be made redundant; already, residential homes are being closed. Will the right hon. Gentleman stand up in the Cabinet and support those essential services instead of cuts in inheritance duty and capital gains tax?
    Mr. Hague: Local government in Wales was allowed to increase its spending by more than 3 per cent. last year and 87 per cent. of that money is provided from central Government. That is a much higher proportion than is the case in England. I am considering the representations made by local authorities ahead of this year's spending settlement, but there is no reason why local authorities should not be able to fulfil their responsibilities.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: My right hon. Friend hinted a moment ago at the proportion of money that is given by central Government to local government in Wales. Will he give us the equivalent figure in England, and does he believe that devolution would be a good deal for Wales if Wales ended up getting far less money from central Government?
    Mr. Hague: The comparison for England with the 87 per cent. figure that I quoted for Wales is 79 per cent., and that makes a large difference to the figures. It should be a source of some concern in Wales that, if ever there were to be established—heaven forbid—a Welsh Assembly, the financial priority that is given to Wales might continue no longer. Welsh local government should also be concerned that the kind of package that I have announced, which will give more responsibility to local councils, has received little, if any, welcome from Opposition Members, who would rather centralise power in an assembly than give it to local councils.
    Mr. Ron Davies: When the assembly is created, it will be with the will of the people—perhaps the Secretary of State should reflect on that. Meanwhile, I wish to question him on matters for which he is currently responsible. Given reports over the weekend of his support for caning, does he have any plans to restore to local government the power to reintroduce physical beating of schoolchildren? How does he personally feel about being a member of a Government who, after 17 years, have created such an alienated and divided society that Back Benchers such as the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) apparently believe that order can now be restored only by spanking schoolchildren and shooting burglars on sight? Does the Secretary of State share those views and, if he does not, will he make it clear that they are extremist views that will never be part of mainstream politics in any decent society?
    Mr. Hague: The hon. Gentleman is well out of date in attributing to me any of the views in the Sunday morning
    896
    newspapers. As I made clear in some of those newspapers and on television yesterday, my view is that this is a side issue and that the Education Bill will include the measures necessary to improve discipline in our schools. I also made it clear that it is time for everyone, including members of all parties, to give credit to the thousands of teachers and the tens of thousands of pupils—many of whom I have had the privilege of seeing—who are doing a tremendous job in the schools of Wales. The measures in the Bill are necessary to build on that, and I look forward to the hon. Gentleman supporting them.
    Dr. Spink: Knowing, as I do, how much my right hon. Friend believes in accountability, may I ask whether he agrees that introducing another level of government in Wales would reduce, not increase, accountability?
    Mr. Hague: Another level of government would certainly confuse accountability and the electorate, and would lead to endless buck passing between one layer of government and another. That is something that we must avoid.

    Transport Policy
    Mr. Donald Anderson: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he intends to issue his transport statement; and what arrangements will be made to canvas opinion in Wales before doing so. [280]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): We intend to issue our new policy statement within the next few months. It will take account of the many representations we have received during the transport debate.
    Mr. Anderson: Again on the subject of accountability and fooling the electorate, does the Minister accept that his party labours under special disadvantages in Wales because the Secretary of State—in whose name the statement will be issued—does not represent a Welsh constituency and because his party has been almost wiped out in local government in Wales? Rather than imposing a statement on the people of Wales, would it not be proper to consult widely among those who do their best to represent the people of Wales?
    Mr. Jones: That was a pretty poor supplementary question from the hon. Gentleman, who may be frightened to debate the transport policy statement when we issue it. I invite him to take his chance then.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: In preparing the statement, will the Minister take into account the strongly expressed opinions of more than 6,000 of my constituents that the Welsh Office should replace the "junction of death" at Sarnybryncaled on the A483 near Welshpool with a roundabout, following five fatalities and numerous serious injuries at the junction? It is time for action—will the Welsh Office act?
    Mr. Jones: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman, whose concern I well appreciate, for that question; it was most appropriate that he informed me of his intention to raise this important matter here. Reports from our agents, Powys county council, have informed us of two accidents

    897
    at the junction. As a result, we are taking forward work involving changes to the layout and new signing, and we are requiring an investigation to be held into the desirability of a roundabout at that location.
    Mr. Llwyd: Does the Minister realise that the minimum passenger requirement for the north Wales to Crewe service will now be three services a day as opposed to nine, as at present? What kind of transport policy is that?
    Mr. Jones: It is a new, much better transport policy, because there has never been a minimum requirement before now. We have debated that matter in relation to the south Wales railway line, where private operators have provided more than the minimum number of services that they were set. The new operators will be looking for opportunities to improve and expand transport services in a way that has never been done before. British Rail has merely presided over a decline for the past 60 years.
    Mr. Hanson: Will the Minister consult local authorities and the Department of Transport on the desirability of assessing the need for a rail link to Manchester airport, something for which many local authorities in north Wales and, indeed, England are now pressing?
    Mr. Jones: I welcome that suggestion, and I look forward to the new rail operators—who have a much more open and positive approach to such possibilities—taking that forward. Prism, the new railway operator in south Wales, is looking at the possibility of a link to Cardiff international airport.

    Voluntary Sector
    Mr. Michael: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met representatives of the voluntary sector in Wales to discuss future development of the sector. [281]
    Mr. Jonathan Evans: I met representatives of the Wales Council for Voluntary Action on 21 August and addressed its annual general meeting on 26 September.
    Mr. Michael: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Is he aware of the increasing demands on the voluntary sector in Wales and of the complications arising from local government reorganisation? Is he aware, for instance, that the Welsh Office guidelines provide for strategic development bids of up to £200,000—in the case of South Glamorgan county council—against bids from the voluntary sector of £4 million? What can he do to provide some stability both for local government and for the voluntary sector, given the increasing demands on both?
    Mr. Evans: Through the Welsh Office, the Government have been providing significant sums to Welsh organisations. We provided about £24 million in direct and indirect grants to the voluntary sector in 1994–95; I have not yet had the figures collated for the current financial year, but I do not expect them to be all that different. In fact, I am well aware of the concerns outlined by the voluntary sector in particular about no certainty in relation to what the funding arrangements are,
    898
    as a result both of the devolving of significant funds to local authorities and of local government reorganisation. That requires a partnership approach, on the part of local government as much as on that of the Welsh Office.
    Mr. Richards: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Labour-dominated Conwy county council is planning to discontinue its funding of the Wales Council for Voluntary Action? Will he bear that in mind during the local government settlement and will he examine closely the financial irregularities of the council, which is fast gaining a reputation as the Lambeth of north Wales?
    Mr. Evans: I am greatly concerned to hear that information. Most Members of all parties recognise the work that is done by the Wales Council for Voluntary Action and would wish to see it supported by local authorities. I note, for what it is worth, that in a paper produced by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), shadow Minister for the voluntary sector, it is asserted that his party's policy is that voluntary organisations should be essential partners. That message should also be learnt by local government.

    A55 Road Building Programme
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received about the decision to fund the A55 road building programme across Anglesey through the private finance initiative and to delay the commencement until the autumn of 1998. [282]
    Mr. Hague: Since the decision to progress the scheme under the private finance initiative was announced on 10 July 1996, 26 representations have been received.
    Mr. Jones: Is the Minister aware of the great concern on the island about the decision to progress the scheme under PFI and to delay the commencement of the road building programme until autumn 1998—a delay of about 18 months? Is he also aware that that means that the people of Anglesey have to ask the Secretary of State another question. He says that he is seeking private finance, but how much confidence can that inspire, given that public money had already been allocated for the scheme? He told us that he had seen contractors about a possible initiative. How many of those contractors expressed an interest? Does he expect the people of Anglesey to put up with two more long summers of delays on the road? Can he do anything to bring the start date forward?
    Mr. Hague: I expect strong interest from the industry in this major construction project; it is too early to say precisely how much, because it has not yet been advertised. The most important point is not the start date but the completion date. As the hon. Gentleman will know, because he has been advised of it already, the completion date for the whole scheme right across the island, under design, build, finance and operate will be approximately the same as it would have been under the more conventional financing route.
    I share the determination of people on the island to ensure that the road is built and improved, as almost everyone agrees that it should be. We have a way to do

    899
    that while making more resources available faster and transferring the risk to the private sector, and all hon. Members should welcome that.

    Health Authorities (Funding)
    Mr. Ainger: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many health authorities in Wales have registered their concerns about the level of their funding in the current financial year. [283]
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: On 16 October, my right hon. Friend met all five health authority chairmen in Wales and they briefed him on many matters, including the current financial position.
    Mr. Ainger: Does the Minister share the view of one senior health service executive in Wales that the current financial position and the position that the service will face next year are horrific? Does he accept that trusts and hospitals throughout Wales face a stark choice this year—and possibly next, if his Administration are still there? The health service faces serious underfunding coupled with an overspend, and the only choice that trusts and hospitals have is to cut patient services. Does the Minister accept, as the Secretary of State apparently does, that there is a financial crisis in the health service? What does he intend to do about it this year?
    Mr. Jones: Yes, this Administration will still be here this time next year. No, I do not accept the premise that the hon. Gentleman put forward on behalf of an anonymous health service employee in Wales. None of the health authorities in Wales—except Dyfed Powys, and he well knows the arrangements that I have already put in hand for that—projects a cash overspend.
    Mr. David Evans: Is the Minister aware that in 1979, under the last Labour Government, all capital projects were abandoned because the International Monetary Fund was running our affairs and all hospitals were closed, thanks to the National Union of Public Employees and the Confederation of Health Service Employees? Is he further aware that nurses' pay fell by 23 per cent. because inflation was running at 26.9 per cent? Is that what the nation can expect if that lot over there ever come to power?
    Mr. Jones: Yes, yes and yes. The Opposition deserve to be reminded—my hon. Friend is right to point it out—that the only Government in our history to cut spending on the national health service was the Labour Government of the 1970s. Such is the regard that the Opposition try now to profess in a different way. Anyone with doubts about whether they would still treat the NHS in Wales as a political football should look at how they do not give sufficient priority to our schools in Wales.
    Mr. Gareth Wardell: Following the Calman-Hine report on cancer services and the submission to the Minister of a report by Professor Cameron of the University hospital of Wales, can the Minister tell us from
    900
    which trusts health authorities should cease purchasing cancer services and to which trusts those contracts should be moved?
    Mr. Jones: As the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, those are matters that are taken, and will be taken, forward by the health authorities as commissioners and by the relevant trusts. That process will continue.
    Mr. Morgan: Do not those reports of deficits and overspend constitute an open-and-shut case of Government dishonesty in their financial dealings with the NHS? Why do the Government persist in cooking the books by getting all the health authorities and trusts to carry over their deficits into the next financial year, thereby lumbering the next Government with the problems of this one?
    Mr. Jones: There is no question of lumbering the next Government because there will be a Conservative Government. We think long about all our responsibilities and seek to take forward the proper arrangements with the hospitals and health authorities to ensure that their finances are managed in the best possible way and that, as far as possible, they are spent where they matter—at the bedside.

    Bilateral Trade (Far East)
    Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next plans to visit the far east to discuss bilateral trade. [284]
    Mr. Hague: A Welsh Office-led trade delegation is due to visit Japan next March. Visits to Thailand, Malaysia, Vietnam and the Philippines are also planned in the next 12 months.
    Mr. Fabricant: Does my right hon. Friend think that he would have had as much success in attracting companies from the far east to Wales, and to Newport in particular, if employment law in the United Kingdom was determined not in Westminster and in Cardiff but in Brussels, as the Labour party would wish?
    Mr. Hague: No, I do not. Britain's employment laws and flexible labour market are one of the attractive features of the United Kingdom for overseas investors, on top of a more advantageous tax system, an excellent industrial relations record and a Government who welcome free enterprise and investment. Added together, those factors mean that we are the most successful economy in Europe in attracting inward investment.
    Mr. Wigley: Hon. Members in all parts of the House will agree that the WDA is a vital body in developing trade and industry with south-east Asia and elsewhere. Will the Secretary of State therefore say what on earth is going on in the WDA? The chief executive has apparently been transferred to Greenwich on a three-month sale-or-return basis, like some second team Manchester United footballer being transferred to York City. If Mr. Hartop is up to the job, should he not be working every hour available to get the jobs needed in west and north

    901
    Wales? If he is not up to the job, why has he been given a three-month reprieve so that he can come back if he does not make it in Greenwich?
    Mr. Hague: I can tell the hon. Gentleman what is going on in the WDA—it is having an extraordinarily successful year and an acting chief executive with 12 years' experience has been appointed during that period. I can also tell him—I shall in any case be announcing it in a written answer at 3.30 pm—that I am increasing the WDA's base programme for this financial year from £120 million to £157.1 million, which is an increase of £25 million in central Government provision and nearly £12 million in the receipts that the agency can generate. That is a tribute to its great success this year and to the extent of our commitment to the agency's work.
    Mr. Llew Smith: Instead of prioritising a visit to the far east, will the Secretary of State give priority to keeping a commitment he gave to meeting the Heads of the Valley standing conference to discuss unemployment? Does he also realise that if he gave priority to that visit, the savings involved would help him to curb public expenditure?
    Mr. Hague: I would consider any request for a meeting, but I am pleased to be able to say that unemployment has been falling throughout most parts of Wales for a long period—unemployment in Wales is now lower than in Germany—and that is a tremendous success. It is one of the things that has happened as a result of our success in attracting inward investment and encouraging home-grown companies to succeed in Wales, and that includes part of the valleys. I certainly want to consider all initiatives to continue that progress and will consider any requests for a meeting.
    Mr. Ron Davies: The Secretary of State surprised us with that announcement of a winter supplementary estimate. As I understand it, he is proposing to restore to the WDA money taken in cuts imposed by his predecessor about two years ago. Perhaps he will confirm that he is announcing changes to the current year's provision rather than to next year's. Will he confirm a point put to him this afternoon—that he is now in direct conflict with the WDA, the board having told him that it cannot make the appropriate contribution to economic regeneration next year, in line with the requirements of his published strategic guidance? Is that not the ultimate political hypocrisy—-this afternoon, as on previous occasions, the Secretary of State publicly claiming credit for the work of the agency while privately conspiring to sabotage its future?
    Mr. Hague: Only the hon. Gentleman could say that I was sabotaging the future of something when only a few minutes before, I had announced that I was increasing its budget by £37 million. I am sorry that I surprised him. Obviously I did and he did not have time to rewrite the whole of his question. I was talking about the current year with the figures I just announced. We shall come to next year's figures in my public expenditure statement next month.
    I am certainly not in conflict with the board of the WDA. I work closely with the chairman and I had a constructive meeting with the whole board a few weeks ago, and there could not be any conflict about future year's programmes before we have decided what they are to be.

    Inward Investment
    Mr. Whittingdale: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the principal reasons why overseas investors have chosen to invest in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [285]
    Mr. Hague: Companies regularly tell me that they invest in Wales because of the quality of the work force, the competitive conditions and the excellent economic outlook. We have created an environment for success, which both inward investors and home-grown companies recognise.
    Mr. Whittingdale: I congratulate my right hon. Friend and the Government on their success in creating the conditions that have led to companies choosing to invest in Wales and the resulting creation of thousands of jobs. Is it not the case that the qualities and attractions that he has described would be totally undermined by the new taxes, burdens on employers and strikes that new Labour would bring to Wales?
    Mr. Hague: My hon. Friend is right. We have had an excellent year for inward investment in Wales. So far this calendar year, there have been over 100 inward investment projects, large and small, bringing or promising 13,500 new jobs, with £2.3 billion of investment. I announced two further projects last week and hope to have further good news to announce this week. That good news will continue, provided that the policies that have brought it about continue. My hon. Friend was right to point out the dangers of the European job-destroying social chapter and the policies of higher taxation that would obviously accompany Opposition Members into power. Only if those things can be avoided can we continue to build on that excellent record.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: I understand that, on Wednesday, the Secretary of State will come to my constituency to visit a car component factory that relocated to Wales from abroad many years ago. When he goes to the factory he will see that the Llanelli area now has several excellent car component firms. Will he confirm that the time is now right for Llanelli to have a car assembly plant—a major inward investment to take advantage of those firms?
    Mr. Hague: I am looking forward to visiting the firm in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency on Wednesday morning. It is part of Wales's ever-growing success in automotive components. There are now 20,000 people in Wales working in automotive components businesses and that number is climbing all the time. I would certainly welcome further additions to the total and further additions that broaden the industry, and I shall make every effort to bring that about.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met leaders of Welsh local authorities to discuss the forthcoming local government financial settlement. [286]
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: On 23 September 1996.
    Mr. Murphy: Is the Minister aware that the constant underfunding of our local authorities, including this year's

    903
    settlement, has meant that our schools are starved of cash and that the south Wales fire authority is in the deepest financial crisis? Despite what has been said this afternoon, and bearing in mind the fact that the forthcoming settlement will be the last one made under a Conservative Government for many years to come, will the Minister lift the dreadful burden from Welsh local authorities so that they can deliver the services that are needed so desperately by the Welsh people?
    Mr. Jones: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already reminded the House how great an increase local government in Wales had this year. What the hon. Gentleman is complaining about is decisions made by councilors—usually Labour councilors—in Wales. They are the ones who determine how much is spent on our schools and fire brigades and it is their priorities that should be held up and examined by the hon. Gentleman.
    Sir Raymond Powell: Will the Minister tell the House and Bridgend council why, this year, there has been a £6 million reduction in the estimate of the funding that the council needs to carry out the services that it inherited as a result of the Government's diktat that there should be a unitary authority? Is he aware that the council has closed the Ogmore swimming pool in the Ogmore valley and the Ogmore residential school in Ogmore-by-Sea and that it has taken a number of other decisions as a result of the cut in funding? If the Minister is to decide what the council will receive next year, I hope that he will consider what was left out this year. In addition, will the Minister consider that teachers in Garth primary school teach classes of 39 pupils? That is not what we expect and it is not what we will have when the Conservatives get out and a Labour Government is elected.
    Mr. Jones: I fear that the hon. Gentleman is falling into the usual trap of dwelling on local authorities' wish lists and their typical wish to be high spenders. That is the problem that he is referring to. The simple facts of the matter are that Welsh local government has had, and is spending, more this year than it was able to spend last year. What the hon. Gentleman should question is the priorities that councilors—usually Labour councilors—have applied when deciding where to spend that money. We have encouraged them to spend it on education and social services. The hon. Gentleman should question where they actually spent it.

    Secondary Schools (Spending Per Pupil)
    Sir David Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much was spent per pupil in secondary schools in Wales in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what this figure was for 1978–79 at constant prices. [287]
    Mr. Jonathan Evans: The provisional figure for net funding per pupil in local education authority maintained secondary schools in Wales for 1994–95 was £2,264 at constant 1994–95 prices. The equivalent figure for
    904
    1979–80, the earliest year for which comparable information is centrally available, is £1,474 per pupil at constant 1994–95 prices.
    Sir David Knox: Does my hon. Friend agree that those figures hardly sustain claims of cuts in education? Does he think that that increase in funding has been accompanied by a comparable increase in standards?
    Mr. Evans: I can certainly tell my hon. Friend that one clear focus of Government policy on education in Wales has been to ensure that we drive up standards. The latest general certificate of secondary education and A-level results in Wales show that we are making significant progress. The figures also reveal not only an increase of 53.6 per cent. in real terms in spending per secondary school pupil in Wales, but an increase of 48 per cent. in spending on primary school children. As my hon. Friend has made absolutely clear, that fact must be judged against the charges that we sometimes hear from the Opposition.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Will the Minister help Flintshire local education authority by enabling it to opt out of the unpopular nursery voucher scheme? In that way, he could assist secondary education, because everyone in Flintshire believes that the voucher scheme will be wasteful, chaotic and rather expensive.
    Mr. Evans: Not for the first time, we hear from the Opposition that they speak for every person in Wales. In fact, they have discovered at previous national elections that their optimism in that respect was misplaced, as it will be again.

    Housing
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many units of housing were completed by housing associations and local authorities in Wales during 1995–96; and what is the total number of applicants on housing waiting lists. [288]
    Mr. Jonathan Evans: The figures are 3,802 and 164 respectively, reflecting the policy of making housing associations the main provider of new social housing. Waiting lists are kept by the individual housing providers. Information is not held centrally.
    Mr. Williams: Will the Minister look into the problems of one of my constituents, Mrs. Tattersall of Llandovery, who has been on the housing waiting list for five years? She has seven children and lives in a three-bedroom semi-detached house. Four boys share one bedroom and their ages range from 10 to 18; the two girls share the second bedroom; and the infant sleeps in his mother's room. The living room, which has to serve eight people, is 12 ft by 11 ft. The conditions are frankly 19th century.
    In April, I raised the problem with my local authority and the housing association, but when I checked in October I learnt that it had still not been solved. In fact, two of the teenage children had nervous breakdowns this summer, unquestionably because of the appalling overcrowding. The Welsh Office received a copy of my latest letter about the problem on 13 October. Will

    905
    Ministers look into the appalling problems of that family, which has been badly let down by the housing association and the local authority?
    Mr. Evans: That account is hardly a good advertisement for Welsh local government in Labour party hands, is it? Since Housing for Wales was established in 1988, some 27,000 additional homes have been provided in the Principality—because of that initiative and investment of £1.2 billion from the Welsh Office. Furthermore, the hon. Gentleman's local authority has received £6.8 million to fund its housing association grant programme in 1995–96. The hon. Gentleman should be pressing his local authority a lot harder than he appears to be doing.
    Mr. Rogers: Why does not the Minister do what he suggests, and press local authorities and others to provide him with housing waiting list figures? I find it absolutely disgraceful that the Welsh Office does not know the combined waiting list in Wales. Those figures are held by the housing associations, and the Minister has said that he has now made them primarily responsible for the provision of social housing, so why on earth does he not simply write to them to ask how many applicants there are?
    Mr. Evans: Given the number of years the hon. Gentleman has been in the House, he must know that it is Government policy to ensure that the prime provider of social housing should be housing associations, but that local authorities play a key role in relation to the allocation of social housing. He will also know that local authorities across Wales tend to adopt different approaches in relation to the compilation of figures on housing need.
    Mr. Rogers: How many are on the waiting list?
    Mr. Evans: It does the hon. Gentleman no good to go in for histrionics designed to cloud the responsibility of his own local authority.

    Tree Planting
    12. Sir Sydney Chapman: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to continue with initiatives encouraging tree planting in the Principality. [289]
    Mr. Jonathan Evans: We shall continue to encourage tree planting in Wales and we aim to increase the woodland area by about 50 per cent. by the middle of the next century, subject to the necessary changes to the common agricultural policy.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: I warmly welcome the woodlands initiative, which presumably reflects the community forest projects in England. Recognising that the annual National Tree Week occurs at the end of this month, will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to encourage local authorities, individuals and organisations to play their part in tree-planting schemes, and draw to their attention the expertise that exists in local authorities for advising on the right species of tree to be planted at the right time in the right place?
    Mr. Evans: First, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for all his work in this area. He is an acknowledged expert
    906
    and takes a greater interest in the matter than hon. Members on the Opposition Benches. I have asked the chief conservator of the forestry authority in Wales to chair a small group to consider how best to implement the recommendations which, as my hon. Friend knows, were contained in a report commissioned by the Welsh Office two years ago—"The Way Ahead for Welsh Forestry". The chief conservator is to report to me before the end of the year with his suggestions for changes and more details of the opportunities for the development of forestry in Wales.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Lenient Sentences (Appeals)
    Mr. Hanson: To ask the Attorney-General how many cases with unduly lenient sentences he has referred to the Court of Appeal in each of the past four years. [270]
    The Attorney-General (Sir Nicholas Lye11): My right hon. Friend and I referred 32 sentences to the Court of Appeal in 1993, 50 in 1994, 81 in 1995 and 49 so far this year. The court has increased sentence in 161, or 84 per cent., of the cases so far heard.
    Mr. Hanson: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for those figures. Will he agree to undertake an early review of the criteria for determining what constitutes an unduly lenient sentence? He knows of the case in which a person was fined £200 at Chester Crown court for an indecent assault on the eight-year-old son of constituents of mine. My constituents feel that that sentence was not acceptable or a severe deterrent or form of punishment. The Attorney-General refused to refer the case to the Court of Appeal. A review should be undertaken into what constitutes unduly lenient sentences.
    The Attorney-General: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for referring to that case, about which he has written to me. My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General and I considered the case carefully. The Court of Appeal has held that an unduly lenient sentence must be one that falls outside the range of sentences properly available to a trial judge. In all the circumstances, we did not consider that that sentence met that criterion.
    Mr. Waller: In view of the success of the system for referring unduly lenient sentences to the Court of Appeal, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that many people want an extension of that system rather than some of the mandatory sentences included in the Crime (Sentences) Bill which is to have its Second Reading this afternoon? In the case, for example, of someone convicted for the second time of rape, would it not be appropriate to refer the matter to the Court of Appeal if it seemed that a sentence of life imprisonment was necessary for the protection of the public, but that sentence had not been imposed?
    The Attorney-General: My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will shortly outline the details of the Bill. To an extent, the two systems run in harness. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for welcoming the system

    907
    of referring unduly lenient sentences. Particularly in relation to third-time burglars, the two systems will work well in harness if the House gives the matter its approval.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the Attorney-General agree that the guideline cases that the Court of Appeal has issued have been an entirely appropriate way of dealing with sentencing? Does he further agree that the Government have failed to find one instance in which they can criticise the Court of Appeal for the severity of sentences which it has declared to be appropriate, both for serious and less serious offences?
    The Attorney-General: If the hon. and learned Gentleman is approving, as I believe he is, the system of referring unduly lenient sentences and the opportunity that system gives the Court of Appeal to lay down guideline criteria for sentences, I agree with him that it is extremely valuable. If, however, he is making points relevant to the debate about to come, I have no doubt that he will make them more fully then.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Is my right hon. and learned Friend satisfied that juveniles sentenced to be detained at Her Majesty's pleasure for murder will be so detained and not released back to the community—if at all—before serving long sentences and before being thoroughly reformed?
    The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend's question falls outside the area of competence of my Department; but such cases are extremely carefully and professionally reviewed before my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has to consider them. I think that my hon. Friend can be satisfied as to that.
    Mr. Hoon: Does the Attorney-General agree that one reason for the number of references involving lenient sentences is the failure of the Court of Appeal to set out comprehensive sentencing guidelines for judges and magistrates? Is it not time for the criminal division of the Court of Appeal to be given a proactive, consultative role so that the court does not depend on the particular case appealed against but can instead develop guidelines for all the main categories of criminal offence?
    The Attorney-General: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Dispatch Box, but I am afraid I cannot agree with his serious point. I believe that the opportunity afforded by normal appeals against what are regarded by defendants as over-severe sentences, coupled with the opportunities afforded by my hon. and learned Friend and I referring to the Court of Appeal what we consider to be unduly lenient sentences, gives the Court of Appeal a full opportunity to lay down guidelines for sentences. I do not think that needs extending by a sentencing commission or something of that sort—which would seem to underlie the hon. Gentleman's question.
    33.Mr. Spring: To ask the Attorney-General what is his policy in respect of referrals arising out of lenient sentences. [271]
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Derek Spencer): In deciding whether to refer a case to the Court of Appeal, we apply the test laid down by the court—whether the
    908
    sentence is not merely lenient, but outside the range which a judge could properly pass. We may also refer a sentence where it is appropriate to give the Court of Appeal the opportunity to reconsider sentencing guidelines.
    Mr. Spring: What sort of cases have been referred and seen to be most useful in that referring process? Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the power which has been vested in this instance is most welcome to the public but was, characteristically, opposed by the Labour party?
    The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend is quite right. When the Bill was proceeding through the House, one Labour Member—I shall spare his blushes—said that it was a cruel and heartless power, but that did not prevent him from writing to us when we were considering a rape case, encouraging us to refer it to the Court of Appeal. Since he wrote in confidence I shall naturally respect that confidence.
    We have referred 74 cases of robbery, which is 26 per cent. of the total; 64 cases of offences under section 18 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861, which is about 23 per cent. of the total; 42 death by driving cases, which is 15 per cent.; and 31 of rape, which is 11 per cent.

    Crown Prosecution Service
    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Attorney-General what improvements have been made to the Crown Prosecution Service over the past year. [272]
    The Attorney-General: Principal Crown Prosecution Service initiatives in the past 12 months include the setting up of the CPS inspectorate and close co-operation with the police through joint performance management to improve the handling of cases at all stages, including the timeliness and quality of police files.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Does the Attorney-General remember 18 January 1993, when his colleague the Solicitor-General told the House about the number of cases forming the backlog at the central criminal court? What is the backlog of cases at the central criminal court today?
    The Attorney-General: I do not know the answer to that question. If the hon. Gentleman tables a question to my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, he will have directed it in the right direction.
    Mr. Jenkin: Has my right hon. and learned Friend considered giving extra powers to the Crown Prosecution Service, most particularly powers for it to negotiate a sentence or fine directly with potential plaintiffs in front of a court, rather than having to go through the technical process of going to a court so that a sentence can be delivered? Would not that short-circuit some of the backlog in the courts?
    The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend raises a very interesting question. That type of plea bargaining goes on in the United States in very serious cases, but I have not considered it. and I do not think that anyone has considered it in relation to the run of about 1.3 million cases prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service before magistrates courts.

    Criminal Trials
    Mr. Barnes: To ask the Attorney-General what representations he has received concerning the length of time taken between arrest and conviction of criminals; and if he will make a statement. [273]
    The Solicitor-General: Following a number of representations, my right hon. and learned Friends the Home Secretary, the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney-General have set up a review—announced on 15 October, and to report by the end of January—to identify means of expediting the progress of criminal cases.
    Mr. Barnes: Are not the present arrangements pretty miserable for everyone concerned? They are miserable for victims because they must relive their case in court and hang on and on until the case comes up, suffering during that time; and they are miserable for people on remand—helping to clog up prisons—some of whom will be determined to be innocent when the case reaches court. Is not it therefore beyond time that this review was concluded and the material submitted? The Conservatives have had 17 years in which to act.
    The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman appears to overlook the fact that, in most Crown courts, the waiting period for trial is shorter than it was some time ago. He has also overlooked several initiatives that have been taken jointly by the police and the CPS to speed up cases in magistrates courts. Recently, we have instituted pilot projects in which lawyers have been placed in police stations to give advice straight away, piloted a system for proof of minor road traffic cases at first hearing, and reduced paperwork in expected pleas of guilty in magistrates courts.

    Crown Prosecution Service
    Mr. Sweeney: To ask the Attorney-General what steps he is taking to improve the efficiency of the Crown Prosecution Service through the use of information technology. [274]
    The Attorney-General: The Crown Prosecution Service is currently a key participant in pilot projects at Ipswich and Southampton which provide an e-mail link to the courts, the police, the probation service and legal practitioners to improve communication and reduce paperwork.
    Mr. Sweeney: I am grateful for that good news about the pilot project. Does my right hon. and learned Friend
    910
    agree that information technology has great potential to improve communications between all agencies involved in the criminal justice system, to save unnecessary adjournments and generally to help all the parties to obtain better service from the system?
    The Attorney-General: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. I have just seen the e-mail project at Ipswich; it shows how extraordinarily valuable that piece of technology is to a service that deals with several other agencies. It is now possible for the Crown Prosecution Service to raise any number of points with the police or the courts and receive in minutes an answer that would otherwise involve dictating letters, getting them typed, getting them faxed, sending them, waiting for the post and waiting for letters to come back, be processed, registered and read. The whole process can be shortcut so that what probably took days now takes minutes. I commend that impressive project.

    Scott Report
    Mr. Llew Smith: To ask the Attorney-General ii he will make a statement on implementation of reforms recommended by Lord Justice Scott. [276]
    The Attorney-General: On the recommendations for which I have departmental responsibility, I informed the House on 17 June that, as from that date, the role of the Attorney-General would include superintendence of those Customs and Excise prosecutions relating to defence exports and sanctions infringements that require evidence of deliberate evasion. The public consultation that I announced in February on public interest immunity has been concluded, and I hope to announce the Government's conclusions soon.
    Mr. Smith: The Government promised to report to Members of Parliament on the politically controversial use of public interest immunity certificates to suppress politically embarrassing information. When will that report be made available, and what is the reason for the delay?
    The Attorney-General: I hope to produce the report soon. I want to correct the hon. Gentleman—I am sure that, when he reflects on the matter, he will know that I am right to do so. Such certificates have never been used to suppress material information. There is no instance of that happening. It is about time that that old canard—if that is a parliamentary word—was knocked on the head.

Orders of the Day

  Crime (Sentences) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment that stands in the name of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown).
  3.30 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The key provisions of the Bill were set out in the White Paper "Protecting the Public", which I published earlier this year. They are designed to improve the protection of the public against serious, dangerous and persistent offenders, and to increase public confidence in the sentencing process. They are important and radical measures that target, in particular, violent offenders, sex offenders, drug traffickers and domestic burglars.
  The proposals in the Bill address real problems in our criminal justice system. They will introduce the biggest step change in our criminal justice system this century. They will make a vital contribution to the fight against crime. Victims and the public are firmly at the top of the agenda, as they should be.
  We have consulted widely on the key provisions of the Bill. They have been welcomed by the public, and have the support of the police. Serious offenders cause harm, misery and distress to tens of thousands of victims every year. It is the duty of Government to do all that they can to protect the public from such offenders. It is the duty of Government to do all that they can to ensure that offenders will be properly punished. Those who persistently offend should know with certainty that they will face a stiff penalty if they offend again. The main provisions in the Bill will help the Government to fulfil that duty.
  The public also have a right to know that the prison sentence that is passed by the court is the sentence that will actually be served by the offender. Under the present early release arrangements, that is far from the case. Under the present arrangements, a majority of prisoners are released after serving only half their sentence. The public, and victims, neither understand nor approve of that. The provisions in the Crime (Sentences) Bill will bring greater transparency to the sentencing process. They will ensure that the prison sentence passed by the courts matches much more closely the term that is served by the prisoner.
  Mr. Robert Jackson: In respect of that so-called honesty in sentencing, will my right hon. and learned Friend explain to the House what has happened to cause the abandonment of a policy that the Government adopted, after careful review, only five years ago?
  Mr. Howard: If my hon. Friend looks back to the Criminal Justice Act 1991, he will find that it was a step in the right direction. It significantly increased the proportion of the sentence passed by the court that is actually served by prisoners. It increased it from a third
  912
  to a half: the proportion of a third having originated in the Criminal Justice Act 1967, which was passed when the Labour party was in office.
  If my hon. Friend goes back over the history of the matter, he will realise that the 1991 Act was a step in the right direction. We are building on that, and are now providing a greater consistency between the sentence passed by the court and the sentence served.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for giving way. I fully support everything that he is trying to do and I am sure that he will be successful.
  I point out that, as yet, there is no effective or adequate deterrent for a large group of miscreants, many of whom are young. I advise my right hon. and learned Friend that I shall seek to bring forward an amendment to make corporal punishment available to the courts. We know very well that the Opposition—that make—believe party of law and order-are unlikely to want to debate the issue. However, it is quite proper that those people and the problems that they cause should be debated on the Conservative Benches, if not by Labour Members.
  Mr. Howard: I am afraid that I cannot follow my hon. Friend down that route. It may be correct to debate the matter, but I am told—it was before my time—that the sentence was not used long before it ceased to exist in 1948 because it was generally considered to have little effect.
  Mr. Jack Straw: Let us be clear. The Secretary of State will recall that, when the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) raised the issue in a similar debate, the right hon. and learned Gentleman made it categorically clear that he opposed the reintroduction of flogging or birching by courts. Will he confirm that view?
  Mr. Howard: I thought I had. In case there is any doubt, I certainly do confirm it.
  Part I of the Bill introduces mandatory prison sentences for certain serious offenders. Clause 1 requires the courts to impose a life sentence on anyone aged 18 or above who is convicted for a second time of a serious violent or sexual crime such as attempted murder, manslaughter, rape or serious wounding. Those offenders should only be released if, and only if, it is safe to do so. The automatic life sentence will ensure that that is the case.
  The courts will determine at the point of sentence the minimum term of imprisonment that must be served for purposes of retribution and deterrence, but release will not automatically follow the completion of that term. It will depend upon a satisfactory risk assessment by the Parole Board. If the Parole Board considers that the offender represents a risk to the public, he or she will be kept in prison—if necessary, indefinitely. Those released will be on life licence and subject to recall at any time.
  The need for that provision has been questioned, but the case for it is overwhelming. In 1994, 217 offenders were convicted of a serious violent or sexual offence, having been previously convicted of at least one similar offence. Of those 217, only 10 received a life sentence. The others had to be released at the end of their determinate sentences, even if everyone involved knew

  913
  that they were likely to offend again. That is a completely unacceptable state of affairs and I am determined to remedy it.
  Sir Peter Lloyd: How many of those cases did my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General appeal against?
  Mr. Howard: I shall supply my right hon. Friend with that answer in due course. The difficulty is that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General had to take decisions against the existing background and guidance of sentencing practice as set out by the Court of Appeal. The thrust of my proposals is that existing practice in relation to serious violent or sexual offenders does not meet the case in terms of protecting the public, for the reasons that I have explained.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: Pursuing the point made by the right hon. Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd) a step further, can the Home Secretary name a single case upon which the Court of Appeal failed to act in an appropriate manner following a reference by the Attorney-General?
  Mr. Howard: The hon. and learned Gentleman misses the point. In every case where someone has committed two serious offences of that kind, he should not be released until there has been an assessment of risk. It will still be for the court to assess how long he should serve for retribution and deterrence. If the risk assessment is met satisfactorily at the end of that period, the person concerned will be released. If it is not, he will remain in custody. That is how it should be, for the greater protection of the public.
  Sir Michael Shersby: Will my right hon. and learned Friend inform the House whether any of the 217 offenders who were released at the end of their determinate sentences committed further murder or rape offences?
  Mr. Howard: A number did. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office will provide the exact number when he winds up the debate.
  Mr. Robert Jackson: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for giving way again. I shall not trouble him again, but this is a convenient moment to make my point. His proposals will effectively abolish the distinction between a sentence for murder and a sentence for a second-time offence in the relevant categories. Is not there a risk that that will give an incentive to someone committing such an offence for the second time to commit murder?
  Mr. Howard: I do not think that that would be the consequence. My hon. Friend is not entirely right; there will still be distinctions in procedures between the mandatory life sentence for any single act of murder and a life sentence for a second serious sexual or violent offence. Life imprisonment is already the maximum sentence for several offences. If my hon. Friend's argument was right—I have explained several times in detail why I do not believe it to be right—it would apply to all offences with statutory provision for a maximum
  914
  sentence of life imprisonment. The argument has been rejected by the House in a number of contexts on several occasions.
  Under clauses 2 and 3, the courts will be required to impose minimum prison sentences on anyone aged 18 or above who is convicted for a third time of trafficking in class A drugs or of domestic burglary. A sample of domestic burglars convicted in the Crown court in 1993 and 1994 showed that the average prison sentence for a first-time offender was 16.2 months. After three or more convictions, it was 18.9 months. After seven or more convictions, it was barely higher, at 19.4 months. Some 28 per cent. of offenders with seven or more convictions were not sent to prison. On hard drugs, a recent sample showed that the average sentence for a third conviction for trafficking in class A drugs was just over four years.
  We need to change the terms of trade against such career criminals. The Bill provides for a minimum prison sentence of seven years for drug trafficking and of three years for burglary. The courts will have discretion to allow a small discount of up to 20 per cent. off the mandatory minimum sentences for offenders who are ready to admit their guilt and offer a timely guilty plea. The court will be able to set the mandatory sentences aside only if it considers that there are exceptional circumstances. The judge must then explain those exceptional circumstances in open court. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will be able to refer cases to the Court of Appeal if he thinks it appropriate.
  Mr. David Hanson: The Home Secretary has acknowledged that his proposals will result in a large increase in the prison population, with an associated increase in costs. Why does he think that that is a better way to deter crime than putting the money into crime prevention?
  Mr. Howard: I do not believe that those are alternatives. We take crime prevention extremely seriously. The police take it seriously and spend a good deal of the £6 billion a year that we provide on crime prevention. In addition, £240 million is spent on crime prevention from other Government budgets. I accept that it is important to take crime prevention seriously, but serious, persistent and dangerous offenders need to be in custody so that the public can be adequately protected from their activities. That is the reasoning behind the measures in the Bill.
  I shall give way to the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping), but then I must make some progress.
  Mr. Paddy Tipping: The Home Secretary has just reminded the House that clauses 1, 2 and 3 refer to "exceptional circumstances". Will he give the House some examples of what he has in mind?
  Mr. Howard: There could be a number of such exceptional circumstances. I shall give the hon. Gentleman one example.
  Sometimes, someone appearing before a court gives the police exceptional help, which enables them to bring a number of other serious criminals to justice. That is an important factor, which I would regard as an exceptional circumstance justifying the passing of a sentence shorter

  915
  than the minimum mandatory length. The proposals have been widely welcomed by the public and the police; they are important measures. My aim is to bring them into force at the earliest opportunity.
  Part II reforms the arrangements for the early release of prisoners. Our aim is greater honesty and transparency in sentencing. The term of imprisonment served by the offender should closely match the sentence passed by the court. At present it does not.
  The present arrangements were introduced in the Criminal Justice Act 1991 and they were a move in the right direction. They increased the time that the prisoner must serve from a third to a half, but that does not go far enough. The public are rightly outraged when they learn that a burglar sentenced to one year is out of prison in six months or that a rapist sentenced to eight years is out in four. The new early-release arrangements will ensure that the term of imprisonment imposed by the court matches much more closely the term actually served. They will also ensure that any release before the end of the sentence will have to be earned, not awarded automatically.
  Mr. Gary Waller: As I understand the position, sentences may be rather shorter than they have been in the past because we shall have honest sentencing. However, is it not a fact that until now, the Parole Board has been able to consider, when assessing a prisoner's suitability for release, factors such as his medical and psychiatric condition, the possible risk to victims or potential victims, his insight into his offending behaviour and its effect on victims, and the realism of his resettlement plans? None of those factors, but only the narrow factor of his behaviour inside prison, will be able to be considered in future. Some of the most violent and most dangerous prisoners behave very well in prison, but could be a danger to the public. In reality, will not the proposals increase rather than lessen the danger to the public?
  Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend leaves out of account the new supervision arrangements in the Bill. At the moment, paradoxically, for the reasons given by my hon. Friend, those who are the greatest risk to the public get the least supervision when they leave prison. The proposals will significantly increase the amount of supervision that the most dangerous prisoners receive. The present parole and automatic early release arrangements—
  Mr. Straw: I assume that the Home Secretary is referring to those who are given indeterminate sentences. Will he confirm that for the majority of prisoners, who are not affected by the provisions for repeat burglary or drug dealing, under his proposals there will be less time under supervision than under the current arrangements?
  Mr. Howard: One cannot make an overall comparison because the time under supervision will vary, to some extent, from case to case. However, my point to my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) is valid, in that because of the very factors referred to by my hon. Friend, the most dangerous offenders—those who pose the greatest risk to the public—get the shortest period of supervision when they leave prison under the present arrangements. We shall provide alternative supervision
  916
  arrangements, as I am about to explain, which will, in most cases, increase the amount of supervision that serious and dangerous criminals receive.
  Under the Bill, on release from prison, all prisoners sentenced to 12 months or more, including those who serve their full term, will be subject to a period of post-release supervision equivalent to 15 per cent. of their sentence, and not fewer than three months. The more serious the offence and the longer the prison sentence, the longer the period of supervision. If the offender breaches the conditions of supervision or reoffends, he or she will be liable to a further term of imprisonment.
  In the case of sex offenders, the period of post-release supervision will be extended unless the court considers that the exceptional circumstances of the case do not warrant it. Under the Bill, anyone released from prison after serving a sentence for a sexual offence, whatever the length of that sentence, will be subject to a supervision period of 12 months or 50 per cent. of the sentence, whichever is the greater, unless there are exceptional circumstances. The courts may direct a longer period of supervision, up to a maximum of 10 years, if they consider that that is necessary to prevent further offending by the offender and to secure his or her rehabilitation.
  Conditions of supervision may include a requirement not to communicate with the victim, not to reside at a particular address, not to contact a named individual and not to work with children. Offenders who breach their conditions of supervision will be liable to a further period of imprisonment up to the outstanding period of supervision.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: How does the Home Secretary reconcile what he has just said—that in most cases the Bill will provide more rather than less supervision—with his claim that it will be cost neutral for the probation service?
  Mr. Howard: We have to take into account the overall provision. The Bill would place some extra burdens on the probation service, but it would remove others. I said, not that the Bill would provide longer supervision, but that there would be longer periods of supervision for the most dangerous offenders who pose the greatest risk to the public. The most important factor is the protection of the public.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the Home Secretary confirm in a straightforward answer that, if the Bill becomes law, most prisoners serving discretionary sentences—not sex offenders—such as those serving a three-year sentence imposed now, will serve less time in prison if they behave themselves there as a result of the combined effects of clauses 9 and 21, and that they will receive less supervision than before? If the right hon. and learned Gentleman has read his Bill and taken legal advice on its meaning, he can reach no other conclusion.
  Mr. Howard: That does not necessarily follow, but no doubt it will be examined carefully in Committee when we consider the precise terms of clause 21.
  The risk presented by sex offenders varies considerably, but it is clear that, in many cases, sex offending escalates to more serious offences and, once a pattern of sex offending is established, the risk of

  917
  reoffending persists over many years. The public deserve protection from such offenders. Long periods of post-release supervision can help to provide that protection, as well as the opportunity for offenders to deal with their offending behaviour through participation in treatment programmes.
  The proposal for extended periods of supervision of sex offenders was set out in the consultation paper "Sentencing and Supervision of Sex Offenders", which I published earlier this year. It received overwhelming support, and the Bill will give effect to it.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Let me return to the point that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson). If it is true that the Bill will result in less supervision, surely the public should know that. Why did the Home Secretary say that it was a matter for hon. Members to debate in Committee? We should know now whether that is the case. Will he tell us what the position is? Will the Bill lead to a reduction in sentences and, in certain cases, a reduction of supervision? Will the Home Secretary answer yes or no?
  Mr. Howard: I thought that I had made the position perfectly clear. The Bill will lead to a reduction of supervision in some cases, particularly for offenders who pose least risk to the public. The paradox of the present arrangement is that those who pose least risk to the public get parole and have a longer period of supervision than they will have under the Bill. However, those prisoners, by definition, pose least risk to the public. Those who pose most risk to the public will have a longer period of supervision and that is exactly as it should be.
  Mr. Straw: May we clarify matters and confirm that among those who pose least risk to the public, according to the Home Secretary, are robbers, burglars and first-time rapists?
  Mr. Howard: We are discussing only those who gain parole at the earliest possible opportunity under the present arrangements. The criteria for granting parole were accurately described by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley in his earlier intervention. Those who get parole at the earliest possible opportunity are those who, by definition, pose the least risk to the public. Under the Bill, they would get less supervision. The other side of the coin is that those who are most dangerous to the public and who pose the greatest risk would get longer periods of supervision under the Bill. That is what any rational person—and Opposition Members do not appear to come into that category—would expect.
  Sir Donald Thompson: Are we not seeing what we have been seeing for the past 15 years? Despite Opposition Members' protestations that they want to be tougher and do more against criminals, once the legislation is in front of them, we get silly, clever, half-baked lawyers' points.
  Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If one asked any member of the public who ought to get the longer period of supervision on release from prison, those who are the greatest risk to the public or those who are the least risk, one would get the answer that those who
  918
  are the greatest risk to the public ought to have the longer period of supervision. That is not what happens now, but it will as a result of the Bill.
  Part II includes important new provisions concerning the crediting of remand time against sentence. Those provisions are intended to simplify the law—which again originates from the Criminal Justice Act 1967—which has proved very difficult for the courts to interpret and the Prison Service to apply.
  In August, the divisional court upheld my view that periods spent on remand by those serving consecutive sentences should count once, and once only, towards the prisoner's sentence. It has also considered the issue of remand time in relation to concurrent sentences on four separate occasions over the past 15 years. The court has upheld the practice of the Prison Service on each occasion, but the complexities of the 1967 Act continue to give rise to difficulties, and another case is currently before the court.
  Clause 7 is intended to put matters beyond doubt. It gives effect to proposals that were set out in the White Paper "Protecting the Public", which was published in March. Under clause 7, the court will specify when passing sentence exactly how much remand time should count towards the sentence. For the first time, it will also be open to the court to decide not to count remand time in full—for example, to take account of time wasting by the defendant. The Bill includes power for rules to be made setting out the principles to be followed by the court in relation to consecutive or concurrent terms of imprisonment. Those provisions are designed to simplify that difficult and complex area of law.
  Part II also makes provision in relation to the release of certain life sentence prisoners. It introduces new arrangements for the release of offenders serving a sentence of detention during Her Majesty's pleasure, which is the mandatory sentence for young people who are convicted of murder. The Bill provides for the Parole Board, rather than the holder of my office, to determine when those detained during Her Majesty's pleasure are safe to be released once the tariff has been served. The power to set the tariff in such cases remains with the Secretary of State. The provision does not affect the arrangements for adults convicted of murder.
  The provisions in part III are designed in particular to increase the range of sentencing options that are open to the courts in respect of certain kinds of offender: fine defaulters, persistent petty offenders and mentally disordered offenders. For the first time, the courts will be able to impose a community service order or a curfew order, enforced by electronic monitoring, as a penalty for fine default. The number of people in prison for not paying a fine has fallen by around 60 per cent. in the past year, but more can be done. In our view, the courts should have available to them a range of options for enforcement of fines and punishment for default, and the Bill provides for that.
  In future, the courts will have to consider the use of a community service order or a curfew order before imprisoning for fine default. The sanction of imprisonment will be retained for those who are neither prepared to pay their fine nor comply with a community penalty. The new powers will ensure that a custodial sentence is not imposed where other sanctions can be

  919
  used. The powers will be introduced by way of pilot projects in the first instance, with a view to full implementation as soon as it is practicable to do so.
  The Bill allows the courts to use community service orders and curfew orders for persistent petty offenders. Under present legislation, such offenders will usually be fined. The courts have few other options available to them. If, however, an offender already has outstanding fines, a further fine may serve little purpose. The courts need a wider range of powers to deal with such offenders. The Bill provides for that.
  The Bill also provides for the abolition of the requirement for an offender to consent to the imposition of those community sentences that require it. That will end the current impression that offenders can dictate to the courts what kind of punishment they receive, simply by withholding the necessary consent to certain community sentences.
  Part III of the Bill also makes new provisions in respect of mentally disordered offenders. In particular, it gives the courts the power when passing a prison sentence to attach a direction of immediate admission to hospital. Existing arrangements for the sentencing of disordered offenders require the courts to choose between punishment and treatment. The court may impose a hospital order instead of a prison sentence. In the great majority of cases, that is appropriate, but it means that the offender will be discharged as soon as his or her treatment is completed, regardless of how serious the offence was.
  If a prison sentence is imposed instead, the court has no guarantee that the offender will receive treatment. The new hospital direction provides that guarantee. It will help the courts to deal more effectively with some of the most difficult cases that come before them. Those may be cases in which the court cannot be sure that treating the disorder will reduce the danger of reoffending, either because the disorder may prove to be untreatable or because the offending may not have been caused by the disorder. Such cases are small in number, but they are among the most difficult before the courts. Initially, the hospital direction will be made available for offenders suffering from psychopathic disorders, but our aim is to make it available, by way of an order-making power in the Bill, for all mentally disordered offenders.
  Finally, the Bill provides for new arrangements for the transfer of prisoners and for supervision within the United Kingdom and the islands and for the repatriation of prisoners to the UK. Such arrangements already exist, but the provisions in the Bill provide for a more effective and clearer system.
  Those are the main provisions of the Bill before the House today, but I should inform hon. Members that I propose to table amendments in Committee to give effect to three other important proposals which are, like those I have already described, intended to strengthen and improve the criminal justice system.
  First, I propose to extend the range of penalties available to the courts, by allowing them to make wider use of disqualification from driving as a punishment for offending or fine default. At present, that penalty is limited to driving offences or serious offences that involve the use of a car. In future, the penalty will be available for any offence.
  920
  Secondly, I propose to make curfew orders, with electronic monitoring, available for juveniles below the age of 16. At present, the courts may only impose a requirement for young persons in that age group to stay indoors during the hours of darkness, and the courts may do so only as a requirement of a supervision order and without electronic monitoring. The new powers will allow the courts to impose a curfew at any time of day, backed by electronic monitoring. Those powers clearly have a role in keeping young offenders off the streets or away from particular places and out of trouble. I want the Bill to provide for that.
  Thirdly, I propose to remove the restriction on the naming of juvenile offenders. Those who offend, whatever their age, should be made to face up to the consequences of their behaviour. Local communities have a right to know who the offenders are. In future there will be no automatic restriction on the naming of any juvenile offender. The youth court, as well as the Crown court, will be able to decide whether the name of the young person should be made public.
  The proposals in the Bill are clear and consistent. They are the proposals that I first set out in detail seven months ago. The president of the Police Superintendents Association said that it is in "the national interest" that the proposals become law as quickly as possible, yet the Opposition have steadfastly refused to support them. They started by trying to ridicule the proposals. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) called them a farce and the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said that they were daft.
  So farcical and daft were the proposals that they produced a frenzy of subterranean activity from the Opposition. That culminated in the publication of Labour's alternative proposals, five months later, which gave us a clear idea of what a Labour crime Bill would look like. The truth is that it would not be worthy of the name. There would be no honesty in sentencing; automatic early release from prison would continue; there would be no stiff minimum sentences set down by Parliament for professional house burglars; and there would be no minimum sentences for dealers in hard drugs. The Opposition like to pretend that they support automatic life sentences for second-time serious offenders, but the truth is that there are fundamental differences between our proposals and theirs. Labour's proposals leave out repeat violent offenders altogether. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) has said:
  "Offences of a sexual nature should be distinguished from other violent offences".
  As far as Labour is concerned, the public do not need greater protection from repeat armed robbers and the like.
  Let me give one example of why we need automatic life sentences for those convicted of a second sexual or violent offence. In 1978, in the central criminal court, a man was convicted of robbery using an imitation firearm. He had stolen £3,000 from two elderly ladies and was given an eight-year sentence, which was lowered to four years on appeal. Within a few weeks of his release in 1979, he committed another armed robbery. His accomplice murdered an elderly lady, while he pistol-whipped her husband. He received six years for manslaughter, armed robbery, wounding with intent and aggravated burglary. On his release in 1983, he committed a spate of armed robberies. Convicted on eight counts, he

  921
  received a 12-year sentence. Given home leave at the end of his sentence, he failed to return to prison and committed a series of armed robberies. In 1992, at St. Albans Crown court, he received 14 years for his crimes.
  Under our proposals, that man would have got life automatically after his second conviction. He could have been kept in prison, his dreadful crimes could have been prevented and the public could have been protected. Under Labour, there would be no such protection, no extra safeguards against violent criminals and no measures to deal with a man convicted of armed robbery, who, on his release from prison at the end of his sentence, went on to rape. That is the reality behind Labour's slogans on crime.
  Opposition Members are fond of saying that Labour has become the party of law and order. However, they fail to understand that one becomes the party of law and order not simply by calling one's party that, but by supporting tough law and order measures. That means voting for those measures in the Lobby, in Committee, on Report and on Third Reading, both here and in another place. That is something that the Labour party—new or old—has consistently failed to do.
  When he was shadow Home Secretary, the Leader of the Opposition dismissed my 27-point plan as a "gimmick", and refused to support the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. He voted against reforming the right to silence, claiming that
  "Any reasonable person could see that that approach is open to potential injustice."—[Official Report, 11 January 1994; Vol. 235, c. 43.]
  Recent Home Office research has shown that the number of suspects refusing to answer police questions has almost halved since we reformed the right to silence. Under Labour, that change would be reversed and hardened criminals would be able once again to stay silent, secure in the knowledge that their silence would remain a secret.
  Mr. Straw indicated dissent.
  Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. Perhaps he will tell us when Labour changed its mind. When did he decide to abandon the policy of the Leader of the Opposition?
  The provisions in the Bill, and those that I intend to add to it, are important and radical measures. They will improve the protection of the public, help to deter offenders, give the courts a wider range of powers to deal effectively with offenders who come before them and bring greater honesty and transparency to the sentencing process. They have been widely welcomed by the public and have the support of the police, and they deserve support from members of all parties in the House. I commend the Bill to the House.
  4.8 pm
  Mr. Jack Straw: As the whole country now knows, the Government's record on law and order is the worst of any Government since the war and is worse than that of any other major western country. Since 1979, recorded crime has doubled, and the number of people convicted or cautioned for those crimes has fallen. Under the Conservatives, there is much more crime and many more criminals getting away with it.
  922
  The Secretary of State often claims that his overriding concern is the safety of the public, so why do people today feel so unsafe? Why—as last Friday's poll in The Times showed—have law and order and crime and punishment now become the issues of greatest concern to the British public—more even than the state of the economy or the crisis in the health service? The reason for that record level of public anxiety about crime is that the British people have lost confidence in the Government's ability to fulfil the first duty of any Government: to protect the safety and security of their citizens.
  A significant part of the Bill is concerned with crimes of a serious sexual or violent nature, with drug dealers and with the scourge of domestic burglary. Let us examine what has happened to those crimes and to the victims of those crimes over the past 17 years.
  In each case, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of crimes committed, and an absolute fall in the number of people convicted of them. The number of rapes recorded has increased fourfold since 1980, yet the proportion resulting in a conviction has fallen so much that a rapist now has four times the chance of getting away with his crime that he had when Labour left office.
  Crimes of violence have shot up. For every one street robbery—[Interruption.] I am glad that Conservative Members think that that is funny. I am telling the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) that the proportion of people convicted of rape has dropped from 37 per cent. of the number of recorded rapes in 1980 to 9 per cent. in 1994, and he thinks that it is funny.
  For every street robbery that took place when Labour was in office, five take place today. The Home Secretary likes to boast about how everything has improved in the past few years, but he should remember that, in the five short years between 1989 and 1994, the number of violent crimes recorded went up by a quarter, but the number of convictions for those crimes fell by a third.
  The police, Customs and Excise and the other agencies involved continue to do an excellent job in drug seizures and the arrest of drug traffickers, but the prospects must appear extremely depressing to them. The number of those known to be addicted to hard drugs has more than trebled since 1987.
  Even if no violence is perpetrated during the course of a burglary, victims and their families feel violated; the anxiety and strain can last for years. Two or three decades ago, burglary was something that generally happened to someone else; today, it is a commonplace experience, and the poorest people are most likely to be the victims. The number of recorded burglaries has increased by 121 per cent., while those who commit the crime have three times the chance of getting away with it under the Tories than they did under Labour.
  Mr. Howard: If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about the proportion of criminals escaping conviction, why do he and his party consistently vote against every measure, such as the reform of the right to silence, that we introduce to increase the proportion of criminals being convicted?
  Mr. Straw: I shall come in a moment to the Home Secretary's record of voting for measures that he is now opposed to, but what he says is in any case quite untrue—one can never take his statements seriously.

  923
  Since 1979, there have been 33 criminal justice measures—we are now dealing with the 34th—and we supported 23; we voted on reasoned amendments on Second Reading for four; and we opposed five. On the right to silence, the Home Secretary knows that the argument was not about whether the so-called right to silence was applied, but about how that was to be done, and that we resolutely supported the royal commission's recommendations.
  Behind the Government's appalling record, in which five robberies take place today for every one under Labour, there is a human story: the story of people who, in the past 17 years, have had to change the way they live in order to cope with the epidemic of crime and disorder. Primary age children are no longer left out of sight, and rarely go to school by themselves. The elderly refuse to answer their door after 7 or so in the evening. Nearly half our women are frightened even to walk down the street in their neighbourhood at night.
  There can be no better evidence of the failure of the Government's policies on crime than the need for yet another criminal justice Bill. If the Conservative party had met its promise on law and order, Bills such as this would not be necessary. After all, this is the 34th criminal justice Bill since 1979, each one made with the promise that it was a lasting solution to the problem of lawlessness and would turn the tide on crime. Each Bill came with a boast by its sponsoring Minister that he had found the final answer to crime.
  As I pointed out in the debate on the Loyal Address last Monday, no coherent strategy has underpinned any of those Bills. No sooner is one put into effect than we have another to overturn it. Six months ago, the Home Secretary told readers of The Sun that the present sentencing system was a "farce" and a "mockery". He was right about that, but he foolishly failed to acknowledge that he is responsible for the farce and mockery. He agreed it in Cabinet and voted for it in the House; it is only five years old.
  All the propositions to which the Home Secretary now takes such exception are in the 1991 Act: the current system of parole; almost total judicial discretion; no fixed minimum sentences. They are all contained in the 1991 Act, for which the Secretary of State voted. As a leading Member of the Cabinet, then as now, he voted for that Act on the basis that it would last.
  The then Home Office Minister, the right hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten), did not understate the Government's view of the historic importance of the 1991 measure. He said;
  "The Bill marks a watershed in the future of the criminal justice system by this radical and reforming government of the past 11 years and it will see us through into the 1990s and the next century".
  The next century? A significant part of the 1991 Act did not even last two years. Now a large part of what was left of the 1991 Act is to be ditched by the Home Secretary, with no apology and no shame. Is it any wonder that the public no longer trust a Government whose senior members can no longer trust themselves to make good judgments and stick to them?
  Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman said how concerned he is—and I am sure he is, as we all are—about women
  924
  who feel unsafe in their neighbourhoods and about elderly people who are frightened of opening their doors at night. They are fearful because of a lot of mindless thugs. hooligans, bullies and vandals who set upon them. There is no deterrent for such behaviour at present. I will be seeking to table an amendment to discuss and perhaps bring forward corporal punishment. Why does he oppose that?
  Mr. Straw: Because it will not work. Everyone with any sense, including the Secretary of State, knows it cannot possibly work. The hon. Gentleman should examine the history of flogging and birching. It was abandoned in 1948 by all-party agreement because it palpably did not work. If he wants to do something about the epidemic of youth crime, he should support our proposals for a root-and-branch reform of the youth justice system.
  I was reminding the House of what the right hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon said about the importance of the Criminal Justice Act 1991. However, we should not have been surprised by the inadequacy of the Home Secretary's political skills and administrative judgment. As Minister for Local Government, he said that the Bill that introduced the poll tax
  "was as important in its own way as the great Reform Bills of the nineteenth century".
  [Laughter.]I am glad that he can see the joke. Why trust him now when he came out with that rubbish then?
  I was indebted to the 1991 edition of the Conservative campaign guide for the ringing words of the right hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon about the historic importance of the 1991 Act in taking us through into the next century. Other gems are to be found in that great document.
  The right hon.Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) will remember page 498, as he authorised its publication. In 1991, Labour was concerned, as it still is, about the lack of consistency and progression in sentencing. We proposed machinery to deal with that, but we were voted down by the Government. Why? According to the guide, because Labour's proposals would have denied the courts
  "the discretion they need if they are to deal adequately with the wide variety of criminal acts that come before them".
  The guide stated that that
  "illustrates Labour's traditional mistrust of the judiciary and provides Labour with an institution to shackle them to a rigid penal system".
  Let me examine in detail the "farce and mockery" of the present sentencing system and the Secretary of State's proposals for putting right the gross errors of the present system, for which he was responsible.
  First is consistency. We are fortunate that our lay magistrates and professional judges are people of the highest integrity and dedication. They seek to apply the classical principles of sentencing set out by Lord Justice Lawton in the leading authority of Regina v. Sargeant. He said that those principles were of
  "retribution, deterrence, prevention and rehabilitation"
  and that, while
  "the courts do not have to reflect public opinion, on the other hand, courts must not disregard it".
  Despite that, the public believe that too often courts impose sentences that fail to match the gravity of the crimes committed.

  925
  There is an explanation for the widening gap between the reality of sentencing and the public perception of it; it is to be found in the huge variations in sentencing practice between different courts for similar offences. That lack of consistency is reinforced by the absence of any clear system to ensure consistency between courts and progression as offenders reoffend, or to ensure that magistrates and judges are kept properly informed of the outcome of the sentences they impose.
  Magistrates courts deal with 19 out of 20 criminal cases, and about one in 13 of those convicted of an indictable offence in such a court receive immediate prison sentences, but the chance of such a sentence being issued in any one court varies by a factor of ten. At one end is Staffordshire Moorlands court, where one in six defendants before the court for an indictable offence end up with a prison sentence—at the other is Maidenhead in Berkshire, where the chance is not one in six but one in 66.
  When such figures were put to the Secretary of State during an interview in "Constabulary" magazine, he justified such variations by defending the judicial discretion of local magistrates, saying
  "Our justice is local justice and there will be variation from place to place".
  I want justice to be locally tailored, which is one reason why we are convinced of the need to have locally accountable Crown prosecutors in place of the present, monolithic nationalised system; but those huge variations in local sentencing practice are based not on any explicit local sentencing policies but on the chance of who sits on the bench, and on local habit.
  Although the variation in sentencing practice in otherwise similar Crown courts is narrower than that for magistrates courts, it is none the less marked. Among level 3 courts, for example, which deal with bulk crimes like burglary, a defendant at Hereford Crown court has almost twice as much chance of receiving an immediate prison sentence as a defendant at Woolwich Crown court.
  One of the main criticisms made of the 1991 legislation by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) was that it failed to deal with unacceptable discrepancies in sentencing.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the hon. Gentleman accept from me, as the honorary recorder of the city of Hereford, that the justice meted out there is of the highest quality?
  Mr. Straw: I am glad to know that. Defying the Liberals' reputation for softness on crime—I hope that this comes as no embarrassment to the hon. and learned Gentleman—he is party to a court that has the toughest record of any level 3 Crown court in the country. Sixty seven per cent. of the defendants receive an immediate custodial sentence, compared with 38 per cent. of those who appear at Woolwich Crown court. Is the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) a recorder in Woolwich?
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: In London.
  Mr. Straw: He may well go to Woolwich too, as I shall explain—the reputation of the hon. and learned Gentleman goes before him.
  926
  One of the main criticisms of the 1991 Bill levelled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook was that it failed to deal with "unacceptable discrepancies" in sentencing. Our proposal for machinery to achieve consistency was rejected out of hand by the Government on the now laughable grounds that it would produce
  "the dead hand of conformity"—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 7 February 1991; c. 721.]
  and
  "end up like the experience in the United States."—[Official Report, 20 November 1990; Vol. 181, c. 232.]
  The Government have failed, however, to acknowledge the scale of the problem of inconsistency in sentencing, which has done so much to damage public confidence in the sentencing process.
  I do not believe that the Court of Appeal is beyond criticism, either. It could and should have been far more pro-active in issuing detailed sentencing guidance, as the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), when he was Home Secretary, expected it to do in his White Paper. The court has done so for some offences, notably rape, but not for many others. Professor Andrew Ashworth of King's College London has commented that most of the Court of Appeal's
  "decisions on domestic burglary are a veritable wasteland in terms of guidance."
  The lack of consistency between courts is also compounded by a lack of progression or severity in sentencing as persistent offenders come before the courts again and again. Indeed, nowhere has there been a greater switchback in policy than here. The 1991 Act actually prohibited courts from taking account of previous convictions. The then Home Secretary, David Waddington, now Lord Waddington, justified that prohibition on these bizarre grounds:
  "If an offender has already been punished for a previous offence it seems unfair and unjust to punish him twice over by increasing the penalty for a subsequent offence".—[Official Report, 20 November 1990; Vol. 181, c. 141.]
  In February this year, the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), gave me parliamentary answers to questions relating to custodial sentences which I found astonishing—so much so that I had the statisticians of the House of Commons Library check them for special factors, although they could find none.
  The figures showed that, for domestic burglars given custodial sentences, the term of imprisonment stayed the same at 15 months whether for a first, second or third conviction; whereas for class A drug dealers, the average sentence length for those sentenced to imprisonment on a third conviction was, at 30 months, two months less than for those sentenced on a first conviction.
  Remarkably, the Bill does almost nothing to address the problems of consistency, and will impact on progression only on a third conviction of domestic burglars and drugs dealers. In practice, the proposals will have little if any impact on consistency between courts in respect of those subject to automatic life sentences, because the minimum period for retribution and deterrence—the tariff—will continue to be set by the trial judge.
  The need for consistency and progression applies to all offences and at every point in the offender's criminal career. Our answer to those problems is that the Court of

  927
  Appeal should be given a clear statutory duty to lay down detailed sentencing guidelines for all the main categories of offence, and to prescribe those without having to await the chance of a specific appeal.
  The Secretary of State's traditional reaction to any proposal that is not his own is to dismiss it—even if, later, he has to adopt it. Thus has he scoffed and sneered at our proposals for sentencing guidelines. In doing so, he is scoffing and sneering not only at us, but at his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. In the White Paper entitled "Crime and Punishment", we find that the Scottish Secretary has signally failed to adopt the Home Secretary's proposals on repeat burglars, and has instead adopted our proposals. In paragraph 8.19 of that White Paper, sentencing guidelines are given pride of place. In our view, those are needed south of the border as well, and we shall pursue that matter in Committee.
  As I have made clear repeatedly, there is no issue between us and the Government on the Bill's overall aims of achieving clarity in sentencing, securing better public safety and ensuring tough sentences for repeat burglars and drug dealers. Other proposals in the Bill also have our support, including alternatives to prison for fine defaulters, changes in arrangements for juveniles detained at Her Majesty's pleasure, and calculations of remand time. We also want to see improvements in the provision for mentally ill offenders. For those reasons, we shall, as I made clear last week, ensure that the Bill gets its Second Reading. We shall aim to improve it in Committee.
  There is an issue between us, however, over the methods which the Secretary of State has chosen to adopt. First, let us consider so-called honesty in sentencing. Lord Taylor, when he was Lord Chief Justice, referred to the current sentencing system as a "charade". Last week, I said that the system amounted to a "benign deception" of the public.
  It is the victims or their relatives who suffer most. An offender who is given a sentence of four years will typically serve only two years. With time spent on remand, he may be out after a year. Our answer to this is simple: tell the truth about each sentence. A four-year sentence would properly be called a two-to-four-year sentence. In addition, in every case, the trial judge should state the earliest release date, to take account of time spent on remand. That calculation of the earliest release date will be made much easier by the sensible clarification of the law in clause 7. But, sadly, as we heard during the speech of the Secretary of State, his approach is far from simple.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: He has not read the Bill.
  Mr. Straw: That is absolutely true, and as he tread water while sinking fast it became patently obvious that he had not read key sections of the Bill.
  The White Paper published by the Secretary of State stated that the sentence passed by the court
  "should mean what it says".
  To achieve that, however, the right hon. and learned Gentleman proposes to throw out the baby out with the bathwater, and then turn the bath upside down.
  Parole for prisoners serving fixed terms will be abolished. Good behaviour will earn six days a month off, up to 20 per cent. of the sentence, while those sentenced
  928
  to 12 months or more will be supervised by the probation service for a period equivalent to 15 per cent. of their original sentence. That is hardly simple.
  I have yet to hear any convincing answer from the Secretary of State to the damning criticism of the method he proposes from his own former Minister with responsibility for prisons, the right hon. Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd). He said last week that those proposals
  "will not achieve greater honesty in sentencing, and ending parole will leave the public less well protected".—[Official Report, 28 October 1996; Vol. 284, c. 365.]
  Let us take one example of a prisoner sentenced to three years. Assuming good behaviour, under the current system he would be released after 18 months; supervised for a further nine months; and at risk of serving the remaining nine months of his sentence if he then reoffended. The Secretary of State is emphatic, and so are the terms of clause 21, that none of the changes should affect the actual length of time that someone serves in prison. Under his arrangement, however, someone currently sentenced to three years, who would get out after 18 months with good behaviour, would have to be sentenced to 22½. months in order to earn his 20 per cent. discount, which meant he also got out after 18 months. My hon. Friends can see that the system is extremely simple, as the Secretary of State has said.
  Under the Secretary of State's proposal, the prisoner will only be under supervision, and at risk of return to prison, for a further three and a half months. Under the current system, that prisoner, once he had got out after 18 months, would be subject to supervision for nine months and would be at risk of going back into prison for a further nine months. Under the Secretary of State's proposed system, a prisoner would come out after 18 months and be subject only for a further three and a half months to supervision and remain at risk of being returned to prison. Where is the sense in that?
  As the Secretary of State trod water and tried to read the Bill as he spoke on it, he tried to argue that reduction in supervision would affect only those who pose the least danger to the public. I note that the right hon. and learned Gentleman nods his head, so at last we have a clear admission about who it is he believes do not pose a danger to the public.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: Muggers.
  Mr. Straw: Yes—the people who are committing knife crimes on the underground, about which the Evening Standard has written today. That list will also include robbers and domestic burglars. According to the Secretary of State, all those people pose the least danger to the public. [Interruption.] That is what he has said, and those are the people who will be affected by the provisions. Those people pose a danger to the public, and they deserve the supervision provided by the current system.
  Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman is being preposterous. First, all those in the categories that he has identified would, if they are repeat offenders, be covered by the minimum mandatory sentence which we propose and which he opposes.
  Mr. Carlile: No.
  Mr. Howard: Yes, all of them if they are repeat offenders.

  929
  As for supervision, I repeat what I said earlier: anyone with a grain of common sense would want to secure that those who pose the greatest risk to the public, and who do not get parole under the present system, would be subject to the maximum supervision, while those who pose the least risk to the public should be subject to less supervision. That is exactly what the Bill provides.
  Mr. Straw: I notice that, through all that bluster, although the Secretary of State described my comments as preposterous, he did not describe them as wrong, because they are right.
  The Secretary of State knows that the system that he is about to establish will produce circumstances that put the public at greater risk from burglars and robbers. It is no good his talking about the arrangements for third-time repeat burglars and robbers: we know how those will impact on the situation. With regard to first-time or second-time burglars and robbers, his proposals for supervision and for arrangements for putting those people at risk of imprisonment if they reoffend are much more lenient than the current arrangements.
  Mr. Carlile: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that what the Home Secretary has just said—to the effect that, under the Bill, repeat muggers would have to serve mandatory sentences—is just not right? The only robbers who are covered by repeat sentences under the Bill are those who, at some time during the commission of the offence, had in their possession a firearm or imitation firearm. 'That does not deal with knifepoint robberies or handbag snatching from old ladies. Can the hon. Gentleman think why the Home Secretary has seen fit to tell the House a version of the Bill that is not in the Bill?
  Mr. Straw: I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman has a high regard for my powers of perception, but the one thing that I cannot do, for which I apologise, is to explain to him why the Home Secretary says something that is patently untrue.
  The Evening Standard today writes about the epidemic of knifepoint robberies on trains. Such offenders would have less supervision and an increased chance of reoffending without any risk of being returned to prison than under the current arrangements.
  Mr. Howard: If the people referred to on the front page of the Evening Standard today committed a serious wounding with their knife—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"]—they would clearly be covered by my proposals for an automatic life sentence for those who commit serious violent offences. They would not be covered by any Opposition proposal, because the Opposition have no such proposal. One must consider the detail of the offences that people in those categories have committed.
  Mr. Straw: The Secretary of State is right about one thing: we must certainly consider the detail. I would advise him to study the detail a little more before he stands up and makes a fool of himself again.
  Mr. Robert Jackson: Before the debate turns into a Dutch auction, may I say that I find it extraordinary that there are more people serving life imprisonment in Britain
  930
  than in the rest of the European Union? If the hon. Gentleman were Home Secretary, would that number rise or fall?
  Mr. Straw: I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman. I shall do my best to give a serious answer to a serious question: there is no way that a Secretary of State could answer that question, because the number of people convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment is a function, first, of the police in catching and apprehending criminals, and, secondly of the courts. Where the courts pass such sentences, the House must ensure that adequate prison accommodation is available.
  A remarkable feature of the proposals from the Secretary of State is that they are so complicated that, even if they are passed, they cannot come into force for three years, whereas under our proposals, honesty in sentencing could be achieved as soon as the Bill becomes law, without the safety of the public being compromised.
  As I also made clear last week, the public must be protected from people such as repeat rapists. It is unsafe to set a release date for such people at the time they are sentenced. Instead, it is entirely correct that a judgment about their release date should be made by the Parole Board after the tariff has been served, and then only when the board judges that release is likely to be safe. This proposal has our positive support, for those convicted of rape or of serious sexual offences, or cases involving homicide attempts or solicitation.
  I am concerned that the list of offences in clause 2(5) may be too broad—in particular, with the inclusion of section 18 wounding. The law relating to section 18 is wholly unsatisfactory, as the Law Commission has repeatedly pointed out; and the range of conduct covered by this section is extremely wide.
  The Secretary of State got terribly excited about this reservation of mine last week, as if the fact that I might have a genuine doubt about one of his propositions was proof at last that I was soft on crime. Before he chides me now for daring to have a doubt, I could equally well ask him why he chose to draw the line in his way—why he chose, for instance, not to include robbery with a knife in the list of "trigger" offences. The line must certainly be drawn somewhere, but I see no reason why we should not have a serious adult discussion about where to draw it.
  Before the right hon. Member for Fareham leaves the Chamber, I should like to point out that, in last week's debate, he expressed support for a greater use of determinate sentences, but added that they were being called life sentences to sound fiercer—although the greater honesty that is much spoken of these days would demand another name. I agree that there would be nothing fixed about these sentences; nor, save in a tiny minority of cases, will the prisoner be in gaol for the whole of his natural life. Would it not therefore be more honest to tell the public the truth: that these are indeterminate, reviewable sentences, with a fixed minimum set by the trial judge, not Parliament, and a reviewable release date thereafter to be determined by the Parole Board?

  931
  Let me now deal with the proposals in respect of domestic burglars and drug dealers. In 1991, the hon. and learned Member for Burton, Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, gave the House the benefit of his considered view on automatic fixed minimum sentences:
  "I do not like minimum sentences … Speeches calling for minimum sentences have always been resisted over the years. Governments have resisted the idea of going down this slippery slope because if one case is allowed as an exception it becomes difficult to refuse other cases".—[Official Report, 20 February 1991: Vol. 186, c. 311–12.]
  Now the Secretary of State and the Government are sliding down the slippery slope at breakneck speed. Last week, the Secretary of State told the House that it was completely untrue that his original sentencing proposals had been ditched. As ever, he protests too much. I have with me two documents—one, the Crime (Sentences) Bill; the other, the speech that the Secretary of State made to the Conservative party conference in October 1995.
  In his 1995 speech, the right hon. and learned Gentleman's answer was simple: there would be stiff minimum sentences for burglars and drug dealers who offended again and again. There was not a word about exceptions; indeed, the word "exceptions" appeared nowhere in the speech. Even the background notes attached to the press copies of the speech were emphatic—offenders over 18 who had already been convicted of three such offences would face a stiff minimum sentence. There were no ifs or buts about it.
  That was when the Secretary of State was at the top of the slippery slope. Then the Treasury, the judges and his more fair-minded colleagues started to push. The fact that completely fixed minimum sentences could lead to guilty criminals walking free from court started to dawn on him, so by April the Secretary of State had passed the sign on the slope marked "genuine, very special, occasional, quite unforeseeable circumstances".
  Today, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is even further down the slope. All the qualifications have now gone. Under the Bill, the courts are to have wide discretion, related to the offender as well as to the offence, not to apply the fixed minimum if a court is of the opinion that there are exceptional circumstances in favour of not doing so. And there will be a 20 per cent. discount for a timely guilty plea. That is a world away from the Secretary of State's 1995 conference speech.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: My hon. Friend will probably recall the 1990 White Paper which proceeded the 1991 Act, in which the Government said:
  "The courts have shown great skill in the way they sentence exceptional cases".
  Would my hon. Friend like to speculate on what has happened between then and now to explain why the Government have lost faith in the courts?
  Mr. Straw: The Government have panicked about their appalling record on law and order, and are desperately trying to regain public support. But their every move loses them more public support.
  Mr. Howard: As the hon. Gentleman is making entirely unfounded allegations about changes of position,
  932
  may I ask him about his announcement a few moments ago that his indeterminate sentence would apply to offences of attempted murder? That is not to be found in any of his documents or previous statements, which have been confined to sexual offences. When did the hon. Gentleman decide to make this U-turn? Could he perhaps refer us to any of his earlier documents that included attempted murder?
  Mr. Straw: I told the Secretary of State just now that he ought to apply himself to the detail before standing up again. I am afraid that he did not take my advice, and he is wrong again. I shall turn up the reference for him as soon as I sit down; I made exactly this point in the speech on the Loyal Address last month.
  Listening to the breathless tones of the Secretary of State, one could be forgiven for thinking that all the measures in the Bill would start to operate as soon as they became law. But the Secretary of State did not bargain for other members of the Cabinet. If I may let my hon. Friends into a secret, the Home Secretary may not be popular with the public, but that is as nothing compared with the hostility that he now arouses among his Cabinet colleagues, who these days spend more time briefing against him than they do even against the Prime Minister. Most of all, he cannot convince his predecessor, now the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  So the proposal in the Bill designed for the biggest headline will not operate this year, next year or the year after. Indeed, no third-time persistent burglar could in practice receive a so-called fixed minimum sentence under the Bill until the dying days of the next Parliament, in the year 2001. No wonder, as the public learn the truth about this Secretary of State and his policies, that confidence in both of them is falling to record lows.
  Although the Bill contains some improvements, it does not begin to measure up to the problems faced by the British public after 17 years of Conservative rule. There are no proposals to deal with the most glaring faults of the current system: the gap between crime and convictions, the desperately needed reform of the Crown Prosecution Service, the desperate need to put in place fundamental reforms of the youth justice system. The Secretary of State seems blind to the fact that almost all the 55,000 adult prisoners began their lives of crime as juveniles. Almost alone, he and the Minister of State defend the current system of youth justice, although, as our paper published in June shows, that so-called system is wasteful, ineffective and replete with delay.
  There is nothing, moreover, in the legislative programme to harness local communities and their representatives to fight crime in partnership with the police, and there is no strategy to deal with the plague of disorder on our streets which so undermines people's quality of life. No wonder even those on the right hon. and learned Gentleman's side are deserting him. The right hon. and learned Member for Putney has accused him of losing the plot—of having been outflanked by Labour on law and order.
  The Secretary of State has been abandoned by the public, by the professionals, by the victims—and now, even by the police. The Times of last Thursday carried the headline "Police jeer Minister as he defends Howard's law and order record". The article went on to say that the Minister of State was jeered and booed by police officers

  933
  as he tried to defend the law and order record of the Home Secretary. "Tried but failed"—a fitting epitaph for a failing Secretary of State.
  4.48 pm
  Mr. Douglas Hurd: I am amazed, although I have listened to him before, that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) should think that that kind of speech will impress the House, his constituents or anyone else's. It was highly politicised. Our constituents do not think about crime, criminals or criminal justice in those terms, but he set those issues in a certain political context, from which lessons may be drawn.
  The Bill, and measures contemplated on firearms, knives, stalking and perhaps other issues, are sometimes portrayed in the press as though they were stages in a desperate race for votes—the assumption being that the public believe that every potential weapon should be outlawed, that every offender should be sent to prison, that the only good sentence is a long sentence and that it is the job of a politician to come as close to that ideal as possible.
  If that is the race set by the media and some sections of opinion, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will not and cannot enter such a race in such crude terms. In any such race with the Labour party, he would suffer under an inescapable handicap. What he proposes must be workable. He is the Home Secretary; he carries the responsibility. The hon. Member for Blackburn is irresponsible.
  That was not always so on the Labour Benches. The Labour party used to contain a tradition of liberal thinking on penal matters. In my time, I occasionally found that tradition extremely irritating. Earlier, when the Attorney-General answered questions, we were reminded of the Labour party's record in resisting the Conservative Government when we proposed the prosecution's right of appeal against lenient sentences. I believed that the Labour party was wrong about that and several other measures in my time, but we recognised that as part of a consistent tradition.
  All that has been thrown to the winds by the hon. Member for Blackburn. His stand is now entirely wayward and unpredictable. He tries to pretend to the public that he is the terror of the criminal classes. I am waiting for him to tell us before too long that, after much thought and careful research, and probably nowadays a little prayer, he has found the answer to prison overcrowding—to hang offenders outside the prison gate. Nothing that the hon. Gentleman did would surprise us now.
  Actually, common sense—and, I believe, the latest opinion research—suggests that there is not much profit for any of us in treating those matters as a race for votes. It must be right and in the public interest for the House and the other place to consider the proposals for a major criminal justice Bill on their merits.
  The operation of our criminal justice system is not in the hands of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary alone or of the Government. Under our British system, it is in the hands of a variety of people—chief constables, the Crown Prosecution Service, judges, magistrates, prison governors, probation officers and others. Under the British system, none of them is a creature of the Government. The House has given them
  934
  all separate responsibilities and a degree of autonomy. Criminal justice measures will not work unless those people work them. That means that they must be listened to—I emphasise that—although their voice is not decisive. In the end, Parliament must decide.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, and any Home Secretary, has the right and duty to propose changes in the light of experience—experience of what reduces crime and what does not. It is nonsense to suppose that there is a final answer, and that an incoming Home Secretary, or any Home Secretary, will be for ever content with the criminal justice system. As long as there is crime, and as long as there is fear and anxiety about it, he must constantly seek ways to improve matters. What at one time appeared workable and adequate may no longer be so. What at one time appeared impracticable, not workable, may become so. It is wrong for the hon. Member for Blackburn to make purely partisan points as though, at any one time, anyone could claim that the position is final.
  However, Parliament needs to consider carefully what will work in the long term. Let us face it; at present, the House is not very good at legislating, for various reasons. The quality of legislation coming out of Whitehall is low. The number of Government amendments—I am not talking about the policy changes that my right hon. and learned Friend mentioned, but the number of corrective Government amendments—is high. The House is not very, good at improving legislation during its passage—anyone who has sat in a Standing Committee as a Minister or as a Back Bencher knows why.
  The Bill should, therefore, be carefully examined, and my right hon. and learned Friend has undertaken that it will be. Two questions, both of which have been mentioned, arise for examination in Committee. I welcome the fact that there is phrasing about discretion given to the courts to set aside the new mandatory life and minimum sentences in genuinely exceptional cases. The hon. Member for Blackburn characteristically mocked that provision, but it is a sensible, commonsense provision. It does not negate the principles that my right hon. and learned Friend spoke about in the autumn of 1995. Nevertheless it is important to get the phrasing right and to ensure that it is, in the practitioners' view, an adequate way of remedying those proposals to prevent possible injustice. Proper phrasing of that provision, which occurs three times in the Bill, is important.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) mentioned honesty of sentencing. There is strong pressure on judges to make sentences longer, and my right hon. and learned Friend would acknowledge that, today, he somewhat added to that pressure in some of the things that he said, yet under the heading of honesty in sentencing, so that his proposals work without placing an even greater burden on prisons, he is requiring the nominal sentences pronounced in court to be shortened so that they are closer to the realities that he is producing under the heading of honesty in sentencing.
  Does my right hon. and learned Friend really believe that judges have got that message? It is only fair that it should be repeated; otherwise, that expectation will be proved fallible because of the strong pressure on the judiciary to introduce longer sentences.
  The Prison Service is the hidden public service. I have worked closely with several Prime Ministers, but I have never known a Prime Minister to visit a prison. I may be

  935
  wrong, but I do not believe that they have. The Princess Royal visits prisons; I do not know of another member of her family who does.
  Yet any criminal justice policy rests on prison for serious offenders and, understandably, my right hon. and learned Friend, for reasons that he explained, proposes to place greater weight on them. Not many right hon. or hon. Members have taken a consistent interest in prisons. I am afraid that I have not. My right hon. Friends the Members for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd) and for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) do, and the prisons Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), certainly does. She and others have been stalwart in their work to keep prisons secure and, as I once said, to ensure that they are decent but austere.
  I am delighted that slopping out has ended. I am delighted with the progress that my right hon. and learned Friend reported this afternoon in keeping fine defaulters out of prison; he proposes to take that further. All that and much else is good news.
  Much has been written about the purpose of prison; I cannot go into all that now. One purpose is to punish—Conservative Members have no problem about that. Another is to deter, although that depends, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) said, on the likelihood of detection. The higher the likelihood of detection, the greater the deterrence of a prison sentence. I shall dwell for a second on the third purpose of prison—to incapacitate the criminal.
  If we lock up more burglars for longer, they are not capable of burgling while behind bars, so our streets and homes are safer while they are there. That is a significant short-term gain. When their sentences expire, more burglars will enter prison as they are sentenced, under the new arrangements, for longer, but more burglars will leave prison. There will be an increased flow of released offenders on to our streets. Will those people go straight, or return to crime?
  In the medium term—not in the short term—whether prison works depends not only on the length of the sentence, but on what happens in the prison. Exaggerated hopes about that have been associated with Lord Longford, but there is a realistic ambition at the centre of any criminal justice proposals. The Director General of the Prison Service, Mr. Tilt, has made an admirable start with his responsibilities. He recently made a fine speech to the Howard League for Penal Reform. He strongly rejected as simply untrue the implication that
  "all prisoners are nasty, evil, vengeful, unrepentant".
  He went on to say that the
  "purpose of the prison service should be to provide as much assistance as possible to get them settled back into the community, thereby providing additional protection for the public."
  I underline the phrase
  "additional protection for the public".
  We are not talking about what might be called progressive waffle. The case for training, probation, work and education in prison is the case for the future protection of the public, and that case is directly relevant to the Bill.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hurd: No, I am coming to a close, and I know that many hon. Members want to speak.
  936
  If that case is neglected because of financial difficulties due to the needs of new prisons, and if the finances available are swallowed up, it is possible that our prisons will turn out more accomplished criminals, and that the purpose of the Bill will, in the medium and long term, be frustrated.
  My right hon. and learned Friend has often emphasised the importance of the victim—as others did before him, but he has played a great part in that—and that is entirely right. I have never understood why the victim is thought to have benefited when we make a mess of treating the offender. The victim of the past offence does not benefit, and offences may be committed in the future as a result.
  Earlier this year, there were alarming reports of cuts in the prison education programme. It was said that 60 per cent. of prison governors were planning cuts from 0 per cent. to 83 per cent. I have talked to my right hon. and learned Friend. He kindly saw me about this matter: he was fully seized of the problem and had some reassuring comments. Some figures were issued in September. Could we have tonight, or as soon as possible hereafter, up-to-date figures on the quantity and quality of education, the strength of probation staff in prisons and the time that prisoners spend locked in their cells?
  My right hon. and learned Friend, on behalf of the Government, is entitled to introduce the proposals, because this is not a subject on which anyone can at any time rest content that everything has been done. Parliament is obliged to scrutinise the proposals with care, but please let us not forget the prison system on which they put greater weight. If the foundation of that part of the system were to collapse or disintegrate, that would disgrace our society, and we could add to the dangers facing the public while we claim to reduce them. One of the main aims of policy should be to support my right hon. and learned Friend, the Home Office and the Prison Service in maintaining and advancing prison standards.
  5.2 pm
  Mr. Donald Anderson: We have just heard a reasoned and reasonable speech from the former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd). I could not help musing that it was the voice of a different age of Toryism. It was the voice of someone who listens to the Howard League for Penal Reform, and who accepts that the classic aims of sentencing include something called rehabilitation.
  I see no mention of rehabilitation in the Bill, which is only about banging up the criminal. That may make the pulse of Tory conference delegates run faster, but it provides no long-termism, in the sense implied by the right hon. Member for Witney. Potential victims may benefit if prisoners are helped to adjust to life outside; for example by examining their relationships with their families. We will fail in many cases, but at least the effort should be made.
  My first reflection is that sentencing policy and prisons should be discussed in a reasoned and civilised way. The right hon. Gentleman made a magnificent speech in that respect, but that is a world away from the proposals of the Home Secretary, whom he assayed to support. The lesson for the House is that we should not seek to discuss sentencing policy as we approach a general election, because it has the tang of conference rhetoric about it, and because of the absolutes that result from that. That is one

  937
  of my fundamental objections to the Bill, and to the rhetoric being used in other areas, in which the right hon. Gentleman had a distinguished role and which we cannot discuss rationally at present.
  The newspapers at the weekend referred to the Government's proposals and their consultative document on changes in industrial relations law. That area of policy should also be discussed coolly in terms of its likely effects, following consultation between the relevant social partners, as I believe they are now called, yet the Government are producing a consultation paper designed for the headlines as part of an election campaign. The consultation proposals have been repudiated by the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress. They were not designed to bring greater peace to industrial relations.
  I fear that the consultation paper on changes in employment law, and these proposals following the White Paper published earlier this year, can be seen only in the context of a general election. That is perhaps the first lesson that we should learn. Please, no debates on sentencing during an election campaign.
  There is much confusion about the changes that have occurred since the more civilised time when the right hon. Gentleman was in charge of home affairs and then of foreign affairs. We have had the 1990 White Paper and the Criminal Justice Act 1991. In the summer, I accused the Home Secretary of being the Pol Pot of British politics. He wants us to return to year zero. He wants us to ignore the fact that the Government have a record: they have massive form, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) showed so well in his speech.
  Our constituents are worried about the doubling of crime since 1979. The Government want to forget about that. They want to forget the philosophy of the 1990 White Paper and the 1991 Act. We are having to restart. As my hon. Friend said, even though the Minister who introduced the 1990 White Paper talked about preparing the foundations for the next century, today the Home Secretary said that the Bill is the greatest "step change" in criminal sentencing policy this century, and that these are giant steps. I believe that this particular giant step will last an even shorter time than the giant step that was fanfared in the 1990 White Paper.
  There is clearly a fundamental change. Rarely have a Home Secretary's proposals been so rubbished by a former Lord Chief Justice as they were on 23 May, in the other place, when Lord Taylor of Gosforth said:
  "Turning to the White Paper, I venture to suggest that never in the history of our criminal law have such far-reaching proposals been put forward on the strength of such flimsy and dubious evidence. The shallow and untested figures in the White Paper do not describe fairly the problems the Government seek to address. Still less do they justify the radical solutions it proposes."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 May 1996; Vol. 572, c. 1025.]
  The Home Secretary tried to find a platform of research on which to base his proposals. He used three research studies that he claimed supported his deterrence arguments. One was a study by the professor of jurisprudence at Sheffield university in a book written in 1980. That pillar was totally demolished when the learned professor said:
  "What he"—
  the Home Secretary—
  "said was a complete misrepresentation of what I had written in my book. What he said I had actually supported I had not supported in any way in my book."
  938
  For their second pillar of research—and the second leg of the tripod upon which the Home Secretary relied—the Government turned to Ros Burnett, head of the probation studies unit at the centre for criminological research, Oxford university. That author also disputed the Home Secretary's use of her findings. The research was founded on a very flimsy basis. Therefore, one must ask: what has gone wrong with the practice over time?
  The Government certainly have form. They should seek to avoid the arrogance of power and look at the mistakes that have been revealed by experience and practice since the 1991 Act and—as the right hon. Member for Witney said—learn from them. The Government should not try to follow irrelevant foreign precedents and they should not seek to devalue the judges and imply a lack of trust in our judiciary.
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: Did the hon. Gentleman notice that the Home Secretary referred three times to the views of senior police officers in his speech, but conspicuous by their absence were the views of the judiciary, the Law Society, the Bar Council and the probation service?
  Mr. Anderson: It does no good wholly to reject the views of so many practitioners. They could explain the realities of sentencing policy better than those who make eloquent speeches to party conferences. I urge the Home Secretary to read and re-read—in a certain spirit of humility—the speech by the former Lord Chief Justice in the May debate in the other place. Even at this late stage, he must consider whether he might be mistaken.
  My second reflection concerns the political background to the Bill. As I have said, it clearly results in short-termism regarding the human costs and ignores the rehabilitation aim. It also ignores the likely effect on the probation service and fails to examine the financial costs. For example, the Government assume in their costings that the deterrent effects of mandatory sentencing will
  "reduce the requirement for prison places by 20 per cent."
  That assumption is repudiated by Lord Windlesham, a former chairman of the Parole Board, who said that the bulk of crimes, even at that grave level, are committed on the spur of the moment,
  "on impulse or under the influence of drugs or alcohol".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 May 1996; Vol. 572, c. 1029.]
  The Government's estimates must be viewed with considerable caution.
  My third reflection is that the proposals regarding mandatory minimum sentences are flawed. They are likely to cause considerable injustice in practice. I shall take as an example domestic burglaries and the proposal of a three-year minimum sentence, without early release or parole, for three domestic burglary offences. A further offence of domestic burglary would automatically incur at least another three-year sentence.
  In my practice—I confess that it is a little while ago—I represented professional country house cat burglars and the village idiots, to whom things seem to happen, who break into people's houses. The notorious country house burglar may have at least a dozen offences which can be dealt with at one hearing and, for the purposes of the Bill, would represent one offence. The village idiot who puts his hand through an open window and steals a milk bottle

  939
  also has one strike under the proposals. On a second occasion, he might blunder drunkenly into the private quarters of a public house and steal—
  Mr. Walter Sweeney: Would not that situation be covered by the provision that three strikes would apply at final sentencing unless there are exceptional circumstances?
  Mr. Anderson: The hon. Gentleman, with his usual perspicacity, has anticipated my remarks about exceptional circumstances.
  I shall continue my example of the village idiot to whom things happen. On a third occasion—perhaps five years later—he may again blunder into the private quarters of a public house and steal an ashtray. That is the third strike for the purposes of the Bill. After that period of juvenile turbulence, he may many, settle down and have children. Some 20 years later, he may enter a public house, get drunk and commit the same sort of offence, at which time—whatever his circumstances, whatever time has elapsed, whatever his family or job circumstances and whatever the effect on him and his life—he must be imprisoned for three years.
  The hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) asked about exceptional circumstances. The judiciary faces a problem in that regard. If it acts restrictively in terms of exceptional circumstances, the proposal will have no real effect, but if it interprets exceptional circumstances in a liberal manner, the hon. Gentleman—and no doubt members of the public—will accuse it of driving a coach and horses through the intention of the legislation. The judiciary cannot win either way.
  The Government have not helped the situation. In the White Paper, they talk about "genuine exceptional circumstances", but in the explanatory and financial memorandum in respect of clause 16 they refer to "wholly exceptional circumstances". What is the difference between"exceptional circumstances","wholly exceptional circumstances", "genuine exceptional circumstances" and "occasional, quite unforeseeable circumstances"? The judiciary needs some clear guidance.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the use of the phrase "exceptional circumstances" in relation to suspended sentences has caused maximum confusion, inconsistent decisions by judges up and down the country and led judges to fail to pass suspended sentences when they would otherwise have done so?
  Mr. Anderson: Yes, and that is the case with similar phrases in respect of breathalysers and other matters. Contrary to the Home Secretary's claims, there is no clarity and honesty in sentencing in these proposals.
  The Home Secretary ignores one fundamental point: he is removing judicial discretion. That will not work, and it will create injustice in many cases. Contrary to his claims, it will reduce public confidence in the whole judicial system. The Government have provided no clear explanation for their volte face since the 1991 Act. The Bill is flimsily researched and relies on foreign examples that are neither good nor relevant.
  940
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn argued so persuasively, there are a number of other and more effective ways of dealing with an acknowledged problem. It is clear that the legislation will fail. If the House were to adjudicate in a dispute between the Home Secretary and his few supporters and the distinguished people working in the judicial field—including the former Lord Chief Justice—on whose judgment would we rely? I think that the question answers itself. If I were in an American courtroom drama, I would say, "I rest my case."
  5.19 pm
  Mr. Kenneth Baker: The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) has a deep knowledge of the criminal mentality, drawn from his previous experience. I shall comment later on his interesting speech.
  The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) commented on my time as the chairman of the Conservative party. I did not expect that to be referred to. He referred to the Conservative campaign guide, which I published—it is a good source book for British politics—and said that I was to be held responsible for everything in it.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: The poetry is better.
  Mr. Baker: Yes, the poetry is also good. If my successors as Conservative party chairman are to be held responsible for everything appearing in the Conservative campaign guide, it will be a target-rich area for the Opposition for some time.
  The hon. Member for Blackburn chided my successors and predecessors as Home Secretary for bringing in so many changes to the criminal justice system—34 changes since 1979, I think he said. Such changes are natural. It is highly unlikely that any criminal justice system will be perfect at any given moment. It is not in tablets of stone and should be subject to constant review and modification, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd) said.
  The Home Secretary has been criticised for many things, but he is certainly entitled to bring in such proposals as he thinks will be effective. The prime responsibility of the Home Secretary is the integrity and effectiveness of the criminal justice system. Introducing such a Bill is a reassertion of his responsibility to the House and to the public—a responsibility which the judges do not share.
  The first three clauses of the Bill introduce mandatory sentences. It is argued that the proposals will deter criminals. All hon. Members agree that we must have effective measures to deter violent and dangerous criminals. We also all agree that convicted violent and dangerous criminals should spend a greater time in gaol.
  Sentencing will play a part in the motivation of a habitual criminal, but the probability of detection and arrest are likely to be more compelling when he decides whether to commit a crime. The evidence from America, where mandatory sentences have been more widely used, is, at best, not proven. Some say that such sentences are ineffective and potentially dangerous. It was pointed out earlier that, if a rapist or someone engaged in a violent crime knows that he will get life because the sanction of a mandatory life sentence has been extended to a second

  941
  rape or violent crime, he might decide to kill his victim, who is likely to be the main witness against him. What is there to lose? There is also some evidence—although I do not put so much credence on this argument—that some juries have been reluctant to bring in a guilty verdict when the mandatory life sentence is inevitable.
  I understand the Government's desire to give a clear signal that such criminality should be stopped and that the public should be protected, but the provisions, particularly those relating to clause 1, must be carefully monitored to ensure that they do not have an unwanted and unpredicted perverse effect.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: What evidence is there from any area of criminal law that offenders will take tougher action if there is the suggestion that a tougher sentence will be imposed? When we increased the sentence for going equipped with a gun to commit crime, I spoke against the proposal on the basis that, as there was no difference between life imprisonment for killing and life imprisonment for carrying a gun and committing armed robbery, there would be a temptation to kill. I was wrong. There has been no known case of killing to avoid capture. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has pointed out time and again, there is a difference between the life sentence for someone who murders and a life sentence for possession of a gun. What is the evidence?
  Mr. Baker: I was the Home Secretary who introduced the measure to which my hon. and learned Friend refers. I remember him arguing against it. He cannot be sure that there will not be such a case in the future just because there has not yet been one. It could happen. I accept that there is a difference between a mandatory life sentence and a discretionary life sentence for a series of offences. I am about to deal with discretion, which is highly relevant to clauses 1 to 3. In view of his previous comments on various measures, I may take my hon. and learned Friend with me on this.
  I was glad to see the provision in the first three clauses that mandatory sentences need not be imposed if there are "exceptional circumstances". The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) has said in the past that such a provision can be variable. However, I am glad that the Home Secretary has made that provision, because it allows judges to exercise some discretion, which is important. The clauses would be unacceptable without that discretion.
  When, as Home Secretary, I administered the system of mandatory sentences for life prisoners, I found the matter to be a good deal more complicated than the simple assertion that life should mean life. I remember one case in which a criminal was convicted of a murder and received a mandatory life sentence. The judge wrote to me asking for the shortest sentence possible that lay within my discretion in setting the tariff because there was considerable provocation, including abuse over a number of years and that the prisoner should therefore not serve a long prison term. In effect, the judge was saying that a mandatory sentence was not appropriate. I suspect that there will be many such cases and judges will exercise the discretion allowed under clauses 1 to 3, as they should.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Witney said hat, as debate on the Bill proceeds in the House and in the other place, the definition of exceptional circumstances
  942
  will become a little clearer. One example was given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary in reply to an intervention this afternoon.
  The three clauses mark a considerable departure from past practice. Their effect should be monitored carefully. It would be appropriate for the Home Secretary to issue a report each year on sentencing under the three clauses. The cases can be itemised and the success or failure of the policy can be measured in relation to what happens to the offenders who have been so sentenced. The report should be a public document made available to the House.
  On remission and the policy of honesty in sentencing, it is clear from the White Paper and the Bill that there will be a greater connection between the sentence announced by the judge and the time served by the prisoner. That is welcome. When I was Home Secretary I started to make some improvements on that. Under the system existing at that time, prisoners served only one third of their sentences. We increased that to 50 per cent.—more for certain cases.
  Under the new proposals, less remission will be earned as a result of good conduct—the Home Secretary said that about 20 per cent. of the sentence could be earned in that way. The White Paper said:
  "The Government does not expect these proposals to result in a general increase in the period of time offenders serve in prison: the courts will he expected to take into account, when passing sentence, the abolition of parole and the changes in early release arrangements."
  As has been made clear today, someone who was sentenced under the current arrangements to 10 years and served six years would, under the new arrangements, be sentenced to eight years and serve the same six years. Those figures are approximate.
  It is not only implied, it is made clear in clause 21 that the Bill will result in judges being expected to give shorter sentences. I suppose that that is a sort of honesty in sentencing.
  I warmly welcome clause 30, which will ensure that fine defaulters and people who dodge paying their television licence will not spend a week, 10 days or a fortnight in prison; this reform is long overdue. Four years ago, there was an attempt to deal with fine defaulters, but it was abandoned a little too early. Clause 30 is another way in which to deal with the problem and I strongly support the Home Secretary in what he seeks to do. Such people should not be in prison. My right hon. and learned Friend suggests community service and compulsory attendance at an attendance centre instead.
  I warmly support that proposal, but it is a very expensive policy indeed. My right hon. and learned Friend cautiously says that there will be trial projects. He is wise to say that because to have effective community service, which is not an easy way out—people should not be able to say, "I'm out of it and I do not have to worry very much"—one needs to have the administration, organisation and follow-up to chase people whose whole job in life is evasion of one sort of another. It is art expensive system, but an effective one. It is clear, however, that as in the policy of honesty in sentencing, the Treasury's hand can be clearly detected in this part of the Bill.
  I also warmly support the extension of supervision of sex offenders after they have been released. Again, that reform is overdue and is very welcome.

  943
  One of the problems of our prisons, to come to that subject as my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney did, is that they are now full; they are much fuller than they were when I and my right hon. Friend had responsibility for the Prison Service. It is interesting that in the period 1993–95, the proportion of those in gaol for violent crimes fell although there was a 20 per cent. increase in the prison population. That shows that many more people are going to prison for much less serious crimes and are staying there for a longer time.
  That point leads me very much to support the points raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney. The Prison Service is one of the most difficult services to run. It is even more difficult to run when it is virtually bursting at the seams, as it is at the moment. I believe that the Woolf report, produced during my time as Home Secretary, is the best report on the management and conduct of prisons since the war. I was able to secure from the Treasury considerable sums to implement the recommendations of that report, including the ending of slopping out. Prisons should be austere places, but there should be no purpose to humiliate prisoners by such practices.
  The Woolf report also recommended positive regimes. If one goes to prisons—I probably visited more prisons than any of my predecessors—what strikes one is that most of the prisoners are totally inadequate people. They are failures in life and failures in crime. Our prisons are full not of professional criminals but of professional prisoners who go back again, again and again. What characterises prisoners more than anything else is that they are ignorant and badly educated, many of them are virtually illiterate and hardly any of them have any skills or training which they can apply when they are released.
  When we are examining sentencing policy or debating prison policy in the House, it is important to remember that about 99.8 per cent. of prisoners today will one day be released. They will come back to our towns, our streets, our communities and our constituencies. We must try to ensure that when they do that, they will not immediately take up another life of crime and commit more criminal acts.
  One way in which to help such people is to give them the skills to allow them to acquire even the humblest job. I very much hope that that side of prison management will not be neglected. I know that it will not be neglected totally, but I also know only too well that there are priorities in the Home Office budget. I believe that there should be greater emphasis on what we can do to try to make prisoners more effective when they are eventually released.
  5.33 pm
  Mr. Alex Carlile: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "this House declines to give the Crime (Sentences) Bill a Second Reading, because it fails to establish a system of sentencing which adequately protects the public and ensures the rehabilitation of offenders and the alleviation of crime; fails to address the decline in conviction rates and will undermine the securing of convictions in certain cases; will require the building of 12 new prisons which will divert funding from essential law and order services including policing and crime prevention; undermines the doctrine of the
  944
  separation of powers and fetters the proper role of judicial discretion; will damage the process of parole leading to a greater risk to the public; fails to seek long term reductions in youth crime as a primary aim of policy; and fails to seek restorative justice and the incorporation of victims into the justice system."
  We have just been treated to a wise and perceptive speech from the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker). I can assure him that that speech, his excellent recent anthology of poetry and his writings on his favourite author, G. K. Chesterton, are far more appealing and shed far more light on the world than his campaign guide which we are all prepared quietly to forget.
  From the right hon. Members for Mole Valley and for Witney (Mr. Hurd), both of whom are distinguished former Home Secretaries—perhaps at one time they were senior prefects of the present Home Secretary—we heard interesting and subtle reports. To distil the assessment of the Home Secretary by the right hon. Member for Witney into one word, it might be "trying". For the right hon. Member for Mole Valley, in two words, it would probably be "very trying".
  The right hon. Member for Witney was, of course, right to say—I share this view—that we should not reduce the criminal justice system, this important aspect of home affairs which concerns how we deal with crime, to electoral slogans. We should be having an intelligent debate not just in the House, but in the country. In that intelligent debate, there should be three aims. First, we should try to ensure that there is less crime. Secondly, when crime takes place, we should try to ensure that it is better detected. Thirdly, when it is detected, we should try to ensure, for the reasons given so eloquently by the right hon. Member for Mole Valley, that the punishment which is rightly given to those who commit crime is effective.
  The effectiveness of punishment is not to be measured, save in the most serious cases, by its length. The effectiveness of punishment is to be measured by how that prisoner behaves—I speak of the 98.8 per cent. of prisoners who are released. I refer to the time when the prisoner ceases to be a prisoner and when he comes back to the community in which he lives. It is to be measured in the results of that imprisonment and in the extent to which the prisoner is able to lead the life of an honest and decent citizen.
  Mr. Sweeney: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Carlile: I will give way in due course.
  The Refreshment Department has, on the ground floor, one very popular item which is often bought by visitors whom we take around the House. It is smooth, it has striped bars on it—the bars, incidentally dissolve in the mouth—it rattles noisily in the tin—
  Mr. Straw: Humbug.
  Mr. Carlile: As the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) says, it is House of Commons humbug. I must tell the Home Secretary that the Bill contains—this is the only thing that marks it out from other criminal justice proposals—more political humbug than any other proposal in the past 80 years.
  We all recall that the Home Secretary has the advantage of being a son of the great south Wales town of Llanelli. As he wriggled when questions were put to him during

  945
  his speech, I began to wonder why he did not have a great career as a centre three quarter, wriggling his way through the opposition for the great rugby team from that town.
  When one examines the provisions of the Bill and considers what was presented as, or purported to be, the Home Secretary's explanation of them, it becomes clear that he does not understand what is in his own Bill. Let us start with the real effect of the sentencing provisions. Clause 21 is absolutely clear. It refers specifically to section 33 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991. It says that, if the Bill is enacted, the judge will pass a sentence which will be, in the case of a sentence of under four years, the sentence that would have been passed before the Bill less one half.
  When a three-year sentence would have been passed today, under the Bill, the judge will be obliged to pass a sentence of 18 months. We know not what the public perception will be when sentences are halved. Although I subscribe to honesty in sentencing, this is not the way to achieve it. I much prefer the 18 months to three years option suggested by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw).
  Mr. Straw: The position is even more complicated. Under the Bill, a trial judge who previously would have passed a sentence of three years to ensure that, with good behaviour, a prisoner would serve 18 months, would have to pass a sentence of twenty-two and a half months on the basis that, with good behaviour, the prisoner would earn a 20 per cent. discount and thus would serve 18 months. I bow to the hon. and learned Gentleman's superior knowledge in such matters, but that example illustrates the complexity of the issue.
  Mr. Carlile: According to my reading of the Bill, which I have been advised is correct, the position is worse, because the judge will have to pass a sentence that allows for both the full discount currently available.
  The sentence has already been reduced from three years to 18 months. Under clause 9, an 18-month sentence will have nine assessment periods of two months each of which will impose considerable bureaucracy on the prison service. If the prisoner keeps his nose clean and does the washing-up when he is told and scrubs the floors with a little more energy, he will earn 12 extra days off in each of those assessment periods. That means that he will get 108 extra days off, or about three and a half months.
  Under the Bill—if it is passed—a person who today would be sentenced to three years and would serve 18 months will be sentenced to 18 months and will serve less than 15 months. That comes from a Home Secretary who says, "Prison works and so does honesty in sentencing. We are going to be tough with crime."
  Perhaps the Home Secretary will tell us how he justifies making a substantial reduction in the sentences that he, as a Conservative Home Secretary, would recommend for offences of robbery, burglary, assault, theft and a whole panoply of other crimes, including indecent assault. The Home Secretary cannot get away with saying that it is a Committee point, although he tried to do so a little earlier. It is not: it is a point of principle that arises from the Bill and that he has never been brave enough to reveal to the British public, although he should have done so.
  946
  My hon. Friends and I can only vote against a Bill that does the disservice to the British public of reducing the severity with which ordinary offences are addressed—not by the courts, as the courts do not want those changes, but by the Government.
  Not only is the Home Secretary reducing sentences, but he is reducing supervision and demolishing the parole system. Today I received a copy of the press release that was issued by the Parole Board on the publication of its most recent annual report. It was a matter of total surprise to me that the chairman of the Parole Board made sure that it arrived today. He has helpfully reminded me, as I remind the House, that
  "during 1995–96 over 95 per cent. of parolees completed their licence periods without reoffending;
  since the parole scheme began in 1968, less than 10 per cent. of parolees have been reconvicted during the first six months after release, compared to 30 per cent. of nonparolees—i.e. at one-third the rate;
  since 1968 35 per cent. of parolees have been reconvicted two years after release, compared to 55–60 per cent. of nonparolees."
  Not only is the Home Secretary reducing sentences, but he is also doing away with an effective system of parole that protects the public—as those statistics show—and includes clear and well-understood provisions for the recall to prison of people who are in breach of their parole.
  Where parole is not involved, clause 12 provides that offenders sentenced to 12 months or more would be supervised on release for a period representing 15 per cent. of a sentence, subject to a minimum of three months. That would greatly reduce periods of supervision on release. For example, under current arrangements an offender released from a three-year sentence after 18 months is then supervised for nine months followed by a further nine-month period at risk of serving the remainder of the sentence if he reoffends.
  What does the Home Secretary propose to do to that useful period of extended supervision? Under the Bill, if the same offender was sentenced to three years—which he would not be, of course—and then earned the full discount, he would be supervised on release for five and a half months, followed by an at-risk period of less than two months. The net effect would be that the supervision period was more than halved. Therefore, the Government would have halved the protection of the public.
  Furthermore, the categories of offences covered by clause 1 are bizarre. The Government have decided that it is a political or ministerial decision as to what constitutes a particularly serious offence. The Home Secretary is guilty of the fundamental and constitutionally unacceptable error of interfering in the discretion of judges and attacking the very root of the separation of powers that is and has been so important to the smooth functioning of our society throughout modern times. How on earth can the Home Secretary justify saying that a robbery with an imitation firearm that is not used—by definition it cannot be, although it can be extremely frightening—is a qualifying offence for a life sentence, or a two-and-out totting up life sentence? However, a robbery at knifepoint, which is equally terrifying, does not qualify for such a sentence. Where did they get their categories?
  How on earth can the Home Secretary justify categorising every offence of manslaughter in the same way? Perhaps he has forgotten his early days at the Bar,

  947
  before he became a distinguished planning silk when, rumour has it, he would occasionally penetrate the portals of Ealing magistrates court and the odd Crown court. The right hon. and learned Gentleman nods in agreement. Let me remind him that some manslaughter offences—and they are common—occur as a result of a disagreement—often in or outside a public house—and one blow which, had it not resulted in death, might not have given rise to a prosecution, or at worst would have attracted a charge of common assault. Such an offence would be categorised as manslaughter because it resulted in death. The sentences for those offences are quite short—usually less than three years. As far as I know, the Government have never criticised such sentences. Such offences come as near to a criminal accident as it is possible to imagine. The Home Secretary is saying that that is in the same category as an offence of manslaughter committed by someone who stabs his victim 40 or 50 times in a rage at a time when he happens, temporarily, because of his innate characteristics which make him dangerous, to be suffering from diminished responsibility as defined by the law. Such categorisation is bizarre.
  The Home Secretary really should talk to someone sensible like the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Bingham, or Lord Taylor, the much-admired former Lord Chief Justice, or even Lady Thatcher's guru, the former Lord Justice Lawton, who, incidentally, does not have a reputation of being a softie. Given the experience of those of us who appeared before him, he certainly was not a softie. The Home Secretary should ask the opinion of those informed people. He should not substitute his own prejudice for their opinion. The Bill, and especially the provisions to which I have referred, are founded on the substitution of prejudice for informed opinion.
  Mr. Howard: The hon. and learned Gentleman is entirely missing the point. The provisions will become relevant only if the manslaughter is the second serious violent or sexual offence or was the first offence and the offender commits a further serious sexual or violent offence. Furthermore, the judge will have the ability when sentencing to fix the tariff for the automatic life sentence. The tariff can be as low or as high as the judge thinks appropriate. If at the end of that period the offender satisfies the risk assessment, he will be released. The purpose of the provisions is to ensure that the public are protected because no one will be released until there has been an assessment of whether they still pose a risk to the public.
  Mr. Carlile: That is honest sentencing? It is intellectual pyrotechnics. The right hon. and learned Gentleman really should sit down not with his own Front-Bench team but with some of the specialist commentators who have written about such items, such as David Thomas QC or, as I have said, Lord Bingham or Lord Taylor, so that he understands the consequences of what he is doing and the fact that he is introducing bizarre and inconsistent categories that will give rise to injustice.
  I say to the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney), who tried to intervene earlier—I shall give way to him when I have finished this sentence if he wants me to—that his point about exceptional circumstances in the example of the village idiot who
  948
  commits three burglaries carries no weight whatever, for there is nothing exceptional about the village idiot who commits three burglaries. There are no exceptional circumstances in that example. The Court of Appeal will interpret the law as we in this House lay it down to be. Faithful to its constitutional duty, the Court of Appeal will not pretend that exceptional circumstances exist where they do not.
  Mr. Sweeney: The point on which I wanted to question the hon. and learned Gentleman is somewhat lost in the mists of time. I wanted to ask him why he believes that the significance of a long sentence lies only with the likelihood or otherwise of reoffending after the prisoner is released. Surely an equally valid reasoning for sentencing someone for a long time is to stop them reoffending while they are kept inside.
  Mr. Carlile: That shows that village idiots do not only commit burglaries. I do not know where the hon. Gentleman has been for the past 20 years or so. He is a solicitor and I presume that he has read all the research—much of it from the Home Office and of very high quality—on the subject of deterrence, which I apprehend him to be talking about.
  Mr. Sweeney: I have read evidence from the Parole Board.
  Mr. Carlile: It is absolutely clear from all the research that has been done—including that from the Parole Board—that deterrence operates in certain cases, but usually only on people who commit crime who otherwise would not do so: the person in whom a crime is an aberration rather than a habit.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Ha!
  Mr. Carlile: The hon. Gentleman scoffs from a sedentary position in his usual asinine way, but he ought to look at the research before doing so.
  Furthermore, what will be the effect of the provisions? As—I think—one hon. Member has already said, there will be a greater risk of murder taking place because if somebody faces a life sentence, they will simply, if they are ruthless, do away with the evidence of what they are doing. There will be a reduction in guilty pleas because, if they can avoid it, people will not run the risk of being convicted—not for the second time but the first time—of a qualifying offence under clauses 1, 2 and 3.
  There will be increased plea bargaining in order to try to reduce the level of offence at which conviction takes place. It is well known, as the Court of Appeal has said repeatedly, that plea bargaining has many dangers.
  There will be more acquittals and perverse verdicts. Juries will be more reluctant to convict once they know that the offence will qualify, as a first offence, for a possible future two-and-out sentence. Even more to the point, they will be extremely reluctant to convict for the second time if the evidence is doubtful even to a scintilla and if they are told—no one can stop them being told—that there is a previous conviction for a similar offence. That is because in circumstances that they may wrongly perceive to be unjust—juries have their own perceptions

  949
  and they have been very different from the Government's from time to time—they will be reluctant to convict someone of a crime carrying a life sentence.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Carlile: If the hon. and learned Gentleman can restrain himself for a second, I shall finish the point. There will also, in my view, be an increased reluctance on the part of witnesses to give evidence. Witnesses sometimes are not half as vengeful as Governments or newspapers, which egg Governments on. For example, there will undoubtedly be an increased reluctance on the part of daughters to give evidence against their fathers, uncles or grandfathers—which is difficult enough to manage in court at the best of times—if they know the consequences that are likely to arise from it.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: I shall ask the hon. and learned Gentleman the same question as I asked my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker). What evidence has he that juries will be more reluctant to convict a repeat rapist, a repeat seriously violent offender, a third-time burglar or a third-time drug trafficker?
  Mr. Carlile: I can tell the hon. and learned Gentleman what the evidence is. He should ask those who had to conduct capital cases before the abolition of capital punishment.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: That is about hanging.
  Mr. Carlile: If the hon. and learned Gentleman will listen, I shall continue. Of course there is a difference between hanging and a life sentence; that is self-evident. Senior judges who practised at that time are of the view, and I bow to it, that juries will be more reluctant to convict if they think that the consequences may be disproportionate to the evidence that they have heard. That is the point.
  Mr. Howard: Has not the hon. and learned Gentleman overlooked the fact that in the vast majority of cases juries will be completely ignorant of the fact that a previous offence—or offences—has been committed which will bring the provisions into account?
  Mr. Carlile: I am afraid that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not been to the criminal courts for a very long time, or so it would appear. Has not he overlooked the fact that defence advocates will make very sure that juries know of the risk in an appropriate case?
  Mr. Howard: Poppycock.
  Mr. Carlile: It is not poppycock. The Home Secretary scoffs. I do not know when he last conducted a case of any seriousness in a criminal court, but I can tell him from practical experience that juries react far less strongly than many imagine to a defendant's record being introduced and, in many cases, defence counsel will not hesitate—and no one can stop them—to introduce the record for exactly the reasons that I have given. I emphasise, in any event, that juries will be reluctant to convict even for a first time in, for example, a manslaughter case when they
  950
  know that that might mean that the defendant faces two and out in the future. The Home Secretary should have regard to that.
  The Government have failed the country in the criminal justice system. Before the 1992 election, they promised a large number of additional police officers. After the 1992 election, they reduced the number of police officers.
  Mr. Howard indicated dissent.
  Mr. Carlile: The Home Secretary shakes his head, but I am stating statistical fact based on parliamentary written answers given by his Department to me this year. The Government have failed to recognise the cost-effectiveness of police officers. If we had another 3,000 to 5,000 police officers, they would be cost-effective. If all that a police officer achieves is to prevent the equivalent of one person spending a year in gaol, he has paid his salary for a year. The Government have failed to recognise those simple facts. [Interruption.] My party has made it clear that we want more policemen and if the Minister of State wishes to contradict that, let him contradict it now. He stays in his place.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I do not expect sedentary interventions, and certainly not from Members on the Front Bench.
  Mr. Carlile: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hooligans are on the Government Front Bench tonight.
  Furthermore, the Government have failed to attack the problem of youth crime. All they have done is to make gestures.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): The hon. and learned Gentleman asked me to contradict him and I will. The Liberal party policy paper "Tackling Crime Together" says:
  "Putting more police officers on the beat will, likewise, have little effect in reducing levels of crime."
  Mr. Carlile: If the right hon. Gentleman considers the policy passed by our party conference this year, he will see our commitment to thousands of extra police. He should be honest enough to look at our most recent statements of policy and not at consultation documents issued at an earlier date.
  Furthermore, the Government have decided to do something which is fundamental and, in my view, unheard of. They will remove from judges a discretion which is properly theirs. Apparently, the Government have listened to some police officers—although not all, because police officers are not unanimous about their proposals, However, as has been said, the Government have failed to listen to probation officers, judges, solicitors, barristers or to prison officers. The Government are withdrawing probation officers from the prisons, which will become less efficacious places, and they have left us with a sorry political act in the Bill. We shall oppose that sorry political act tonight.
  6.3 pm
  Mr. Peter Brooke: The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) is not fighting the next election, and I do not

  951
  know whether we shall have the pleasure and privilege of hearing him speak again in the Chamber. I hope that we shall. This is an important Bill and an important debate and he has made a considerable contribution to it, not only in his speech but by tabling an amendment on which the debate can be conducted.
  I shall be brief because voices much more learned than mine are waiting to speak. I have already had the privilege of hearing distinguished speeches from two former holders of the office of Home Secretary, and I look forward to hearing my right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd). My constituency has a legal dimension as it contains the central criminal court, the law courts, two of the inns of court and the Law Society. I am not representing the judges tonight and I should say especially that I have not discussed the matter with my brother, who is himself a judge and who likewise declines to sit on applications for judicial review in cases in which I have been, in any way, part of the preceding controversy.
  I come to the Bill without expert knowledge, but I must acknowledge a whiff of agnosticism. I realise why the Home Office and the judiciary approach such matters differently—my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) mentioned the reason—but, as a Tory, I am uneasy when any Government and the judiciary are at variance. Therefore, I approach legislation that comes out of such an impasse with at least a tinge of scepticism. Cases that I might have raised—and I came to the House anned with examples—have been raised by others and I shall not simply rehearse and reiterate them.
  I put to the House, as one who was once a Customs and Excise Minister, the case of the drug dealer who helps to roll up the whole of the team. That example was raised in an intervention by the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping), and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said that it would be considered an exceptionality. When my right hon. Friend the Minister of State winds up, I hope that he will feel able to give us other examples of exceptionality, because I was encouraged to hear that the case of the drug dealer would be considered in that way.
  It would also be helpful if my right hon. Friend the Minister of State explained specifically the faults, as the Government see them, of the proposition advanced by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) for staged sentences. At first blush, such sentences appear to be transparent and not a million miles away from the briefing by the Law Society, which reached some of us today, in advance of the debate. I share too the query posed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), in which he balanced the effect on the judges of not being trusted by the letter of the Bill with their being invited to reduce the prison population. I shall leave aside the question whether the current rising prison population is a function of reasonable judicial severity, rather than softness, but the coded messages may be wrongly read and the prison population may rise.
  I have a couple of other case histories to enter into the filter of the Bill. The first is that of an inadequate youngster on drugs, perhaps around the age of 21, who acquires drugs and shares the cost of them by securing repayment from his friends. If such circumstances arose, I wonder whether the sentences proposed in the Bill
  952
  would serve as a deterrent to a drug addict who was acknowledged to be inadequate. Secondly, grievous bodily harm with intent is not uncommon in a domestic context. A husband convicted in such circumstances and thereafter facing life imprisonment would be potentially liable to blackmail by his wife. Would the family be prepared to give evidence if life imprisonment were the consequence?
  I repeat that I am agnostic about the Bill. I am entirely prepared for my right hon. Friends to prove my apprehensions unfounded, but I have quoted before in the House the observation of Sam Rayburn, the great Texan Speaker of the House of Representatives, that the three wisest words in the English language are "wait a minute". It would be churlish of me, in my present state of knowledge, to withhold my vote from my right hon. and learned Friend on Second Reading, but I shall vote with reservations. I have hinted at those reservations and I hope that they can be overcome.
  I realise that by speaking in the debate I make myself liable to be sentenced to sit on the Standing Committee. Given my views. I am a genuine volunteer to sit on it. To my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait), from the Whips Office—this is the first opportunity that I have had to congratulate her on her pathfinding progress—I can say that I served as a trusty on the Standing Committee on the Housing Act 1996 in the previous Session, and I am happy to call my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) as a character witness to my behaviour on that Committee.
  At this moment in the Parliament, we have a particular responsibility to handle legislation responsibly. It may be that the former Home Secretaries who have spoken in the debate are also candidates to serve on the Committee but, on past form, that may not be the case. As the late Damon Runyon suggested, the race is not always to the fastest, nor the battle to the swiftest, but that is the way to bet. I have never served in the Home Office, and my offer to serve on the Standing Committee is as a man on a bus in my fairly legal constituency, headed south towards Clapham.
  6.9 pm
  Mr. Don Touhig: I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate. I have an interest to declare, in that I am one of the parliamentary advisers to the Police Federation. Although I do not intend to refer to policing matters this evening, it is only right that the House should be aware of that fact.
  The Government have laid before us their latest crime Bill, and have said all along that their intention is to protect the public. That, of course, is the right intention. Everyone expects criminals to be punished for their actions. However, I am not convinced that the Bill will achieve the objective, and the measures contained in it represent a radical change in sentencing practice. Indeed, they could be said to challenge the very premise on which our justice system is based—that punishment should fit the crime. That premise has meant that judges and juries have used discretion when pronouncing their sentences, and have been able to take account of the whole gamut of human experience and emotion when sentencing criminals.

  953
  There are many levels of guilt in society. A report by the Home Affairs Select Committee, "Murder: The Mandatory Life Sentence", published in December 1995, stated:
  "All those who gave evidence to the Committee accepted that the crime of murder covered acts of a wide range of heinousness."
  A cold-blooded act of terrorism is far removed from an act of mercy killing, and such differences in the levels of blame exist not only with murder. The professional drug dealer, with his international network of contacts and aliases, is a world apart from the pathetic heroin addict, pushing to a few people down the pub to fund his habit. One is driven by greed, the other by physical addiction. Yet under the Bill, both will receive the minimum sentence of seven years—there will be no discretion.
  We need to be certain that we are doing the best thing to protect the public by removing discretion. Some would argue that the offences covered by the Bill—murder, manslaughter, rape and so on—are the worst kind, and that whoever commits them in whatever circumstances should receive the maximum penalty. However, we must consider the long-term effects of minimum sentences.
  If we introduce minimum sentences as a result of pre-election party political wrangling, we shall do ourselves and the country a great wrong and open the door to minimum sentences for all offences. When that happens—as it will, if we start down this path—we shall be only one step away from the American system of plea bargaining, under which the defence and prosecution haggle like customer and market trader over a pre-packaged sentence that disregards the individual's personal circumstances.
  It is not only the theory behind the Bill that is flawed. I am concerned also about the practical consequences of its implementation. What effect will it have on the courts? The Home Secretary appears to have modified his proposals to include an incentive to plead guilty, yet the problem is still there. Faced with the prospect of pleading guilty and receiving a life sentence, or pleading not guilty in the hope of walking away free on some intricacy of law or minor detail, criminals will plead not guilty.
  In a speech at King's college, London, on 6 March 1996, the former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Taylor, said:
  "Minimum sentences are incompatible with an existing and important strand in our criminal law. The courts have long followed a policy of discounting sentences for timely pleas of guilty … Defendants who know they will receive a mandatory sentence of lengthy imprisonment, and even more so, a mandatory life sentence, are not likely to plead guilty".
  It also concerns me, as it did Helena Kennedy QC, who had a letter published in The Times on 12 March, that
  "rapists facing automatic life sentences will have no incentive to plead guilty. They will contest the most clear-cut cases, subjecting their victims to further humiliation and trauma".
  Several women in the past few months have undergone traumatic trials in which defendants have represented themselves. We should be moving towards a justice system that provides greater protection for victims of rape, not one that encourages rapists to plead not guilty.
  There is a danger that the courts will be clogged up by a string of not guilty pleas. The situation has been made worse by the inclusion of the words "exceptional circumstances" in the Bill. What are those exceptional circumstances? The Home Secretary could give but one example this afternoon. How broad are they in scope?
  954
  Why is there no schedule to the Bill that gives examples of such circumstances? I fear that lawyers will baffle juries by arguing that, although their client may be guilty, he or she is guilty in "exceptional circumstances". Again, the processes of the courts will be slowed.
  The House must ask itself what effect the provisions will have on offenders, as has been alluded to by a number of hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker). If a second offence of rape, grievous bodily harm with intent or armed robbery carries the same minimum sentence as the crime of murder, some criminals might be inclined to murder their victim. By doing so, they leave no witnesses. They can dispose of the body and think that they are more likely to get away with it.
  The House must also ask what effect the measures will have on the prisons and the Prison Service. Our prison system is groaning under the weight of the current population, which has grown by more than 10,000 since January 1994. Only last week, Richard Tilt, the head of the Prison Service, suggested that "timeshare" prisons might be worth introducing, with prisoners working during the week and serving time at weekends. Are the public now to be protected only on high days arid holidays? The measures in the Bill will increase the prison population by about 11,000, and I have seen and heard nothing that reassures me that the prison system will be able to cope with that increase.
  There will be new prisons, we are told. But when, arid who will fund them? Will the private finance initiative magic wand be waved to produce prisons overnight? I hope that, in winding up the debate, the Minister of State can assure the House that investors have been approached and are willing to build the prisons, because I know of no such company. A further concern is that the prisons are to be "privately staffed". To whom will the staff be accountable? Will it be the Government? Or the shareholders and managers of Prisons Inc? The question of accountability is extremely serious.
  My final concern is similar to that which Lord Taylor had about the original White Paper, which he said was based on "flimsy and dubious evidence". I agree that there are many vague areas in the Bill. For example, the explanatory and financial memorandum states:
  "The proposals in Part III on community sentences for fine defaulters … will be the subject of local pilot projects, which will provide a basis for assessing the cost effectiveness of the proposals".
  The Home Secretary is usually keen on consultation, yet it seems that he now wants to legislate for the proposals and then carry out the pilot projects.
  Where is the research to back the assumptions made in the Bill? The assumption that longer prison sentences are a deterrent to crime is far from the mark. It is the fear of detection, not the length of sentence, that will deter criminals who plan their crimes. The length of sentence is not considered by most criminals, who are opportunistic and impulsive, rather than calculating.
  Findings published in November's Criminal Law Review undermined the Government's assertion that the Bill would provide greater protection for the public. The main finding of the study by Professor Hood is that nine out of 10 high-risk prisoners convicted of a violent or sexual offence would not be covered by the proposed automatic indeterminate life sentences.

  955
  Such radical proposals should be based on lengthy and thorough research. We have not completed Second Reading, yet the Home Secretary has already announced that he proposes to make amendments in Committee. Measures such as this should be given detailed consideration by a law reform body; they should not be born of party political point scoring. The Bill is flawed both in concept and in detail. We must consider carefully its far-reaching consequences for our justice system before we allow it to become law.
  Our criminal justice system must have the strength and integrity to outlive the Home Secretary, any Government and any pre-election banter. It is time that we stopped crying law and order and started putting some of our laws in order.
  6.20 pm
  Sir Peter Lloyd: The Bill is intended to provide better protection for the public, and nobody disagrees with that objective, although I share many of the concerns that have been expressed this afternoon by hon. Members of all parties; indeed, I have expressed many of them myself in earlier debates. The hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) made some extremely good points. I entirely agree with what he said about the length of sentence and its deterrent effect, or lack of it.
  Before expressing my reservations about the Bill, I should like to assure my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait), in her capacity as a Whip, that I am well and truly paired this evening and that I welcome her to her pathfinding place on the Treasury Bench.
  The Bill, unlike myself and the hon. Member for Islwyn, assumes that longer sentences are especially effective deterrents and that criminals are calculators who examine the tariff before acting; common sense and bitter experience contradict that convenient assumption. Criminals rarely weigh the consequences of anything. That is especially true of persistent offenders who have been through it all before, some many times, and against whom the measures of the Bill are particularly directed.
  The fact that offenders do not consider consequences is their problem, but it is also ours, because what can change their way of life is not length of sentence but what happens to them in prison and, just as importantly, how well they are supervised on release. Those points were made extremely well by my right hon. Friends the Members for Witney (Mr. Hurd) and for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker).
  Some of my hon. Friends usually jump up at this point and say that it is plain that prison works, because the prison population has risen and reported crime has fallen. Crime statistics are a notorious quagmire into which some of the most seductive arguments can sink without trace, but one of the few clear facts is that reported crime figures began to fall not when the prison population had been increasing but immediately before it reached its lowest level for years, at the end of 1992. The figures have continued to drop, while the prison population has risen steeply; but now, with prisons overflowing, reported crime has apparently begun to rise again.
  Perhaps prison has played a part in the falls in reported crime, which I hope will soon resume. As the Home Secretary says, prisoners inside are not outside
  956
  committing crimes, but I suspect that prison is less important than improved policing methods and crime prevention initiatives, such as closed circuit television, for which he deserves great credit. He made it clear in the White Paper that he was targeting repeat offenders, and did not want an increase in sentences generally. He hoped and expected that the courts would cut the sentences handed down, so that those not subject to the mandatory sentences would serve no longer than they would have done under present arrangements.
  Unlike the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), I doubt whether the judges will oblige the Home Secretary. They know that, under the new arrangements, most offenders will not be considered at risk or be supervised as well as they are at present. They will feel the need to restore appropriate differentials between sentences. They will find it difficult to cut every three-year sentence to 18 months or so, in the face of public expectation that the new law means longer inside and taunts from the media and others that they have gone even softer. I have a great respect for judges, but I doubt whether they will remember exactly what sentence they would have imposed before the law was changed.
  The prison population will thus get even larger, pre-empting huge extra resources that could be better spent on crime prevention, better policing and more effective programmes in existing prisons. As well as being, at great cost, a not particularly effective deterrent, mandatory sentences will undoubtedly cause injustice. The Government were right when they rejected the idea, on those very grounds, in their 1990 White Paper.
  There is no justice in giving the same mandatory sentence to a hardened drug trafficker who extracts a fat living from the misery of others and to a teenage addict who again sells some of his supply to a fellow addict; seven years in prison may be too short for the former, but it is the wrong sentence for the latter.
  The Bill allows for a lower sentence in "exceptional circumstances", and we have had some debate on that today, but I am certain that that will be insufficient, and that discretion needs to be widened to allow a judge to give a lower sentence when justice and the public interest require it. That need not mean driving a coach and horses, as referred to by the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), through the Bill, although it might make a substantial aperture. There is no reason why judges should not have guidelines or a menu of minimum sentences, and be obliged to give reasons in court whenever they depart from them.
  I do not believe that mandatory sentences will make the public safer, but, like other hon. Members, I am sure that the abolition of parole will make them less secure. It is true that 35 per cent. of parolees are reconvicted within two years, but that compares with 55 per cent. of non-parolees. Parole is a qualified success, which, in its present form, dates only from 1992, and it should surely be developed and refined rather than dispensed with.
  A system of time off for good behaviour, run by the prison authority, is not a satisfactory substitute. Many of the most evil villains are model prisoners, because they want to get through their sentence as comfortably as possible and resume their criminal career. It is often the immature but redeemable who give the trouble.
  The possibility of parole is not merely an incentive to good behaviour; it is the Parole Board's job to look behind the good behaviour and assess motivation and intention.

  957
  The possibility of parole causes many prisoners to plan seriously for their release and to take steps to prepare themselves—something that they would not otherwise have done, and for the want of which they would be more likely to reoffend.
  It is curious that the Bill would get rid of parole but still require the Parole Board to make sensitive and difficult judgments about when to release second-time violent offenders who, under the provisions in the Bill, would serve life. It is a pity that it is called life, as I said in an earlier debate, because the tariff recommended by the judge will almost certainly be the same as or less than the determinate prison sentence that he would pass under the present law.
  Such sentences should he called what they are—open sentences—and they should he available for first-time violent offenders, too. I do not understand why prisoners convicted of serious violent offences should be released when they are clearly still dangerous. The merit of open sentences in such cases is that prisoners know that their release ultimately depends on them. They then have the most powerful incentive to develop the self-discipline and attitudes that will keep them from offending again.
  I am sure that mandatory sentences are being over-promoted by the Bill because the Home Secretary is very conscious of the need to reassure the public about the Government's firmness in fighting crime, which I understand because he is right in his general concern. In doing so, he has, alas, made his policy less flexible than it should be, and it will thus be less effective and less just.
  With this Bill, we will make the same sort of mistakes as we made in 1991, when we introduced unit fines. They worked quite well in the majority of cases, but in some they produced such ludicrous outcomes—and only a few instances are necessary for this to happen—that the scheme lost public respect and had to be abandoned. Much more seriously, there will be similar fallout from mandatory sentences, with a similar result.
  The Criminal Justice Act 1991 also restricted judicial discretion and severely curtailed judges' ability to take previous offences into account. That also worked quite well most of the time, but, inevitably, in some cases it got heavily in the way of proper justice, and that clause was hurriedly and humiliatingly repealed, too. I hope that we will have the sense to row back sufficiently in Committee to avoid another such humiliating reverse, for if we do not improve the Bill, the subsequent Act will produce the hard, unjust cases that the public will rightly find unacceptable.
  6.31 pm
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: It is a great privilege to follow such an informed, interesting and important speech from someone who knows a thing or two about what we are discussing.
  I listened carefully to the Home Secretary, who prayed in aid at least three times the support of senior police officers for the Bill. Conspicuous by its absence was any reference to the opinion of the judiciary, the Law Society, the Bar Council or the probation service. I assume that the police officer support was not unqualified, bearing it in mind that the Home Secretary was heartily booed at a recent conference.
  I have listened carefully to all the speeches, and I 'was especially struck by that of the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), who was firm in rejecting
  958
  mandatory sentencing, as incorporated in clauses 1, 2 and 3. It was a powerful and persuasive speech by a former Home Secretary, who quoted from experience in other jurisdictions.
  The Bill has as its core notion a version of the American "three strikes and you're out" laws that have so delighted the right wing in the United States. It is unfortunate, if understandable, that such matters should be brought to the Floor on the eve of a general election, because that acknowledges that the Government consider them vote winners.
  I have no doubt that the public are heartily sick of crimes of violence, of burglary, and of people who sell drugs and trade in misery and death. That we should seek to address such problems is appropriate and desirable, notwithstanding the timing to which I referred. However, my concern is not with the principles that lie behind the Bill, which are laudable, but rather the chosen responses to those very real problems.
  Let us consider the two-strikes law in respect of crimes of violence and rape. The previous and present Lord Chief Justices and several other members of the judiciary have expressed grave misgivings about applying mandatory life sentences in that area of law. They are highly qualified, articulate members of the judiciary, who are charged with dealing with and sentencing people on a daily basis. Before their appointments, they were proficient legal practitioners. Why is their expert opinion being brushed aside by the Home Secretary? Why cannot the Home Office listen to those who know about such matters?
  The Home Secretary has taken legal advice many times in the past 18 months and has ended up on the wrong side of eight or nine far-reaching judicial decisions in the UK and European courts. Does the fact that he is not prepared to listen to expert advice result from the string of duff advice that he has recently received and followed? Perhaps that accounts for his deafness.
  The views of the judiciary are made all the more potent by the fact that it would be the last body in the land to interfere with the legislature. Lawyers, perhaps more than anyone else, are acutely aware of the constitutional issues involved in so doing.
  One difficulty with the Bill is that it creates a constitutional problem, because, under the division of powers, the legislature and judiciary must be separate and independent. That is a basic tenet of constitutional law, which is centuries old. It has been much written about by academics such as Professor Dicey. The protection of the people and the courts from undue political interference is a fundamental safeguard for society. Every despotism starts by trying to control the courts and lawyers. We seek to fetter the discretion of the judiciary at our peril.
  Let us take the horrible offence of rape. We all agree that that is always a serious offence, but to impose mandatory life sentences on second offenders ignores the fact that, as with every sort of offence, there can be aggravating features such as physical or emotional injury, the use of a weapon, or cases where the offender was in a position of trust or entered the victim's home. Those and many other circumstances, if proven, make the offence an aggravated one deserving of a heavier penalty.
  Under the Bill, that will not be possible, because, on second conviction, all defendants would be sentenced to life imprisonment. That is illogical and, I believe, unworkable. It is yet worse; as the Lord Chief Justice said,

  959
  if a defendant knows that he is facing life imprisonment, he may feel that his best recourse is to kill the victim. That was mentioned eloquently by the hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) and others.
  The problem is real. Even if rapists are inhuman, as I believe they must be to commit the offence, like many other classes of offender they carry out a form of risk assessment. Common sense dictates that, when a criminal embarks on the commission of an offence, the chance of detection will probably be the most important factor in his mind; but the likely penalty will also be a factor. Academics in the field confirm that, and concur that the many members of the judiciary who have advanced that fear are correct that, far from protecting the victims of that disgusting offence, such penalties may even further imperil them.
  Mr. Maclean: Will the hon. Gentleman quote his sources for saying that experts agree with that? It seems to fly in the face of all the research that I have read about what is in the minds of rapists when they commit their horrible offences.
  Mr. Llwyd: I have followed the arguments in the press on the subject. I refer the Minister of State to what Lord Justice Taylor was quoted as saying in a lengthy article in The Times, in September, I think. He certainly put that view. If I remember rightly, he quoted authority in that article. I will endeavour to find it and send the right hon. Gentleman a copy.
  Although there should be consistency, which is why the Court of Appeal issued sentencing guidelines for a host of offences including rape, there can never be uniformity, simply because the circumstances of offences vary, defendants vary, the effects of the crimes vary, and so forth. It is a rigid approach of that nature that has brought the Child Support Agency into disrepute. So, try as one might, unless one is dealing with offences of absolute liability, there will be variations.
  Why have the Government not learnt from the CSA experience and the farcical and patently unjust unit fines system, under which people throwing litter can be fined £1,200 if they are high earners, while those committing far more serious offences might be fined a nominal £50? Has that debacle not registered with the Home Office?
  I acknowledge that violent crime is on the increase and that we urgently need to take steps. Indeed, recorded sexual offences increased by 9 per cent. from 1989 to 1994, but convictions fell by more than 40 per cent. The Bill will not deal with that problem.
  If the two-strikes element becomes law, the defendant will surely be tempted to plead not guilty and face a trial as, in any event, his sentence would be life and he would doubtless feel that convincing a jury of his innocence was worth a try. That has been the result in other jurisdictions. My source is California, where there has been a huge increase in jury trials together with the attendant delay and cost as the system tries to assimilate the increase. In addition, there has been a stark increase in the number of people held in prison on remand. Those two factors are almost an inevitable consequence, and I ask the Home Office to think again.
  Although I appreciate that appeals should always be available to defendants on civil libertarian grounds, I view clause 4 with considerable trepidation. Inevitably, there
  960
  will be a vast backlog in appeals from those who might not readily accept legal advice and those who would try their luck, as it were, although I dare to suggest that they should not try their luck in the Court of Appeal with any sanguinity. We will create further backlogs, delay and cost. That is almost as inevitable as night following day.
  Several hon. Members have spoken about prisons eloquently and with great experience. The subject deserves more, but I will restrict myself to a few remarks, as other hon. Members want to speak.
  In the British Isles, the imprisonment rate is higher per capita than in any other European state, although evidence suggests that crime rates in other states are broadly similar. It is the approach to penal policy that is different.
  Two years ago, the Home Secretary announced—via the then chief executive of the Prison Service—that a further five or six prisons had to be built in the next few years. After the ignominious end of Mr. Derek Lewis's career, largely because of political interference from the Home Secretary, that figure had to be drastically reviewed. The Home Office now advises us that the prison population—already a European record—is set to rise by 12,000 by 2011. The Home Office says that that underlines the need for 11 or 12 new prisons.
  Mr. Richard Tilt, Director General of the Prison Service, was quoted in mid-September as saying that, if the incidence of imprisonment continued to increase at the present rate, we would need one new prison per week—an extreme view, perhaps, but it comes from a person who does know, or should know, what he is talking about.
  I do not know whether the Government are thinking of transforming these ideas into a sort of prison-building centre of excellence, but there is certainly a lot of building work ahead. The big question is how much better off society will be as a result. Let us not forget that the prison budget is being cut by around 15 per cent.
  I share the view expressed by several right hon. and hon. Members about the need to train prisoners. They should be given education and shown an alternative to a life of crime. If we do not do so, prisons are likely to become colleges of crime, where an inmate will do nothing but improve his criminal acumen or skills. Training is of vital importance generally, but of paramount importance with regard to young offenders.
  Whatever the future for this unfortunate Bill, resources for prisons need to be secured and extended. I fear that the colossal prison building programme under consideration will mean that resources will be spread yet more thinly. That may well result in prisons being reduced to inhumane places, risking the security and safety of prison officers and, ultimately, of the public at large.
  By profession I am a criminal lawyer, and I have visited several prisons frequently. Believe me, there is nothing more disconcerting or frightening than an overcrowded prison where there is nothing to do other than stare at the walls. Rehabilitation must be one of the ingredients of any civilised penal policy, so that the convicted prisoner comes out of the institution better qualified to take a meaningful place in society. Anything less will increase crime and worsen the already serious situation.
  I am pleased by the Bill's reference to fine defaulters, and I welcome the fact that the Government have recognised the problem and are going to deal with it. I also welcome the Government's recognition of the need

  961
  to deal severely with drug traffickers. Those creatures live off the misery and suffering of others. They are a disgusting band of people, who need to know where they stand. Society rightly demands that they taste stern justice. I regret that that is not likely to be the way they are treated.
  Mr. Richard Spring: What is it?
  Mr. Llwyd: I will come to that—I saw that question coming.
  The Court of Appeal carefully lays down guidelines for sentencing. A far better approach would be clearer recognition of the fact that drug trafficking is at the upper end of the sentencing tariff. I endorse what the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), who spoke for the Opposition, said about the Court of Appeal. It is an excellent idea, and I commend it to the Government. The potential risks and problems of the two and three strikes also seem to be relevant here.
  I am interested that the Bill makes a definite attempt to subvert the independence of the judiciary and that it deprives judges—
  Mr. Maclean: How does the hon. Gentleman square his last point, about telling the Court of Appeal to give drug traffickers sentences at the higher end of the scale, with his passionate plea—illustrated with excerpts from Dicey's "Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution"—for separate powers and the principle of not interfering with the judiciary?
  Mr. Llwyd: It is not for Parliament to tell the Court of Appeal what to do, but a body could be set up including the Court of Appeal and given a brief to ensure that adequate sentences were passed. The whole point is that it is not for Parliament to decide—there would be a separate, free-standing body, not subject to interference from Parliament, that would advise on sentencing.
  Mr. Maclean indicated dissent.
  Mr. Llwyd: The Minister may laugh, but I think that mine is a perfectly reasonable suggestion, and I hope that it will be developed in the months and years to come.
  It is interesting that the Government appear to want to deprive courts of their discretion, yet, on 3 November 1994, in answer to a written question about minimum sentences for selling class A drugs, the then Minister of State, Home Office, the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), replied:
  "None. The courts should be left to determine appropriate sentences in individual cases."—[Official Report, 3 November 1994; Vol. 248, c. 1334.]
  I shall not use the hackneyed term "U-turn"—I have heard enough of that nonsense—but it astonishing that the views of the Home Office should be so different less than two years later. Perhaps the Home Secretary is not aware of the fact that judges frequently attend sentencing seminars nowadays. As a body, they are more in tune with today's society than they might have been, say, 10 years ago.
  I repeat my representations about burglary. As one who was burgled last year, I should perhaps wring my hands with glee at the prospect envisaged in clause 3, but I do
  962
  not. I do not do so, for reasons that have already been outlined—there is a minimal form of burglary of which the legal definition is "entering a property for an illegal purpose". That purpose need not be theft—a minimally illegal purpose will suffice. The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) made that point.
  I note the exceptional circumstances incorporated in each clause, but if those words are to accommodate some of my concerns and if they represent an attempt to reinvest judges with their all-important discretion, I have to ask what is the purpose of all this. That brings me back to where I started: the Bill is a sad, transparent piece of political posturing, and everybody should regard it as such.
  6.52 pm
  Sir Michael Shersby: At the outset of my remarks, I must declare that I am a parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation of England and Wales. However, I do not propose to make any comments on the federation's behalf; I want to reflect the concerns of my constituents in Uxbridge about crime and punishment.
  I say to the hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig), who shares with me the honour of being an adviser to the Police Federation, that private prisons are accountable. They are paid for the work they do through the Home Office and, consequently, that expenditure is subject to scrutiny by the Public Accounts Committee which has the power to follow public money wherever it is spent. I thought that it might be useful to mention that.
  I have some hesitation in following the distinguished right hon. and hon. Members who have already participated in the debate, such as the former Home Secretaries, my right hon. Friends the Members for Witney (Mr. Hurd) and for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker). I have listened with great care to the lawyers who have spoken about the difficult matters being debated today. I am not a lawyer and I want—if I can—to speak from the point of view of the man in Uxbridge High street.
  It is beyond doubt that there is public dissatisfaction about what appears to the man in the street to be inconsistencies in sentencing in recent years. I know that responsibility for sentencing rests with the judiciary. My comments are, therefore, made with all due respect to the judges, who have such a difficult task to perform. They do so with the benefit of guidelines issued by the Court of Appeal; however, that court has been wary of giving the impression that its decisions are to be regarded as absolutely authoritative and has often stressed that each case depends on its own facts.
  I was interested in the comments on sentencing made by the former Master of the Rolls, Lord Denning, in an article in the Daily Mail on 8 March this year. He said:
  "It is absurd that a sentence of—on the face of it—three years imprisonment really means less than 18 months. It detracts from the authority of the court when everyone knows that a long sentence does not mean what it appears to mean."
  That feeling is shared by the public, who are deeply worried about violent crimes, sexual crimes and domestic burglaries. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is right to try to address those issues and, if necessary, to introduce new ways of dealing with them, even if that means changing from the policy of four or five years ago.

  963
  Magistrates, who also do a fine job, receive sentencing guidance from the justices' clerks who serve in their courts. They, too, have the same difficult task as judges in dealing with dangerous criminals.
  In the past few years while I have been in the House, several changes have been made to the law, notably those in the Criminal Justice Act 1991. That Act incorporated significant changes to the approach to be taken by the courts when sentencing offenders, one aspect of which was that there was to be greater use of community-based sentences that would restrict the offender's liberty without the need to resort to a custodial sentence. In fact, the 1991 Act, as amended by the Criminal Justice Act 1993, provided that, with the exception of the penalty for murder, the court would not be able to pass a custodial sentence unless, first, it was of the opinion that the offence or combination of offences was so serious that only a custodial sentence would be justified and, secondly, when the offence was a violent or sexual offence and a custodial sentence was necessary to protect the public from serious harm.
  What, then, has changed since the passage of the 1991 Act and the amending Act of 1993, which set out the criteria to be used by the courts when determining the length of custodial sentences imposed for offences other than those, such as murder, for which the sentence is fixed by law? The answer is that the public have become deeply concerned about repeat offences—those committed by individuals who have been released from prison and who have offended again—sometimes involving the tragic loss of life of the victim. There have been a number of high-profile cases in which murderers have killed again following release after serving a determinate sentence passed at the original trial by a judge who must have taken account of all the circumstances in the case.
  This afternoon, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary told us that, in 1994, of 217 offenders who were convicted, only 10 received a life sentence. Several of those 217 have murdered again. I look forward to hearing from my right hon. Friend the Minister of State how many of those 217 committed another murder or further serious offences such as rape. Such tragic cases, some of them involving the murder of innocent children following violent sexual assault, have been given considerable coverage in the press and on television. Such cases, and those involving women who have lost their lives following rape in the most harrowing of circumstances—and following great suffering—have angered the public and led to calls for changes in the law and greater transparency in sentencing.
  There have been calls for such individuals not to be given their liberty, to prevent them from offending again. That issue is the crux of the Bill. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary must balance the law as it stands now with those undoubted tragedies and try to produce changes that will prevent such cases from occurring in the future.
  I am quite sure that the judges who presided in the 217 cases to which I have referred had regard to the particular circumstances of each case when they passed a determinate sentence. The House and others must, nevertheless, face the fact that each of those offenders was able to offend again when he was released into the
  964
  community having completed his custodial sentence. Under the proposals in the Bill, had those offenders who had committed violent and sexual offences been sentenced to life imprisonment, they would not have been released into the community until the Parole Board agreed to it on the basis of expert advice that they no longer constituted a danger to the public.
  In short, the proposals mean that a significant number of victims would be alive and well today, and living with their families. They would not have suffered their terrible injuries or the traumatic effects of assault if the law prevented dangerous individuals from being released again into society on the basis of expert advice to the Parole Board. I invite the House to recollect some of the cases that each and every one of us has seen reported either on television or in the press. I invite it to recollect the terrible tragedy and shock inflicted on the families of the victims. I invite it to consider whether there is something that we can do to change current practice to ensure that certain people are not at liberty to offend again.
  Clause 1 states that courts will be required to impose a life sentence on a person aged 18 or more who is convicted of a serious offence and who has committed another serious offence in any part of the United Kingdom, although not necessarily the same offence as that on which he was subsequently convicted. As a result, if the Bill becomes law, offenders who are sentenced will be required to serve discretionary rather than mandatory life sentences.
  I was interested by what my right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd) said about terminology. He suggested that such sentences should perhaps be known as open sentences; they could be described as indeterminate sentences. At least they would have the desired effect. If the description is right, it might not have the disastrous effect, suggested by some hon. Members, of offenders deciding to murder rather than risk the possibility of such a sentence.
  The procedure governing the tariff is also very important. It is intended that that procedure and decisions on release in such cases will be the same as those which currently apply to discretionary life sentences. That means that the trial judge will specify the tariff to be served for retribution and deterrence. At the end, the Parole Board will determine whether it is safe to release an offender, and Ministers of the Crown will play no part in the process. I believe that that meets the anxiety expressed by a number of judges and Peers, who are concerned about ministerial involvement.
  I ask the House: what, then, is wrong with that procedure? What is wrong with arriving at a situation in which a substantial proportion of the 217 individuals whom I mentioned would not be allowed into society to offend again until expert advice counselled that it was safe for them to be released? We must consider those questions in our debate tonight.
  We all know that domestic burglars have visited their misery on our constituents in increasing numbers in the past few years. In some parts of the country, happily, the incidence of burglary has decreased—thanks to the terrific efforts of the police to target that type of offender. My constituents ask me how it is that someone who has burgled again and again can receive what appears to be a comparatively light sentence. There is a lot to be said for

  965
  the public having a clear idea of the custodial sentences for someone who engages in repeat burglary. That lack of knowledge must be tackled if the confidence of the public is to be retained.
  How many burglars will go to prison for three years when the Bill becomes law? It is difficult to be precise, but if we consider the studies that have been carried out into the age of offenders and the frequency with which they offend, we might get some idea. The age of criminals is not known until they are caught, so the only regular relevant information is based on the age of those who are found guilty by the courts or cautioned by the police. Those figures may not be representative of all burglars, and the age distribution of those who are not caught may differ from those who are.
  Of the 45,800 individuals found guilty or cautioned for burglary in England and Wales in 1995, 3,800, or 8 per cent., were between the ages of 10 and 13; 13,900, or 30 per cent., were between the ages of 14 and 17; 9"200, or 20 per cent., were aged between 18 and 20; and 18,900, or 41 per cent., were aged 21 or more. If the Bill becomes law, 28,100 burglars over the age of 18 will be at risk of receiving a mandatory three-year custodial sentence if they are convicted of two other domestic burglaries. However, 39 per cent. of all those convicted or cautioned for burglary in 1995 were below the age of 18, and would therefore not be subject to the mandatory sentence. We must bear that in mind when we debate the matter.
  I welcome the curfew order, accompanied by electronic monitoring, to which my right hon. and learned Friend referred. I also welcome the proposal to name offenders under the age of 18, which would have the desirable effect of making their names known in the community in which they have committed their offences. I also agree with those hon. Members on both sides of the House who have referred to the need for rehabilitation. That has a vital role to play in ensuring that people do not offend again and again after serving their custodial sentences.
  The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) spoke about mandatory sentences for those engaged in the business of destroying the health and the lives of the people of this country, many of whom are young. Many of my constituents would agree that it is about time that we had a seven-year mandatory sentence. The courts have discretion not to impose the mandatory sentences, but they must state their reasons.
  The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy and my right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham referred to the trade in drugs by young people, some of whom are inadequate and find that that is the only way in which they can earn enough money to live on. Many of those young people trade in class A drugs—heroin, for example—which, if taken by other young people, can ruin their lives permanently. We must give the courts a powerful sentence to deter those who organise the trafficking in drugs, and we must deter those who too easily and casually sell on their drugs to classmates and other young people at dance halls and elsewhere. Once they do so, those youngsters are hooked, their lives start to go down the slippery slope and they are ruined and damaged. People who have faced that terrible problem in their own families will recognise that stern deterrent action is necessary.
  I welcome the extension of the Attorney-General's powers to refer to the Court of Appeal sentences that he considers to be unduly lenient and failures by the court to
  966
  impose life sentences as required by clause 1 or the minimum sentences required by clauses 2 and 3. The power exercised by the Attorney-General to challenge what he believes to be lenient sentences has, in general, been successful, worked well and gained public confidence. It is right that that should be extended by the Bill.
  I will support the Bill tonight. It may well be improved in Committee, and the Home Secretary has stated his intention of tabling amendments to improve and extend its provisions. I rest with the simple proposition that the people of the United Kingdom expect Parliament to take action to deal with the changing circumstances faced by all of us as citizens, which result in people being murdered, raped and having to suffer the consequences of the distribution of class A drugs. There is no automatic or easy solution, but my right hon. and learned Friend and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State have tackled a difficult situation with courage. The Bill should receive a Second Reading and be given careful consideration throughout its passage through the House.
  7.12 pm
  Mr. Paddy Tipping: I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in the debate and to follow so many important speeches from hon. Members on both sides of the House. We have heard distinguished comments from former Home Secretaries and a former Minister with responsibility for prisons. I noted their words of caution.
  I associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Sir M. Shersby) and the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke). I am in the same club: I have no particular expertise on the matter but readily recognise the views that they expressed.
  I know from Sherwood and from Nottinghamshire that many ordinary people are worried to death about what they perceive to be a relentless increase in crime. In Nottinghamshire crime has risen by 108 per cent. over the past 17 years. During that period the number of uniformed police officers available for duty has risen by just 2.8 per cent.
  We had a debate earlier about the effectiveness and value of the police. The fear of crime is sometimes more disabling than the crime itself. That fear, especially among women and the elderly, can be alleviated by the presence of the bobby on the beat. I hope that whatever else may be the result of the Bill and its financial consequences, more money can be made available to put the bobby back on the beat to offer that reassurance.
  The incidence of various categories of serious crime has risen in Nottinghamshire over the past decade. The number of cases of attempted murder, conspiracy to murder and incitement to murder stood at 14 in 1985. In 1995 that figure had increased to 106—an increase of about 700 per cent. The number of rapes committed in Nottinghamshire has risen from 33 in 1985 to 122 in 1995—an increase of almost 400 per cent. Drug trafficking offences have gone from 90 in 1985 to 380 in 1995—an increase of more than 400 per cent.
  The Home Secretary's prescription is to advocate and impose severe sentences. His argument is that severe sentences act as a deterrent: "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time." I am not convinced that that is the total answer. A deterrent has a part to play, but there is more

  967
  evidence that an increased chance of getting caught is linked to a fall in crime. People are deterred not by the sentence that they may face some time in the future, but by the sure knowledge that they will be apprehended.
  It grieves me enormously that out of every 50 crimes committed in Nottinghamshire and throughout the country, only one ends in a conviction before the court. That is a criminals charter: a 2 per cent. chance of being convicted. We must do better than that. Before ensuring that people are punished, we must ensure that they are caught.
  Alongside the desire to apprehend offenders, other programmes must be put in place. Deterrents and prisons have their place, but so do other measures, such as crime prevention. Local authorities, the police and voluntary organisations should work more closely together to tackle crime. We should work hard on young offenders. It is important to intervene quickly and positively when young people begin to get into trouble, to nip the offending in the bud and get them through the court system as quickly as possible. The juvenile justice system is fractured and needs radical overhaul.
  We must tackle drugs. The Bill contains provisions for that, but there are other ways of approaching the problem. I was delighted that the Prime Minister came to Nottinghamshire last Friday to learn about a project called DARE, which is run by Nottinghamshire constabulary in association with Nottinghamshire county council and others. The project works with young people at school from an early age to tackle the pernicious effects of drugs. This is what the Prime Minister said:
  "I think that DARE is wonderful. Drugs are very dangerous and people are often led to believe that some soft drugs are not too bad—most people started on something soft. It is important that we learn about drugs and are all able to say no."
  He concluded by saying that the project had an important message to give.
  So as well as sentencing people who traffic in drugs we need to put in resources lower down the scale. We need to ensure that projects such as DARE, which runs as a pilot scheme in Nottinghamshire, are set up across the country.
  I wish to highlight a number of aspects of the Bill. I was interested to note that the Home Secretary spent so much time talking about sexual offences against children, as did the hon. Member for Uxbridge. In this respect the proposals in the Bill are useful and far reaching. Such offenders should go to prison for a long time; more importantly, they should come out on licence subject to proper supervision. The Bill must not stand alone, however. It must operate alongside the Police Bill and any forthcoming legislation on paedophiles. The Bill, with its emphasis on punishment, deterrence and supervised licence, is not enough in itself.
  It can be difficult to gain a conviction in a case involving sexual offences against children, because the latter often have to give evidence against the perpetrator, who is often related to them—a father, an uncle or someone else in the family. I hope that the Pigot committee report, which advocates better protection for children giving evidence in court, will be implemented soon.
  I also support the excellent work of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. It does a great deal of work towards the prevention of such crimes
  968
  and the rehabilitation of offenders. The NSPCC could perhaps become involved in after-care and monitoring and in persuading people to avoid these terrible offences. That being so, we must ensure that bodies like the NSPCC are properly resourced to do the job.
  This is a very costly Bill. In Committee and. I suspect, in Cabinet tomorrow when spending plans come under scrutiny, comparisons between the expenditure involved in this Bill and other spending priorities will have to be made.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) mentioned rape, an offence which also features in the Bill. Like him, I am extremely concerned about the harrowing experiences undergone recently by victims of rape in the witness box. There has been talk of early legislation to improve matters. It is quite wrong, once a victim has been through such a wicked ordeal, to subject that victim to cross-examination by the alleged perpetrator for hours and sometimes even days.
  My fear is that because the Bill imposes a life sentence for second offenders of this type, more victims will be subjected to such cross-examination. Perhaps we should pause to think about that rather carefully.
  Clauses 1 to 3 impose fixed sentences for certain serious violent and sexual offences and for burglaries, all of them on people above 18. I want to press Ministers on this point. Perhaps we should allow an element of discretion when it comes to young people who committed their first offence when under the age of 18. Someone who committed a serious offence at 10 or 11 might then be punished, do his time and make amends—only to reoffend as an adult. As the Bill stands, he would then be given an automatic minimum sentence. Perhaps some sort of discount should be introduced to reflect the fact that the earlier offence was committed by someone who was under age.
  At a number of points in clauses 1 to 3, the Bill includes the phrase:
  "unless the court is of the opinion that there are exceptional circumstances which justify its not doing so."
  I pressed the Home Secretary earlier about that. He offered the example of exceptional circumstances applying when the person in the dock had co-operated with the police in such a way as to lead to the conviction of others. Like other hon. Members, I believe that there is a strong case for giving the courts some discretion, and I hope that the use of "exceptional circumstances" will be explored further. The difficulty of course is that the more they are allowed, the more the tariff becomes inoperable.
  Is it right, for instance, that a small-time drug addict who shares drugs with his colleagues and friends should automatically be given a seven-year sentence, alongside a drug baron who directs a big trafficking operation? Equity is at stake here.
  Another positive feature of the Bill is that it permits fine defaulters to serve community sentences instead of prison sentences. Such people could get a great deal out of doing supervised work in the community. I hope that this will resolve the problem of people being sent to prison for not paying fines for not having television licences. In 1994 there were 730 such people in prison, of whom 243 were women. It is estimated for 1995 that the figures were again 730 and about 230 respectively. Some of those women live in stricken circumstances with young

  969
  children. It is crazy to lock them up for nine or 10 days—the current mean—for not paying the licence fee. I am therefore delighted by the change proposed in the Bill. It is of course a matter for magistrates courts to deal with, but I know that many magistrates strongly believe that a change was overdue.
  What effect will the Bill have on the Prison Service? The service is in significant difficulty. It is confronted with a 13 per cent. budget cut. Some prison governors are running down the use of their prison education departments, and the support available for probation services in prisons is declining. Meanwhile, the number of people in prison is increasing. In 1993, there were 40,000 people; last week, reportedly, there were 57,000. Richard Tilt, Director-General of the Prison Service, suggests that the trend of increase might be 1,000 people per month. He is already talking about time shares and weekend prisons.
  The Bill will have far-reaching consequences for the Prison Service—consequences perceived only dimly at the moment. The Bill's financial memorandum says so. The Home Office suggests that there will be 11,000 extra prisoners during a 12-year period as the Bill's effects work through. That alone will create a need for 12 additional prisons, at a cost said to be between £375 million and £435 million—of course, that is the Home Office's assessment of the cost.
  I read in detail the White Paper that preceded the Bill, entitled "Protecting the Public", and noted in it a claim that the Bill's deterrent effect would reduce the need for prison places by 20 per cent. I am not convinced that the Bill will have such a strong deterrent effect, and I am anxious about the reduction in remission that is contained in the Bill. The Bill's financial consequences might in fact be far more serious than the financial projections suggest.
  I am worried about the consequences of courts reflecting in their sentencing pattern the openness and transparency proposed in the Bill, and that a three-year sentence will in effect become an 18-month sentence. That may be the effect of the present arrangements, but when the public realise it, courts and judges will be strongly criticised in the light of current opinion. It will be very difficult for judges to explain to the public that prison sentences will be cut in half.
  I am therefore sceptical that the Bill's effects will match the projections in the financial memorandum. envisage even more overcrowded prisons, with even greater potential for riots. Most worryingly, I envisage prisons becoming dysfunctional places. People need to be deterred and to be punished, but people also need rehabilitation, and I am extremely concerned that prisons will be unable to perform any of their rehabilitative roles.
  Prison building has local effects as well as national ones. A prison is now being built in my constituency. The Lowdham Grange borstal has been knocked to the ground and a new Lowdham Grange category B prison is being built. There is good local understanding of the need for that prison; because there has been a prison establishment on the site before, people have been able to tolerate it. The tradition is there.
  I hope that the Home Office will confirm tonight what the Prison Service told me informally—that the new prison will retain the name Her Majesty's prison, Lowdham Grange. There is some anxiety that a new name will be given. Overwhelmingly, people in that part of Nottinghamshire want to stick with the tradition and with the name.
  970
  Although there is understanding about the need for the prison, I am afraid that there is no understanding of some of the consequences. The new owners and their agents have been careful about access to the prison. A scheme was proposed that would stop traffic problems for people who live on Old Epperstone road. I was delighted with the scheme, as were local people. We are amazed that Nottinghamshire county council has unilaterally prevented that scheme from proceeding. The only crumb of comfort is that we now have an assurance from the county council that, if the council's traffic scheme does not work, new additional alternative remedial measures will be taken. I say this in the context of a Bill that argues for 12 extra prisons.
  The people of Lowdham, of Nottinghamshire and of the entire country are worried about crime. They believe that something needs to be done. It is important that we tread this path carefully and thoughtfully, and that our work is well researched before we start.
  It has been claimed that the Bill is open and transparent. We need to ensure that it can be that, so I hope that we devote time and attention to the Bill and do not rush it for political motives before the general election. This country's strong tradition of balancing the will of Parliament with the need to respect the rights of the courts is the cornerstone of what we stand for. The Bill risks destroying that cornerstone. I hope that the Ministers who have listened to the debate will heed the voices of caution and proceed carefully.
  7.37 pm
  Mr. Walter Sweeney: I support the Bill and congratulate the Home Secretary on pressing on with the Government's crusade to deter and prevent crime.
  There are two ways of deterring rational criminals from committing crime. The first is to improve detection and conviction rates. The Government have come to grips with that problem by increasing the number of police officers by 16,000 since 1979, and by increasing the number of civilians working at police stations by 16,000. The Government have also announced plans to fund an extra 3,000 police officers.
  Police use of improved equipment—including better use of information technology and use of closed circuit television—is likely to improve detection and conviction rates, but it will not be fully effective in deterring rational criminals unless criminals, once convicted, receive a punishment to match the crime. Home Office statistics show that prison operates as an effective deterrent against re-offending for many offenders. Critics of imprisonment sing the praises of community service, but prison has better results, despite the fact that prison comes higher up the sentencing tariff list.
  Most prison inmates would greatly prefer to be at liberty, so those inmates who are rational are likely to try to avoid being sent back to prison. Unfortunately, many offenders become persistent offenders and end up with a long list of custodial sentences. There are professional burglars who know that, if they are careful and lucky, they can get away with dozens of burglaries and reap substantial ill-gotten gains before they are caught. When they are eventually caught, they know that, as the law stands, their third conviction is unlikely to result in a custodial sentence that is much longer than their first. I,

  971
  therefore, strongly welcome the Bill's "third strike and you're out" approach. A three-year minimum sentence for burglars with two or more convictions for similar offences seems eminently reasonable.
  I am also delighted that traffickers in hard drugs will face a minimum of seven years' imprisonment. Drug barons who make vast profits out of human misery and loss of life should face the death penalty for a repeat conviction. The evil perpetrated by those people transcends in seriousness many offences of murder, as the supplying of drugs on a large scale may result indirectly in many deaths. I should be grateful if the Minister would tell us, when he replies to the debate, whether the Government are willing to allow a free vote on an amendment to that effect.
  I welcome the requirement to impose a life sentence on repeat serious or sexual offenders, unless there are exceptional circumstances that justify not doing so. Of course, however long prison sentences are, irrational criminals will always reoffend after attaining their liberty. Nothing will deter them. Some of the do-gooders on the Opposition Benches would probably say that we might as well let them off or let them out early. But that misses the point. For as long as persistent criminals are kept in prison, they are largely prevented from reoffending. Whether it costs £20,000, £30,000 or £50,000 per annum to keep a dangerous, wicked person under lock and key, while potential aggressors are kept off our streets, potential victims will be saved the trauma of being raped, knifed, shot or burgled.
  I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said on the concept of minimum sentencing. He seemed to oppose the concept, claiming that discretion should be left entirely to judges, and citing, with apparent approval, an earlier speech on this subject by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence). He said that the Home Secretary had started down a slippery slope by introducing minimum sentencing. He went on to make the extraordinary and illogical claim that the Home Secretary had speeded up his progress down the slippery slope by including in clauses 1, 2 and 3 a proviso that the new, longer minimum sentences should not be imposed if that were justified by exceptional circumstances. With respect, the hon. Member for Blackburn cannot have it both ways. Either he is for judicial discretion in those clauses, or he is not.
  Mr. George Howarth: The hon. Gentleman should not misrepresent my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), who did not say that determinate sentences should be left to individual judges. He said that it should be up to the Court of Appeal to give guidelines. The hon. Gentleman should correct that point before he continues.
  Mr. Sweeney: I am grateful for that attempt at clarification. I understood it to be an obvious discrepancy in the hon. Member for Blackburn's speech.
  I can see nothing wrong, in principle, with minimum sentences. They are not new. When a mandatory minimum 12-month driving ban was first introduced for people who drink and drive, the only objectors were drunken drivers. I am confident that the public will have little sympathy with persistent serious offenders who are sent to gaol for longer than they had expected.
  972
  The Bill introduces the new principle of honest and transparent sentencing. which I am sure the public will welcome. The hon. Members for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) and for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) quite reasonably said that the views of legal practitioners should be taken into account in framing legislation. I remember my days as an articled clerk accompanying counsel down the steps at the Crown court to see clients in the cells just after they had been sentenced to a term of imprisonment. Counsel would explain that the apparent sentence was not as bad as it seemed, and would then tell the defendant how long he would have to serve. Most defendants, especially the experienced ones, showed by their demeanour that they had already done the simple sum for themselves. The present gulf between theoretical and actual sentences, although narrower than it used to be, brings the law into disrepute. The public have a right to expect that the headline sentence that appears in the papers bears a close relation to the period actually served.
  The Bill rightly preserves a significant incentive for prisoners to behave well throughout their sentences, including any period spent in custody on remand, so that they may be released at the earliest possible date. The hon. Member for Swansea, East expressed concern that persistent burglars who had committed trivial offences, such as taking a milk bottle through an open window, might end up serving a three-year minimum sentence. I cannot believe for a moment that the judge's discretion under exceptional circumstances would not be used to prevent such an offender from having to spend three years inside.
  The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) said that the efficacy of a long sentence should be judged on the extent to which the prisoner reoffends after release. That is one way of measuring the success of a prison sentence. However, another measure is the number of offences that the offender is prevented from committing while he is inside.
  The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery criticised clause 21 for allegedly obliging judges to halve nominal sentences to achieve the same net result. With respect, it is plainly necessary for judges to take into account the effect of the Bill so as to achieve the desired net result. The alternative would be for many sentences to be almost doubled. That is not the intention behind the honesty in sentencing provisions. Despite his long experience of the law, the hon. and learned Gentleman seems to fail to understand that part of the Bill.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd) was sceptical about the value of long sentences. I accept that long sentences are not necessarily an effective deterrent. However, I believe that tough sentencing has an impact. I recently visited Singapore, where $500 fines are imposed for dropping litter, and where drug barons receive the death penalty. I did not see much litter, and I suspect that drug barons operate covertly.
  The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy said that we should listen more closely to the experts. By that he meant solicitors like himself, banisters like the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, and judges, many of whom understandably have high self-esteem and think that they should have total discretion in sentencing. I have been talking to some real experts, such as the police, who deal with crime every day. I have also been talking to

  973
  some other real experts: my constituents in the Vale of Glamorgan, who, despite recent improvements, face a totally unacceptable level of violent crime and burglaries. Almost every week I hold two surgeries in different parts of the vale, and the story I hear is the same. The public applaud the Home Secretary's efforts, but urge me to urge him to do more.
  The police also seem to be on our side, whatever Opposition Members may say. In a press release on 6 March 1996, the national president of the Police Superintendents Association, Chief Superintendent Brian Mackenzie, said:
  "Police officers throughout this country are fed up to the back teeth with apologists for criminal activities finding excuses not to severely punish hardened professional criminals … it would help public confidence if prisoners were required to serve the full sentences which were handed out … We have had 30 years of feather bedding wrongdoing. However, since the pendulum started to swing back two years ago we have seen a continuing reduction in reported crime … We totally support the Home Secretary in what he is proposing."
  In a similar vein, the chief constable of Hampshire, Mr. John Hoddinnott, said:
  "the public are justifiably concerned by offences like burglary, which are particularly distressing to victims. Those who persistently commit such offences must expect the courts to hand down a lengthy custodial sentence".
  Finally, on Radio 5 on 12 October 1995, the President of the Police Federation, Mr. Fred Broughton, said:
  "The sentencing issue is going to be controversial, there are going to be those people that say, 'does it really work, would it make an impact?' I'll tell you what it will do. It will give confidence to victims and witnesses that have seen people committing very serious offences come out of prison early and then re-offend".
  I welcome the Bill's provisions for the extended supervision of sex offenders. There was a sad case in my constituency involving a young mentally handicapped girl who was seriously sexually assaulted. Her assailant was originally charged with rape but, due to lack of evidence—which may have been occasioned, in part, by the young girl's mental problems—the charge was reduced and the assailant was convicted and served a prison term for sexual assault.
  In due course, the assailant was released early from prison. He returned home and was unexpectedly seen leering across the garden fence at the young girl—his next-door neighbour—whom he had been convicted of assaulting. I believe that it is imperative for the Government to take the action necessary to ensure that, when people are found guilty of that kind of offence, they cannot live close to those whom they have attacked after they have completed their prison sentence.
  The Bill correctly places great emphasis on the need for tough sentences for persistent serious offenders. I welcome its useful range of remedies for fine defaulters. The legislation also includes measures designed to help to deal with young offenders who must be deterred and prevented from becoming professional criminals. I particularly welcome the new option allowing the courts to label young offenders in order to protect the public.
  Last year there was a spate of quite serious burglaries, ram raids and the like in the little town of Llantwit Major in my constituency. Two young offenders were eventually apprehended for the crimes and sent to an institution in England. The crime rate in Llantwit Major plummeted immediately and I think that it would have assisted traders
  974
  and other crime victims if the names of those young criminals had been publicised. We are not talking about young innocents who, through labelling, may be turned into criminals; we are talking about youths with a string of previous convictions. They were as addicted to crime as their much older counterparts.
  I believe that one very helpful measure is missing from the Bill. I would like to see a declaratory statement to the effect that, in exercising its sentencing discretion, the judiciary should regard the interests of victims as paramount. It is a well-established principle of family law that the interests of the children of the family are paramount in divorce proceedings. The most important people associated with crime are not the criminals, the social workers, the court ushers, judges, magistrates, banisters, solicitors or those who work for the Crown Prosecution Service, but the victims. We must put their interests first in terms of deterrence, retribution and prevention.
  I believe that such an amendment to the Bill would assist the interpretation of sentencing powers and reassure the public, who are the potential victims of crime, that the Government put their interests first.
  7.54 pm
  Mr. John Hutton: It is true to say that the Crime (Sentences) Bill, which we are debating this evening, is designed, at least in part, to provoke an argument with the Opposition. However, thanks to several impressive contributions by Conservative Members, today's debate has served only to expose the extent of existing reservations and disagreements on the Conservative side regarding the direction of the Government's criminal justice policy.
  We must put any debate on law and order in Britain today into its proper context. The facts are clear: crime has more than doubled since 1979. Convictions and cautions have fallen and criminals are three times more likely to get away with their crimes today than in 1980. In simple terms, there is more crime today and more people are getting away with it. The international comparisons are not very flattering to the Government: crime has risen faster in Britain than in any comparable country over the same period.
  The figures for Cumbria in that period are also fairly depressing. Recorded crime in Cumbria has increased by 109 per cent. since 1979. Recorded incidents of violent crime in Cumbria are up by 205 per cent., and by 7.7 per cent. this year alone. According to the British crime survey—which provides a better and more accurate record of crime in the United Kingdom—in the northern region, one adult in 20 was a victim of wounding, common assault, robbery or a snatch theft at least once in 1995.
  If we strip away the Home Secretary's party conference rhetoric, any reasonable person is likely to conclude that the Government have failed to respond effectively to the rise in crime in our society. The self-proclaimed party of law and order has failed spectacularly to deliver the goods. At least the Government's response has been predictable, if not effective. A serious debate about the measures that might help in the fight against crime has been replaced by mood music which is designed to grab a few quick headlines in the tabloids. As we approach the next election, we are confronted with a Government—desperate for any measure that might restore their

  975
  fortunes—who are cynically preparing to make changes to the criminal justice system on the basis of the Home Secretary's latest whim.
  The Government are obviously prepared to perform spectacular U-turns on provisions that lie at the Bill's heart. Clauses 1 to 3, dealing with minimum sentences, and part II of the Bill, dealing with parole, are the most obvious examples of the U-turn stampede.
  The Government's social and economic policies undermine their law and order agenda. Social disintegration and the marginalisation of the poor, which have become the characteristics of Conservative economic and social policy, create the conditions in which crime can thrive. Everyone knows that—even the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville), has conceded that point.
  That is not an excuse or a justification for criminal behaviour: people must always take full personal responsibility for their actions. However, I wonder how much of the additional expenditure on law and order might have proved unnecessary if we had devoted more attention to the causes of crime and to crime prevention. Such a policy might not have attracted the headlines that the Home Secretary craves in the Daily Mail and the other Tory tabloids, but it might have made a greater impact in the fight against crime than the measures that he has outlined today.
  The national debate about crime must be informed once more by serious criminological research and analysis. We must look at the evidence in the cold light of day and consider why crime has risen, what measures would make matters worse and should be avoided, and how Government can help. I believe that such a debate should focus on improving the workings of our youth justice system—about which the Bill says nothing—and provide greater consistency in sentencing between different courts.
  Hon. Members may have seen a report in yesterday's Observer describing a leaked Audit Commission report on Britain's youth justice system. I have no reason to believe that the report is inaccurate and, according to the Observer, it paints a pretty grim picture of Britain's youth courts. It condemns the youth justice system for
  "expense, delays and its failure to monitor systematically the impact of its sentencing policies on young offenders. It shows a lack of co-ordination between public agencies in dealing with juvenile delinquency".
  Tell us something that we did not already know about the youth justice system.
  The provisions in clauses 1 to 3 have clearly undergone substantial evolution since they were first canvassed by the Home Secretary last year. One of the main concerns about his original proposals was the threat to judicial independence and the possibility of rough justice being handed out by the courts.
  The new proposals in clauses 1 to 3 have introduced a major new element of discretion into the sentencing arrangements by allowing the courts to impose a lesser sentence if there are "exceptional circumstances". That will obviously result in the Court of Appeal being heavily involved in determining what "exceptional circumstances" are. Its interpretation will have an enormous influence on the impact of the new provisions.
  976
  The Government's attempt to limit judicial involvement in fixing sentences for repeat offenders has thus gone into retreat.
  I should have liked some reference in the Bill to reviewable sentences, as proposed by the Butler committee in 1975. Under such proposals, release would take place only after a finding that the offender no longer posed a risk to the public. I welcome the fact that those given a mandatory life sentence under clause 1 will have such an assessment, but reviewable sentences have much wider potential applications. They could be applied to all child sex offenders, on first conviction or subsequently. Such sentences would have the additional merit of corresponding more closely with the Government's stated intention of introducing more honesty into sentencing practice.
  I am also concerned that the list of serious offences in clause 1(5) includes only two serious sex offences. Why did the Government choose to list only those two serious sex crimes? What about offences under sections 6 and 12 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956? Both sections detail serious sex crimes involving young children. I fully appreciate that a line has to be drawn and new offences have to be characterised, but I should be grateful for an explanation.
  I welcome the provisions on the supervision of sex offenders, but I have two reservations. First, unless I am mistaken, the list mentioned by the Home Secretary this afternoon detailing restrictions that might be imposed on convicted sex offenders does not appear in the Bill. I assume that the Home Secretary was referring to his powers under clause 12(5) to make regulations on the supervision of any type of offender. It is a shame that draft regulations have not been published to correspond with the publication of the Bill. We could then have a better-informed debate on what the Home Secretary has in mind for the supervision of sex offenders. I am disappointed that the Bill includes no specific reference to the restrictions and controls that could be imposed on sex offenders. I think that that omission is a mistake.
  Secondly, I am concerned about the extended powers under clause 16 to impose extensive post-release supervision orders on convicted sex offenders. Clause 16(1)(a) refers simply to someone convicted of a sexual offence. I am sure that that will be sufficiently comprehensive in most cases, but I am concerned that it will not always be comprehensive enough. Why should not those powers to impose a more extensive post-release supervision order extend to someone convicted of child abduction? It may be that such an offender did not get any further than abducting the child because the child was rescued before any more serious offence was committed. Would such an offender be considered a sexual offender for the purposes of the clause? My understanding is that he would not. The Bill is at fault there.
  I should like to emphasise the comments of the Parole Board about the importance of prisoners being under effective supervision once they have been released. As many hon. Members have made clear, clause 12 might well result in prisoners being under supervision for considerably less time than at present. That would not be a sensible or desirable change. Considering the rhetoric surrounding the introduction of the Bill, our constituents would find such a measure extraordinary.
  In its comments published on 15 October on the Government's White Paper, the Parole Board said:

  977
  "In general, therefore, under the proposed arrangements most prisoners will be under supervision for considerably less time than at present. But the White Paper is almost entirely silent on what supervision will mean. If it is to be at least as effective for long term prisoners as it is at present, the existing system which relies upon detailed risk assessments must not be dismantled."
  Unfortunately, the provisions in the White Paper are now contained in the Bill, which is as silent as the White Paper was on what supervision orders will mean in practice.
  More significantly, the Parole Board goes on to say:
  "We believe that the 'honesty in sentencing' proposals will lead to an abandonment of that rehabilitation process, replacing a system which is effective in dealing with the release of dangerous and persistent criminals with one which will be worse in almost every respect. This will result in poorer rather than better protection for the public. The Board strongly believes that the Government will be making a serious, and potentially dangerous, mistake if it does not reconsider this part of its White Paper proposals."
  Unfortunately, the Government did not reconsider that part of the White Paper proposals. They are in the Bill. I hope that we shall have some detailed answers in Committee to the serious criticisms that the Parole Board has made.
  Many hon. Members have referred to the impact of the proposals on the prison population and the prison estate. I do not want to repeat all the arguments that have been made, but there is a real concern that the Government's proposals will lead to an impossible burden on the prison service. The Select Committee on Home Affairs, which is currently investigating the prison service, heard evidence last week from the Prison Governors Association that the service will be in a very difficult situation next year, notwithstanding the coming into force of these proposals in the medium term.
  It is imperative that the quality of the prison service is maintained. We have to do something constructive with those who come into our prisons. There is no point and no value for the taxpayer or for society in recycling an endless stream of prisoners through prison gates, many for the second, third or fourth time. They will come back again, costing us a huge amount and providing no substantive protection. Any proposals which might hit at the rehabilitation and education programmes of the prison service would be a huge mistake. There are concerns—some have been expressed by hon. Members and others by people outside the House—that that is already happening under the twin pressures of more prisoners coming in and the continuing squeeze on prison budgets, which are facing a 13 per cent. cut this year.
  In essence, this is a Bill that must be and needs to be improved in Committee so that the public can be offered greater protection from dangerous criminals and so that the courts will be allowed to develop better sentencing policies. However, the Bill has all the appearance of being a last-gasp effort by a Government who, everyone knows, have simply run out of excuses to explain away the record increase in crime during their period in office. They have run out of excuses and very soon, they will be run out of office as well.
  8.9 pm
  Mr. William Powell: My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has brought before the House a valuable measure which deserves discussion and which, with the exception of the hon. and learned Member
  978
  for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), every hon. Member who has spoken in the debate feels deserves further discussion. I certainly support that line.
  Before I came to the House, I practised every day for 15 years in the criminal courts, mostly in London. I had close experience, therefore, of many people who were given prison sentences. I used to visit prisons on a basis that was far too regular for my own good, so I had a continuing knowledge of what was taking place in the criminal courts.
  When I came here, I did not, unlike some hon. Members, wish to devote my time solely to criminal justice issues, although I could have done. I have, therefore, become a little more detached than would have been the case if I had continued with my daily practice, but I hope that I have not forgotten those past days or unlearned the lessons that were a part of my daily experience.
  Above all, I learned that there were few things more inimical to our system of democracy than punishing the innocent. As conviction necessarily involves punishment, it is vital that our system of criminal justice ensures that we do not make it too easy to convict people and that a high standard and quality of proof is provided before conviction takes place.
  Once people have been convicted, the public are entitled to expect that the courts will reflect the seriousness that the public feel about the activities that are carried out by criminals. When I was born and in the years after world war two, the Lord Chief Justice was Lord Goddard. He commanded respect throughout the country. Ordinary people felt that as long as he was Lord Chief Justice, he and the judges whom he led would conduct the criminal justice system in a way that met with their approval and approbation. In the 40 years or so since Lord Goddard retired as Lord Chief Justice, there has, I regret to say, been a striking collapse of public confidence in the ability of the criminal justice system to reflect people's wishes.
  Another principle that I learned, which is of the most profound importance, is that the criminal law exists to protect the poor, the weak, the inadequate and those who may lack courage. They are the people whom we remembered last week on the feast of All Souls Day. Ordinary people are entitled to expect with confidence that the criminal law will protect them, by ensuring that those who commit crimes are caught, convicted and properly punished.
  I take the view that most criminals get caught, but I believe that they do not get caught for all the offences that they commit. We have to provide a mechanism that will ensure that those who commit crimes are convicted of all their crimes and not merely for one or a small number of their crimes. An Opposition Member referred not long ago to the fact that professional burglars may feel that they can get away with their burglaries time and again before they are convicted. When they are subsequently convicted, they are not convicted for their earlier crimes.
  When I started practising in the criminal courts, there was a thriving industry of "defences taking into consideration". That is no longer the case. We must provide a mechanism whereby those who are convicted of crime will assist the authorities in uncovering all their past criminal activities, as far as is possible.

  979
  One of the principles that we might adopt from the American system—it is much derided, but it has many more strengths than our superior English lawyers are often prepared to concede—is that in American jurisdictions, if the judge trying the case feels that the person before him is a professional criminal, that is, a persistent criminal who is earning his or her living substantially out of crime, he may sentence that person to an impossibly long term of imprisonment. However, there is a review a year or so later.
  Somebody may be sent to prison for 99 years—nobody imagines that that person will serve 99 years—as a holding sentence. A year later, that person will be brought back before the court and the court will then inquire into what assistance that person has given to the prosecuting authorities in the detection of other crimes in which he has been involved. He may have given information about other people who have been involved in the same crimes, or he may have helped in the recovery of property. He may have given information leading to the arrest and conviction of other persons. If that person has disgorged all that he knows, the judge may vary the sentence from 99 years to a much more sensible period. That system avoids the distasteful practice of plea bargaining, which has grown too much in this country, albeit covertly.
  Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman with great interest. Is he advocating that we should induce a prisoner with a savage sentence to lie, cheat and admit to things that he has not done? Is he advocating that we should do all the things that are wrong in our law? That led, for example, to a false clear-up rate by the Kent police. Surely the hon. Gentleman cannot be advocating that.
  Mr. Powell: It is clear from what I have said that if a convicted person proposed to give the police such assistance, they would be able to advise the trial judge that that was what had happened and perhaps the 99-year sentence would be doubled as a consequence. However, we must provide some mechanism whereby those who have already been convicted of crime and who have been involved in serious crime time and again come forward to the courts and provide as much information as they can. I am not talking about false information, as the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) fears. The courts can easily reflect such co-operation or lack of co-operation in their handling of people. There should be some benefit for those who assist in the process that I have described and such a benefit does not exist to a satisfactory extent at present.
  In the present day, there is a lack of fear of the criminal justice system among professional villains. In the days of Lord Goddard, there was respect and fear of what would happen if one came before Her Majesty's judges. Only the other day, the Northamptonshire Evening Telegraph, the local newspaper that covers the eastern part of Northamptonshire, including my constituency, produced the best article it has written in my years as a Member of Parliament.
  On 9 October 1996, the headline was, "Why didn't they lock me up?" The story continued:
  "A teenage thief admitted today that prison is the only thing which will stop his life of crime.
  980
  In an amazingly frank interview the 17-year-old said: 'I'm looking for a job but it's easier to go out and steal. Prisons are the only thing which could stop me.'
  The teenager, who cannot be named for legal reasons, confessed to: committing his first offence at 13, breaking into hundreds of cars in four years, selling stolen radios to buy cannabis.
  He said: 'I don't want to do this for the rest of my life—but it's easy money.'"
  That person had no fear.
  Just before Christmas, at the Middlesex Guildhall—just the other side of Parliament square—a convicted burglar was brought before Judge Clarkson. It was the judge's last case. The defendant was 6 ft 8 in tall. He was a professional burglar who had been convicted several times. On that occasion, the jury convicted him of a series of burglaries in the Finchley area of London, during which he had undoubtedly humiliated the victims of his crime. Given his size, many people felt terrorised by him. He was advised by his counsel, absolutely correctly, that the likely sentence would be eight years—a serious sentence for burglary. He was sent to prison for 27 years; he fainted in the dock when he heard the sentence. Many of our constituents would welcome it if more prisoners fainted in the dock when they heard their sentences.
  I am referring to professional criminals. My right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) said that too many people in prison are not professional criminals, but professional prisoners. Those are not the people I have in mind. I am referring to serious, professional, ruthless criminals who most of our constituents feel are getting away with their crimes.
  Unfortunately, whether we like it or not—and I do not like it—increasing numbers of our constituents no longer trust those who operate the criminal justice system to deliver penalties that are appropriate to the crime. By changing direction, the Bill starts a process whereby we hope that it will be possible to impose even tougher sentences and, at the same time, weed out prisoners who ought not to be in prison and for whom nothing worth while is achieved by their being in prison.
  I refer not merely to those who fail to pay their television licence fees, but to the professional prisoners mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley, who are sent to prison time and again. They become used to prison life and even begin to depend on it. They are frequently illiterate, always untrained and have nothing to offer the world except the possibility of another crime, which, as much as anything else, is designed to get them back to prison life.
  I should not wish to fill our prisons with 75,000. 100,000 or 200,000 people. I should prefer it if fewer than 5,000 people were in prison; those in prison should be the professional villains who wreak such appalling havoc on the lives of many people.
  I approve of minimum sentences. No one has had any trouble with the idea of maximum sentences, so I do not understand why there should be such a difficulty with minimum sentences. However, I wish that the judiciary had taken advantage of the increased powers that we gave them. Time and again I have voted to increase the powers of sentencing available to the courts, only to find that they are not being used. As far as I am aware, Judge Clarkson in the Finchley case that I mentioned was the only judge ever to have used the powers of enhancing sentences that we have given for such cases as I have described.

  981
  Experts in the field have lost touch with our constituents—the all souls, as I described them—the poor, the defenceless and the weak who look to the police and the courts, presided over by magistrates or judges, to ensure that those who commit serious crimes receive serious punishments.
  When I talk about deterrent sentences, I do not mean tough sentences whereby somebody says, "That was tough," and it is quickly forgotten, but sentences that crackle round the community for years to come. In 1958 there were race riots in Notting Hill. Mr. Justice Salmon sent those convicted to prison for four years, and 10 years later when I started at the Bar, people in the Temple and in prisons were still talking about the deterrent sentences imposed on those Notting Hill race rioters in 1958.
  When I started at the Bar, there was an outbreak of vandalism of telephone kiosks in Birmingham. Judge Argyle, the then recorder of Birmingham, sent everyone who was convicted of vandalism to prison. The vandalism stopped in Birmingham, but not elsewhere. People in Birmingham talked in pubs, clubs and their homes about the prison sentences that inevitably followed such crimes.
  Deterrent sentences should crackle round the community. They should not be forgotten, but should be remembered for years. As so much crime is international, they should be remembered abroad, too.
  Certain crimes are limited in number, but important and serious, and all our constituents find them objectionable and repulsive. They require deterrent sentences. Those involved in the production and distribution of child pornography should be imprisoned for a long time. People who are involved in sexual offences against young children or kidnapping should be imprisoned, not for an indeterminate life sentence, but for a minimum of perhaps 60 years. Above all, those who are responsible for the mass importation of drugs into Britain, sometimes involving millions of pounds, should be imprisoned.
  The other day, when I was driving home I heard on the news that the Old Bailey had heard its most serious case ever involving heroin importation. The sentence imposed on the main defendant was 14 years. The case was reported briefly on the news and then forgotten.
  I wish it to be known abroad that those who bring vast quantities of heroin into Britain will be pursued to the ends of the earth, that all their assets will be stripped from them when they are convicted and that they should expect to spend at least 60 years in a British gaol if they are convicted in Britain. The message should go out from the House and the country that certain people are absolutely unwelcome. We should protect our people as they expect to be protected and as they expect the judges to protect them—by sending those who smuggle heroin worth £5 million or £50 million to prison not for 14 years, but for the whole of their effective lives. Those sentences would crackle round the community exactly as deterrent sentences should.
  8.29 pm
  Mr. David Hanson: I shall not follow the line of thought of the hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Powell.)—[HON. MEMBERS: "Line of thought?"] Perhaps I am being generous. His speech certainly provoked a response that is worthy of discussion in Committee.
  Mr. Bermingham: Does my hon. Friend accept that it shows that the hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) has
  982
  been out of the trade, as it were, for some 15 years? The standard sentence set down by the Court of Appeal for serious drug smuggling of class A drugs is more than 20 years, not 14. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman ought to come up to date before he speaks in the House.
  Mr. Hanson: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention. I know that he tried to intervene on the hon. Member for Corby.
  I speak as one of the hon. Members in this debate who is not a lawyer and, alongside the bunch of professionals. I join several of my select colleagues in putting forward views on the Bill. I speak as someone who has been a Member of Parliament for four and a half years and who has witnessed the effects of crime on many of my constituents. I reject the charge levelled by many Conservative Members that the Labour party and the Opposition are soft on crime and soft on the causes of crime. We are trying to put forward some very positive ideas about how to tackle crime. I reject the overall suggestion that any discussion of the nature of the Bill means that I and my hon. Friends are soft on crime.
  I have certain reservations about the Bill's impact on the performance of the Prison Service and the prisoners detained by it. I have some questions about the use of resources in the long term for the prevention and detection of crime. I have—I hope—some genuine thoughts on whether the Bill's overall aims will be effective, and whether it will produce a policy that is fair and equitable and seen to be so. I believe that it may have some detrimental effects.
  The Bill is certainly a major measure. I strongly agree with the thoughtful remarks of the right hon. Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd), a former Prisons Minister. The Bill will certainly increase the prison population. According to its explanatory notes, its likely impact will be the creation of an extra 1,000 gaol spaces over the next few years, the building and completion of 12 new prisons and the expenditure of between £375 million and £435 million a year in additional running costs for the prison system—when there are already a record 57,000 prisoners in gaol. The Bill's main impact will not be felt for some 10 to 12 years, when the gaol sentences and increased numbers will have filtered through.
  Although prison is certainly important and, in many ways, a deterrent, prevention, detection and conviction rates are just as important as final sentences in preventing crime, as many of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping), have pointed out. Since 1979, 22 new prisons have been built, and an additional 11,635 prisoners have been subjected to terms of imprisonment, yet throughout the same period crime has doubled.
  The preventive nature of sentencing has not necessarily had an impact on the number of prisoners who are now detained at Her Majesty's pleasure. Sentencing represents just one approach. The pressures of detection, prevention, numbers of police officers and a more long-term strategy will have a more important and beneficial effect on reducing crime than, as I shall try to explain later, harsher and often more unfair sentences.
  In a very helpful brief that arrived today, the Law Society has supported such a view. It said:
  "We consider that criminals are more deterred by fear of being caught than by the punishment that they may receive. For this reason, we do not believe that longer sentences necessarily act as an effective means of crime prevention."

  983
  Surely crime prevention is what this House should be about.
  Since 1979, north Wales has seen a 77 per cent. increase in the number of crimes: last year, 41,645 crimes were committed in the North Wales police area. That is a tremendous increase, at a time when the number of prisons has doubled and the number of prisoners has risen. That figure does not take into account the number of crimes that were not reported.
  Between 1980 and 1994, however, convictions have fallen. There was an increase in crime of between 79 per cent. and 80 per cent. in that period, yet there was a 10.3 per cent. fall in the number of convictions. As a number of my hon. Friends have said, only one in 50 crimes results in conviction. That is not satisfactory, yet the Bill will not address it. Conviction and policing are the best prevention and deterrent.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) made a number of positive suggestions in the debate on the Queen's Speech last week as an alternative to sentencing that would help crime prevention. Closed circuit television would certainly help. Resources that will be put into the building and managing of new prisons could be directed at crime prevention. As a number of my hon. Friends have said, the physical presence of police officers on the streets is a greater deterrent than the fear of conviction.
  The 100,000 illegal guns, the banning of combat knives, my hon. Friend's helpful suggestions on youth orders, investment in crime prevention, truancy and improvement in recreational facilities are at least as important in preventing crime as the harsh sentencing policy which the Bill will introduce. I should like greater emphasis on those issues and some consideration in Committee of whether the Government's proposals are the best way forward and whether some of the resources being pumped into the inevitable consequences of that harsher prison system would better be spent on key prevention measures.
  I would welcome—and shall try to elicit—a response from the Minister on the operation of the policy. A number of clauses will result, as has been said, in greater prison numbers. What research has been undertaken into the proposals' impact on the future prison system and the prevention of crime in the first place? We have an example in evaluation of the American experience.
  In Committee, there should be detailed discussion on delays in cases coming to court. What has happened in America with plea bargaining? Has it increased and resulted in a reduced sentence for some individuals? What has happened to the number of petty criminals who have been imprisoned as a result of proposals similar to those before us? What has happened to a whole range of issues concerning evaluation of the—admittedly—harsher American regime? Such questions need to be considered and more work needs to be done on evaluating the impact of harsher sentencing proposals on the present and future prison populations and the prevention of crime, which should be the main concern of the House.
  I am also concerned about the impact, effectiveness and fairness of some of the proposals on our wider communities, such as those in clause 1, which imposes a
  984
  mandatory life sentence for a second serious sexual offence. I simply ask whether the Minister can guarantee that such proposals will ensure that more serious crimes will not be committed as a result.
  Rape is a foul and vicious crime. It is an affront to women, and a crime that deserves severe and harsh punishment. No one will decry that, but I remain unconvinced—I would be willing to be convinced in Committee—of the merits of a term of life for a second serious sexual offence. The person who committed such an offence might be tempted to murder the victim. If the penalty remains the same, I fear for the individual on the receiving end of the crime.
  Mr. Maclean: If the hon. Gentleman needs convincing that life is appropriate in those circumstances, how does he justify the fact that life is currently one of the sentencing options for someone who commits the crime of rape?
  Mr. Hanson: I accept what the Minister says, but the difference is that life would be mandatory on a second offence in the example I have given, so an individual might feel that he might as well commit murder as rape is he felt that the survival of the victim would result in a conviction. I have no answer to that fear, but I am willing to discuss it in Committee. That issue has been raised by other hon. Members, and it needs to be addressed before we accept the clause.
  Mr. Bermingham: Does my hon. Friend agree, contrary to the Minister's glib approach. that rape is rape is rape, that there are many different types of rape? For example, there is statutory rape on a child, in which, say, the boy is 15 and the girl is 12. That would constitute one strike. There is boy friend on girl friend date rape, which is not as serious as that committed by the man who leaps out of the bushes.
  There are so many different types of rape, and perhaps there are two solutions. One might be to redefine the crime of rape, as the Canadians have done, into various degrees of rape; secondly, perhaps only the most serious type should attract a mandatory life sentence for the second offence.
  Mr. Hanson: I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. He highlights again the complexities of the issue, which the Committee will need to discuss. My main contention remains the same; I am concerned about the safety of victims of that appalling crime.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) mentioned clause 3, which deals with burglary. Burglary is a horrible crime. It violates individuals and causes great distress and a range of social problems, but a mandatory sentence may cause some difficulties. That was amply outlined by my hon. Friend, who made an assessment of the impact on the criminal. It is possible that an individual who had committed three minor offences, distressing though they might have been, would receive a relatively severe, mandatory three-year sentence. In addition to taking that person out of circulation for three years, such a sentence might make him into a more hardened, long-term criminal who was a greater danger to society at the end of that sentence. That was one reason why Ministers rejected mandatory sentences for a number of offences in 1991.

  985
  I am also worried about the effect that mandatory sentences might have in increasing violent crime. If individuals have two offences under their belt and face possible detection—despite the fact that detection rates are low and criminals easily get away with many crimes—for a third crime, they may increasingly resort to carrying weapons and other harmful instruments. That could lead to an increase in violent crime. Those issues should be explored before we rush headlong down the road of the easy solution of harsh sentences for headline-grabbing effect.
  We must also consider the likely increase in the gaol population, and we must evaluate the stresses and the likely result of additional prisoners in gaols. Those issues will all add to the long-term problem of crime which the Bill is meant to address.
  I welcome one aspect of the Bill—the proposals for non-custodial sentences for those individuals who are convicted for non-payment of fines. I raised several years ago the case of some constituents who had gone to gaol for non-payment of television licence fees, largely through poverty rather than criminal intent. The proposals in the Bill will certainly be a great help in reducing the gaol population for such offences, and, constructively, will provide a way to keep families together. Children will be able to have their mothers with them rather than face the disruption that a gaol sentence brings for what remains the minor, although still important, crime of non-payment of television licence fines.
  A number of issues need to be examined and the Bill should go to Committee for discussion. I am disappointed that the Government have introduced it in this form, because the proposals strike me as more about pre-election posturing than positive ways to reduce crime. No Opposition Member wants to see criminals getting away with crimes or crime increasing. We want effective measures to be taken to reduce crime and provide security for our constituents. [Interruption.] The hooligan element on the Conservative Benches is providing a great example to the public through the comments of the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale).
  A thoughtful approach can be taken to reducing crime. The Labour party has that thoughtful approach, and we will exercise it in Committee. I hope that the Bill will be a better Bill, after having been studied in Committee, than it is at the moment.
  8.46 pm
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: The Bill, although perhaps not perfect, does more than any other Bill in recent years to respond to the reasonable desire of the citizen for better protection against crime and criminals, and it warrants the support of all Members of the House who represent those citizens.
  The Home Secretary has been beset by attacks from all sides—from the Labour party, Liberal Democrats, penal reformers, judges, the Bar, the Law Society, academics and a section of the public that wants every criminal to be imprisoned for life, or shot, or worse. We have a brave and courageous Home Secretary who is holding fast, with this Bill, to the conviction that much more can be done to protect society; that prison works to protect society; that there is room for tougher sentences and more honesty in sentencing; and that we need to support the police, who are crying out for our support. He is right, and we all know it.
  986
  Why is my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary right and his critics wrong? I shall endeavour to show how his critics are wrong, and I shall begin with three obvious points.
  First, not all judges are opposed to the provisions in the Bill, and neither are all practitioners, all academics or all penal reformers. A sizable number of them—and I have spoken with them—support the proposals. Secondly, not all the opposition to the proposals is reasonable. I took part in the programme called "Kilroy" last week and I was howled at, when I said that we were toughening the law, by those of the public who wondered why we were not proposing even tougher sentences; why first offenders were not to be sentenced to life imprisonment for rape or serious violence; why three years for burglary was not the first sentence to be imposed on burglars; and why seven years was not the first sentence to be imposed for drug offences.
  In my opinion, those attacks on me were not always reasonable. When such sentences would be reasonable, in the circumstances of a particular case, the courts have the power to impose them already.
  Thirdly, many of the perceived ills of our system—this was clear from the television programme in which I took part—are not the fault of the Government. The judiciary is independent and cannot be interfered with or told what to do by the Government, save where Parliament lays down minimum or maximum sentences. If the maximum sentence is greater and the sentence imposed inadequate, the blame must unfortunately lie with the judiciary and not the Government.
  Let me deal with as many of the Opposition's unmerited criticisms as I can in the limited period available. The credibility of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) must be somewhat diminished as we recall how his party's view has changed in reaction to the proposals. His decision not to vote on the Bill clashes with his first reaction to the proposals, which he attacked in a press release as
  "a bizarre mixture of complacency and desperation".
  He then dismissed them on "Today" as
  "ill-thought through and ill-considered".
  One of his henchmen, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), was authorised to dismiss the proposals as "daft", while his deputy, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), described them as "a farce".
  The concept of minimum sentences was attacked in a Labour policy document, "Honesty, consistency and progression in sentences", as was the scrapping of automatic early release from prison. When one knows that such opposition to fundamental principles has changed so much, one can hardly have overwhelming confidence in the hon. Member for Blackburn's judgment.
  Nor can one have confidence when we recall that, as we approach a general election, the Labour party has voted against virtually every measure to toughen our approach to criminals—
  Mr. Alun Michael: That is not true.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence:—or has at least failed to support them. The hon. Gentleman cannot deny that. Labour has

  987
  failed year after year to support the prevention of terrorism legislation, stronger stop and search powers for the police, limitations on bail and higher maximum sentences.
  Mr. Michael: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to respond to the debate, and he can then deny that he has failed to support the tough measures that we introduced. [Interruption.] It is on the record—he cannot deny it. His words are clear in Hansard. He can deal with that matter when he comes to the Dispatch Box.
  Higher maximum sentences for the worst child offences were opposed by Labour, as were secure training orders for persistent 12 to 14-year-old offenders and the taking of intimate DNA samples from suspects. Labour has decided to be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime as we move nearer to a general election, as it knows from the opinion polls that that is what the public expect from their representatives.
  In the light of these responses, let us study what the hon. Member for Blackburn has stated today. He said that we made mistakes in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1991 on unit fines and taking into account previous convictions, and we did. Some of us warned against the latter, but the Government did correct those mistakes in subsequent legislation.
  In addition, not all the 1991 Act was bad. Most was good and remains on the statute book. We recognised error and corrected it. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd) wisely observed, we always aim for the best, and our proposals must change in the light of experience. My own views have certainly changed on the need for minimum sentences in the light of judicial failure to lay down minimum guidelines. But to use that as a reason for not endorsing the Bill is as irrelevant as it is ridiculous.
  The hon. Member for Blackburn said that the Bill does not deal with muggers and knife robbers—a point made also by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile)—and he is right. The Bill could have been even tougher on the imposition of minimum sentences, but we are under enough attack for making the Bill as tough as it is. Do the Opposition want youngsters who gang up and assault people in the streets to be at risk of life imprisonment? Very well—let them table amendments to that effect as the Bill progresses.
  Perhaps they are right, but the Bill does not stop judges giving harsher sentences in appropriate cases—judges can give life to muggers now. They can give more than three years to three-time offending burglars or more than seven years for three-time drug traffickers. This Bill does not restrict judges' freedom to pass longer sentences: it only restricts their freedom in some circumstances to pass shorter sentences.
  The hon. Member for Blackburn scoffed at the length of time it will take to introduce these measures. He is right to deplore the delay, but wrong to scoff. If it were possible to put the measures in place immediately, we would do so. But new prisons will have to be built, and it is not possible to proceed more quickly, much as we
  988
  would all wish to do so. That is not a fair criticism. His other attacks were not credible, and the House and the country will have little difficulty in dismissing them.
  The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) was high in eloquence and arrogance and low in humility and respect for others, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney), who did not share his opinions. His confident assertions were shown to be suspect, and his claim that his party wanted more policemen was shown to clash not with a consultation document, but with a recent policy statement that there was no point in having more police officers.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman said that those not subject to minimum sentences will be released earlier than at present, but it is by no means clear that that can be read into clause 21 of the Bill or the abolition of the relevant provisions in earlier Acts. Even if he were right, that is not the intention of the Bill and it can be remedied as it is improved during its passage through Parliament. He knows that very well.
  The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery says that all manslaughter cases are not the same, and that it is an injustice to say that two will result in life sentences. But he chooses to ignore the fact that a different tariff will be set for "accidental crimes", and that exceptional circumstances can avoid the imposition of the mandatory sentence. He falls into the trap of assuming that, because there are occasional bizarre cases, that Is a reason for not dealing with the generality of cases. If we never dealt with the generality for fear of the exceptional, we would never pass any laws to protect the public. Such a philosophy is totally ridiculous.
  The final arrogance of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery was to assert with confidence that jurors will be unlikely to convict anyone in manslaughter cases if they know that a later manslaughter would result in a life sentence being imposed. What evidence does he have of that? That is absolute rubbish. He asserted with confidence that no jury would convict on a second manslaughter offence if they knew of a first offence for fear that the defendant would receive life imprisonment. What evidence has he of that? In how many cases would a defence barrister put his client's previous conviction for manslaughter to the jury, making it more certain that the defence of accident or wrong identity would be disbelieved? It is nonsense, and I am surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman has not recognised that. That is not my judgment, and I have been practising at the criminal Bar at least as long as he has.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department pointed out that it is any event to give the sentence of life imprisonment—
  Mr. Bermingham: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: No.
  Mr. Bermingham: Why not?
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: Because other hon. Members want to speak. The hon. Gentleman has not been here from the start of the debate, unlike some of my hon. Friends. He will forgive me if I carry on. [Interruption.] Hon.

  989
  Members will not throw me from my speech, because they know I am talking sense. The fact that they are trying to distract me from talking sense shows how pitifully poor their argument must be.
  As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has pointed out, the approach of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery is attempting to give the sentence of life imprisonment a more dreadful aspect than it bears, for its purpose is to limit the risk of release. The inevitable result would not be that life imprisonment meant life, much as some might wish that to be so. It see no merit in the hon. and learned Gentleman's criticisms, so I think that we can dispense with them.
  What then of the criticisms of some judges? The provisions to introduce more honesty—not complete honesty—into sentencing has the judges' support. As Lord Denning said;
  "It is absurd that a sentence of three years' imprisonment really means less than 18 months. It detracts from the authority of the court when everyone knows that a long sentence does not mean what it appears to mean."
  The former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Taylor of Gosforth, said:
  "I believe public confidence in the system is eroded when convicted criminals are seen to walk free from prison after serving less than half their sentences, however good their behaviour may have been in the interim."
  We are doing something about that, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is to be congratulated.
  The judges were, and perhaps still are, sensitive about the fact that limiting their discretion is part of the purpose of the Bill; as a recorder, I understand that, but the judges are surely over-reacting. Some said at first that minimum sentences were not known in our system, until the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Bingham, pointed out that. if Parliament can prescribe a maximum sentence, as it does, there is no constitutional reason why it should not prescribe minimum sentences—and it has done so, with considerable effect, for murder and for drink-driving.
  I would rather that we did not have to introduce minimum sentences, as has often been pointed out—my quotation from five years ago keeps coming up—but, if the judges have not considered over those five years that a minimum sentence of three years' imprisonment for a professional burglar or seven years for a professional class A drug trafficker is appropriate, they cannot complain if Parliament decides to do something about inadequate sentences.
  If only 10 out of 217 people convicted in 1994 for second-time rape or serious violent offences received the life imprisonment that the judges were capable of imposing; if judges give seven-times burglars 19 and a half months' imprisonment and do not sentence a third of them to prison at all; and if they give inadequate sentences to seven-times drug traffickers, they can hardly complain when we toughen the sentencing requirements.
  It would have been better if the Lord Chief Justice and the appeal judges had laid down minimum guidelines; but they could not do it, they did not do it, and it is for us, the elected representatives of the people, to do it if the judges fail. That is what the people whom we represent want and have a right to expect.
  What of the criticisms of academics, probation officers and others? I hope that I will be forgiven for lumping them together and dealing quite briefly with many of the attacks.
  990
  It has been said that there will be an increase in the need for prison spaces at a time of existing pressure on the system; of course that is so, but my right hon. and learned Friend has made it clear that, if we have been able to build 22 new prisons over the past decade and a half, we can do the same again over the next decade, in time to ensure that the provisions of the Bill can be put into effect.
  It has been said that effective sentences will double; they will not. Guidelines—or, if necessary, legislation—can ensure that the courts take account of the abolition of parole when sentencing.
  It has been said that the Bill does not create honest sentencing, because there will still be 16 to 20 per cent. reductions for good behaviour. As I have said before, that is more honest sentencing than reducing the sentence by a half or even by a third.
  It has been said that there will be anomalies, and there will be, but that is no reason not to do what needs to be done to reduce anomalies and their bad effects.
  It has been said that there will remain a wide range of sex offences that are not punishable by life imprisonment, that is right, but the Bill extends the provisions for dealing more effectively with treatment and supervision in prison, via the Prison Service, and out of prison, via the Probation Service, and there are further plans to deal more adequately with such offenders. Those plans are long overdue, but the problems are being addressed, and we should be complimented, not attacked, for that.
  It has been said that minimum sentences never work; but minimum sentences that appear in judicial guidelines work, so why should not statutory provisions work?
  It has been said that prison does not work, but clearly it does if it removes the worst offenders from circulation. I can say from my experience as a barrister for 34 years that what offenders fear most is imprisonment. They will do anything to get out of it; they will plead not guilty to get out of it. From my recent experience of talking to offenders who might be affected by "three strikes and you're out" in Texas and California, the life sentence is feared. It works with them, and it and would work with many other offenders.
  If it is said, as both Government and Opposition Members have said, that prison does not work because it has done little to reform offenders, I say only that 50 per cent. of those imprisoned do not reoffend within two years, which is no worse a record than that of community sentences. I agree that more, perhaps far more, should be done to make reform a more effective part of prison life.
  If one considers the criticisms objectively, it is not reasonable to conclude that they have such force as to make the Bill unacceptable. Many have no basis in fact; others are merely opinion based on little evidence; others have a scintilla of merit but can be met by improving the Bill and by further legislation. The little that cannot be so addressed is not sufficient to justify destroying measures that have, by every opinion poll going, the overwhelming support of the public; of the police, to judge from statement after statement of senior and junior officers; and, I suspect, of the overwhelming majority of the House.
  The Government have taken a raft of measures to be tougher on criminals and the causes of crime. They have helped to reduce crime by 10 per cent.—the largest reduction sustained in our history. The Home Secretary

  991
  should be congratulated on his successes in dealing with crime and the Government deserve the House's support for the Bill.
  9.6 pm
  Mr. Richard Spring: One thing that has escaped the attention of the House is that the drop in crime in the past three years is the largest in the industrialised world. I want to tell my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary that the Bill comes at the end of a step-by-step approach by him to tackling crime and its underlying causes realistically. Its object and underlying thrust is to target career criminals—dangerous and professional criminals—and to provide sentences appropriate to act as a deterrent. Enough is enough is the message that emanates from the Bill.
  Over the past few years, I have watched the Home Secretary's initiative working in my rural area. The introduction of the parish constable scheme, of liaison officers in parishes and in rural towns, of closed circuit television, and the encouragement of community action schemes all build up to give support to communities in fighting crime. I welcome the Bill and the support that my right hon. and learned Friend has given at grass-roots level to tackling the incidence of drug abuse and to the attempts of communities to fight against it.
  The real issue is the profound sense of disappointment in communities as they watch what goes on in the courts and the criminal justice system. There is a clear public perception of sentencing that goes well beyond saloon bar comment. It is shared by magistrates and the police, to many of whom I have spoken. In my constituency this summer, there were unacceptable scenes of yob activity. I welcome the fact that in Committee we will have the opportunity to ensure that yobs can be named in public and shamed by their communities.
  People do not only feel anecdotally that sentencing is inappropriate. In 1994, the average sentence passed on burglars with seven or more convictions was slightly more than 19 months; a quarter received no custodial sentence at all. When a first-time offender receives 16 months on average for burglary, it is utterly illogical for someone who commits seven additional burglaries to receive a custodial sentence that is only two or three months longer. People's instincts are borne out by the facts.
  There has been a lot of talk about challenging the role of the judiciary. Of course, the independence of the judiciary is sacrosanct, but Parliament sets the laws and the framework within which the judiciary operates. Parliament must protect the interests of the victim, not the well-being of the offender. The protection of the citizen is at the heart of the Bill, implicitly and explicitly.
  All of us who have suffered burglaries know of the horror of being burgled. That is particularly so for elderly people. So much criminal activity is undertaken by a small group of people. It is correct for the law to concentrate on tackling those individuals and ensuring that they spend an appropriate length of time in prison.
  Drug trafficking is the greatest social evil of our generation. All the attempts to deal with it more liberally in, for example, Zurich and the Netherlands, have failed. We have to send drug traffickers a clear message that we will not tolerate what is going on. That is happening in
  992
  conjunction with the Government's overall education, rehabilitation and enforcement scheme, under "Tackling Drugs Together".
  I shall be brief as time is running out and my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) wants to speak. As has been said, the Attorney-General already has the power to appeal against lenient sentences, which is helpful and the power can no doubt be strengthened. The real need, however, and the underlying core of the Bill, is to protect the public from the release of a vicious individual when it is clear that he or she remains a potential danger to our society. Nothing enrages the public more. They want honesty in sentencing and that is precisely what they are going to get.
  I welcome the introduction of the clauses dealing with mentally disordered offenders. It is a grey area—especially the problem of people who are released from psychiatric institutions and those who are sometimes sent directly into the criminal justice system—and it has not been dealt with satisfactorily. I am glad that the Bill will try to deal with that problem as well.
  The criminal justice system must be all-embracing and must do a number of things. It must prevent crime—through CCTV, neighbourhood watch and raising awareness—it must provide the police with appropriate powers to tackle crime, particularly organised crime, and it must ensure that the guilty are convicted and the innocent set free, but it must also ensure a sentencing policy that reflects the severity of the crime, that is not a lottery and that protects the public. That is what the Bill is all about and it has my wholehearted support.
  9.12 pm
  Mr. Toby Jessel: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring) warmly for curtailing an enormously interesting speech.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) referred to public opinion. I have sent out 69,000 survey forms in my constituency—one to each constituent—and have received 13,000 replies. I have managed to put only about half of them on my computer so far. I can confirm that there is certainly more worry about law and order than about any other issue in my constituency.
  When we are discussing justice or the courts, I see no reason why we should forget that we live in a democracy. Magistrates are supposed to represent the people. Judges sometimes refer to public policy and they certainly accept that concept. The people see the purpose of criminal law and the courts as not only justice, but the protection of their safety. People are worried by criminal conduct and expect not only the courts but the Government and Parliament to act. I have no hesitation, therefore, in supporting this excellent Bill which will provide honesty in sentencing, which is important, but whose central purpose is to provide mandatory sentences for second violent crimes, such as manslaughter, armed robbery, rape, intercourse with girls under 13 and so forth. I want the Bill to be amended so that the seven years for a second offence of drug trafficking, as currently in the Bill—which is not enough because trafficking in drugs ruins so many lives—becomes instead a life sentence too.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds, like many other right hon. and hon. Members, referred to the independence of the judiciary. I have tremendous respect

  993
  for judges—I always have had. I come from a legal family, but I am not a lawyer myself. It is a prime duty of Parliament to uphold the authority of the courts. I regard judges in general as intelligent, wise and public-spirited people. However, when they and others speak of judges' independence in sentencing, they do not always mention that that independence is already inhibited in a way that is seldom publicly mentioned, but which I am convinced is none the less real.
  If you talk to judges, Mr. Deputy Speaker—perhaps when you meet them socially—and discuss their work in any depth, it does not take long to discover that they greatly dislike their decisions being reversed by a higher court on appeal, whether that is reversal of a verdict or reversal of a sentence, upwards or downwards. That feeling is general. It never lies far below the surface. It is not in any way discreditable. It is, in fact, completely understandable because a reversal of a judge's decision implies that, in the eyes of the higher court, the judge got it wrong.
  That is, in a sense, one facet of British professionalism, which is, on the whole, a good influence—it not only maintains qualifications and technical skills, but standards of performance. However, British professionalism has a downside and that is true of all the learned professions, whether lawyers—including judges—doctors, accountants or any other profession. They seem to care more about the good opinion of their brother or sister professionals than they care about what the general public think of them. Doctors care about what other doctors think of them; vicars care about what other vicars think of them; accountants care about what other accountants think of them; lawyers care about what other lawyers think of them; and judges certainly care a great deal about what other judges think of them. That feeling stems partly from the British guild tradition of the middle ages; it is shared by judges and it is one of the reasons why they dislike their decisions being reversed.
  When sentencing, judges have regard to tariffs—if that is the right word. I have seen the books that they use which contain examples of adding three months for this, or subtracting six months for that and I believe that broad compliance by judges with those variables will tend to diminish the chances of a reversal by a higher court on appeal. That must result in a substantial propensity of judges to comply with and rely on that type of guidance when sentencing, which not only constrains their real independence, but gives rise to a body of sentencing conventions and practice that tends to crystallise and from which the courts will not want to depart.
  As a result, when Parliament and public want stiffer sentences to deter crime, we cannot look to the courts because the judges themselves have a built-in tendency to maintain the current sentencing fashion. Such an objective can only be brought about by statute. We are in such a situation now and that is why we need the Bill, which I warmly support.
  9.19 pm
  Mr. Alun Michael: We have heard it all now—the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) had to send out a questionnaire to his constituents to discover what the Opposition have known for years: ordinary members of the public are desperately worried about crime after 17 years of Conservative rule.
  994
  The Home Secretary must have realised how deep his problems have become when he listened to several of his right hon. Friends, people who had held office as Home Secretary or Minister of State at the Home Office, damning him with faint praise. The first four expressed serious reservations while supporting parts of the Bill. We, too, wish to support parts of it and, in Committee, to increase its effectiveness. We also support its general direction in terms of tackling the problems of sentencing.
  The Secretary of State must have been even more worried when he realised that just two voices were raised in unqualified praise of his approach to law and order. The first was that of the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney)—the man who wants to increase the gun culture instead of tackle it, and introduce to Britain the gun culture of the wild west. The second was that of the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), whose speech was absurd, inaccurate and misleading. He swung wildly between the idiosyncratic and the sycophantic.
  Given that the hon. and learned Gentleman would not wish to mislead the House, I can only sympathise with him for suffering acute amnesia. He should know—as he would if he reminded himself by looking at the record— that we have consistently sought to improve law and order, to tackle the real problems of the criminal justice system and to be tough on crime and the causes of crime. The hon. and learned Gentleman's denial of that makes his speech tonight one of the most absurd that I have heard in the House for a long time.
  The hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan believes everything that the Home Secretary says and everything that his right hon. and learned Friend promises. The hon. Gentleman said that the Government have increased police numbers. They have increased in his constituency and mine since transparency forced the Welsh Office and the Home Office to stop playing silly games. At the general election, however, the Home Office promised an increase of 1,000. On 31 March 1992, the total number in all ranks was 125,570. By 31 March 1996, the figure stood at 124,821. To help with the arithmetic, that means the total number of police has gone down by 749 during that period.
  Mr. Spring: The Opposition's great devotion to law and order does not seem to accord with the actions of Labour local authorities, which are familiar to us—for example, the action of local education authorities that have denied the police access to schools to talk about various serious issues.
  Mr. Michael: I dare say that the hon. Gentleman wants to enter a competition for the absurd with the hon. and learned Member for Burton. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and I have spent a great deal of time travelling up and down the country, and we see the seriousness with which local authorities are trying to tackle the problems of crime, to prevent crime and to reduce it. They have asked for help from the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. If they gave more help, local authorities that want to tackle such problems would be in a far better position to do so.
  The hon. and learned Member for Burton said that the Home Secretary is right to realise when he is wrong. What is extraordinary is the speed with which the Home

  995
  Secretary is now having to perform U-turns. We have seen it happen in the past couple of weeks, but today it reached new heights. The Bill was published a little over a week ago, but this afternoon the right hon. and learned Gentleman announced three major changes to what was supposed to be the flagship of the legislative programme.
  The new penalties are to include the disqualification of drivers. It is a privilege to be a driver, and it will be interesting to examine the detail of that amendment. The Home Secretary spoke of a curfew on young offenders. It will be interesting to see how he deals with the practicalities and targeting of that measure. The third change was the removal of the restriction on the naming of young offenders. There are circumstances in which that is appropriate. We await the measure with interest.
  If the Home Secretary is honest and sincere, and intends those changes as constructive proposals rather than as part of his pre-election games, I ask him to let us have his wording now so that we have time to study it in detail, instead of having to table amendments at the last minute when we are in Committee, as usually happens. He and his colleagues know that, when we are given a chance to debate such matters seriously, we do our best to be constructive. The Minister of State knows that we worked positively with the Government on amendments to the Security Service Bill earlier this year. That was a good example of how both sides should deal with legislation.
  That is how this Bill should be approached. If the Home Secretary is serious he will give us ample notice of the amendments that he proposes. We will respond as helpfully as we can to his suggestions.
  No one could accuse the hon. and learned Member for Burton of being reasonable if they heard the petulant way in which he challenged and questioned prison governors when they appeared before the Home Affairs Committee last week. His words and the exchanges were available to those who listen to proceedings on the Committee Corridor. Perhaps it would be salutary for the hon. and learned Gentleman to listen to the arrogant way in which he controlled that debate and approached the evidence given to the Committee.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman ridiculed my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn and went on to support my hon. Friend's proposals for minimum guidelines. It is interesting to see where support for constructive suggestions comes from. The hon. and learned Gentleman seems not to know that, for serious offences involving class A drugs, the penalties start at eight years for the first offence.
  The hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan claims to support victims, yet the Home Secretary whom he supports has slashed the budget for compensating the victims of serious violent crime by £700 million over the next five years.
  With the exception of the speeches made by the Home Secretary, the hon. and learned Member for Burton and the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan, this has been a serious and constructive debate on both sides of the House, not least on the part of the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker). I agree that his successors as chairmen of the Conservative party have provided a target-rich area, but his successors as Home Secretary have been even more disastrous. He was right to say that
  996
  both sides of the House want to deter re-offending and to impose long sentences on the most serious and violent offenders.
  The Labour party has been pursuing consistency since before the right hon. Member for Mole Valley left office. Since my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn became the shadow Home Secretary, he has made a singularly valuable and consistent contribution to thinking on these issues. That is why it has been a particular pleasure to work with him. I only wish that the Home Secretary would read with care my hon. Friend's contributions, because they have been constructive.
  The right hon. Member for Mole Valley is wrong, I believe, to argue against firm sentences for rape on the ground that offenders might then commit murder. There is little evidence for that. We had similar arguments when it was suggested that higher penalties for carrying a gun might encourage offenders to use the gun. The hon. and learned Member for Burton had the grace to admit that he was wrong when he argued that case, which we contested strongly when we debated the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
  I remind the House and the hon. and learned—and forgetful—Member for Burton that the 1994 Act lacked any recommendations or measures to tackle violence, knives, guns, drugs or drug-related crime, or provision for the police to stop and search suspects in the street—until Labour tabled proposals on each of those issues. That is why I found it both absurd and insulting that the hon. and learned Gentleman should offer us a list of criticisms of the Labour party. We can stand with pride on our record—as long as the record is looked at in Hansard, not in briefings from Conservative central office.
  We took the view that we need to diminish the culture of violence and to tackle the carrying of guns and knives because, if carried, they are likely to be used with tragic consequences. If they are not carried, they cannot be used. At the time, we also made recommendations about advertising and mail order sales. I mention that because it is rather frustrating to find the press and media talking about politicians jumping on the bandwagon. The Opposition have been tackling these issues for a number of years. Some people may be open to criticism for coming late to them, but the Leader of the Opposition, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, other hon. Members who served on the Committee that looked at the 1994 Bill and I certainly cannot be accused in those terms.
  The right hon. Member for Mole Valley also pointed out that some sentences will be shorter as a result of clause 21. He emphasised the need for effective community sentences—I share his concern about that. The word "community" often means that a Minister is about to try to do something on the cheap. I speak with some feeling here with my background as a youth and community worker. Removing training requirements from probation officers when they are dealing with ever more dangerous and disturbed offenders is neither good for them nor good for the general public. I certainly agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the value of community service in changing attitudes, and I agreed with his damning and alarming exposure of the fact that the number of people in gaol for violent crimes has fallen while violent crime has actually doubled in England and Wales and trebled in Kent, part of which is represented by the Home Secretary.

  997
  The right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd) knows in his heart that it is to the Home Secretary that he should apply his description of "wayward and unpredictable". The shadow Home Secretary, by contrast, has consistently pursued clear objectives—to be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. Indeed, my hon. Friend has gone further and come up with proposals. He has listened to people with expertise in and experience of the criminal justice system; he has also listened to members of the public and members of the parliamentary Labour party. The home affairs committee of the parliamentary Labour party has unanimously called for the approach that we are adopting to the Bill.
  The right hon. Member for Witney also called for respect for probation officers, judges and others in the criminal justice system. Given that he is a former Home Secretary, his criticism of the low quality of legislation emanating from Whitehall was devastating. In fairness I might add that the Home Secretary and other Ministers must be responsible for the legislation they bring before the House.
  It is possible to bring about sensible improvements when legislation is constructively examined in Committee; we stand ready to do that. We want honesty, consistency and progression in sentencing policy. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn has published constructive proposals, and we shall engage with the Government in Committee to improve this Bill as it proceeds through the House.
  The right hon. Member for Witney also asked whether what happens in prison may matter as much as the length of sentence. I hope that Ministers will consider that point carefully. The protection of the public after prisoners are released is just as important as the sentences they are given before entering prison. We should take seriously the possibility that, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, prisoners will leave prison more accomplished offenders. We all remember the short, sharp shock that resulted in offenders emerging fitter and better able to run away from police. We need to learn from history; if we do not, we shall be condemned to repeat its mistakes.
  The right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) made a thoughtful and entertaining contribution, with a whiff of agnosticism.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) raised the problems of "not guilty" pleas in the courts. I remind the Minister that my hon. Friend asked him to tell the House the precise meaning of "exceptional circumstances" and to clarify the likely effect of that provision.
  The right hon. Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd) predicted greater injustice and expressed doubts about cutting three-year sentences. Some of those doubts relate to the effect on prison populations. He drew attention to muddles in the Bill, which the Home Secretary must tackle.
  The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Sir M. Shersby) rightly criticised the fact that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn said at the start of the debate, the mandatory sentences in the Bill are not mandatory sentences in the sense that the Home Secretary tried to tell the Conservative party conference they would be. I commend to the hon. Member for Uxbridge the excellent paper "Fairness and Consistency in Sentencing" published
  998
  by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, because the hon. Member appeared to support the Labour view set out in that document.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) said that there are reasoned ways of tackling sentencing policy in prisons, and that the Home Secretary's speech was informed by conference rhetoric and desperation in the run-up to the election. It is also informed by the Government's failure to protect the public and the Home Secretary's complicity in that failure.
  I agree with the comment made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) that we are letting offenders get away with it, in a criminals charter. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. LIwyd) made a similar point when he argued that detection was the greatest deterrent.
  That does not mean that we should reduce or disregard issues of punishment and sentencing, but a Government under whom the proportion of offences that end in a punishment has reduced so dramatically have no right to lecture the Opposition. Only one crime in 50 is now punished by a court. A Conservative Government whose predecessor promised more police officers in the run-up to the most recent general election and who have delivered a cut in police numbers—on the Home Secretary's own figures—and been criticised for it by the chairman of the Police Federation, need to pause before piling criticism on Labour. As I said, Labour continues to be ready to be constructive in its approach to the Bill—as it has been in its approach to previous legislation—because we want to pass effective legislation that will tackle the problems of crime.
  The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), in a thoughtful speech, made several powerful and valid points. The Bill is so narrow that we do not share his view that it would be appropriate to vote against it, but several of his arguments need to be considered carefully in Committee. He was right to highlight many inconsistencies in sentencing that will arise from the Bill if it is not amended in Committee, not least the uncertainty in clause 21 about whether a sentence currently of four years will end up at 22 and a half months or 18 months. The Minister needs to clarify that. There is a lack of clarity, and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn genuinely searched for clarity between them. The Minister has heard the questions; it is time for him to give some answers.
  The Home Secretary has introduced another piece of legislation. It takes some steps toward progression and levels of sentencing that address the needs that we have highlighted. We stand ready to debate the detail of the Bill in Committee. It would be helpful if the Minister, in his reply, would tell us whether the three amendments proposed this afternoon are the last amendments, or whether there will be some more in Committee, and a few more on Report. Will there be fresh attempts to regain the high ground, and further desperate attempts by the Home Secretary and his colleagues to find a way to restore their critically damaged reputation for running the criminal justice system so ineffectively? It is time for us to have some answers from the Government, and I look forward to the detailed debate in Committee.
  9.40 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): We hear that diatribe from the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) every time he speaks in or winds up a debate in the House. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) pointed out, he would have had slightly more authority if he had not been totally contradicted by his abysmal record. We have heard more fine words from the hon. Gentleman tonight, but he has a record of doing the opposite. It is Labour saying one thing and doing another. How can we take seriously anything that the hon. Gentleman says now?
  Mr. Straw: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maclean: I shall develop my point, and then I shall happily give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth claims to be worried about the risk to the public from our sentencing proposals, and about the dangers of prisoners offending when they are released. But his voting record shows that he voted to ensure that prisoners' liability to recall ended at the three-quarter point of their sentence, and that they could not be recalled to prison for breach of parole conditions on offences committed in the last quarter of their sentence. He thought that that was an unfair liability to impose on prisoners. He was not concerned about the risk to the public then. That was not a central office brief; it was recorded in Hansard, at column 369 of Standing Committee A dealing with the Criminal Justice Bill.
  The Labour party claims to be concerned about the injury done to children by paedophiles and others. But when we increased the penalty for cruelty to children from two years to 10, Labour Members voted against it. They say one thing and do another. That is recorded in Hansard, Criminal Justice Act 1988, 18 January 1988, column 766.
  Mr. Straw: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on reading out the Conservative central office brief, which, as usual, has been sent to us. It states at the beginning:
  "Saying One Thing, Doing Another."
  I thought that that was the text that the Secretary of State now follows.
  What the right hon. Gentleman has just claimed is completely untrue. He should refer again to the record. We supported the proposal in the 1988 Act to increase the penalty for cruelty to children to 10 years.
  Mr. Maclean: Then they voted against the Act. Labour Members claim that they will improve the Bill in Committee, and they take credit for what they say are improvements that they thought of, invented or drove through. They then either vote against the measure or sit on their hands on Second Reading and vote against it on Report. That is the hypocrisy of the Labour party's position.
  We have heard Labour Members talk about parental responsibility, but when we changed the law to compel parents to attend court with their children the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth argued passionately against it and voted against it. He said:
  1000
  "Holding parents responsible for controlling their children's behaviour and punishing them financially will only make matters worse."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 24 January 1991; c. 453.]
  If that is referred to in the central office brief, it has come from me, because this is my research.
  Recently, we saw the latest Labour party hypocrisy on knives. If it is concerned about people carrying knives, why did its spokesman, the leader of the Labour party in the other place, argue against the essential power of stop and search contained in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which the police require to deal with the problem? He said:
  "The clause goes well beyond the powers which the police ought to have and need to have in a democratic … society.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 May 1994; Vol. 555, c. 611.]
  The Labour party's present search for a definition to deal with knives that are responsible for a small amount of crime is merely a smokescreen to cover it's shame at trying to deny the police the power to search all those who may carry any sort of knife to commit crimes. Again, the Labour party says one thing in the House of Commons, but does another in the other place when it thinks that no one is looking.
  Mr. Michael: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman had enough time to prattle on, and he is eating into my time.
  Labour Members may try to con the public into thinking that they do not oppose the Bill, but we shall watch them carefully in Committee and in the other place to ensure that they do not try their usual trick of undermining the Bill through amendments that dilute its essential principles.
  I turn now to the speech by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). He was all over the place. The hon. Gentleman's U-turn today, like the one we saw on Monday, was quite extraordinary. The Labour party initially criticised my right hon. and learned Friend's proposals as farcical, daft and unnecessary. It then rushed out its document entitled, "Honesty. Consistency and Progression in Sentencing", in which it argues:
  "Offences of a sexual nature should be distinguished from other violent offences, since serious sexual assaults always reflect severe problems with personal relationships, and lead to great concern about the offender's propensity for further offending."
  That is what the Opposition said in March 1996. However, last Monday the hon. Gentleman made the first of his two U-turns. He said that he had no difficulty at all with offences of serious violence that result in homicide or with sexual offences. The hon. Gentleman made a back-of-the-fag-packet calculation and added sexual offences and homicide.
  This afternoon the hon. Gentleman said that a second offence of attempted murder should attract an indeterminate reviewable sentence—another U-turn on the Floor of the House. That is quite inadequate: it is not good enough for the hon. Gentleman to tack on offences such as that on the spur of the moment when he is under pressure. He failed to deal with those who use knives intentionally to cause serious injury, despite his pretence earlier today that he was concerned about that problem. His extension does not cover those who commit armed

  1001
  robbery. The Opposition's policy cannot be based on back-of-the-fag-packet calculations whenever the hon. Gentleman is under pressure in the House.
  Mr. Straw: On the issue of consistency, I return the Minister to a question of knives—a current issue of great concern. Can he explain why on 20 June 1988 he voted against any control on the sale of knives to those aged under 16? Why did he take eight years to change his mind?
  Mr. Maclean: I will provide an explanation if the hon. Gentleman will explain why he and the Leader of the Opposition did not vote for the measure either. The hon. Member for Blackburn espouses control of knives as a great Labour cause, but he did not vote for controls. The Labour party went on to try to restrict the stop and search powers that we proposed to enable the police to search not only those individuals who may carry an oddly defined combat knife, but any criminals who carry any sorts of knives, including those commonly used to commit violent offences.
  My right hon. Friends the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd) and for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) made constructive contributions to the debate. I welcome their considered support for the Bill and the great depth of experience that they bring to bear on the issue. We share the ambition of my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney to have as much training and education in prisons as possible. That is also the view of the director general. The Prison Service seeks to preserve a balance, in difficult circumstances, between maintaining security and offering inmates constructive regimes.
  The director general attaches great importance to the preservation of offending behaviour programmes and he hopes to meet his key performance indicators of 1,300 prisoners completing accredited programmes by the end of this financial year. We are very close to meeting a demanding active constructive core days target of 26.5 hours a week of purposeful activity per prisoner. We shall not lose sight of those objectives.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley was worried that juries might not convict on the third offence. However, it is highly unlikely that a jury would know whether a person has one previous conviction, or even two. I draw his attention to the fact that, when a second-time violent or sexual offender gets an automatic life sentence, the judge and not the Home Secretary will set the tariff.
  I turn to the speech by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile). He certainly addressed the House with great pomposity, but he did not make a great contribution. He reminded me of his hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) when he used the same great dignity to extol the virtues of the Liberals' policy on when piglets should be weaned and taken away from their mother. I remember that from when I was a junior Minister at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The policy was every bit as preposterous as what we heard from the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery tonight.
  Our intention was described in the White Paper. It has been repeated many times by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and me on television, in the press and on the wireless. There is no intention in the
  1002
  honesty in sentencing proposals to decrease or increase the length of a sentence. The intention is clear: we want sentences to remain about the same as at present. We disagree with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery's interpretation of clause 21, but I am happy to look at it and make our intention clear.
  The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery asked us to believe that the Liberals will be voting against the Bill because they think that it will result in shorter sentences and they cannot bring themselves to back such a measure. What a preposterous suggestion. When have the Liberals ever said that they would vote for Bills only if they increased sentences? That is not their view. The Liberal party view is best explained by the comment of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland when he was their home affairs spokesman:
  "If I had my way, there would be far fewer people in custody."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 20 January 1994; c. 71.]
  I think that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery shares that view. He does not like our proposals because he is afraid that they may lead to burglars, drug dealers and violent offenders spending longer in custody. That goes against his principles. At least if he comes clean he will be honest to his principles, unlike the Labour party.
  The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery attacked us on the ground that the House has no constitutional right to determine sentences for serious offences. I believe that the House has the right to decide which classes of offence will qualify. There have been disagreements today, which will no doubt continue, on where the line should be drawn. Some hon. Members think that we may have included too many qualifying offences. The hon. Member for Blackburn was worried about section 18 wounding being too widely drawn. Some of his Back-Bench colleagues were worried that it may be too narrow. There is a genuine debate on that. We believe that we have made the right judgment.
  Let us make it clear that Parliament has the right and duty to determine which penalties should attach to which offences. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery argued against that. He was scraping the bottom of the barrel, looking for excuses to oppose the Bill. It is preposterous to claim that witnesses will not give evidence or that defence lawyers will, en masse, start telling juries, "You had better not convict my client because he has been done for rape already and he has a previous conviction for murder, so please do not convict him on this occasion because he will get a heavier sentence."
  My right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) was interested in the staged sentence proposals and what the Labour party called the reviewable indeterminate sentence. The main difficulty with that is that it does not include the life licence proposal. The excellent requirement of the life sentence is that when the person has served the tariff, a judgment is made on whether he is safe to be released. If the judgment is that he is safe for release, he still stays on life licence and is liable to recall at any time should he breach his conditions, be perceived to be a danger to the public or offend. That is the main difference between that policy and what I understand to be the Labour party's policy on the reviewable indeterminate sentence.

  1003
  I welcome the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney). He made an excellent speech and I congratulate him on the views that he expressed. He will welcome the action that we are taking for victims in the victims charter.
  The authority of the hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) in the matter was demonstrated by his assertion that he knew of no company that would ever want to build private prisons. If that is the measure of his knowledge on these matters, the Police Federation is not getting very good value for money. Two prisons are under construction by private consortiums now. The hon. Gentleman is way wrong on that point.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd), in a very thoughtful speech, made some points at which, I assure him, I will look carefully. He and I may place a different emphasis on the effects of the Bill. My right hon. Friend is worried that it may have some negative effects. I look forward to debating with him, perhaps in another forum, in more depth and with more time, his views on the matter. I believe that there is sufficient flexibility in the proposals to prevent the injustices that my right hon. Friend fears will take place.
  My right hon. Friend asked me how many of the 217 sex or violent offenders who were reconvicted have committed another offence. Many of them are still in prison. Nineteen of those who were sent to prison had three or more convictions. That shows that we are right to take the action that we propose on sex offenders because many of them will be multiple offenders.
  Sir Michael Shersby: How many of the 217 offenders to whom my right hon. Friend has just referred have murdered again, raped again or committed another serious offence?
  Mr. Maclean: I do not have those figures to hand. I can say that 19 of those who were sentenced had been convicted of three or more offences.
  Time and again, the rhetoric of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth is ruined by his record, as it was tonight. I am not talking only about his and the Labour party's disgraceful votes, again and again, against the Prevention of Terrorism Act. I am also talking about his votes against other legislation that punishes criminals and protects victims. He voted against life sentences for those who take a gun to commit a crime. The House should contrast the Labour party's voting record on criminals with guns with its blatant and cynical opportunism on firearms issues now.
  The word "victim" trips easily off the hon. Gentleman's tongue, yet how many more victims would there be if my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General did not have the right to appeal against lenient sentences? That vital power has been used many times with the result that some of our most dangerous criminals have spent more time behind bars. Labour does not believe in keeping criminals behind bars and Labour and the hon. Gentleman voted against that power.
  Mr. Michael indicated dissent.
  Mr. Maclean: That is not just my belief; it is the hon. Gentleman's own words. When we increased the
  1004
  requirement for prisoners to serve a half rather than a third of their sentence before getting parole, the hon. Gentleman said that
  "Opposition Members have been increasingly concerned about the effect of the decision to change the parole release date to one half of the sentence because it will probably mean an increase in the prison population as prisoners will serve longer sentences … In the Labour party, we are worried because we do not believe that the Bill provides effective sentencing reforms which would ensure the reduction in the length of sentences".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 15 January 1991; c. 343–44.]
  Perhaps the hon. Gentleman wanted criminals to do longer community sentences instead. That is not the case either. He argued that community sentences should be cut from a maximum of 240 hours to 120 hours. Tonight, he said that he believed in community sentences, but in Committee he said that the greater the sentence, the less opportunity there was for good will and motivation to emerge. There we have it. The hon. Gentleman does not like criminals serving their sentence in prison and he does not want them to serve it in the community either. Unless the hon. Gentleman believes in giving criminals a good flogging—we heard earlier that he does not—it is clear to us that the Labour party is soft on criminals. That is the Labour party's record and the record of the hon. Gentleman as well—and a pretty sordid one it is.
  Time and again, Labour argues for measures that are soft on crime and criminals. How can Labour be tough on crime if it votes against tough measures for those who carry guns to commit a crime? How can Labour be tough on criminals if it votes against closing one of the criminal's greatest loopholes, the right of silence? As we have heard, because of our legislation, there has been a 50 per cent. reduction in the number of criminals remaining silent. Yet Labour voted against it.
  How can Labour Members be tough on crime if they do not even have the guts to vote for criminals serving up to 240 hours on community service? Labour would never introduce a Bill with the tough measures of the Crime (Sentences) Bill.
  Labour's record is of opposing everything that gives criminals their just deserts. With an eye on the opinion polls, they realise that it would be bad for their image to be caught voting against the Bill. That is why they will try to dilute it in Committee. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the Bill. It will allow us to protect more innocent victims of crime and send a strong signal to the worst criminals in society that if they persist with their evil deeds, they will be severely punished.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 25, Noes 165.

  Division No. 5]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Alton, David

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Beith, A J

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross C & S)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Carlile, Alex (Montgomery)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Chidgey, David

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Nicholson, Miss Emma (W Devon)

  Davies, Chris (Littleborough)

  Rendel, David

  Harvey, Nick

  Skinner, Dennis

  1005

  Steel, Sir David

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Thurnham, Peter

  Mr. Archy Kirkwood and Mr. Don Foster.

  Wallace, James

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Harris, David

  Alexander, Richard

  Hawkins, Nick

  Amess, David

  Heald, Oliver

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Hendry, Charles

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Heseltine, Michael

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)

  Baker, Kenneth (Mole V)

  Hogg, Douglas (Grantham)

  Bates, Michael

  Howard, Michael

  Batiste, Spencer

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Biffen, John

  Hunter, Andrew

  Body, Sir Richard

  Hurd, Douglas

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)

  Bowis, John

  Jessel, Toby

  Boyson, Sir Rhodes

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Brazier, Julian

  Jones, Robert B (W Herts)

  Brooke, Peter

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Knapman, Roger

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Burns, Simon

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)

  Kynoch, George

  Carrington, Matthew

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Carttiss, Michael

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Legg, Barry

  Clappison, James

  Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochf'd)

  Lidington, David

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Lilley, Peter

  Coe, Sebastian

  Lord, Michael

  Colvin, Michael

  Luff, Peter

  Congdon, David

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Conway, Derek

  MacKay, Andrew

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)

  Maclean, David

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Cope, Sir John

  Major, John

  Cran, James

  Malone, Gerald

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Marlow, Tony

  Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Devlin, Tim

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Mates, Michael

  Dover, Den

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Duncan, Alan

  Merchant, Piers

  Dunn, Bob

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Elletson, Harold

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)

  Newton, Tony

  Fabricant, Michael

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Onslow, Sir Cranley

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Patten, John

  Freeman, Roger

  Pickles, Eric

  French, Douglas

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Gale, Roger

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Gallie, Phil

  Richards, Rod

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Riddick, Graham

  Gill, Christopher

  Roberts, Sir Wyn

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Robertson, Raymond S (Ab'd'n S)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Sackville, Tom

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Shephard, Mrs Gillian

  Gorst, Sir John

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  1006

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Ward, John

  Spring, Richard

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Stephen, Michael

  Watts, John

  Stem, Michael

  Whitney, Ray

  Streeter, Gary

  Whittingdale, John

  Sumberg, David

  Widdecombe, Miss Ann

  Sweeney, Walter

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Taylor John M (Solihull)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesf'ld)

  Thomason, Roy

  Wolfson, Mark

  Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)

  Wood, Timothy

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Young, Sir George

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Tracey, Richard

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Mr. Bowen Wells and Mr. Richard Ottaway.

  Viggers, Peter

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 60 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading):—
  The House divided: Ayes 149, Noes 23.

  Division No. 6]

  [10.12 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Freeman, Roger

  Alexander, Richard

  French, Douglas

  Amess, David

  Gale, Roger

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Gallie, Phil

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Bates, Michael

  Gill, Christopher

  Batiste, Spencer

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Bellingham, Henry

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Biffen, John

  Gorst, Sir John

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Bowis, John

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Boyson, Sir Rhodes

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Brazier, Julian

  Harris, David

  Brooke, Peter

  Hawkins, Nick

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Heald, Oliver

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Hendry, Charles

  Burns, Simon

  Heseltine, Michael

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hogg, Douglas (Grantham)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Howard, Michael

  Clappison, James

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Colvin, Michael

  Hurd, Douglas

  Congdon, David

  Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)

  Conway, Derek

  Jessel, Toby

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Cope, Sir John

  Jones, Robert B (W Herts)

  Cran, James

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Knapman, Roger

  Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Devlin, Tim

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Kynoch, George

  Dover, Den

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Duncan, Alan

  Lawrence, Sr Ivan

  Dunn, Bob

  Legg, Barry

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lidington, David

  Elletson, Harold

  Lilley, Peter

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Lord, Michael

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)

  Luff, Peter

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Fishburn, Dudley

  MacKay, Andrew

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Maclean, David

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Malone, Gerald

  1007

  Marlow, Tony

  Spring, Richard

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Stephen, Michael

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Streeter, Gary

  Mates, Michael

  Sumberg, David

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Sweeney, Walter

  Merchant, Piers

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Thomason, Roy

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Newton, Tony

  Tracey, Richard

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Viggers, Peter

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Ward, John

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Patten, John

  Watts, John

  Pickles, Eric

  Whitney, Ray

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Whittingdale, John

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Widdecombe, Miss Ann

  Richards, Rod

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Riddick, Graham

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Roberts, Sir Wyn

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesf'ld)

  Robertson, Raymond S (Ab'd'n S)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Sackville, Tom

  Wood, Timothy

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Young, Sir George

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Mr. Bowen Wells and Mr. Richard Ottaway.

  Spink, Dr Robert

  NOES

  Alton, David

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Beith, A J

  Nicholson, Miss Emma (W Devon)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Rendel, David

  Carlile, Alex (Montgomery)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Chidgey, David

  Steel, Sir David

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Thurnham, Peter

  Davies, Chris (Littleborough)

  Wallace, James

  Harvey, Nick

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross C & S)

  Mr. Archy Kirkwood and Mr. Don Foster.

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

  CRIME (SENTENCES) BILL [MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 50A(1)(a),
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Crime (Sentences) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other Act —[Mr. Anthony Coombs.]
  Question agreed to.

  NATIONAL HERITAGE
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Anthony Coombs be discharged from the National Heritage Committee and Mr. Tim Rathbone be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Anthony Coombs.]

  PUBLIC SERVICE
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Peter Ainsworth be discharged from the Public Service Committee and Mr. Peter Luff be added to the Committee.—[Mr.Anthony Coombs.]

  TREASURY
  Ordered,
  That Sir Thomas Arnold be discharged from the Treasury Committee and Mr. Tim Yeo be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Anthony Coombs.]

  Basildon New Town
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr.Anthony Coombs.]
  10.23 pm
  Mr. David Amess: Basildon is against crime, but it would seem from tonight's proceedings that the Liberal party is in favour of it. Basildon, Basildon, Basildon. I wish that I had a pound for every time that its name has been mentioned, because of the number of times that people come up to me in the street and say that they can recall the Basildon declaration, which showed that there would a Conservative Government again.
  That result pleased some people, but disappointed others. One such person was quoted on 7 April 1992, when asked about a survey, as saying that it
  "was a clear sign that Tories were running scared."
  He said:
  "This is another indication that the people of Basildon are fed up with the Tories and want a change.
  I am confident Basildon will elect a Labour MP and that is the only poll that matters as far as we are concerned."
  That was my Labour opponent whom I defeated two days later. He was wrong then and he has been wrong ever since. Even on the night of the declaration, he refused to accept that there would not be a Labour Government.
  I wish to share my thoughts about Basildon's past, present and future. I shall remain the Member of Parliament for Basildon until the general election, so I was astonished when I saw an advertisement in my local newspaper that showed a picture of the local Labour Member of the European Parliament and Labour's prospective parliamentary candidate for the new Basildon constituency. The photograph had a picture of Big Ben and the House of Commons in the background and the candidate was described as "Basildon's parliamentary spokesperson". I do not know whether that is a new technique that is being deployed by prospective candidates, but it is misleading to the general public.
  I shall be the first and last Member of Parliament for Basildon. When I was first elected in 1983, there were six Members of the House who had, at some stage, represented Basildon. If they were here this evening, they would welcome the opportunity that I am affording my hon. Friend the Minister to reply to this debate on Basildon new town, the plotlands and unadopted roads. Those Members were my noble Friend Lord Braine of Wheatley, my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body), Sir Edward Gardner, Sir Robert McCrindle and Mr. Harvey Proctor. But it was only in 1983 that Basildon was constructed as a constituency on its own.
  When the media were summoned to observe the 1992 election campaign, some of them were ill informed—indeed, misinformed—about the nature of the constituency. In reality, of course, they had been summoned by the Labour party to see the first Conservative Member lose his seat. It was clear in the articles that were written about Basildon at the time and for weeks and months afterwards that there was no great understanding of the town's history. It is not true that it is a concrete jungle. Its history goes back to the
  1010
  Domesday-book. There is a wonderful soul to Basildon that goes way beyond the inception of the new town's construction in 1952.
  Plotlands have a fascinating history. They resulted from poor harvests in the 1870s and 1880s, coupled with imports of cheap American wheat. That meant that many English farmers were forced to sell their land. Essex, with its poor-quality soil, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) can bear testimony, was severely affected. Many Essex farmers sold property to developers. My hon. Friend has several developers in his constituency, especially in Canvey island. Developers such as the Land Company of London in turn sold the land on in smaller plots to Londoners. The Londoners would travel there at the weekends and would take holidays in the plotland settlements. They travelled via the new Fenchurch Street to Shoeburyness line, opened in 1888.
  The plots were grouped into estates. Dunton Hills is typical and I am delighted to be able to tell the House that part of it survives today. Conditions were harsh—the estates were often without electricity, gas or sewerage. Even water was available only through a pump, served by a makeshift reservoir. Heat and light were provided by paraffin burners. To make life harder still, the majority of families on the estates did not have houses and lived simply in tents or wooden huts. After the first world war, many retiring service men moved to the country and spent their pensions on building small bungalows, but life remained the same. Indeed, I must draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister to the fact that, for many of the plotlanders, life still remains pretty tough.
  Despite all those conditions, the families, for instance on the Dunton Hill estate, were happy to escape from what they perceived to be the grime of London to the exhilaration of the open countryside. Again, a number of the journalists who descended on Basildon in 1992 did not understand that it is a misnomer to describe Essex as a flat county. Westley heights, the highest point in Essex, is in my constituency and there is some beautiful countryside in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point.
  The hardships of their life, coupled with the fact that most of the families came from London, meant that a strong sense of community developed. People would help each other out in times of difficulty—very much the community spirit that I shared as a child with my neighbours in the east end of London. Families would work together on communal projects, such as the building of roads and fences—a main point of contention for the people living in the plotlands. At the end of the weekend, all those people would travel back to London on the crowded 8.38 to Fenchurch Street.
  The strong community spirit became all the more pronounced during the second world war, when many people moved permanently to the country. Most of the men and women continued to work in London and would commute in groups of about 100, all leaving home at 6 o'clock in the morning for the long walk to Laindon station. The Dunton Hill estate did not escape the war unscathed and suffered at the hands of enemy bombers. There was also a prisoner of war camp in Laindon, and a generally friendly relationship grew up between the locals and the prisoners, who, I have been advised. Were

  1011
  occasionally allowed out and helped residents with various odd jobs. I have also been told that some of the prisoners later married local girls.
  When the hostilities ended in 1945, most families remained on the estates. Many of the young men who left to fight in the war, however, stayed away to look for jobs elsewhere and the plots were left to an older generation. Many of those who were left behind found themselves increasingly unable to cope on their own and they abandoned their homes for smaller, better-equipped flats in the new town of Basildon. Nevertheless, to this day, some families remain in their original homes on the Dunton Hill estate—still without sewerage, street lights or electricity, but reluctant to leave the homes that they built some 60 years ago.
  There are three areas where one can find plotlands in my constituency—in Laindon, which is the part that I have just described, just off Dry Street and in Bowers Gifford, Pitsea. The debate is perhaps a result of the representations made by people in the plotlands in that part of the constituency.
  Bowers Gifford is a wonderful village in my constituency. As I address the House as the first and last Member of Parliament for Basildon, it is ironic that Bowers Gifford will fall within the constituency of Billericay after the next election. It is a remarkable village. For example, one of the local residents is Mrs. Hilda Westlake, whom I was privileged to welcome as a guest at the House of Commons a couple of months ago. At the age of 100, she walked up to the Public Gallery, observed our proceedings and later had tea with the Prime Minister.
  Unfortunately, one evening Mrs. Westlake fell over in her bedroom, but I am delighted to tell the House that she is now the oldest person in the country to have had a successful hip replacement operation. She did not leave Orsett hospital on a Zimmer frame and her main concern, she told me, was how she would be able to organise the next whist drive in the local village hall. She is a remarkable lady and one of the local roads is named after her.
  Dr. Robert Spink: I have met my hon. Friend's constituent—she is, indeed, a remarkable lady. I know her feelings on the subject and I should like to hear my hon. Friend's views on the fact that his constituency is being completely changed, yet the name is being left the same. Is that not anomalous and likely to confuse the public?
  Mr. Amess: Some might say that I deserve to have a tough time, but leaving the name unchanged means that I am open to having a tough time. It would have been more sensible to change the name to take in the part of Thurrock that the new constituency will include in future.
  The plotland community is a wonderful group of hard-working people who have seen the new town grow up beside them and who have been paying exactly the same amount of council tax as everyone else in Basildon, but who do not receive anywhere near the level of services that other local residents enjoy. I hope that when my hon. Friend the Minister replies, he will tell me what powers the Department of the Environment has in that respect. I
  1012
  quote from the agenda for the meeting on 15 June of the housing committee of Basildon district council, which states that the council
  "has made the provision of quality services to its local residents a priority."
  That commitment certainly does not extend to the people of the plotlands and especially not to Bowers Gifford.
  A few of the properties have, it is true, been bought by wealthier families who have renovated them to a high standard. Many of those people moved to the area to escape the noise and stress of their working lives, or retired there. However, I have to tell my hon. Friend that the roads are of a very poor quality—I am not speaking only of gravel or bumps in the road—and there are many subsidiary problems, especially with waste disposal.
  It might seem extraordinary to my hon. Friend, but nearly all those local residents have no main drains and have to use cesspits. There is a great problem with waste disposal. In certain parts of the plotlands, waste has to be burnt or carried to a tip. Where roads exist, they were often built by the residents—sometimes to a crude standard—and they are unadopted. I ask my hon. Friend to address that issue, either in his reply to the debate, or later in writing.
  Sewers are a problem. Whereo sewers exist, they are private and that causes great expense to local residents. Only this week, I received a letter from a resident, which I shall quote briefly. My constituent writes:
  "we have a private sewer which was installed about 25 years ago, which serves 13 households up Cornwall Road. Last year we had to renew approximately 200 ft from the connection in Pound Lane in 4 in Plastic Pipe with three New manholes; this work was carried out under council order. This was necessary because of damage from lorries. This work came to £2,500.
  This was nothing to the cost of laying the sewer 25 years ago, if we were successful in having a new sewer, would this mean that the most expensive work has been done re. the connection into Pound lane?
  It would be nice if I could go to our 13 neighbours with some sort of cost to households."
  My hon. Friend will appreciate that any repairs to the sewers might be expensive for local residents, but many of them have no sewers.
  Will my hon. Friend consider carefully how we can help those who live on the plotlands? I am not suggesting that they wish to alter the life style for which they originally opted, which was created by the peace and the tranquillity of the countryside, but the least they can expect is decent roads and decent sewerage systems. I accept, however, that that is the responsibility of Essex Water and Anglian Water.
  Many of the roads are also poorly lit. Tonight, I should like to pay tribute to three former councillors, Mrs. Carol Coombs, Mr. Bob Sheridan and Mr. Kevin Blake, who worked hard to help people in the plotlands. The problems encountered there are a matter not just for the Department of the Environment, but for Basildon district council and Essex county council.
  I do not wish to be party political, but although I am a Conservative Member of Parliament, Essex county council is run by the Labour and Liberal parties. Over the past year, that authority has increased spending above its

  1013
  standard spending assessment to its capping level; increased the council tax by 6.4 per cent.; and reduced capital spending by £20 million. It has cut the fire and public protection budget by £1 million, by placing an embargo on the recruitment of full-time firefighters. It has cut spending on social services by £4.5 million, by accepting an underspend of £3 million, instead of putting the money into increased care for the elderly and infirm. It has cut the libraries budget by £1 million, by raiding the book fund for the first time in living memory.
  Whatever the House may think about that, it is well known that the county council is sitting on huge reserves. It would be irresponsible for a local authority with small reserves to spend those sums and endanger the future of local residents, but surely no damage would be inflicted if Essex spent some of its huge reserves on trying to help local residents. Frankly, I cannot think of a better way in which to do that than by spending some money on assisting people living on the plotlands. I should be interested to discover my hon. Friend's powers in that respect.
  It is primarily the responsibility of Essex county council, and not just that of the district council, to improve the quality of the roads, the arrangements for refuse collection and the quality of street lighting. Given the county council's huge reserves, my hon. Friend might consider the powers available to him to assist those local residents.
  Tonight we debated the subject of crime. I am delighted to report that, according to the latest Essex police statistics, burglary in dwellings is down by 9.8 per cent., other burglary is down by 17.3 per cent., offences against the person—disgracefully—are up by 7.3 per cent. and car crime is up by 1.2 per cent. Criminality among plotlanders is apparently on the increase. Recently a car was driven into a hedge, spraying weedkiller over a garden. There has been illegal tipping, arson and all sorts of unsavoury activities, which local residents have drawn to my attention.
  In conclusion, I wish that when those who are entrusted with reporting on our constituencies are given the task of writing articles, they would take the trouble to research an area well. My constituency has been portrayed inaccurately as a vast concrete jungle full of ill-intentioned people. That could not be further from the truth. The constituency that I represent, where I have been proud to live for 14 years, is a wonderful community. I always tell people that we have two miracles: St. Luke's hospice, which saves many people, and a miracle for animals—the Essex Horse and Pony Protection Society, where 60 horses, ponies and donkeys that were abandoned are being looked after. Both those institutions have been supported by local residents and mean a great deal to the people living in the plotlands.
  We in the House look forward to the future—to the millennium and beyond. In my constituency, unemployment has fallen by 2,000 since the last election, education standards are improving, and I have shared with the House the fact that my oldest constituent has had a successful hip replacement operation. But we must not forget the past. A week ago, I stood in Dunton as David Bellamy opened our conservation observatory. I have celebrated various events with the people who live in the plotlands. I was taken to the Haven, one of the original homes. This evening I draw attention to the plight of those
  1014
  people, and I ask my hon. Friend to do all that he can to help Basildon new town and the plotlands. and in particular to help the people to get adopted roads.
  10.47 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): Every Adjournment debate with my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) is a delight and tonight's was especially so. He used the opportunity to push in his usual emphatic way all the needs of the people whom he serves in Basildon. His shift, as he calls it, will be a sad loss.
  The case that my hon. Friend made tonight has been made by him in the past, on paper and in parliamentary questions. Some aspects come as a surprise; if we did not have a debating point or three from my hon. Friend that contained a surprise, that in itself would be surprising. He covers a wide range of topics and it must be acknowledged that he has put Basildon on the map. Everyone in the country knows of Basildon, and I agree that they do not see it as it is.
  The regeneration efforts, especially in the centre of the town, are bringing to the fore an aspect of Basildon that does not fit its media image as a concrete jungle. My hon. Friend mentioned the Dunton Hill estate, Bowers Gifford village and the plotlands. I shall have to study the technicalities that he outlined.
  I had planned to present some of the history, but my hon. Friend has covered it completely and in more detail than I could. I can, however, confirm many of his points from my own research.
  My hon. Friend mentioned the council tax. Setting that tax is, in the main, in the hands of the district and county local authorities. I am afraid that the type of local authority elected in the area, for the moment, is one that dips its hands deep into the pockets of local people. I understand why people living in the plotlands are concerned. I accept that they are not getting the services that my hon. Friend would expect and that they feel they are paying for.
  The problem can be attacked in two ways. First, people may approach the valuation office and appeal against the banding of their properties in the light of the services that they receive. That approach might help to reduce their share of the total burden. The ultimate solution, for which my hon. Friend has pushed and will continue to push, comes at the ballot box. We hope for a change of political complexion.
  My hon. Friend mentioned the adoption of the roads. I shall look into that; I know that it has also been raised with the Department of Transport, which is also considering it.
  I shall take a careful look at waste and sewers. There have been some recent rule changes that may enable the water companies to pay for those services out of their budgets. There may also, I believe, be an opportunity for local authorities to do so—but I shall need confirmation of that, because the plotlands are unusual and not subject to the usual rules.
  My hon. Friend said that some of the funding might come from the Lib-Lab county, which he said had huge reserves. I regret to say that, unusually for me, I did not check on the level of reserves; but, particularly if the reserves are unallocated, my hon. Friend should draw

  1015
  them to the attention of the district auditor. It would certainly be wrong to apply too high a council tax while there are huge reserves, some of which could be allocated, for example, to lighting.
  This evening we have been discussing crime. I know from experience that better lighting can be a great help in crime prevention. Given this evening's sudden U-turns by
  1016
  the Opposition, I am sure that we could approach the Labour party in the area—although the Liberals seem again to be at sixes and sevens—and suggest using some of the reserves to improve local lighting.
  I shall have to go away and consider the shattering list of items with which my hon. Friend has presented me this evening, but as ever I have enjoyed debating with him.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes to Eleven o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Profession
  Mr. Donald Anderson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the extent to which the legal profession in the United Kingdom is open to candidates from all social backgrounds. [277]

  Mr. Streeter
  The Lord Chancellor's responsibilities in this field extend only to England and Wales. The criteria for entry into the legal profession are set by the professional bodies and I have made no such assessment. However, both the Law Society and the Bar Council have adopted anti-discrimination measures to seek to ensure that fair recruitment practices are followed.

  Female Staff
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many women are currently employed by his Department; and what proportion this is of the total. [1250]

  Mr. Streeter
  For the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Court Service and the Public Trust Office, the information is as follows:

  Total male: 4,205

  Total female: 7,370

  Proportion of total: 63.7 per cent.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the average length of time from the charging of alleged young offenders to their cases being tried in(a) Manchester and (b) Trafford magistrates and youth courts in each of the last five years; and what is the national average figure. [1394]

  Mr. Streeter
  The information requested is not available. The magistrates courts time intervals survey collects information on defendants in indictable—including triable either way—cases against whom proceedings are completed in three sample weeks a year—in February, June and October. The June survey also collects information about proceedings in summary cases. In cases where the defendant is charged, this date is collected. However, the start date of any summary trial is not. Further information on the survey is available in Lord Chancellor's Department information bulletins which are held in the House of Commons Library.

  Child Care
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proportion of the(a) women who are mothers and (b) men who are fathers who are employed by his Department have received assistance from the Department with child care. [1283]

  Mr. Streeter
  Although the civil service collects statistical information on staff employed in Government Departments and executive agencies, we do not collect information on the parental status of individual staff. It would be inappropriate for us to request this information from staff and difficult to justify the collection of such data. For the period 1 October 1995 to 30 September 1996, however, subsidised employee child care was provided for 94 women who are mothers and 26 men who are fathers in the Lord Chancellor's Department, Court Service and Public Trust Office. Help is also available with additional child care costs incurred owing to breaks in normal working patterns and special leave given to parents for domestic emergencies. Advice on finding child care is contained in the "Childcare Handbook" provided to all maternity leavers.

  Public Relations
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much his Department spent on(a) advertising, (b) public relations and (c) entertainment in each of the last five financial years. [1265]

  Mr. Streeter
  My Department has no specific public relations budget. Expenditure on publicity and promotions in each of the last five financial years was as follows:

  1992–93: £40,000

  1993–94: £46,667

  1994–95: £78,961

  1995–96: £117,684

  1996–97: (to end September): £40,061.

  Expenditure on official hospitality in each of the last five financial years was as follows:

  1992–93: £20,697

  1993–94: £20,477

  1994–95: £26,159

  1995–96: £27,694

  1996–97: (to end September): £6,165.

  The only advertising that this Department carries out is for recruitment. This information is not collected centrally and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Prosecutors
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to restrict prosecutors in the Crown court to Crown Prosecution Service staff; and if he will make a statement. [268]

  Mr. Streeter
  Rights of audience are determined under the procedure laid down in the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. There is no question of restricting prosecutors in the Crown court to Crown Prosecution Service staff.
  313
  Rather, our policy is to allow for a wider provision of legal services, while maintaining the proper and efficient administration of justice.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Agricultural Development Advisory Service
  Sir Anthony Durant
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when ADAS is to be privatised; and what the objectives for the privatisation will be. [2641]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  ADAS is on course to meet its financial targets for 1996–97, including the target of 100 per cent. cost recovery on its advisory services. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I have therefore decided to proceed as quickly as possible with the sale of the business. We will invite expressions of interest from potential bidders for the business as a whole or any or all of its constituent parts—consultancy, research and development and the laboratory—although our preference is to dispose of the business as a whole.

  Our objectives for the privatisable functions of ADAS will be:

  (1) To transfer the privatisable functions of ADAS, and the associated risks, to the private sector on the best available terms—that is, terms which optimise the risk adjusted net benefit to the taxpayer;

  (2) To ensure that the services to be provided to MAFF and the Welsh Office from the private sector can be delivered continuously, economically, efficiently and effectively;

  (3) To provide for a "clean break" between Government and the privatised organisation(s), or failing that, to minimise any contingent liabilities falling on the Government.

  In pursuing these objectives, we will have regard to the need to ensure that the staff concerned in the transfer are treated fairly, in accordance with the relevant legislation.

  Departmental Cash Limits
  Sir Anthony Durant
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what changes are proposed in his departmental cash limits for 1996–97. [2642]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class III, vote 1, section B—the Intervention Board executive agency—will be increased by £7,641,000 from £56,817,000 to £64,458,000. The increases are to cover the administration costs associated with the implementation of emergency measures to protect against bovine spongiform encephalopathy in the United Kingdom for expenditure on IT services. The running costs cash limit will be increased by £3,350,000 from £36,818,000 to £40,168,000. Agents' services will be increased by £4,291,000 from £18,427,000 to £22,718,000. The supplementary will also give partial effect to the running costs end flexibility entitlement of £2,814,000 announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 12 July 1996,Official Report, columns 326–31. At this stage it is proposed to take up £565,000 of this increase to cover expenditure on IT systems.

  The increase will be charged to the reserve and will not, therefore, add to the planned total of public expenditure.
  314
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class III, vote 2—Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food: operational expenditure, agencies and departmental administration—will be increased by £5,057,000 from £911,318,000 to £916,375,000. The £5,057,000 relates mainly to the take-up of capital end-year flexibility entitlement of £5,189,000 as announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 12 July 1996, Official Report, columns 326–31.

  The following departmental transfers are also included; to the Scottish Office, administration (class XIII vote 6) £20,000 BSE-related running costs and £255,000 research and development expenditure, and from the Security Facilities Executive and the Property Advisers to the Civil Estate, £143,000 running costs.

  The gross running costs limits for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will decrease by £2,806,000 from £354,768,000 to £351,962,000.

  The increase in the vote total will be offset by savings or charged to the reserve and will not, therefore, add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Beef Imports (Botswana)
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what amount of(a) beef and (b) beef products in the United Kingdom are currently imported from Botswana. [1659]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 1 November 1996]: Imports of (a) bovine meat and (b) prepared and preserved bovine meat into the United Kingdom from Botswana, as recorded in "Overseas Trade Statistics" are, as follows:

  1994

  1995

  1996

  £000

  Tonnes

  £000

  Tonnes

  £000

  Tonnes

  Bovine meat

  12,457

  4,058

  17,682

  6,655

  8,996

  3,488

  Prepared and preserved bovine meat

  1,931

  777

  1,945

  723

  281

  116

  All data are provisional.

  Basking Shark Fishery
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the commercial value of the basking shark fishery as assessed under the EC-Norwegian exchange agreement. [1151]

  Mr. Baldry
  Norway has a 100 tonne basking shark liver quota. No assessment of the commercial value of the fishery has been made. However, as nothing was taken in 1991, 1992, 1994 or 1995 and only 5.8 tonnes in 1993, the value is not likely to be great.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the fisheries for basking sharks in United Kingdom waters. [1150]

  Mr. Baldry
  The Government are not aware of any current fishery for basking sharks in United Kingdom waters.

  Public Relations
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much his Department spent on(a) advertising, (b) public relations and (c) entertainment in each of the last five financial years. [1276]

  Mr. Boswell
  Expenditure on(a) advertising, (b) public relations and (c) official hospitality in each of the last five financial years is as follows:

  Year

  Advertising £

  Public relations £

  Official hospitality £

  1991–92

  441,877

  4,174,427

  64,852

  1992–93

  191,738

  4,225,228

  72,986

  1993–94

  269,821

  4,379,768

  79,758

  1994–95

  140,700

  4,820,603

  64,092

  1995–96

  144,781

  5,280,010

  59,646

  Female Staff
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many women are currently employed by his Department; and what proportion this is of the total. [1259]

  Mr. Boswell
  As at 1 October 1996 the total number of women employed by the Department is 3,287. This represents 48.3 percent of the total number of people employed.

  Child Care
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of the(a) women who are mothers and (b) men who are fathers who are employed by his Department have received assistance from the Department with child care. [1293]

  Mr. Boswell
  Although the Ministry and its executive agencies collect statistical information on staff employed, this does not include information on the parental status of individual staff. It would not be appropriate to request this information and it would be difficult to justify its collection.

  The Ministry and its agencies support 120 nursery places and holiday play schemes are run at a number of sites across the country. Some sites provide information for staff on local child care opportunities. In addition, staff may seek reimbursement of certain additional child care costs associated with a break in the normal working routine such as attendance at training courses.

  Farmers' Incomes
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the changes in farmers' incomes in real terms for each month since January 1990; and if he will make a statement. [1588]

  Mr. Boswell
  Data on farm incomes are collected through the farm business survey on an annual basis. They are published in "Farm Incomes in the United Kingdom"—1994–95 being the latest—a copy of which is held in the Library of the House.

  Cattle Cull
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps have been taken to ensure that cattle producers in Wales have equal access to the authorised abattoirs in England under the 30-month cattle cull with producers from other cases; and if he will make a statement. [1753]

  Mr. Baldry
  ABP Shrewsbury and Duggins (Bromsgrove), the two designated abattoirs to which I assume the hon. Member is referring, are required to source a predetermined number of cattle from Wales each week. No other area of the country has this guaranteed and preferential access to the two abattoirs concerned.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has of the numbers of cattle over 30 months awaiting slaughter; and how this estimate was arrived at. [1955]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 1 November 1996]: A sample survey by telephone was conducted in September to estimate the number of cattle on farms awaiting slaughter under the over-30-month scheme. The survey indicated that a backlog was then of the order of 400,000 animals in the United Kingdom. We have since introduced a registration system for animals awaiting slaughter which will establish more precisely the size of the backlog.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the benefits of a full written survey of farmers to ascertain precise numbers of cattle over 30 months awaiting slaughter. [1956]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 1 November 1996]: The registration system for cattle, which are awaiting slaughter as at 2 November under the over-30-month scheme, will enable priority to be given to such animals as from 4 November.

  Arable Area Payments Scheme
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list by county the payments made under the arable payments scheme in(a) 1994 and (b) 1995. [1620]

  Mr. Baldry
  The table gives the total arable area payments claimed in 1994 and 1995 on land situated in each county of England. The total amounts paid will have been slightly lower because of reductions made for various reasons. However, since such reductions normally have to be calculated on the basis of the total claim, which may include land in more than one county, it is not possible to give figures for the total amounts paid on a county basis.

  In preparing the answer to this question the Department became aware that a similar question tabled by the hon. Member last year had been answered incorrectly—Official Report, 1 November 1995, columns 330–31. The payment rates used to calculate the reply to last year's question were those for 1995–96, but should have been those for 1994–95. The reply to the present question is based on the appropriate payment rate for each year and I should like to apologise to the hon. Member for the error in the earlier reply.
  317

  1994 £

  1995 £

  Avon

  3,834,873

  4,912,074

  Bedfordshire

  16,332,344

  20,133,849

  Berkshire

  9,436,680

  12,566,987

  Buckinghamshire

  13,990,699

  18,206,193

  Cambridgeshire

  49,220,159

  61,047,000

  Cheshire

  6,238,759

  7,682,995

  Cleveland

  3,895,782

  4,915,710

  Cornwall

  8,913,812

  11,561,419

  Cumbria

  3,082,104

  4,388,086

  Derbyshire

  7,847,602

  9,933,686

  Devonshire

  14,784,740

  18,550,765

  Dorset

  14,158,884

  17,556,992

  Durham

  10,048,182

  13,237,863

  Essex

  46,408,137

  60,167,194

  Gloucestershire

  21,198,680

  26,464,918

  Greater London

  1,124,506

  1,491,671

  Greater Manchester

  1,266,424

  1,579,463

  Hampshire

  27,851,347

  36,120,786

  Hereford and Worcester

  23,409,796

  30,243,714

  Hertfordshire

  17,029,233

  21,907,019

  Humberside

  48,579,248

  63,134,365

  Isle of Wight

  2,410,416

  3,173,252

  Kent

  29,148,718

  37,661,073

  Lancashire

  4,101,642

  5,481,222

  Leicestershire

  25,293,521

  33,710,741

  Lincolnshire

  84,091,244

  109,053,918

  Merseyside

  2,368,336

  2,830,996

  Norfolk

  53,904,001

  68,677,939

  Northamptonshire

  28,335,993

  37,555,697

  Northumberland

  21,516,082

  29,355,781

  Nottinghamshire

  22,962,444

  29,072,460

  Oxfordshire

  29,288,191

  39,563,388

  Shropshire

  19,214,700

  24,926,532

  Somerset

  11,739,320

  14,331,353

  Staffordshire

  11,406,725

  14,849,617

  Suffolk

  45,862,431

  57,980,137

  Surrey

  3,644,871

  4,686,336

  East Sussex

  7,762,038

  9,657,012

  West Sussex

  11,810,644

  14,302,526

  Tyne and Wear

  2,176,892

  2,980,858

  Warwickshire

  19,858,598

  25,219,284

  West Midlands

  1,350,564

  1,709,376

  Wiltshire

  29,138,065

  36,309,115

  North Yorkshire

  50,605,566

  64,251,530

  South Yorkshire

  11,150,061

  14,004,739

  West Yorkshire

  5,934,395

  7,659,284

  BSE
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will request the European Commission to publish the internal documents and correspondence on BSE which have appeared in newspapers in France and Germany. [2442]

  Mr. Baldry
  No, this is a matter for the European Commission and I see no grounds on which it would be legitimate for me to seek to intervene.

DEFENCE

  Northern Ireland
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many female officers served in the British Army in Northern Ireland in each year since 1969. [1104]
  318
  Mr. Soames
  The number of female officers who served in Northern Ireland in each year since 1974 is as follows:

  Year

  Number of female officers

  1975

  22

  1976

  25

  1977

  21

  1978

  34

  1979

  31

  1980

  27

  1981

  32

  1982

  22

  1983

  24

  1984

  27

  1985

  28

  1986

  34

  1987

  54

  1988

  54

  1989

  59

  1990

  57

  1991

  62

  1992

  53

  1993

  79

  1994

  64

  1995

  57

  1996

  43

  Figures for 1969–74 are not available and could be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary for State for Defence how many Army personnel have been stationed in Northern Ireland in each year since 1969. [1106]

  Mr. Soames
  The number of Army personnel stationed in Northern Ireland in each year since 1975 is as follows:

  Year

  Number of Army personnel

  1975

  22,075

  1976

  22,446

  1977

  21,241

  1978

  21,011

  1979

  20,128

  1980

  19,116

  1981

  18,277

  1982

  17,776

  1983

  15,588

  1984

  15,802

  1985

  15,562

  1986

  17,419

  1987

  17,084

  1988

  16,741

  1989

  17,199

  1990

  16,894

  1991

  17,445

  1992

  17,996

  1993

  17,732

  1994

  17,118

  1995

  15,954

  1996

  15,490

  Figures given are as of 1 April in the year concerned. They include members of Ulster Defence Regiment and the Royal Irish Regiment home service component but do not include Navy, Air Force or Territorial Army personnel. Complete figures for 1969 to 1974 are not available.

  Tornado Aircraft
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all faults reported for the last two years to Tornado aircraft, indicating in each case the length of waiting time for repairs. [1153]

  Mr. Soames
  As with any other of the world's large military aircraft fleets, the number of faults found on Tornado aircraft runs into thousands each month, the vast majority of them trivial. The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Military Exercises (Western Isles)
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if there was military exercise activity by (i) United Kingdom forces and (ii) non-United Kingdom forces in the vicinity of the Western Isles on the evening of Saturday 26 October. [1343]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department is not aware of any such activity off the Western Isles on the evening in question.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many complaints his Department received about military low flying in(a) 1993–94 and (b) 1994–95. [1744]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department received 5,520 complaints and inquiries about military low flying between April 1993 and March 1994 and 6,077 between April 1994 and March 1995.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many claims for compensation were submitted to his Department as a result of damage caused by military low flying in each year from 1990 to 1995; and if he will make a statement. [1743]

  Mr. Soames
  The number of compensation claims received by my Department in each year from 1990 to 1995 as a result of military low flying was:

  1990: 568

  1991: 383

  1992: 431

  1993: 400

  1994: 412

  1995: 366

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many complaints of excessive military low flying his Department received from people resident in Wales in 1995–96; and if he will make a statement. [1745]

  Mr. Soames
  Records are not maintained in such a way as to identify such complaints separately and details could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Female Staff
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many women are currently employed by his Department; and what proportion this is of the total. [1254]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  At 1 July 1996 there were 33,976 permanent women civil servants employed by my Department and its agencies, representing some 31 per cent. of the total number of permanent civil servants in MOD.

  Child Care
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of the(a) women who are mothers, and (b) men who are fathers who are employed by his Department have received assistance from the Department with child care. [1287]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The information is not available in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Plutonium Warheads
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to conduct an environmental impact assessment of the process by which gallium and indium are removed from plutonium warhead pits withdrawn from service. [1831]

  Mr. Soames
  None.

  Manchuria 1946 (Public Records)
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence file WO 208/3736, reports on Russian military activities in Manchuria (1946), will be made available to the Public Record Office. [2227]

  Mr. Soames
  Arrangements are being made to review WO 208/4736 to see whether release into the public domain is now possible. I will write to the hon. Member on completion of the review process.

  Public Relations
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department spent on(a) advertising, (b) public relations and (c) entertainment in each of the last five financial years. [1270]

  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on 16 October 1996,Official Report, column 925.

PRIME MINISTER

  Prince's Trust
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the Departments which have an interest in the Prince's Trust, indicating in each case the nature of that interest. [1502]

  The Prime Minister
  At the relaunch of Prince's Trust volunteers on 4 June, I personally pledged Government support to the Prince's Trust's aim of recruiting 25,000 young volunteers per year by the year 2000. I have asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to promote the scheme across the civil service.

  Government Departments work in partnership with the Prince's Trust to help meet the many and varied needs of disadvantaged young people. The following Government Departments work with the Prince's Trust in a variety of ways, from providing secondees to giving advice on benefits policy:

  Department for Education and Employment;

  Welsh Office;

  Scottish Office;

  321

  Northern Ireland Office;

  Department of Trade and Industry;

  Home Office;

  Inland Revenue;

  Department of National Heritage;

  Department of the Environment;

  Department of Health;

  Department of Social Security;

  Customs and Excise;

  Cabinet Office;

  Department of Transport;

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office;

  Ministry of Defence;

  Employment Service;

  Benefits Agency.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Female Staff
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women are currently employed by his Department; and what proportion this is of the total. [1252]

  Mr. Howard
  The Home Office and its agencies employ a total of 14,049 women which represents 27 per cent. of the total work force of 52,098 permanent staff. However, if the Prison Service is excluded, 5,956 women, representing 51 per cent. of the total work force, are employed.

  Child Care
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of the(a) women who are mothers and (b) men who are fathers who are employed by his Department have received assistance from the Department with child care. [1285]

  Mr. Howard
  Although the Home Office collects statistical information on staff employed in the Department and its agencies, information is not collected on the parental status of individual staff because it is not considered appropriate to do so. Child care assistance is provided in a variety of forms. The Department makes available a number of subsidised nursery and holiday play scheme places, provides advice on out-of-school care and pays additional child care expenses incurred where the normal working routine is broken.

  Over a 12-month period to the end of September 1996, 122 women and 58 men have used nursery places and 89 women and 14 men have used play scheme places. Over the same period, excluding the Prison Service, 58 women and two men have received payments in respect of additional child care expenses.

  Public Relations
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much his Department spent on(a) advertising, (b) public relations and (c) entertainment in each of the last five financial years. [1267]

  Mr. Howard
  The information requested about advertising and official hospitality is provided in the following table. The Home Office does not spend money on public relations. The communication directorate is responsible for providing information about my Department's policies and activities to the public and the media; providing information and advice to the public about their rights and obligations, and the protection of themselves and their property, for example; advice on fire safety and crime prevention, and of the need to register to vote. It achieves this through a wide range of communications means including news releases; answering the media's and the public inquiries; information campaigns; briefings; exhibitions; publications; and electronic publishing.

  Financial Years

  Advertising £

  Official hospitality £

  1991–92

  7,275,940

  28,094

  1992–93

  7,334,635

  55,651

  1993–94

  9,090,222

  49,017

  1994–95

  10,912,008

  27,468

  1995–96

  7,609,227

  38,604

  Counter-terrorist Legislation
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has received Lord Lloyd's report on counter-terrorist legislation; and what is his timetable for its publication. [1985]

  Mr. Howard
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and I published Lord Lloyd's report on 31 October. Copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  Public Houses
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to require the names of public houses to be included within the conditions of the licence issued by the appropriate authorities for the sale and consumption on the premises of alcoholic beverages. [1885]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  No. Public house names are entirely a matter for the owners and licensees.

  Mr. Anthony Okere
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the present situation relating to the proposed repatriation of Mr. Anthony Okere. [2142]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  If the hon. Member will provide me with more information, I will write to him.
  323

  Detainees (Birmingham Prison)
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of those people detained in Birmingham prison under Immigration Act powers were deported during the months of(a) July, (b) August, and (c) September; and what were the nationalities of those deported. [1041]

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

  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Dr. Lynne Jones, dated 4 November 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question asking, how many of those people detained in Birmingham Prison under Immigration Act powers were deported during the months of (a) July, (b) August, and (c) September; and what were the nationalities of those reported.
  Provisional information shows that 48 people were discharged from Birmingham prison to the Immigration Service for removal under Immigration Act powers during July, August and September. A breakdown by nationality is given in the attached table.

  Discharges from Birmingham prison to the Immigration Service for removal under Immigration Act powers in July, August and September 1996 by nationality1

  Nationality

  Number

  July

  Algeria

  2

  India

  16

  Jamaica

  2

  Others2

  1

  Total

  21

  August

  Hong Kong

  2

  India

  8

  Jamaica

  2

  Others2

  3

  Total

  15

  September

  India

  4

  Morocco

  2

  Others2

  6

  Total

  12

  1 Provisional figures.

  2 Nationalities with only one prisoner are included in "Other".

  PC Andrew Whitfield (Trials)
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost to the public funds of(a) PC Andrew Whitfield's suspension from 12 February 1995 to his acquittal, (b) the trial of PC Andrew Whitfield in February, (c) the trial of PC Andrew Whitfield in October and (d) the work of the Crown Prosecution Service relating to those trials. [1945]

  Mr. Maclean
  This information is not held centrally.

  Gun Clubs
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the numbers of(a) gun clubs and (b) members of gun clubs
  324
  in (i) Germany, (ii) France, (iii) Italy and (iv) the United Kingdom; and what the security requirements for gun clubs and their members are in each country. [1666]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 1 November 1996]: The total number of shooting clubs approved by the Secretary of State in the United Kingdom is 2,067. The Government have no information on the number of members of approved clubs. Approved clubs must abide by published criteria which require them to store firearms and ammunition securely and to ensure that their members are of good character.

  We have no information about gun clubs in Germany, France or Italy.

  Asylum Seekers
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many women were detained in Scottish prisons under the powers contained within the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 during 1994 and 1995 and from 1 January this year to date; and what were the nationalities of those detained; [1527]

  (2) how many people detained in Scottish prisons under the powers contained within the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 were deported during 1994 and 1995 and from 1 January this year to date; and what were the nationalities of those deported; [1524]

  (3) how many women were deported from Scottish prisons under the powers contained within the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 during 1994 and 1995 and from 1 January this year to date; and what were the nationalities of those deported; [1528]

  (4) how many people in Scotland who were convicted of a criminal offence, punishable by a prison sentence, were also ordered to be deported as part of their sentence in 1992, 1993, 1994 and 1995 and from 1 January of this year to date; and what were the nationalities and genders of those deported; [1522]

  (5) how many people were detained in Scottish prisons under the powers contained within the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 during 1994 and 1995 and from 1 January this year to date; and what were the nationalities of those detained. [1523]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  [holding answer 31 October 1996]: The information requested is not available.

  Puppy Farms
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many companies and individuals have been prosecuted for operating unlicensed puppy farms since the Breeding of Dogs Act 1991 came into force; and if he will list them and the local authority area in which they are situated; [1684]

  (2) how many puppy farms are currently licensed in each local authority area in Wales; [1685]

  (3) how many prosecutions have been made against licensed operators of puppy farms for breaches of the licensing regulations relating to puppy farms in the Breeding of Dogs Act 1991. [1686]
  325
  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 1 November 1996]: Information on the number of licensed dog breeding establishments in each local authority area in Wales is not available centrally.

  Information on prosecutions under the Breeding of Dogs Acts 1973 and 1991 is not collected in the form requested. Details of prosecutions in England and Wales for offences under the Breeding of Dogs Act 1973, as amended, are available as follows:

  Number of prosecutions and convictions for offences under the Breeding of Dogs Act 1973, as amended by the Breeding of Dogs Act 1991, by type of defendant 1980–95

  Year

  Prosecutions

  1980

  2

  1981

  6

  1982

  0

  1983

  2

  1984

  1

  1985

  1

  1986

  5

  1987

  7

  1988

  1

  1989

  3

  1990

  11

  1991

  3

  1992

  23

  1993

  15

  1994

  2

  1995 (provisional)

  1

  Prosecutions are against persons unless stated otherwise.1 Includes two companies.

  Child Sexual Abuse (Extradition)
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been extradited for trial on charges of child sexual abuse; and to which countries. [1362]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The figures for extradition to stand trial on charges of child sexual abuse from England, Wales and Northern Ireland since 1986 are:

  To the United States

  1986: 1

  1987: 1

  1993: 1

  1996: 1

  To Germany

  1996:1

  To Holland

  1995: 1.

  The Home Office has three outstanding requests—two from the United States and one from Belgium—for extradition to stand trial on charges of child sexual abuse.

  Violent Videos
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set up a review into the effectiveness of the enforcement of the current law on the availability of violent videos to children. [1208]
  326
  Mr. Sackville
  The Video Recordings Act 1984 makes it a criminal offence to supply an unclassified video, subject to certain limited exemptions, or to supply a video in breach of the classification certificate issued by the British Board of Film Classification—BBFC.

  The operation of the Act is kept under careful review. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 increased the maximum penalties for supplying unclassified videos—to two years in prison and/or an unlimited fine—and for supplying a video in breach of its classification—to six months in prison and/or a £5,000 fines. The 1994 Act also increased the powers of trading standards officers in investigating video offences, and amended the Video Recordings Act 1984 to lay down statutory classification criteria which the BBFC must take into account.

  Prisons
  Mr. Chris Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those prisons and detention centres(a) built, and (b) managed under the private sector. [54]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The management of four prisons is contracted out to the private sector: they are Blakenhurst, Buckley Hall, Doncaster and Wolds. The private sector has not completed building any new prisons. It is currently building two prisons under the design, construct, manage and finance—DCMF—initiative at Fazakerley and at Bridgend. The third DCMF contract, for Lowdham Grange prison, is expected to be signed imminently.

  The management of three immigration detention centres is contracted out to the private sector: they are Campsfield house, Harmondsworth and a smaller, temporary facility at Gatwick airport. The fourth immigration centre, Tinsley house, was constructed by and is managed by the private sector.

  Ethnic Minorities Education
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance has been issued to local authorities regarding bids for section 11 grants after March 1997. [149]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  We have under active consideration the position regarding further section 11 funding from next April onwards. Although we are not yet in a position to make an announcement, I expect to be able to do so shortly.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Nuclear Power Stations
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the undiscounted value of post-operational advanced gas-cooled reactor liabilities for each privatised nuclear station which are not covered by the segregated fund; and what are the arrangements for BE to meet these liabilities. [233]

  Mr. Lang
  The value of British Energy's liabilities as at 31 March 1996 are listed on page 85 and the projected pattern of payments are listed on page 100 of the prospectus for the sale of British Energy, copies of which are in the Library of the House. The segregated fund
  327
  covers all of stages 1 to 3 of decommissioning, excluding defuelling, at all of British Energy's station sites. British Energy will meet those liabilities not covered by the segregated fund as part of its day-to-day operating costs.

  Radiocommunications Agency
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) when the final phase of building work for staff was completed in New Kings Beem house; what is the estimated cost of the work undertaken; and if he will make a statement; [1540]

  (2) when the Radiocommunications Agency will be relocated to South Oxey from New Kings Beem house; and what are the proposed costs involved in relocating; [1541]

  (3) if the structural survey has been completed on South Quay 3; if he will place a copy of the document in the Library; and if he will make a statement; [1542]

  (4) what are the consequences to staff and business customers of the proposed reorganisation of the Radiocommunications Agency; and if he will make a statement; [1544]

  (5) if adequate facilities are provided for the Radiocommunications Agency trade union side in accordance with his departmental facilities agreement. [1545]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 1 November 1996]: These are day-to-day operational matters for the Radiocommunications Agency and I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Jim Norton to Mr. Simon Hughes, dated 4 November 1996:
  The Minister for Science and Technology has asked me to write to you in response to your Parliamentary Question, concerning the reorganisation in progress within my Agency.
  The purpose of the planned re-organisation within the Radiocommunications Agency is to:

  (i) enhance customer focus and service;

  (ii) give greater responsibility to managers within a 'flatter' organisation;

  (iii) ensure the Agency's limited resources are targeted to the maximum effect in facilitating a particularly dynamic area of the UK economy.

  The staff of the Agency are fully involved in a consultative process ensuring the detail of the planning and implementation of the re-organisation are carried through to the best effect. The re-organisation will both improve the Agency's already good customer service and enhance the quality of work and job satisfaction for staff.

  Letter from Jim Norton to Mr. Simon Hughes, dated 4 November 1996:
  Question: To ask the President of the Board of Trade, if adequate facilities are provided for the Radiocommunications Agency trade union side in accordance with his departmental facilities agreement.
  I have been asked to answer the question you raised on behalf of the Radiocommunications Agency.
  The Radiocommunications Agency does abide by the terms of the departmental facilities agreement.
  328
  Letter from Jim Norton to Mr. Simon Hughes, dated 4 November 1996:
  I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Radiocommunications Agency of the DTI to your recent questions relating to New King's Beam House (NKBH) and South Quay Three (SQ3).
  Practical Completion for the work carried out on NKBH was achieved on 5 August 1996. The cost of the work inclusive of professional fees was £2.5 million.
  I understand that the Landlord has completed the structural survey on SQ3 and will in due course be forwarding a copy of the report to the Agency. As it is the Landlord's document, the Agency will not be placing a copy in the library.
  If the repairs are carried out on schedule, the Agency should relocate hack to SQ3 in 1999. Under the terms of the lease, the Landlord warrants the performance of the building and therefore his insurance will bear the repair costs. RA's relocation costs for the return to SQ3 should be limited to the cost of furniture removal. It is too early to accurately estimate these costs.

  Electro-magnetic Radiation
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what research he has(a) commissioned or (b) evaluated on the health risks associated with electro-magnetic radiation being emitted from household appliances; and if he will make a statement; [1596]

  (2) what research he has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the safety levels for electro-magnetic radiation emitted from household appliances such as (a) vacuum cleaners, (b) irons, (c) fridges and (d) microwaves; and if he will make a statement. [2044]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  My Department has not commissioned or evaluated research into the health risks associated with electro-magnetic radiation from household appliances, nor have we received representations concerning safety other than in relation to microwave ovens.

  The Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 1994 (SI1994/3260) lay down requirements for the safety of household electrical appliances, implementing the low voltage directive (73/23/EEC), and include a requirement that radiation which would cause a danger must not be produced. The European electrotechnical standards body, CENELEC, has produced standards controlling radiation from appliances such as microwave ovens and sunbeds but has not found it necessary to specify requirements for other appliances.

  Asbestos
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the laboratories that are accredited by the national measurement accreditation service for the purposes of asbestos sampling. [1439]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Responsibility for the accreditation of laboratories was transferred in 1995 from DTI to the United Kingdom Accreditation Service—UKAS—an independent body which operates under a memorandum of understanding with the Government. I am informed by UKAS that over 30 laboratories are currently accredited for asbestos sampling. I have written to the hon. Member enclosing the addresses and other details concerning these laboratories.
  329

  Business Breakfast Tours
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the costs of the business breakfast tours to be undertaken by Ministers. [1957]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 1 November 1996]: The costs will depend on the number and size of the events.

  Business Link
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many businesses are currently being advised by(a) Business Link London South and (b) Business Link London Central in (i) central London and (ii) the rest of London. [2349]

  Mr. Page
  Business links are private sector partnerships, not Government bodies. National statistics on business using business link are available in the quarterly "Report on Business Link and Business Link Regional Supply Network Management Information" and a copy has been placed in the Library of the House. Local statistics are a matter for local business link partnerships and I will ensure that the respective chief executives of Business Link London South and Business Link London Central are aware of the hon. Member's question.

  Loan Guarantee Scheme
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment his Department has made of the number of small firms which are aware of the loan guarantee scheme. [1233]

  Mr. Page
  The Department does not carry out specific research into how many businesses may be aware of the loan guarantee scheme.

  Information about the scheme is readily available from all scheme lenders, a wide variety of business support services such as business links, training and enterprise councils, local enterprise companies, enterprise agencies, business shops in Scotland, Business Connect in Wales, Government offices, chambers of commerce, business exhibitions, and intermediaries such as accountancy practices.

  Post Offices
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many post offices have(a) closed and (b) lost Crown status since April 1992. [1229]

  Mr. Page
  I understand from the Post Office that nationally the number of post offices which closed—net of reopenings—between 1 April 1992 and 30 September 1996 is 855. During the same period, 376 Crown post offices were converted to agency status.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Public Relations
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how much her Department spent on(a) advertising, (b) public relations and (c) entertainment in each of the last five financial years. [1272]
  330
  Mr. Sproat
  The available information requested is given in the following table:

  11992–93 £

  11993–94 £

  11994–95 £

  11995–96 £

  21996–97 £

  Advertising

  Nil

  Nil

  2,009

  Nil

  20,660

  Public relations

  Nil

  72,850

  Nil

  5,352

  Nil

  Official hospitality

  22,037

  18,277

  14,967

  25,563

  27,840

  1 Actual.

  2 Spend to date.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Torture
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Kenyan Government regarding ratification of the UN convention against torture. [1930]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  During her visit to Kenya in August, my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Chalker recommended to the Government of Kenya at a senior level that they should ratify this convention.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Israel (EU Aid)
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will itemise every form of economic aid and economic and trade preference provided to Israel by the European Union, in each case, where possible, stating the financial value of such aid or assistance. [72]

  Mr. David Davis
  [holding answer 28 October 1996]: Given Israel's level of development, it does not qualify for bilateral grant aid or structural adjustment assistance. It is eligible for non-subsidised European investment bank loans, EC regional aid and investment support.

  In the past seven years the EIB has made seven loans to Israel totalling 165 million ecu.

  Israel benefits from EC grant aid for regional co-operation, through initiatives under the new Euro-Mediterranean partnership launched at the Barcelona conference—details can be found in the Commission leaflet which I have placed in the Libraries of the House. The Euro-Mediterranean partnership is allocated 4.685 billion ecu in grants for the period 1995 to 1999 through middle east development and regulation.

  Over the first nine months of 1966, a total of 30 million ecu was committed in grants to the 12 Mediterranean partner countries, Israel included, for regional programmes.

  Bosnia
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what sums from the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe elections fund for the Bosnian elections were paid to the Serbian Unity party. [1191]
  331
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  The Serbian Unity party received DM300,104 for its election expenses. Funds for distribution among all registered political parties and independent candidates were provided by some Governments, but not the United Kingdom, and did not come out of regular OSCE funds or contributions.

  New York Assembly Bill
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations were made after 1 April to the(a) New York Assembly and (b) other bodies on the Irish Famine as Genocide Education Bill; for what reasons his Department assessed the Bill was unlikely to pass into law; and what statements were issued by the consulate-general on the matter of Governor Pataki's signing ceremony and the invitations thereto in New York. [1158]

  Mr. Rifkind
  Following the answer that I gave to the hon. Member on 1 April,Official Report, column 9, British officials in New York provided key legislators and their staffs with objective accounts of the history of the famine. They registered the Government's strong concern at the parallel which the New York State Assembly Bill drew between the holocaust and the Irish famine. I have described the circumstances of the passage into law of this legislation in correspondence with the hon. Member.

  The embassy in Washington and the New York consulate-general made plain our concern at the passage of the Bill into law, and at Governor Pataki's remarks at the signing ceremony on 8 October. The ambassador, Sir John Kerr, wrote to the governor emphasising the seriousness with which the Government regarded the issue, and explained that, unlike the holocaust, the Irish famine was not deliberate, not premeditated, not man-made and certainly not genocide.

  Ireland
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made this year to the Government of the Irish Republic about the protection and security of British citizens resident in border areas. [1159]

  Mr. Rifkind
  No British national resident in the border areas of the Irish Republic has contacted the embassy in Dublin or this Department this year with concerns about their protection and security. Accordingly the British Government have made no representations on this subject to the Irish Government. If such concerns were expressed, the embassy in Dublin and this Department stand ready to offer appropriate help or advice.

  Anglo-Irish Secretariat
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the dates and topics of presentations made by Foreign Office staff to the Anglo-Irish Secretariat since 1 January 1995. [1160]

  Mr. Rifkind
  None.
  332

  Public Relations
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much his Department spent on(a) advertising, (b) public relations and (c) entertainment in each of the last five financial years. [1266]

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, gave to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on 16 October 1996,Official Report, column 920.

  Child Care
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of the(a) women who are mothers and (b) men who are fathers who are employed by his Department have received assistance from the Department with child care. [1284]

  Mr. Hanley
  This Department does not collect information on the parental status of individual staff.

  The numbers of staff who have used FCO subsidised child care schemes from October 1995 to October 1996 are:

  Women

  Men

  Nurseries in London and Hanslope park (age 3 months–5 years)

  17

  8

  Holiday playschemes in London and East Kilbride (age 5–12 years)

  27

  8

  Female Staff
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many women are currently employed by his Department; and what proportion this is of the total. [1251]

  Mr. Hanley
  The number of women currently employed by this Department is 2,524. This represents over a third of the total staff—37 per cent.

  European Convention on Human Rights
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what studies his Department has undertaken on the European convention on human rights; and if he will make a statement on the implications of writing the convention into United Kingdom law. [1163]

  Mr. Howard
  I have been asked to reply.

  The operation of the European convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms is subject to regular review within Government. Following one such review, my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) announced proposals on 13 December 1995 for securing improvements in the convention's operation, which are presently under consideration in the Council of Europe. A paper setting out these proposals is available in the Library.
  333
  The implications of incorporating the convention into United Kingdom law have been set out on a number of occasions by the Government, most recently by my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and my noble Friend Baroness Blatch during debate in the other place on 3 July 1996 at columns 1451–52 and 1567–68.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Nurseries and Play Schemes
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list, by Department, the(a) nurseries and (b) play schemes for children of civil servants. [1194]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 14 October 1996,Official Report, columns 662–63.

  Information on the number of civil service nurseries and play schemes, by Department, is not held centrally.

  Many civil service nurseries and play schemes currently in operation are run as interdepartmental or local partnerships, often involving other non-civil service employers such as local authorities and businesses.

  Recruitment (Age Policy)
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster which Government Departments have policy statements committing them to the recruitment, training and promotion of staff irrespective of age. [1427]

  Mr. Freeman
  From 1 April 1996, the civil service management code prohibited unfair discrimination on the basis of age. It is the responsibility of Departments and agencies to incorporate this into their own equal opportunities policies. Information on the number of Departments and agencies that have done so is not held centrally.

  Staff (Age Profile)
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will produce an analysis of the age profile of all staff employed in all Government Departments for the year 1995–96, together with equivalent figures for 1985–86. [1426]

  Mr. Willetts
  The information requested was published on 1 November in Figure 11 of "Civil Service Statistics 1996," a copy of which is in the Library.

  Deregulation Task Force
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the company directorships of each member of the deregulation task force. [1230]

  Mr. Freeman
  I am informed by those concerned that the company directorships currently held by members of the deregulation task force are as follows:

  The right hon. Francis Maude

  Non-executive Director, Asda Group plc;

  Non-executive Director, Benfield Reinsurance Co Ltd.;

  Non-executive Director. Sportfact Ltd.;

  334

  Henry Angest

  Executive Director, Secure Trust Group plc;

  Executive Director, Secure Trust Bank plc;

  Executive Director, Flowidea Ltd.;

  Executive Director, Arbuthnot Fund Managers Ltd.;

  Executive Director, Arbuthnot Commercial Finance Ltd.;

  Executive Director, Arbuthnot Latham and Co Ltd.;

  Executive Director, Arbuthnot Properties Ltd.;

  Executive Director, Arbuthnot Investments Ltd.;

  Executive Director, Flowtrade Ltd.;

  Maurice Denyer

  Director Secretary of Fowler Bros Ltd.;

  Michael Fallon

  Executive Director. Just Learning Ltd.;

  Executive Director, Metermaster Ltd.;

  Non-executive Director, Quality Care Homes plc.

  Mike Fisher

  Non-executive Director, Whale Tankers Ltd.;

  Non-executive Director, Aims of Industry Ltd.;

  Teresa Graham

  None.

  Archie Norman

  Executive Director, Asda Group plc;

  Executive Director, Asda Stores Ltd. (which is wholly owned by Asda Group plc);

  Executive Director, Gazeley Holdings Ltd. (wholly owned by Asda Group plc);

  Non-executive Director, Railtrack Group plc.

  Tony Rammelt

  Executive Director, Regis Europe Limited;

  Executive Director, Regis South Africa (Proprietary) Limited;

  Executive Director, Regis Suisse Inc;

  Executive Director, Essanelle Ltd.;

  Executive Director, Steiner Salons Ltd.;

  Executive Director, Steiner Hairdressing Ltd.;

  Non-executive Director, BAPE Ltd.;

  Non-executive Director, Barbon Ltd.;

  Non-executive Director, Bollihope Ltd.;

  Non-executive Director, Institute of Trichologist Inc;

  Non-executive Director, Trichologists Educational and Hospital Trust.

  Roger Singleton

  None.

  Thomas Swan

  Executive Director, Thomas Swan and Co Ltd.;

  Executive Chairman, Screen Technology Ltd.;

  Non-executive Director, Casa Chemicals Ltd.;

  Non-executive Director, Parallel Photonic Systems Ltd.;

  Dan Wright

  None.

  Peter Wyman

  None.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he has taken to avoid conflicts of interest involving members of his deregulation task force. [1231]
  335
  Mr. Freeman
  The deregulation task force is an independent advisory body, and it is for it to decide which issues it wishes to address in its reports. All recommendations that it makes to the Government are considered entirely on their merits, and in the light of the views of others. In common with other advisory non-departmental public and advisory bodies, members are appointed for the expertise they can provide.

  The company interests of members of the deregulation task force, as with members of all non-departmental public bodies, are a matter of public record.

  Public Relations
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much his Department spent on(a) advertising, (b) public relations and (c) entertainment in each of the last five financial years. [1274]

  Mr. Willetts
  Expenditure on public relations cannot be separated from that recorded for publicity. Expenditure on advertising was not recorded separately from publicity before 1993–94. Expenditure recorded by the Cabinet Office, excluding the Prime Minister's Office, and the Office of Public Service on external advertising and publicity, and official hospitality in each of the last five financial years for which there are records is shown in the table.

  Advertising £

  Publicity £

  Official hospitality £

  Cabinet Office/OPS

  OPS1 Agencies

  Central Office of Information

  1995–96

  114,410

  301,440

  27,575

  13,630

  15,235

  1994–95

  116,427

  369,495

  17,550

  16,420

  9,200

  1993–94

  7,442

  313,480

  27,700

  8,030

  5,900

  1992–93

  2—

  292,380

  25,000

  1,255

  4,600

  1991–92

  2—

  637,840

  26,600

  245

  4,400

  1 Coverage changes over the period.

  2 Included in Publicity.

  In addition, £234,100 was borne by the OPS in 1991–92 on official hospitality in respect of the 1991 economic summit.

  Child Care
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proportion of the(a) women who are mothers and (b) men who are fathers who are employed by his Department have received assistance from the Department with child care. [1291]

  Major injuries

  Year

  Construction

  Numbers Manufacturing

  Services

  Construction

  Rates per 100,000 Manufacturing

  Services

  1986–87

  443

  89

  80

  91.0

  42.6

  4.9

  1987–88

  561

  100

  105

  103.5

  40.7

  5.9

  1988–89

  753

  134

  124

  127.0

  52.1

  6.8

  1989–90

  927

  132

  138

  128.4

  47.1

  7.1

  1990–91

  931

  129

  119

  129.7

  47.6

  6.0

  1991–92

  729

  119

  126

  89.4

  42.8

  6.4

  336
  Mr. Willetts
  Although the civil service collects statistical information on staff employed in Government Departments and executive agencies we do not collect information on the parental status of individual staff. It would be inappropriate for us to request this information from staff and difficult to justify the collection of such data.

  The number and proportion of staff receiving assistance in the Departments and agencies for which my right hon. Friend is responsible are as follows:

  Total staff

  Number assisted

  Per cent.

  Cab/OPS

  1,139

  28

  2.46

  CCTA

  261

  10

  2.61

  CSC

  258

  15

  5.8

  SAFE

  1,049

  nil

  —

  TBA

  123

  nil

  —

  PACE

  253

  1

  0.4

  COI

  423

  14

  3.3

  Female Staff
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many women are currently employed by his Department; and what proportion this is of the total. [1257]

  Mr. Willetts
  There are 558 women employed within the central of the Cabinet Office and Office of Public Services which represents 46.4 per cent. of the work force. There are a total of 1,013 women within the whole of the Cabinet Office and Office of Public Service and agencies which represents 32.4 per cent. of the work force. The divergence is attributable to the Security and Facilities Executive where the majority of employees are male security guards.

ENVIRONMENT

  Self-employed People (Accidents)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list, for each of the last 10 years, the number of non-fatal recorded accidents to self-employed people in(a) the construction industry, (b) all manufacturing industry and (c) service industries; and if he will list the number of over three-day injuries reported by self-employed people in categories (a) to (c). [657]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The number and incidence rate of non-fatal injuries to self-employed people in the construction, manufacturing and service industries, as reported to health and safety enforcing authorities, were as follows:
  337

  Major injuries

  Year

  Construction

  Numbers Manufacturing

  Services

  Construction

  Rates per 100,000 Manufacturing

  Services

  1992–93

  684

  121

  139

  93.7

  45.0

  7.4

  1993–94

  768

  105

  202

  102.5

  39.3

  10.7

  1994–95

  755

  137

  223

  97.2

  55.0

  11.4

  1995–961

  671

  134

  165

  85.3

  55.1

  8.4

  Total

  7,222

  1,200

  1,421

  1 Provisional.

  Over three-day injuries

  Year

  Construction

  Numbers Manufacturing

  Services

  Construction

  Rates per 100,000 Manufacturing

  Services

  1986–87

  704

  99

  104

  144.6

  47.4

  6.4

  1987–88

  763

  122

  156

  140.8

  45.5

  8.8

  1988–89

  969

  128

  245

  163.4

  49.8

  13.4

  1989–90

  1,310

  148

  251

  181.4

  52.9

  13.0

  1990–91

  1,554

  146

  226

  216.4

  53.9

  11.4

  1991–92

  1,231

  140

  232

  151.0

  50.4

  11.8

  1992–93

  1,291

  164

  474

  176.8

  61.0

  25.4

  1993–94

  1,576

  185

  573

  210.4

  69.3

  30.3

  1994–95

  1,532

  218

  846

  197.2

  87.6

  43.1

  1995–961

  1,388

  204

  496

  176.4

  84.0

  25.3

  Total

  12,318

  1,554

  3,603

  1 Provisional.

  Total non-fatal injuries

  Year

  Construction

  Numbers Manufacturing

  Services

  Construction

  Rates per 100,000 Manufacturing

  Services

  1986–87

  1,147

  188

  184

  235.6

  90.0

  11.3

  1987–88

  1,324

  222

  261

  244.3

  86.2

  14.7

  1988–89

  1,722

  262

  369

  290.4

  101.9

  20.2

  1989–90

  2,237

  280

  389

  309.8

  100.0

  20.1

  1990–91

  2,485

  275

  345

  346.1

  101.5

  17.4

  1991–92

  1,960

  259

  358

  240.4

  93.2

  18.2

  1992–93

  1,975

  285

  613

  270.5

  106.0

  32.8

  1993–94

  2,344

  290

  775

  312.9

  108.6

  41.0

  1994–95

  2,287

  355

  1,069

  294.4

  142.6

  54.5

  1995–961

  2,059

  338

  661

  261.7

  139.1

  33.7

  Total

  19,540

  2,754

  5,024

  1 Provisional.

  Asbestos
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many companies have introduced an asbestos control programme, following a visit from a Health and Safety Executive field inspector, during the last year for which figures are available. [1440]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the public consultation on a discussion document which outlined possible adjustments to the asbestos licensing regime will be published; and if he will place submissions to the consultation in the Library. [1442]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Health and Safety Commission's discussion document on the future of the lead and asbestos regulations was published in May, and a copy placed in the Library. In accordance with its usual practice and as explained on the front cover of the discussion document, the Commission will be making responses to the document, except where consultees asked that their response should not be so disclosed, available 338
  for public scrutiny at the Health and Safety Executive's information centres in London, Bootle and Sheffield. A list of responses received has been placed in the Library of the House: copies of individual responses may be obtained through the Library.

  Hampshire County Council (Court Costs)
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the reasons for refusing Hampshire county council a supplementary credit approval to cover the costs incurred in the case of Digital v. Hampshire Fire and Rescue Services. [1938]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Because of the public expenditure implications, it is our firm policy not to issue supplementary credit approvals except for purposes falling within certain specified, limited categories. Outside those categories, a SCA would be issued only in the most exceptional circumstances. After very carefully considering all the information provided by Hampshire county council, we concluded there was insufficient justification for the issue of a SCA in this case.
  339

  Public Relations
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much his Department spent on(a) advertising, (b) public relations and (c) entertainment in each of the last five financial years. [1262]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The figures for(a) central advertising expenditure, and (c) official hospitality by my Department in each of the financial years requested are detailed.

  Advertising £

  Official hospitality £

  1991–92

  680,000

  56,000

  1992–93

  6,869,000

  92,000

  1993–94

  5,149,000

  68,000

  1994–95

  4.470,000

  76,000

  1995–96

  2,800,000

  73,000

  The figures exclude recruitment advertising but include VAT, advertising agency commission and all levies as paid.

  On (b), my Department does not employ public relations consultants.

  All publicity and information activities are carried out by members of the Government Information Service whose salaries are paid as part of departmental annual running costs.

  Supplementary Credit Approval
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the revised bids for supplementary credit approval cover in 1996–97 recently submitted by those authorities that have been or are to be reorganised on 1 April 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1998, and if he will state the proportion of those bids that have been granted supplementary credit approval cover. [1545]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The amounts are as follows:

  Bid

  Allocation

  Allocation as percentage of bid

  1995 reorganisation

  Isle of Wight Council

  792

  500

  63

  1996 reorganisations

  Hartlepool Borough Council

  3,661

  2,150

  59

  Redcar and Cleveland Council

  4,344

  3,400

  78

  Middlesbrough Borough Council

  3,560

  2,750

  77

  Stockton on Tees Borough Council

  8,471

  3,250

  38

  Bristol City Council

  7,834

  3,500

  45

  North Somerset Council

  4,929

  3,000

  61

  Bath and North East Somerset Council

  4,725

  4,000

  85

  South Gloucestershire

  4,856

  3,500

  72

  Kingston upon Hull Council

  4,473

  3,000

  67

  East Riding Yorkshire Council

  11,720

  7,000

  60

  North Lincolnshire Council

  3,746

  3,500

  93

  North East Lincolnshire Council

  5,355

  4,000

  75

  North Yorkshire County Council

  409

  400

  98

  Selby District Council

  93

  90

  97

  York District Council

  3,202

  3,200

  100

  1997 reorganisations

  Bedfordshire County Council

  7,987

  1,800

  23

  Luton Borough Council

  8,864

  3,500

  39

  340

  Bid

  Allocation

  Allocation as percentage of bid

  Milton Keynes Borough Council

  4,089

  2,800

  68

  Derbyshire County Council

  3,241

  1,900

  59

  Derby City Council

  4,884

  2,700

  55

  Dorset County Council

  2,215

  450

  20

  Bournemouth Borough Council

  3,897

  2,850

  73

  Poole Borough Council

  3,340

  2,800

  84

  Durham County Council

  965

  500

  52

  Darlington Borough Council

  5,374

  3,850

  72

  East Sussex County Council

  2,635

  1,750

  66

  Brighton Borough Council

  1,009

  680

  67

  Hove Borough Council

  1,440

  950

  66

  Brighton and Hove Council

  5,741

  2,250

  39

  Hampshire County Council

  4,967

  2,100

  42

  Portsmouth City Council

  6,067

  2,850

  47

  Southampton City Council

  8,208

  2,950

  36

  Leicestershire County Council

  2,118

  1,500

  71

  Leicester City Council

  4,444

  3,100

  70

  Rutland District Council

  751

  750

  100

  Staffordshire County Council

  4,014

  1,800

  45

  Stoke on Trent City Council

  6,050

  2,800

  46

  Wiltshire County Council

  1,905

  1,300

  68

  Thamesdown Borough Council

  5,526

  2,800

  51

  1998 reorganisations

  Berkshire County Council

  0

  0

  Bracknell Forest Borough Council

  50

  0

  Newbury District Council

  0

  0

  Reading Borough Council

  240

  0

  Slough Borough Council

  910

  0

  Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead

  0

  0

  Wokingham District Council

  175

  0

  Hereford and Worcester County Council

  940

  0

  Hereford City Council

  25

  0

  Malvern Hills District Council

  130

  0

  South Herefordshire District Council

  0

  0

  Devon County Council

  150

  0

  Plymouth City Council

  373

  0

  Torbay Borough Council

  820

  0

  Southend on Sea Borough Council

  487

  0

  Thurrock Borough Council

  576

  0

  Nottinghamshire County Council

  616

  0

  Nottingham City Council

  845

  0

  Cheshire County Council

  572

  0

  Halton Borough Council

  220

  0

  Warrington Borough Council

  541

  0

  Shropshire County Council

  358

  0

  The Wrekin District Council

  893

  0

  Kent County Council

  649

  0

  Gillingham Borough Council

  132

  0

  Rochester City Council

  0

  0

  Cambridgeshire County Council

  135

  0

  Peterborough City Council

  676

  0

  Lancashire County Council

  190

  0

  Blackburn Borough Council

  515

  0

  Blackpool Borough Council

  342

  0

  Ryedale and Leominster District Councils, and Essex County Council did not submit bids.

  Child Care
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of the(a) women who are mothers and (b) men who are fathers who are employed by his Department have received assistance from the Department with child care. [1279]
  341
  Sir Paul Beresford
  My Department and its executive agencies do not keep records of the number of staff who are parents but child care assistance is available to staff in the form of workplace nursery and holiday play scheme places. In the last 12 months, 40 female staff and 20 male staff were assisted with a nursery place and 72 female staff and 39 male staff with a play scheme place.

  In addition, staff are entitled to the reimbursement of any additional child care costs incurred when the normal working routine is broken, for example, to attend a training course. Comprehensive records of the number of claims are not held centrally.

  Female Staff
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many women are currently employed by his Department; and what proportion this is of the total. [1245]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My Department and its executive agencies, the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre, the Planning Inspectorate and the Building Research Establishment currently employ 1,936 women. This represents 42 per cent. of the total employees.

  SSSIs (Hampshire)
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the sites of special scientific interest which have been destroyed beyond repair in Hampshire in each of the last five years. [1970]

  Mr. Clappison
  None.

  Public Houses
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many recent representations he has received from(a) right hon. and hon. Members and (b) others about changes in the names of public houses. [1883]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Department received seven letters on this subject from hon. Members or their constituents.

  Mr. Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to bring forward legislation to include within planning law the names of public houses; and if he will make a statement. [1884]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I believe that it would introduce unnecessary and excessive regulation to introduce planning controls over the naming or renaming of public houses. Owners of licensed premises should retain their right to trade under the name of their choice, just as their customers have a freedom to drink where they choose.

  However, members of the public do make their views known and this can have a considerable influence on owners' decisions, generally against change.

  Rents (Hampshire)
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average rent paid by(a) council
  342
  tenants and (b) housing association trust tenants in (i) Southampton and (ii) Hampshire in each of the last five years. [1967]

  Mr. Clappison
  Average weekly rents for council and housing association tenants in Southampton and Hampshire are set out as follows:

  Council tenants1

  Housing association tenants2

  Southampton £

  Hampshire £

  Southampton £

  Hampshire £

  1991

  28.17

  30.66

  n/a

  n/a

  1992

  31.50

  33.89

  34.49

  31.95

  1993

  33.97

  37.31

  37.30

  37.42

  1994

  37.08

  40.62

  43.61

  43.26

  1995

  39.46

  42.93

  44.50

  46.72

  Notes:

  1 At 1 April.

  2At 31 March.

  The following local authorities transferred their stock to housing associations in the period: Havant (31 January 1994), Hart (9 March 1994), Basingstoke and Deane (20 March 1995).

  Source:

  Housing subsidy claim forms (council rents), Housing Corporation HAR 10/1 return (housing associations).

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what resources he has made available to authorities that have been or are to be reorganised on 1 April 1995, 1996, 1997 or 1998 for reorganisation costs incurred by them in 1996–97; and if he will make a statement. [2046]

  Mr. Curry
  On 19 July I invited authorities that have been or are to be reorganised on or before 1 April 1998 to submit estimates of the amount of expenditure they expect to incur on transitional costs of reorganisation in 1996–97. On the basis, inter alia, of the information provided by the authorities, I have decided the maximum amounts that it would be appropriate to allocate towards such costs in 1996–97. In the initial round I gave priority to authorities that were reorganised on or before 1 April 1996. I have carefully considered the bids from these authorities and have decided that none has established a sufficiently exceptional case to justify an increase in their allocation for 1996–97. In this round I have given priority to authorities that are to be reorganised in 1997, especially their costs in respect of non-discretionary redundancy and other compensation payments to staff.

  The amounts are as follows:

  Maximum amounts: £000 rounded

  Authority

  1996–97

  Isle of Wight

  Isle of Wight Council

  500

  Cleveland

  Hartlepool Borough Council

  2,150

  Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council

  3,400

  Middlesbrough Borough Council

  2,750

  Stockton on Tees Borough Council

  3,250

  Avon

  Bristol City Council

  3,500

  North Somerset District Council

  3,000

  343

  Maximum amounts: £000 rounded

  Authority

  1996–97

  Bath and North-east Somerset Council

  4,000

  South Gloucestershire Council

  3,500

  Humberside

  Hull City Council

  3,000

  East Riding of Yorkshire Council

  7,000

  North Lincolnshire Council

  3,500

  North-east Lincolnshire Council

  4,000

  North Yorkshire

  North Yorkshire County Council

  400

  Selby District Council

  90

  York Unitary

  3,200

  Total

  47,240

  Bedfordshire

  Bedfordshire County Council

  1,800

  Luton Borough Council

  3,500

  Buckinghamshire

  Milton Keynes Borough Council

  2,800

  Derbyshire

  Derbyshire County Council

  1,900

  Derby City Council

  2,700

  Dorset

  Dorset County Council

  450

  Bournemouth Borough Council

  2,850

  Poole Borough Council

  2,800

  Durham

  Durham County Council

  500

  Darlington Borough Council

  3,850

  East Sussex

  East Sussex County Council

  1,750

  Brighton Borough Council

  680

  Hove Borough Council

  950

  Brighton and Hove Council

  11,250

  Hampshire

  Hampshire County Council

  2,100

  Portsmouth City Council

  2,850

  Southampton City Council

  2,950

  Leicestershire

  Leicestershire County Council

  1,500

  Leicester City Council

  3,100

  Rutland District Council

  750

  Staffordshire

  Staffordshire County Council

  1,800

  Stoke on Trent City Council

  2,800

  Wiltshire

  Wiltshire County Council

  1,300

  Thamesdown Borough Council

  2,800

  Total

  50,730

  Combined total allocations

  97,970

  1 (SCA) + 1,000 SCA previously issued.

  I have also considered carefully the bids submitted by authorities that are to be reorganised in 1998, but, in my view, none of the bids established a sufficiently strong case to justify an allocation of SCA for 1996–97. I have, however, announced that I am prepared to issue capitalisation directions for the net eligible revenue expenditure incurred.
  344
  A reserve of £2.03 million has been retained to meet any unanticipated, exceptional costs incurred, with priority being given to the shadow authority of Brighton and Hove.

  Nuclear Wastes
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on current progress in negotiations between the European Union and the World Trade Organisation over implementation of the Basel convention on transfrontier movements of nuclear wastes; and if he will list the areas where agreement has not yet been reached. [2330]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Basel convention on the control of transboundary movements of hazardous wastes and their disposal does not apply to wastes which, as a result of being radioactive, are subject to other international control systems, including international instruments, applying specifically to radioactive materials.

  Transfrontier movements of radioactive waste are covered by the International Atomic Energy Agency 's code of practice on the international transboundary movement of radioactive waste. In addition, provisions on the transboundary movement of radioactive waste are likely to be included in the international convention on the safety of radioactive waste management, currently being negotiated under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

  Housing Corporation
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the finance management and policy review of the Housing Corporation. [2460]

  Mr. Curry
  The finance management and policy review of the Housing Corporation has been completed and I am placing a copy of the final report in the Library.

  This final report is the completion of a process which started last year. The FMPR of a non-departmental public body comprises two stages. The report on the first stage, the prior options study, was completed in June 1995. The bulk of the fieldwork for the second stage, following up the POS, was completed by early this year. Given that neither the POS nor the fieldwork identified significant problems and that the Housing Bill had been introduced, completion of the report was deferred so that it could reflect the content of the Housing Act 1996.

  The original POS confirmed that there should be no change in the basic approach of the Housing Corporation, and identified a number of points to be covered in the second stage of the FMPR and a series of issues which should be followed up outside the FMPR. A number of recommendations in the POS were reflected in the Housing Act 1996, including arrangements to put the housing association tenants ombudsman service on a statutory footing.

  A good deal of the report is devoted to the strategic relationship between the corporation and the Department. The review, which included an investigation by outside consultants, found that this relationship was in good shape but made a series of detailed recommendations on how it could be improved further. The report summarises a series

  345
  of other reviews: of the corporation's financial systems; of the scope for out-sourcing service functions; of the corporation's senior management structure; of the specific regulatory issues identified in the POS; and of how to handle potential conflicts of interest for corporation board members. The report also summarises progress with actions arising from the POS outside the FMPR.

  The POS, last year, underlined the importance of the corporation's work and the effective way it is carried out. This report makes a series of suggestions for minor improvement, but again confirms the basic soundness of the arrangements. This all reflects well on both the staff of the corporation and the chairman and members of the board.

  Central and Local Government
  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will respond to the report of the House of Lords Select Committee on relations between central and local government, HL97 Session 1995–96; and if he will make a statement. [2638]

  Mr. Gummer
  In response to the House of Lords Select Committee report, I have today laid before Parliament a White Paper setting out a programme of action to strengthen local democracy, to promote local authorities' local leadership role and to improve further relations between central and local government. Under this programme of action we intend:to agree with the new Local Government Association and the Welsh Local Government Association, a statement of the role and status of local government in England and Wales, for inclusion in the guidelines on central/local relations: my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will also consider with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities a similar statement in relation to Scotland;
  to develop further, with the Local Government Association and the Welsh Local Government Association, the guidelines for central/local relations; my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will also consider with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities the development of suitable guidelines for Scotland;
  to review the scope for local authorities to fulfil their local community leadership role within section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972. and to assess whether a more general power of local competence is practicable and advisable (in the light of broader priorities):
  to legislate in the next Parliament to enable local authorities in England and Wales to undertake experiments with their internal management structure;
  to undertake with the Local Government Association and the Welsh Local Government Association research on public participation in local government; and
  to review the arrangements in Government for handling cross-departmental business affecting local government.

  This programme of action is based on the Government's belief, which the Select Committee shares, that democratically elected local authorities have important roles, in particular that of community leader, in the world of local governance today. As the Committee itself recognised, local authorities are not, never have been, and never will be the sole monolithic providers of all services in a given geographical area; nor can they ever operate wholly apart from powers for central intervention. Our programme represents a significant further chapter in the continuing development of local
  346
  government within our living constitution, a development which we aim to take forward in a spirit of partnership and collaboration.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to change the 1996–97 cash limits and running costs limits for which he is responsible. [2640]

  Mr. Gummer
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimates, the cash limit for class VI, vote 1 (Housing and Construction, England), covering sections A, D to G and J to L of that vote, will be increased by £900,000 from £330,568,000 to £331,468,000. Increases in the cash limit of £2,200,000 are balanced by decreases of £1,300,000. The increases are a switch of £2,000,000 from non-cash-limited asylum seekers' housing grant to cash-limited Housing Corporation revenue grants; and £200,000 to meet increased administration costs the corporation is expected to incur preparing the loan portfolio for possible sale, funded from any receipt of the sale. The decreases are a transfer of £500,000 from gipsy site grant to class VI, vote 2, to fund projects on the Barkantine estate which was damaged in the docklands bombing of February 1996; and a switch of £800,000 from homelessness grants to Housing Corporation capital grant in aid, included in the DOE/HC (Housing Corporation) non-voted cash limit.

  The DOE/HC (Housing Corporation) cash limit will be increased by £1,369,000 from £1,034,499,000 to £1,035,868,000 because of the take-up of £569,000 entitlement to end year flexibility as announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 12 July 1996, Official Report, columns 326–31, to fund capital projects; and the transfer of £800,000 from the cash limit for class VI, vote 1 in order to switch current to capital expenditure within the rough sleepers initiative.

  The cash limit for class VI, vote 2 (Regeneration and Countryside and Wildlife) will be increased by £5,336,000 from £1,459,443,000 to £1,464,779,000. The increase is partly due to the net effect of the payment of £4,702,000 on capital projects which either slipped from previous years or to meet statutory compensation claims or the claim slipped into the following year. This extra provision will be met by the take-up of end year flexibility entitlement, as announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 12 July 1996, Official Report, columns 326–31, and will cover claims for the following: Teeside development corporation, Derby and Leicester city challenge and challenge fund within the single regeneration budget, estate action and Bristol development corporation. The balance will be made up of a transfer of £134,000 from the Departments for Education and Employment and of Trade and Industry as their contribution towards the Manchester bomb fund, and £500,000 transfer from vote 1 (Housing and Construction) to estate action to cover bomb damage in London.

  There will be associated increases in external financing limits for urban development corporations by £767,000 from £207,050,000 to £207,817,000 and the housing action trusts by £250,000 from £878,960,000 to £879,210,000.
  347
  The DOE/NT (New Towns) non-voted cash limit will be decreased by £8,000,000 from -£100,000,000 to -£108,000,000. This decrease is due to the Commission for the New Towns having accelerated disposals and generated additional receipts in 1996–97 of £15,000,000 in gross terms, of which the commission expects to use £7,000,000 to increase capital spending leaving a balance of £8,000,000. Of this public expenditure survey saving: £1,800,000 will be transferred to class VI, vote 3 to meet pneumoconiosis compensation payments; £434,000 will be transferred to class VI, vote 7 (Office of Water Services) to meet additional monitoring and accommodation costs, £230,000 will be used to offset the penalty imposed on the Office of Water Services for its breach of cash and running cost limits in 1995–96 and £3,394,000 will be transferred to class VI, vote 8 (Ordnance Survey) to meet additional accommodation, security and severance costs.

  The cash limit for class VI, vote 3 (Environmental protection and water), covering sections A to H of that vote, will be increased by £4,301,000 from £347,309,000 to £351,610,000. This change reflects increases in provision of £1,850,000 for grant in aid to the British Waterways Board, £1,800,000 for pneumoconiosis compensation payments, £500,000 for water and sewerage grants, £244,000 for grant to Mersey Basin Business Foundation, £39,000 for grant in aid to the Environment Agency, and £10,000 for Going for Green, less a transfer of £142,000 to the Scottish Office for the air quality pilot project. The increase will be met by reductions in the DOE/new towns cash limit (£1,800,000), the cash limits for class VI, vote 5 (DOE administration) (£254,000), class XIII, vote 2 (Scottish Office) (£800,000), class IV, vote 1 (DTI) (£39,000) and the take-up of end year flexibility entitlement—£1,550,000—as announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 12 July 1996, Official Report, columns 326–31.

  The external financing limit for the British Waterways Board will be increased by £2,800,000 from £47,000,000 to £49,800,000. This change will enable the board to undertake essential works to the Caledonian canal and will be funded by take-up of end year flexibility of £1,050,000, as announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 12 July 1996 Official Report, columns 327–28, a transfer of £800,000 from class XIII, vote 2 (Scottish Office) and virements within vote 3.

  The cash limit for class VI, vote 4, (Local government and planning, England), covering sections A to F of that vote, will be reduced by £30,000 from £31,128,087,000 to £31,128,057,000. This reduction is the net result of reductions in the payments made to the Valuation Office agency in section A (Valuation services) and an increase to allow payments to the Local Government residuary body in section B (Reorganisation of local government). The savings in section A will be used within vote 4, to cover residual payments of community charge grant in section H (Other grants), which is outside the cash limit on the vote.

  The DOE/LGR (Local government reorganisation) non-voted cash limit will be reduced by £205,000 from £108,050,000 to £107,845,000 to offset the increase on section B of vote 4.
  348
  The cash limit for class VI, vote 5 (Administration) covering sections A to G and I of that vote, will be increased by £11,032,000 from £452,776,000 to £463,808,000. This change reflects increases due to the drawdown of £11,744,000 of running costs end year flexibility entitlement and £2,000,000 of capital end year flexibility entitlement, as announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 12 July 1996, Official Report, columns 326–31, together with a £20,000 transfer from the Security Facilities Executive agency (class XVII, vote 1) and £587,000 to pay for the Department's costs in respect of the sale of the Housing Corporation loans portfolio with the extra provision being funded from the expected proceeds of the sale. The increases will be offset by transfers of; £1,522,000 to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (class II, vote 1) and of £43,000 to the Office of Public Service (class XVII, vote 1) in respect of Lancaster house; £1,500,000 to the Department of National Heritage (class X, vote 1) for preparatory works to Somerset house to house the Gilbert collection; and £244,000 to provide for grant to the Mersey Basin Business Foundation and £10,000 in respect of Going for Green, both to class VI, vote 3. Also as a consequence, the DOE gross running cost limit has increased by £10,985,000 from £218,078,000 to £229,063,000.

  The cash limit for class VI, vote 7 (Office of Water Services) will be increased by £434,000 from £9,201,000 to £9,635,000 and the running costs limit will be increased by £434,000 from £8,901,000 to £9,335,000. This increase is required to cover the costs of active annual monitoring of the performance of the water and sewerage undertakings, development of information systems to allow the analysis of performance against comparative benchmarks and to meet additional administrative and accommodations costs. This change takes into account the penalties imposed following Ofwat's breach of its cash and running cost limits in 1995–96. The increases will be offset by savings on the DOE/NT (New Towns) non-voted cash limit and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  The cash limit for class VI, vote 8 (Ordnance Survey) will be increased by £5,305,000 from £9,110,000 to £14,415,000. The increase is required to cover additional expenditure on building refurbishment, enhancement of building security, higher than anticipated contributions in lieu of rates and early retirement costs. The increase will be met by a transfer of £3,394,000 from the DOE/NT (New Towns) non-voted cash limit and by a transfer of £5,000 from the Security Facilities Executive agency (class XVII, vote 1) with the balance of £1,906,000 being charged to the reserve.

  All the increases will be offset by either savings or transfers from other Government Departments or else represent take-up of end year flexibility entitled or will be otherwise charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Environmental Information (Article 169)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) in what circumstances the Government(a) will and (b) will not make available information relating to article 169 proceedings; [1189]
  349
  (2) if he will make a statement about the Government's policy in respect of access to information held by the European Commission and the United Kingdom Government in the case of potential article 169 proceedings. [1188]

  Mr. David Davis
  I have been asked to reply.

  Communications between a member state and the Commission in the context of anticipated or actual proceedings under article 169 are treated by both parties as confidential. The Government support and uphold this principle. The absence of this protection would prejudice the achievement of a negotiated settlement of disputes and the ability of member states and the European Commission to obtain confidential assistance from third parties in the preparation and conduct of the proceedings.

WALES

  Cardiff Airport (Road Links)
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what stage has been reached in planning the new road links with Cardiff international airport. [290]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Vale of Glamorgan council is undertaking preliminary design and other preparation work with the support of transport grant from the Welsh Office. The council has recently submitted a bid to continue this work in 1997–98. My right hon. Friend will make an announcement on the settlement next month.

  Nursery Vouchers
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many submissions he has received in favour of nursery vouchers. [291]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The Government's intention of increasing provision for four-year-olds has been welcomed.

  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to discuss the introduction of nursery vouchers with local authorities in Wales. [301]

  Mr. Evans
  Welsh Office officials are having a series of meetings with representatives of local authorities about the detailed implementation of the nursery voucher scheme.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the number of nursery vouchers likely to be applied for when the scheme begins in 1997; and if he will make a statement. [913]

  Mr. Evans
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 16 October,Official Report, column 984. It is for parents of eligible four-year-olds to apply for nursery vouchers and they will be alerted to the need to do so by the scheme contractor and other publicity.

  Tourism
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many tourists visited Wales in(a) 1979 and (b) the latest available year; and what they spent in real terms. [292]
  350
  Mr. Hague
  The number of overseas visitors to Wales has increased between 1979 and 1995 by 40 per cent. from 530,000 to 740,000, with an increase in annual spending by overseas tourists from £139 million to £197 million at 1995 prices.

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received concerning the impact of the LG project on the finances of the Welsh Development Agency; and if he will make a statement. [293]

  Mr. Hague
  I have received representations from the hon. Member.

  I have allocated an additional £20 million to the WDA for 1996–97 specifically to enable it to meet its commitments to the LG project. Provision for future years will be taken into account in my decisions on public expenditure in Wales.

  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to increase the Welsh Development Agency's budget for 1996–97; and if he will make a statement. [2440]

  Mr. Hague
  I have decided to increase the Welsh Development Agency's base programme for 1996–97 from £120 million to £157.1 million. This includes an increase in central Government provision of £25.4 million, of which £20 million is specifically for the LG project. The agency is also generating additional receipts of £11.7 million. Further expenditure will be funded by receipts from the European Union, which are estimated to be £4 million in 1996–97.

  Learning Disabilities
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the services provided for people with severe learning disabilities in Wales. [294]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Local authorities have prime responsibility for the planning and commissioning of services for people with learning disabilities, but the Department receives monitoring information on these services.

  A465
  Mr. Touhig
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next expects to met representatives of the Heads of the Valleys Standing Conference to discuss the A465 Abergavenny to Hirwaun dualling scheme. [295]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  There are no plans for such a meeting.

  Income Levels
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he proposes to improve income levels in Wales. [297]

  Mr. Hague
  We have delivered low inflation and interest rates, sound public finances and an enterprise culture. We are giving a high priority to raising levels of
  351
  education and training. These are the foundations on which a dynamic and prosperous economy, with well-paid jobs, is built.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with local authorities concerning standard spending assessments for 1997–98. [298]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend and I discussed standard spending assessments for 1997–98 with representatives of local government at a meeting of the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government Finance on 23 September 1996.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the level of inward investment into Wales over the past 12 months. [299]

  Mr. Hague
  In the period 1 October 1995 to 30 September 1996, 149 projects have been recorded promising 14,474 new jobs, 3,737 safeguarded jobs and capital investment of £2.7 billion.

  Public Sewer Workers (Deaths)
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for 'Wales if he will institute an inquiry into the death of two Neath public sewer workers on 10 October. [300]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The main investigative roles lie with the Health and Safety Executive and the South Wales police. I understand that a joint investigation is currently under way.

  Health Service Waiting Lists
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on health service waiting lists in Wales. [302]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  In Wales, in the 12 months to June 1996 the number reported by health authorities waiting for first out-patient appointments fell by 7 per cent. from 115,000 to 107,000. The number waiting over six months for a first out-patient appointment fell by nearly half to 8,454.

  In the past 12 months to June 1996 the number waiting over 12 months of in-patient and day case treatment rose by 171 from 5,465 to 5,636. Recent data from NHS trusts show that the figure fell back to 5,173 in August.

  Welsh Assembly
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received on electoral systems in respect of a Welsh Assembly. [303]

  Mr. Hague
  None.

  Abattoirs
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action he will take to ensure that the abattoirs 352
  authorised in Wales to partake in the 30-month cull scheme give priority to animals from producers in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [304]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  I have asked the Intervention Board executive agency to ensure that Welsh abattoirs participating in the scheme give priority to animals from Welsh producers until the backlog is cleared.

  Environment and Environmental Industries
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the importance of (i) the environment and (ii) environmental industries to the competitiveness of Wales; and if he will make a statement. [305]

  Mr. Hague
  I refer the hon. Member to the environment chapter of the Government's third annual competitiveness White Paper, "Competitiveness—Creating the Enterprise Centre of Europe", (Cm3300) and to "Meeting the Challenge—The Competitiveness of Wales" published by my Department, copies of which are in the Library of the House.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he proposes to introduce to ensure that grant-maintained schools are not disadvantaged by the 1997 standard spending round. [306]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  My right hon. Friend will announce his decisions on public expenditure in Wales in early December. It would not be appropriate to comment in advance of this.

  Child Care
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of the(a) women who are mothers and (b) men who are fathers who are employed by his Department have received assistance from the Department with child care. [1290]

  Mr. Hague
  Information is not collected in this format. My Department has a workplace nursery, supports play schemes and also has provision to reimburse staff for additional child care expenses and expenses relating to care of dependants incurred in the course of their official duties.

  Female Staff
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many women are currently employed by his Department; and what proportion this is of the total. [1256]

  Mr. Hague
  As at October 1996, 1,150 women were employed on a permanent basis, which is 51 per cent. of the total permanent staff employed by my Department.

  Public Relations
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much his Department spent on(a) advertising, (b) public relations and (c) entertainment in each of the last five financial years. [1273]
  353
  Mr. Hague
  Welsh Office expenditure on advertising, public relations and hospitality for the last five years is as follows:

  £000

  Year

  Advertising

  Press and public relations

  Hospitality

  1991–92

  349

  2,089

  36

  1992–93

  427

  2,069

  38

  1993–94

  275

  1,704

  27

  I994–95

  255

  2,068

  29

  1995–96

  508

  2,062

  22

  1. Expenditure on advertising includes television, radio and press advertising costs.

  2. Figures for press and public relations includes press and publicity staff costs, press cutting services and the cost of purchasing other forms of publicity material.

  3. Spending is shown at outturn prices.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what existing rules and regulations he proposes to repeal in each of the next six months. [307]

  Mr. Hague
  My Department does not at present propose to repeal any existing rules or regulations in the next six months.

  Schools
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish for each local education authority the amount paid to schools as in-year payments from the service, strategy and regulation budget in 1995–96. [2016]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Service strategy and regulation is a central cost of local education authorities and is not allocated to schools.

  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish for each local education authority its service, strategy and regulation budget for the fiscal year 1996–97. [2017]

  Mr. Evans
  The information requested is given in the following table. The figures also include education management and support services expenditure, other than service strategy and regulation, that have not been included elsewhere in the budget returns submitted by authorities.

  Local education authority 1996–97 budgeted expenditure on service strategy and regulation

  £ thousand

  Blaenau Gwent

  820

  Bridgend

  163

  Caerphilly

  211

  Cardiff

  706

  Carmarthenshire

  545

  Ceredigion

  542

  Conwy

  284

  Denbighshire

  229

  Flintshire

  526

  Gwynedd

  400

  Isle of Anglesey

  279

  Merthyr Tydfil

  77

  Monmouthshire

  198

  Neath Port Talbot

  1,338

  354

  Local education authority 1996–97 budgeted expenditure on service strategy and regulation

  £ thousand

  Newport

  260

  Pembrokeshire

  1,581

  Powys

  754

  Rhondda Cynon Taff

  312

  Swansea

  1,576

  Torfaen

  193

  The Vale of Glamorgan

  263

  Wrexham

  160

  Wales

  11,417

  Source:

  Local authority budget returns.

  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for each local education authority those secondary schools which had 1,000 or more pupils in September, and those grant-maintained secondary schools which had 1,000 or more pupils in September. [2018]

  Mr. Evans
  The information requested is contained in the following table. It is based on data for January 1996 which are the latest available.

  School

  LEA maintained

  Bridgend

  Brynteg Comprehensive School

  Maesteg Comprehensive School

  Pencoed Comprehensive School

  Porthcawl Comprehensive School

  Caerphilly

  Lewis Girls' Comprehensive School

  St. Cenydd Comprehensive School

  Cardiff

  Cantonian High School

  Cardiff High School

  Fitzalan High School

  Llanishen High School

  Radyr Comprehensive School

  Rumney High School

  St. Teilo's C.I.W. High School

  The Bishop of Llandaff C.I.W. High School

  Whitchurch High School

  Ysgol Gyfun Gymraeg Glantaf

  Carmarthenshire

  Amman Valley Comprehensive School

  Bryngwyn Comprehensive School

  Ceredigion

  Penglais Comprehensive School

  Denbighshire

  Prestatyn High School

  Rhyl High School

  Flintshire

  Castell Alun High School

  Hawarden High School

  Holywell High School

  Mold Alun School

  St. Richard Gwyn Roman Catholic High School

  Gwynedd

  Ysgol Syr Hugh Owen

  Isle of Anglesey

  Ysgol David Hughes

  Ysgol Uwchradd Caergybi

  Merthyr Tydfil

  Afon Taf High School

  Cyfarthfa High School

  Pen Y Dre High School

  Monmouthshire

  Caldicot Comprehensive School

  Chepstow Comprehensive School

  King Henry VIII Comprehensive School

  Monmouth Comprehensive School

  Neath Port Talbot

  Dwr Y Felin Comprehensive School

  Llangatwg Comprehensive School

  Newport

  Bassaleg Comprehensive School

  Bettws High School

  Caerleon Comprehensive School

  Duffryn Comprehensive School

  Lliswerry Comprehensive School

  St. Joseph's Comprehensive R.C. School

  St. Julian's Comprehensive School

  355

  School

  Pembrokeshire

  Greenhill Comprehensive School

  Milford Haven Comprehensive School

  Pembroke Comprehensive

  Sir Thomas Picton Comprehensive

  Tasker Milward Comprehensive School

  Powys

  Newtown High School

  Rhondda, Cynon,

  Bryncelynnog Comprehensive School

  Taff

  The Coedylan School

  Mountain Ash Comprehensive School

  Porth Comprehensive School

  Tonypandy Comprehensive School

  Tonyrefail Comprehensive School

  Treorchy Comprehensive School

  Ysgol Gyfun Llanhari

  Ysgol Gyfun Rhydfelen

  Swansea

  Bishop Gore Comprehensive School

  Gowerton Comprehensive School

  Morriston Comprehensive School

  Olchfa Comprehensive School

  Ysgol Pentrehafod School

  Torfaen

  Croesyceiliog Comprehensive School

  Fairwater Comprehensive School

  Llantarnam Comprehensive School

  The Vale of

  Barry Boys' Comprehensive School

  Glamorgan

  Bryn Hafren Comprehensive School

  356

  School

  Cowbridge Comprehensive School

  Llantwit Major School

  Wrexham

  St. David's High School

  Grant maintained

  Conwy

  Eirias High School

  Ysgol Emrys Ap Iwan

  The Vale of

  St. Cyres Comprehensive School

  Glamorgan

  Stanwell Comprehensive

  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for each local education authority the local management of schools criteria which determine what is a large secondary school. [2019]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  I am not aware of any local authority's local management of schools scheme which incorporates a definition of a large secondary school. As far as Welsh Office guidance is concerned, the LMS framework as set out in Welsh Office circulars 36/88 and 38/91 provided a definition of a small school for salary protection purposes only but no such definition was included for large schools.
  357

TREASURY

  Mortgage Interest Relief
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of Exchequer what is his policy in respect of mortgage interest relief at source at the present rate of 15 per cent.(a) for the rest of the current financial year and (b) for the following five financial years. [520]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 31 October 1996]: My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his last Budget speech that mortgage interest relief will remain unchanged for the lifetime of this Parliament. Beyond that, the level of mortgage interest relief is a matter to be considered each year in the Budget.

  Tax Returns
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate, in respect of tax year 1996–97, of the number of taxpayers who will submit their tax returns to the Inland Revenue by 30 September 1997; how his estimate of this figure changed over the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [267]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 31 October 1996]: The Inland Revenue's current working assumption is that between 40 per cent. and 50 per cent. of tax returns for 1996–97 will be received by 30 September 1997. This assumption has remained constant over the last 12 months.

  Unemployed Claimant Count
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people, by region and gender, are

  Economically inactive of working age not claiming unemployment-related benefits who would like to work by age, gender and region

  Thousands, Spring 1996

  16–24 years old

  25–49 years old

  50 years and over

  All working age

  Males

  Females

  Males

  Females

  Males (50–64)

  Females (50–59)

  Males

  Females

  All persons

  United Kingdom

  236

  306

  283

  845

  292

  203

  810

  1,354

  2,164

  Great Britain

  232

  296

  279

  824

  288

  198

  798

  1,318

  2,117

  England

  199

  247

  228

  686

  232

  163

  659

  1,095

  1,754

  South East

  82

  89

  76

  282

  78

  64

  236

  435

  670

  Greater London

  38

  40

  53

  141

  38

  30

  128

  211

  340

  Rest of South East

  44

  49

  23

  140

  40

  34

  107

  224

  331

  East Anglia

  1—

  1—

  1—

  27

  1—

  1—

  21

  39

  60

  South West

  20

  24

  20

  54

  21

  15

  61

  93

  154

  West Midlands

  20

  29

  23

  82

  30

  17

  73

  127

  201

  East Midlands

  17

  19

  20

  51

  16

  15

  53

  84

  137

  Yorks and Humber

  24

  30

  28

  60

  29

  18

  80

  108

  188

  North West

  18

  26

  39

  77

  30

  19

  87

  122

  208

  North

  13

  22

  15

  54

  19

  11

  47

  87

  134

  Wales

  12

  20

  17

  52

  23

  13

  52

  85

  137

  Scotland

  21

  29

  34

  87

  33

  22

  88

  138

  226

  Northern Ireland

  1—

  10

  1—

  21

  1—

  1—

  12

  36

  48

  Note:

  1Sample size too small for reliable estimate.

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey, Office for National Statistics.

  National Bus Company Pension Scheme
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the implications of the pensions ombudsman's recent findings in respect of
  358
  designated as economically inactive but are not included in unemployed claimant count figures, within the age groups (a) 16 to 24, (b) 25 to 49 and (c) over 50. [1143]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Dennis Roberts to Mr. Ian McCartney, dated 4 November 1996:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked the Director of the Office for National Statistics to reply to your recent question asking for a breakdown by region, gender and age group of those people who are economically inactive, who would like a job but are not included in the unemployment claimant count figures. The Director has asked me to reply in his absence.
  According to the spring 1996 Labour Force Survey there were 7,770,000 people of working age in the United Kingdom who were classified as economically inactive. Of these 2,335,000 said they would like a job, but were not classified as ILO unemployed either because they had not sought work in the past four weeks and/or they were not available to start work in the next two weeks. The main reasons given for not seeking work were that the respondent was long term sick/disabled, looking after their family/home or was a student. 2,164,000 of the total of 2,335,000 said that they were not claiming unemployment related benefits though this may be overestimated by up to 10 per cent as the LFS generally under-records people claiming unemployment-related benefits. Further details are contained in the article on page 464 of the October 1993 Employment Gazette a copy of which is available in the House of Commons Library. The UK total figure is disaggregated for the analysis in the attached table.

  breaches of trust relating to payments made from the National Bus Company employers' superannuation scheme for similar payments to the Treasury from the pension schemes of Government assets prior to their privatisation. [1085]
  359
  Mr. Waldegrave
  I am not aware of any implications for other privatisations.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the savings to the Exchequer which would result from lower debt interest costs if United Kingdom interest rates were(a) 0.5 per cent., (b) 1.00 per cent. and (c) 1.5 per cent. lower across the yield curve for (1) 1997–98, (2) 1998–99, (3) 1999–2000, (4) 2000–01 and (5) 2001–02. [814]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 31 October 1996]: Estimated reductions in central Government net debt interest payments resulting from lower interest rates are presented in the table.

  Savings made from stated reduction in interest rates (£ billion)

  0.5 per cent.

  1.0 per cent.

  1.5 per cent.

  1997–98

  0.3

  0.6

  0.9

  1998–99

  0.5

  0.9

  1.3

  1999–00

  0.5

  1.1

  1.6

  2000–01

  0.6

  1.2

  1.7

  Such estimates are dependent on the assumed path of Government borrowing. These figures are calculated using the Budget 1995 forecast for borrowing and assume the fall in interest rates in sustained throughout the forecast period.

  Revised short-term projections for Government borrowing were produced in the "Summer Economic Forecast 1996". Estimates based on this forecast are not significantly different from those shown.

  No borrowing forecasts have been published for 2001–02.

  GDP Growth Rate
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the fastest annual average United Kingdom GDP growth rate in any consecutive period of nine years since 1966. [802]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 31 October 1996]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from John Kidgell to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 4 November 1996:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked the Director of the Office for National Statistics to reply to your recent question asking what has been the fastest annual average United Kingdom GDP growth rate in any consecutive nine year period since 1966. The director has asked me to respond in his absence.
  The highest United Kingdom growth rate, for any nine year period since 1966, was 3.1 per cent. in the period up to and including 1990. United Kingdom GDP growth rates, for any nine year period since 1966, can be found in table 16.10 of the 1996 edition of United Kingdom National Accounts, a copy of which is available in the House of Commons Library. I attach a photocopy of the table.
  360

  Office for National Statistics
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes are proposed to the cash limit and running costs limit for the Office for National Statistics for 1996–97. [2549]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class XVI, vote 12—Office for National Statistics—will be increased by £7,561,000 from £105,039,000 to £112,600,000 and the running costs limit will be increased by £7,100,000 from £99,839,000 to £106,939,000. This reflects:the take-up of £5,453,000 for running costs and £1,254,000 for capital costs under the end year flexibility arrangements announced by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 12 July 1996, Official Report, columns 326–31. The increase will be charged to the reserve and will not add to the planned total of public expenditure;
  increased running costs provision of £1,216,000 and capital cost provision of £74,000 for the processing and production of statistics relating to the general practitioners' research database; most of the increase will be met by the Department of Health from within its existing resources; the remainder will come from various other customers. The payments will be taken in as increased appropriations in aid;
  increased capital costs of £2,565,000 for the refurbishment of Drummond gate, Pimlico. £600,000 will be funded from the Treasury's own end year flexibility entitlement, and the remaining costs will be met by the Metropolitan police and taken in as increased appropriations in aid;
  increased running costs provision of £177,000 and capital costs of £123,000 for the national health service tracing services project, and further capital costs of £650,000 for the Department of Health's existing number replacement project. The increases will be met by the Department of Health from within its existing resources and taken in as increased appropriations in aid;
  increases in running costs provision of £5,000 from the Security Facilities Agency for security advice, £67,000 from the Department of Health for legal services, £90,000 from the Department for Education and Employment for the labour market statistics and £92,000 from the Department of Transport for balance of payments work. All these will be met from existing resources.

TRANSPORT

  M1 Slip Road Viaduct
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he instructed work to begin on the slip road viaduct at junction 2 of the M1 motorway to allow it to carry 44-tonne vehicles; how much the project will cost; and when he expects it to be completed. [19]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, dated 4 November 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent question asking him when he instructed work to begin on the slip road viaduct at junction 2 of the MI motorway to allow it to carry 44 tonne vehicles, how much the project will cost and when he expects it to be completed.

  361
  Consulting Engineers were instructed on 4 April this year to examine options for strengthening the slip road viaducts to carry vehicles of up to 44 tonnes complying with current Construction and Use Regulations for combined road/rail transport. Preparatory site work was started on 21 October. The main strengthening contract is out to tender and is due to start in December 1996 with completion during the Spring of 1997.
  The overall cost of the project is estimated to be £4m.

  Motorways and Trunk Roads
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport at how many places on the national, motorway and trunk road motorway(a) speed limits are imposed as a result of a maintenance problem awaiting attention, (b) areas of carriageway or hard shoulder have had access restricted because of a maintenance problem awaiting attention, (c) signs have been erected to warn of a slippery surface and (d) weight restrictions have been imposed as a result of structures unable to carry vehicles of up to 38 tonnes gvw. [243]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Robert Ainsworth, dated 4th November 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent question asking at how many places on the motorway and trunk road network (a) speed limits are imposed as a result of a maintenance problem awaiting attention, (b) areas of carriageway or hard shoulder have had access restricted because of a maintenance problem awaiting attention, (c) signs have been erected to warn of a slippery surface and (d) weight restrictions have been imposed as a result of structures unable to carry vehicles of up to 38 tonnes gvw.
  At the present time, temporary speed restrictions apply at the following locations:

  M1 Junction 1 Southbound

  M1/M621 Junction in West Yorkshire

  M11 at Duxford in Cambridgeshire Southbound

  M180 North Ings Interchange in South Yorkshire

  M606/M62 Junction in West Yorkshire

  A1 at Winthorpe in Nottinghamshire

  A1/A41 Fiveways Junction in London

  A194(M) at Blackfell Bridge in Tyne & Wear

  A40 at Golden Valley Bridge in Gloucestershire

  A42 at Lount in Leicestershire

  A500 near Nantwich in Cheshire

  and at 13 separate locations on the A14 in Cambridgeshire and Suffolk.

  At these places areas of the carriageway or hard shoulder have been coned off pending maintenance work:

  M1 at Smithywood in South Yorkshire

  M1 at Birdwell Quarry in South Yorkshire

  M1 at Stainborough in South Yorkshire

  M1 Junction 1 Southbound

  M1 Junction 2 Slip Roads

  M1 Junction 2 Northbound

  362

  M2 Medway Bridge

  M2 Gillingham Link Bridges

  M4 Junction 13

  M5 Junctions 1–2 Northbound and Southbound

  M5 Junction 9 Northbound Slip Road

  M6 Junction 43–44 Southbound

  M6 Junction 8 Northbound and Southbound

  M62 J18–19 at Birch Services

  M62 Eastbound west of A1

  M66 J0–1 at Lower Park

  M180 North Ings Interchange in South Yorkshire

  M606/M62 Junction in West Yorkshire

  A102(M) Northbound at Blackwall Tunnel

  A194(M) at Blackfell Bridge in Tyne & Wear

  A13 Old Roding Bridge in London

  A13 Beam Bridge North in London

  A2 at Littledale Viaduct

  A40 at Golden Valley Bridge in Gloucestershire

  A41 at Whitchurch in Shropshire

  Signs have been erected to warn of a slippery surface as follows:

  M62 Junction 29 Eastbound Slip Road

  M62 Junction 33 Eastbound Slip Road

  M62 Junctions 32–33 in West Yorkshire

  M62 Junction 32 Westbound Slip Road

  A1 Ferrybridge Southbound Slip Road in West Yorkshire

  A1 Darrington Southbound Slip Road in West Yorkshire

  A1 Womersley Slip Road in West Yorkshire

  A1 Redhouse Northbound Slip Road in South Yorkshire

  A5 Catthorpe Crossroads in Warwickshire

  A5 Lilboume Truck Stop in Warwickshire

  At these locations the problem is generally deformation of the road surface. There will also be other places where a routine survey of skidding resistance indicates a possible problem and the need for closer investigation. Signs warning of a slippery surface are erected at these locations too while these further investigations are carried out.
  Finally, structures supporting motorways or all-purpose trunk roads which are currently restricted to vehicles of less than 38 tonnes are:

  A13 Movers Lane Flyover in East London

  A40 Golden Valley Bridge in Gloucestershire

  Road Contracts
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the amount spent on(a) accountants, (b) lawyers, (c) consultants and (d) other professionals in relation to design, build, finance and operate road contracts since their inception. [20]

  Mr. Watts
  I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to write to the hon. Member.
  363
  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, dated 4 November 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent question asking if he will list the amount spent on (a) accountants, (b) lawyers, (c) consultants and (d) other professionals in relation to Design Build Finance and Operate road contracts since their inception.
  The information you have requested cannot be disaggregated for reasons of commercial confidentiality.
  However, we can disclose that the amount spent on accountants, lawyers and technical advisors since 1994 in support of the Design Build Finance and Operate (DBFO) programme totals £13.5m. This figure does not include consultants appointed to design schemes which subsequently became subsumed within a DBFO project.

  Maritime Search and Rescue Operations
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what was the number of recorded maritime search and rescue operations requiring helicopter support in (i) the Dover strait, (ii) St. George's channel and (iii) the North sea over the last three years; [1054]

  (2) what is the number of recorded maritime search and rescue operations occurring in (i) the Dover strait, (ii) St. George's channel and (iii) the North sea over the last three years; [1053]

  (3) what was the number of recorded maritime search and rescue operations involving British military and civilian services around United Kingdom coastal waters over the last three years; [1055]

  (4) if he will list (a) the number of recorded maritime search and rescue operations occurring around United Kingdom coastal waters requiring support from foreign search and rescue services over the last three years, (b) the date of those incidents, (c) the location of those incidents and (d) the nationality of those services involved; [1056]

  (5) what consultation has been conducted with representatives of foreign search and rescue services over the recent changes to helicopter search and rescue cover within the United Kingdom. [1014]

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

  Letter from C. J. Harris to Ms Glenda Jackson, dated 29 October 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about search and rescue operations, helicopter support in those operations and recent search and rescue helicopter consultation.
  The number of recorded maritime search and rescue operations requiring helicopter support in the (i) Dover Strait, (ii) St George's Channel and (iii) The North sea over the last three years were:

  1993

  1994

  1995

  (i) Dover Strait

  82

  59

  33

  (ii) St. George's Channel

  2

  Nil

  1

  (iii) the North Sea

  887

  1,166

  991

  364
  These figures represent total helicopter call-outs and do not differentiate between incidents when a helicopter was the only rescue unit from those when it participated with other rescue units, nor should they be taken to imply that a helicopter carried out an actual rescue.
  Dover Strait is defined as Dungeness Point to North Foreland out to the Anglo-French median line.
  St. George's Channel is defined as the area to the east of the Anglo-Irish median line bounded by lines drawn in the north from Arklow (Republic of Ireland) to Bardsey Island and in the south from Carnsore (Republic of Ireland) to South Bishop lighthouse. It does not include Cardigan Bay.
  The North Sea is defined as an area between North Foreland on the east coast to the Magnus Platform off the north-east coast of Shetland and out to the median line.
  The recorded number of maritime search and rescue operations occurring in the last three years for (i) Dover Strait, (b) St. George's Channel and (iii) the North Sea were:

  1993

  1994

  1995

  (i) Dover Strait

  439

  731

  544

  (ii) St. George's Channel

  5

  3

  1

  (iii) The North Sea

  3,019

  3,027

  3,929

  The number of recorded maritime search and rescue operations co-ordinated by HM Coastguard in the United Kingdom Search and Rescue Region over the last three years were:

  1993: 9,590

  1994: 10,470

  1995: 12,220.

  Some of these incidents will have involved the Ministry of Defence. The Agency has no records of SAR operations by the MoD other than those involving HM Coastguard.
  The number of recorded maritime search and rescue operations occurring around the United Kingdom coastal waters where support was supplied by foreign search and rescues services was:

  (a)

  1993: Nil

  1994: 3

  1995: 6.

  The dates and locations of the incidents and nationality of the services involved were:

  1993

  Nil

  1994

  (b) 28 April

  (c) Ramsgate two persons overboard from a cross channel ferry

  (d) French

  (b) 30 October

  (c) Between Isle of Man and Liverpool search for downed aircraft

  (d) Irish

  (b) 25 August

  (c) Ramsgate Sally Star incident

  (d) French

  365

  1995

  (b) 28 January

  (c) Between Llandudno and Anglesey two missing persons

  (d) Irish

  (b) 9 June

  (c) Greencastle Auxiliary Coastguard team assisted in search at Lough Foyle

  (d) Irish

  (b) 18 June

  (c) Dauphine Helicopter search Lough Foyle

  (d) Irish

  (b) 15 July

  (c) Dungeness Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacon hit

  (d) French

  (b) 10 September

  (c) Main Head communications support

  (d) Irish

  (b) 16 November

  (c) Helicopter and fixed wing aircraft search for a missing Irish Fishing Vessel Lough Foyle

  (d) Irish

  No consultation has been conducted with representatives of foreign search and rescue services over recent changes to helicopter cover in the United Kingdom since neither the UK nor foreign services take account of each other's coverage in determining the location of their rescue facilities. However, foreign search and rescue services are kept advised of any changes in coverage by the Coastguard Agency through regular liaison meetings.

  Air Crashes
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) civilian light aircraft and (b) helicopter crashes have taken place in each of the last five years, giving the figures to the latest available date. [1152]

  Mr. Bowis
  The number of accidents involving civilian light aircraft, with a maximum total authorised weight below 2,300 kg, and helicopters in each of the last five years is as follows:

  Light aircraft

  Helicopter

  1992

  8

  3

  1993

  3

  5

  1994

  11

  3

  1995

  8

  1

  1996 (to date)

  8

  4

  These figures include mid-air collisions and collisions with ground, water or wires, but not accidents occurring on the ground at aerodromes.

  Air Traffic Control
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many aircraft were affected by the air traffic control delays occurring on 23 August. [1446]
  366
  Mr. Bowis
  I understand from the Civil Aviation Authority that on August 23 there were 5,072 flights through UK airspace, of which 740 were delayed by more than 10 minutes as a result of air traffic control restrictions in both UK and European airspace.

  Traffic Enforcement
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those measures undertaken by his Department to improve the targeting of vehicle and traffic enforcement. [1505]

  Mr. Bowis
  I have asked the chief executive of the Vehicle Inspectorate agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ron Oliver to Mrs. Gwyneth Dun woody, dated 4 November 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question concerning measures undertaken by the Department to improve the targeting of vehicle and traffic enforcement.
  To improve our targeting capability, the Vehicle Inspectorate has done, or is doing, the following:

  (a) Since November 1991, we have recorded all checks on mechanical condition of vehicles on a computerised database to enable identification of Operators with a poor history or whose vehicles have not been seen.

  (b) We are currently linking annual test results to Operators, again to identify those with a poor history.

  (c) We have trialled weigh-in-motion sensors which may have a role to improve the selection of vehicles brought in for weighing and the times of the day that weight checks should be run. The results are currently being evaluated.

  (d) Over the next 12 months, we will be equipping all our Vehicle and Traffic Examiners with laptop computers so that they have access at the roadside to substantial parts of our operator and vehicle records. Through either mobile telephones or mobile data links, they will have access to all records.

  (e) This year we are setting up 6 regional intelligence units to improve the collection and analysis of information.

  (f) This year key targets for VI were agreed which give greater emphasis to the outcomes of our work, rather than the inputs, and which encourage Examiners to target their work. These targets will be developed further next year to encourage concentration on more serious cases.

  HGV Spot Checks
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list the number of silent checks aimed at detecting drivers interfering with tachograph records for each of the last 12 months; [1514]

  (2) what percentage of heavy goods vehicle spot-checks were undertaken (a) between the hours of 1900 and 0600 on weekdays and (b) at weekends for each of the last two years. [1515]

  Mr. Bowis
  I have asked the chief executive of the Vehicle Inspectorate executive agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ron Oliver to Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, dated 4 November 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your questions about the number of silent checks aimed at detecting drivers interfering with tachograph records for each of the last 12 months: and the percentage of HGV spot-checks undertaken (a) between the hours of 1900 and 0600 on weekdays and (b) at weekends for each of the last 2 years.

  367
  Details of the number of vehicles silent checked with the aim of detecting tachograph interference are as follows:

  Month

  HGV

  PSV

  Total

  1995

  October

  404

  96

  500

  November

  605

  46

  651

  December

  630

  13,799

  4,429

  1996

  January

  246

  535

  781

  February

  262

  140

  402

  March

  310

  172

  482

  April

  477

  78

  555

  May

  447

  149

  596

  June

  632

  698

  1,330

  July

  576

  866

  1,442

  August

  756

  354

  1,110

  September

  305

  122

  427

  1 The use of this resource as a significant PSV enforcement tool was reviewed and as a result a special nationwide exercise was carried out in December.

  Data on the percentage of HGV spot checks undertaken a) between 1900 and 0600 on weekdays and b) at weekends is not available separately. The total percentage of out-of-hours spot checks carried out between 1900 and 0600 and at weekends (against an agreed 5$ minimum target) for each of the last 2 financial years is:

  1994/95: 9.25$

  1995/96: 7.49$

  Rail Driver Fatigue
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what procedures his Department has put in place to ensure that the research currently being undertaken by British Rail on the effects of driver fatigue will be disseminated to all rail operating companies. [1435]

  Mr. Watts
  This is a matter for British Rail and the Health and Safety Executive. BR will be disseminating the information to the train operating companies which are under BR's ownership at the time the study report is issued. BR has undertaken to convey any findings which have a significance for safety to other train operators.

  HSE is aware of the project and will be discussing the results with BR and the researcher. HSE will ensure that any implications for safety are drawn to the attention of those operators which need to be made aware of the results.

  Air Bags (Children)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what work his Department has(a) undertaken and (b) commissioned on the dangers posed by air bags to children in rear-facing child seats. [1469]

  Mr. Bowis
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 25 October 1996,Official Report, column 11.

  Air Security
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for each of the last three years the number of inspections undertaken by Transec staff on(a) airlines, (b) airports in the United Kingdom and (c) overseas airports. [1433]
  368
  Mr. Bowis
  UK airlines and airports, as well as those foreign airlines operating in the UK, were subject to the following number of security inspections in each of the last three years. Figures are also shown for the number of visits to overseas airports to assess the security afforded to and conducted by British airlines.

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Airlines

  504

  433

  663

  Airports

  475

  583

  531

  Overseas

  101

  72

  33

  Totals

  1,080

  1,088

  1,227

  Inspectors visited UK airports and airlines on many other occasions, mainly to audit and test their operations.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list by airport the number of security breaches recorded by Transec for the last 12 months. [1508]

  Mr. Bowis
  It would be inappropriate for security reasons to provide this information. Whenever breaches are identified, appropriate rectification action is taken.

  Re-signing (London)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the decision was taken to postpone the re-signing project in London; and when he expects work to commence. [1470]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, dated 4 November 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent question about when the decision was taken to postpone the re-signing project in London and when he expects work to commence.
  The decision was taken at the end of September. It remains a high priority project and will be back in the programme as and when funding allows.

  Driving Tests
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on how many occasions in each of the last five years driving test candidates have been allowed to proceed with a driving test without a signed driving licence. [1438]

  Mr. Bowis
  Mandatory presentation of a signed driving licence by a candidate to an examiner at the start of a driving test was not introduced until 1 July 1996. We are unaware of any ordinary driving tests that have proceeded since that date where the candidate did not hold a valid licence or evidence that such a licence existed.

  West Coast Main Line
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much has been invested in the infrastructure of the west coast mainline by(a) Railtrack plc and (b) the Department of Transport, (i) in each year since 1993 and (ii) since May 1996. [1374]

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer Thursday 31 October]: It is not for the Department to invest in the west coast main line. Railtrack was formed on 1 April 1994 and therefore

  369
  would not hold investment information before that date. However, the company has confirmed the following investment details for each financial year since 1994:

  1994–95: £47.6 million

  1995–96: £50.9 million

  1996–97: £70.1 million.

  Railtrack is planning to spend a total of £1.35 billion to renew the core infrastructure and is prepared to spend a further £150 million on a passenger upgrade.

  Diesel Fuel (Spillages)
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into preventive measures to stop diesel fuel spillages from vehicles. [1932]

  Mr. Bowis
  None. Legislation is already in place aimed at preventing the spillage of diesel fuel from vehicles.

  Taxis (Pedestrian Deaths)
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many pedestrians have died after being hit by taxis in each of the past 10 years. [1942]

  Mr. Bowis
  The number of pedestrians reported to have been hit by taxis in each of the past 10 years is shown in the following table.

  Fatal pedestrian casualties from single vehicle accidents involving a taxi and pedestrian, by severity: GB 1986–95

  Casualties

  Years

  Fatalities

  1986

  19

  1987

  17

  1988

  29

  1989

  17

  1990

  13

  1991

  17

  1992

  14

  1993

  6

  1994

  12

  1995

  8

  Rolling Stock
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what is the average age of mark 1 rolling stock currently in operation on the rail network; and if he will make a statement; [1877]

  (2) how many mark 1 rolling stock are currently in operation in the UK rail network. [1876]

  Mr. Watts
  The latest figures held centrally show the position as at 31 March 1995 and these are shown as follows. The rolling stock companies were privatised last year and the current position is a matter for them.
  370

  Summary of Mark 1 Rolling Stock on lease as 31 March 1995

  Vehicle class

  Units on lease as at 31 March 1995

  Build date

  101 (Heritage)

  76 vehicles and 1 two car unit

  1957–60

  117 (Heritage)

  14 two car units and spare vehicle, and 27 vehicles

  1957–60

  121 (Heritage)

  4 vehicles

  1960

  205

  1 two car unit and 10 three car units

  1957–59, 1962

  207

  4 two car units

  1962

  302

  28 four car units

  1958–60

  303

  45 three car units

  1959–61

  304

  6 three car units

  1960–61

  305

  15 three car units and 5 four car units

  1960

  308

  21 three car units

  1961

  309

  8 four car units

  1962–63

  411

  106 four car units

  1958–63

  412

  7 four car units

  1959–63

  421

  139 four car units

  1964–72

  422

  23 four car units

  1970–72

  423

  190 four car units

  1966–74

  Mk1 coaches

  12 vehicles

  1959–63

  Mk1 catering

  7 vehicles

  1960–61

  Motorail

  4 side loaders and 47 General Use Vehicles

  1960

  Brake Guards Vans

  27 vehicles

  1960

  National Bus Pension Fund
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what action he is taking to pass to the trustees of the National Bus pension fund the moneys paid to the Government in respect of the fund; and how much money is involved; [1924]

  (2) if he will place in the Library a copy of his response to the report of the pension ombudsman into the National Bus Company pension inquiry. [1923]

  Mr. Watts
  The pensions ombudsman has issued his final determination on a complaint against the trustees of one of the pensions funds of the former National Bus Company—the bus employees superannuation trust. The complaint relates to the arrangements under which a surplus in the fund of £103 million, after tax, was paid to my Department in 1990. The trustees, to whom the determination is directed, are in touch with my Department about it. The Department is considering the determination and taking legal advice before replying to the trustees. It may be necessary and appropriate to ask the courts to make a ruling on the complex issues involved, including the sum involved should repayment of the surplus be required.

  I will inform the House of my response to the trustees.

  Rail Safety
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on automatic train protection. [1878]

  Mr. Watts
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers to questions on this subject on 29 November 1995,Hansard, volume 267, columns 785–86, and 23 July 1996, Hansard, volume 282, columns 137–38.

  Heavy Goods Vehicles
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport under what current circumstances HGVs over 38 tonnes can use United Kingdom roads. [1573]

  Mr. Watts
  The following categories of vehicles may exceed a gross weight of 38 tonnes:

  (1) Certain 6-axle articulated vehicles and vehicle/trailer combinations carrying containers or swap-bodies to or from a railhead as part of a combined transport journey, up to a maximum weight of 44 tonnes.

  (2) Vehicles carrying abnormal indivisible loads or designed for special purposes.

  (3) Locomotives pulling trailers and when operating under a permit issued by a highway authority.

  Eurostar
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about the operation of Eurostar trains north of London. [1987]

  Mr. Watts
  The Department has received no recent representations about regional Eurostar services.

  Public Relations
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much his Department spent on(a) advertising, (b) public relations and (c) entertainment in each of the last five financial years. [1277]

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

  The spend on advertising is:

  1991–92: £4,667,000

  1992–93: £5,759,000

  1993–94: £4,256,000

  1994–95: £4,518,000

  1995–96: £6,493,000.

  The spend on hospitality is:

  1991–92: £102,000

  1992–93: £127,000

  1993–94: £220,000

  1994–95: £123,000

  1995–96: £106,000.

  Public relations and entertainment expenditure is contained within the above figures.

  The figures relate to the Central Transport Group only, and exclude information on agencies which could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Child Care
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proportion of the(a) women who are mothers and (b) men who are fathers who are employed by his Department have received any assistance from the Department with child care. [1294]

  Mr. Bowis
  Although the civil service collects statistical information on staff employed in Government Departments and executive agencies, we do not collect 372
  information on the parental status of individual staff. It would be inappropriate for us to request this information from staff.

  Female Staff
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many women are currently employed by his Department; and what proportion this is of the total. [1260]

  Mr. Bowis
  I refer the hon. Lady to the reply given by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) to the hon. Member for Cunningham, South (Mr. Donohoe) on 7 June 1996, volume 278, column 593.

  M20 Widening (Sandling)
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the latest estimate for the final cost of widening the Sandling stretch of the M20. [1882]

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer Friday 1 November]: The estimated total outturns given in the trunk roads in England 1994 review was £118.7 million, excluding VAT. It is not our practice to publish updated estimates while final accounts remain to be settled.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Nursery School Gardens
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what research she has(a) evaluated and (b) commissioned regarding the educational benefits of having nursery schools with on-site nature gardens; and if she will make a statement. [1589]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Government wish to encourage schools to make the best use of all their resources, both indoors and outside. The Department has a good record of research into the educational value and effective management of outdoor resources for all types of school, including nursery schools.

  In the mid-1980s the Department, the Countryside Commission and several local education authorities jointly commissioned research whose main conclusions reached a wide audience through the 1990 Department of Education and Science publication "The Outdoor Classroom".

  The Department intends shortly to publish further advice entitled "School Grounds: a guide to good practice". This will also draw on commissioned research and the experience of the Learning Through Landscapes trust.

  South African Undergraduates
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many undergraduate students from South Africa were studying in the United Kingdom in each of the last five years and at five-year intervals between 1970 and 1990, broken down by ethnic origin and course of study where available. [1947]
  373
  Mr. Forth
  The available information is as follows:

  Full-time students from South Africa studying at undergraduate level in the UK1

  Thousands

  1970–71

  20.1

  1975–76

  20.1

  1980–81

  0.2

  1985–86

  0.1

  1990–91

  0.4

  1991–92

  0.4

  1992–93

  0.2

  1993–94

  0.2

  1994–95

  0.2

  1995–96

  0.2

  1 For the years prior to 1994–95 the figures cover undergraduate students in all HE and FE establishments; for 1994–95 and 1995–96 the figures cover HE establishments only.

  2 Includes postgraduates.

  Readily available information on the ethnicity of students from individual overseas countries is available only for 1994–95 and 1995–96. However, levels of non-response and the magnitude of the numbers involved prevent meaningful information from being provided for students from South Africa. Similar considerations apply regarding course of study.

  Employment Service (Computers)
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what undertakings were given by the Employment Service to Mr. Thomas Docherty in respect of remedying the faults in the NUBS2—national unemployment benefit system—computer programmes; and which undertakings have been implemented to date; [1567]

  (2) how many former students and others have paid excess taxation as a result of administrative errors by the Employment Service through faults in the NUBS2—national unemployment benefit system—computer programmes; and what sums of money were involved; [1569]

  (3) for what reasons (a) students and (b) others have been given non-cumulative codes by the Employment Service on ceasing a period of unemployment benefit and taking up full-time employment; [1571]

  (4) if the Employment Service has complied with pay-as-you-earn regulations in the issue of code numbers to former students taking up work and ceasing to be on unemployment benefit; [1598]

  (5) what priority was given to the introduction of the jobseeker's allowance, in respect of work on his Department's computer system; and how many people were diverted from the NUBS2—national unemployment benefit system—programme to the JSA project; [1599]

  (6) when she first evaluated reports that the NUBS2—national unemployment benefits system—Employment Service computer system was faulty; and what was the date of inception of the system; [1566]

  (7) what reports she has received from the Inland Revenue about the taxation policy of the Employment Service regarding the accuracy of and procedures followed by the Employment Service in the initial
  374
  taxation of (a) former students and (b) others; when she evaluated these comments; and what action she took; [1568]

  (8) what factors underlie the decision to allow the Employment Service to administer the taxation of former students; and what plans she has to transfer this work to the Inland Revenue; [1570]

  (9) if she will list the faults identified in the Employment Service computer programme; when they were identified; how many clients have been affected and in what ways; and what action has been taken to remedy the deficiencies; [1572]

  (10) on what occasions the Employment Service submitted requests to the change control board to remedy errors in the Employment Service computer affecting the taxation of former students; and what responses it has received; [1597]

  (11) what changes to improve the tax system were postponed to accommodate the jobseeker's allowance programme. [1601]

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

  Letter from M. E. G Fogden to Mr. Tony Worthington, dated 4 November 1996:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has asked me to reply to your questions concerning tax issues. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  I will answer the questions in the order they will appear in Hansard.
  Question 1567:
  In his correspondence with the Agency Mr Docherty has not sought any undertakings, nor were any given.
  Question 1569:
  It is not possible to provide an exact figure of the number of clients affected. However, from mid June through to the end of July the number of claims registered reaches a peak. This peak can be attributed to full-time education leavers. Based on these figures. and taking into account the phased installation of the NUBS2 system (between February 1992 and September 1994), we estimate that up to 70,000 clients were affected in each of the four years in question. These figures assume that all ex-student clients found employment within the same tax year as they made their claim. As this will not have been the case it is fair to say that these figures are if anything over-estimates. It has proved impossible to obtain figures for the amounts of tax involved.
  Questions 1571 and 1598:

  (a) Due to a programming error with the NUBS2 computer system, students who have never worked and signed off in the same tax year were incorrectly allocated a non-cumulative tax code.

  (b) Other claimants who are unable to supply a P45 from their previous employer are correctly allocated a non-cumulative code until IR can provide us with an up to date tax record. For some people, this may not have occurred before they find new employment. This is in accordance with the PAYE regulations.

  Question 1599:
  As it was new legislation, Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) had to be given the highest priority. It was therefore essential that the Employment Service could meet all its commitments up to and following the introduction of JSA. I cannot provide details of the
  375
  number of people who moved from NUBS2 to the JSA project as there was a constant exchange of staff between the projects, according to workload and priorities.
  Question 1566:
  The Agency was first notified of a potential problem regarding tax codes in a letter from the Inland Revenue (IR) dated 19 December 1994. Investigations in January 1995 confirmed that this was indeed a fault with our system. The NUBS2 system national roll-out program began in February 1992.
  Questions 1568 and 1570:
  Since (the Act) in 1982, the Agency and previously the Department of Employment have been required to operate a modified PAYE system, and has maintained communication with IR in doing so. In the course of these exchanges, IR raised this problem with us. As always, we take on board their comments and endeavour to work with them to find solutions to any problems identified. Following their intervention, a clerical solution was developed to identify and rectify these cases. As the responsibility for the processing and payment of JSA now resides with the Benefits Agency (BA), any questions regarding future plans should be addressed to them.
  Question 1572:
  At the time of handover (7 October) to BA there were 512 identified problems with the NUBS2 system. All these problems had interim solutions. Instructions were issued to all offices in the form of a problem guide. System manuals were amended to reflect how the system was operating. In addition, assistance was available to offices at both a regional and at national level. A total of 1673 faults have been identified with NUBS2 over the period that it has been operational. It is not possible to state the number of clients affected, as system problems frequently had no impact on the client. Any system fault that adversely affected the client was always given the highest priority for rectification.
  Question 1597:
  The change request was originally submitted to the Change Control Board in March 1995. At that time it was accepted as a high priority and scheduled for introduction in October 1995. In September/October 1995 the change was reviewed in the light of the emerging priorities arising from the legislation to introduce JSA. It was then decided that since the problem would be corrected in the Jobseeker's Allowance Payments System, it should be controlled by clerical procedures. The Change Control Board reviewed the position again in January and May 1996, but on each occasion was unable to reverse their decision.
  Question 1601:
  The only other tax change involved was one regarding notifications of direct payments of Income Support from the Benefits Agency to the client. In this case additional procedures were combined with the action to take upon receipt of a direct payment notification which ensured that this problem had no affect on our clients.
  I hope this helps to clarify the position.

  Workstart
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many people are involved in the workstart programme; [2239]

  (2) if the contract for the survey being conducted by Martin Hamblin Research was awarded by competitive tender; what is its value; and when the research will be published; [2241]

  (3) how many people in the workstart programme are being questioned for the survey currently being undertaken by Martin Hamblin Research; and how many of these have agreed that their records can be handed over to a third party. [2240]
  376
  Mr. Forth
  Responsibility for the subject of the questions has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Ian McCartney, dated 4 November 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the number of people currently on Workstart, and the research and contractual issues surrounding this programme. This falls within my responsibility as Chief Executive of the Employment Service.
  Since 1993, the Employment Service has been assessing the viability of paying a subsidy to employers to recruit very long term unemployed jobseekers. Three pilot studies have been undertaken to test various delivery models, with a fourth currently underway and linked to the Project Work initiative.
  Results for the period ending September 1996 show that a total of 2,946 people have taken part in the programme.
  The contract for the research on the Workstart programme was put out to competitive tender, the successful contractors being Martin Hamblin Research. The value of the most recent survey was £8,175 (excluding VAT), the results of which are due to be published in Autumn 1997.
  In the Workstart survey recently concluded, one hundred and fifty people were interviewed. Acting as principal for the Employment Service, Martin Hamblin Research processed all monitoring information relating to the programme. This relationship is recognised under the Data Protection Act and individual data is treated anonymously at all stages of the analysis.
  Following up individuals in this manner is standard procedure. It is important to evaluate our initiatives to assess how they achieve their wider objectives, the help they give to individuals, and their value for money.
  I hope that this is helpful.

  National Vocational Qualifications
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the number of NVQs at each level awarded through youth training and training for work in each London training and enterprise council in the last two reporting years. [2302]

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

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what sources of funds she proposes grant-maintained schools will use for expansion as envisaged in clauses 3 and 5 of the Education Bill. [2323]

  Mr. Forth
  Clauses 3 and 5 of the Education Bill enable grant-maintained schools to expand their capacity by up to 50 per cent. and to add or remove nursery, sixth form or boarding provision without central approval. Where capital funding is required, schools will need to consider the full range of options, including their annual formula-based capital allocations, commercial borrowing and the private finance initiative. As to recurrent funding, the existing mechanism will continue to apply, with the overall resources available being determined through the annual public expenditure settlement.
  377

  Nursery Vouchers
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many nursery vouchers have been spent in the autumn term 1996 in(a) reception classes in primary schools, (b) nursery classes in primary schools, (c) nursery schools and (d) the voluntary sector in the city of Westminster; [1389]

  (2) how many nursery vouchers have been spent in the autumn in (a) reception classes in primary schools, (b) nursery classes in primary schools, (c) nursery schools and (d) the voluntary sector in the London borough of Wandsworth; [1384]

  (3) how many nursery vouchers have been spent in the autumn term 1996 in (a) reception classes in primary schools, (b) nursery classes in primary schools, (c) nursery schools and (d) the voluntary sector in the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea; [1386]

  (4) how many nursery vouchers have been spent in the autumn term 1996 in (a) reception classes in primary schools, (b) nursery classes in primary schools, (c) nursery schools and (d) the voluntary sector by Norfolk county council. [1388]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The number of nursery education vouchers used in each type of provider in the phase 1 local authority areas to date in the autumn term 1996 is set out in the following table. Information on voucher use broken down between maintained reception classes, nursery classes and nursery schools or between private and voluntary sector providers is not available.

  Number of children attending providers in each sector

  Norfolk

  Kensington and Chelsea

  Wandsworth

  Westminster

  Private and voluntary

  613

  117

  122

  106

  LEA-maintained

  7,283

  511

  1,615

  669

  Grant-maintained

  325

  41

  174

  0

  Special schools

  16

  0

  4

  0

  Independent

  204

  255

  294

  112

  Local authority day nurseries

  0

  21

  4

  22

  Children attending more than one provider

  108

  0

  0

  0

  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many nursery vouchers have been spent in the summer term 1996 in(a) reception classes in primary schools, (b) nursery classes in primary schools, (c) nursery schools and (d) the voluntary sector in the city of Westminster; [1391]

  (2) how many nursery vouchers have been spent in the summer term 1996 in (a) reception classes in primary schools, (b) nursery classes in primary schools, (c) nursery school and (d) the voluntary sector in the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea; [1385]

  (3) how many vouchers have been spent in the summer term in (a) reception classes in primary schools, (b) nursery classes in primary schools, (c) nursery schools and (d) the voluntary sector in the London borough of Wandsworth; [1390]
  378
  (4) how many vouchers have been spent in the summer term 1996 in (a) reception classes in primary schools, (b) nursery classes in primary schools, (c) nursery schools and (d) the voluntary sector by Norfolk county council. [1387]

  Mr. Squire
  The number of nursery education vouchers used in each type of provider in the phase 1 local authority areas in the summer term 1996 is set out in the following table. Information on voucher use broken down between maintained sector reception classes, nursery classes and nursery schools or between private and voluntary sector providers is not available.

  Number of children attending providers in each sector

  Norfolk

  Kensington and Chelsea

  Wandsworth

  Westminster

  Private and voluntary

  3,078

  255

  444

  163

  LEA-maintained

  4,188

  597

  2,043

  831

  Grant-maintained

  156

  40

  71

  0

  Special Schools

  21

  0

  4

  0

  Independent

  208

  154

  182

  99

  Local authority day nurseries

  0

  40

  34

  47

  Children attending more than one provider

  680

  3

  3

  2

  Investors in People UK
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what consultations she had with(a) small business organisations and (b) Department of Trade and Industry Ministers and officials before selecting new members and reappointing existing members to the board of Investors in People UK. [1226]

  Mr. Paice
  All new and re-appointed members of Investors in People UK were appointed under the guidelines laid down by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. The posts were advertised nationally and all organisations were free to make nominations. Final appointments were made by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment against the requirements of the posts.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if she will list those members of the Investors in People UK board whose main business activity involves the running of a small firm; [1227]

  (2) if she will list the members of the Investors in People UK board together with the businesses with which they are associated and the number of employees in each of those businesses. [1228]

  Mr. Paice
  On the board of Investors in People UK there are a number of directors whose main business activity involves the running of a firm with less than 200 employees. These include:Mrs. Susan Tood, Mr. Martin Henry, Mr. Nick Hutton, Mr. Carl Hadley, and Mr. Patrick Hall.

  The following table lists all directors and their main business. The Department does not hold details of the number of employees in all the businesses with which the directors are associated.
  379

  Investors in People UK Board Members

  Member

  Business organisation

  Sir Brian Wolfson

  Global Health Alternatives

  Mr. Don Beattie

  The BOC Group

  Mr. Anthony Dubbins

  Graphical, Media and Paper Union

  Mr. Martin Henry

  Lastolite Ltd.

  Mr. Tom Farmer

  Kwik-fit Holdings

  Mr. Carl Hadley

  British Aluminium Wire and Conductor Ltd.

  Mr. Patrick Hall

  E Roland Gurney and Partners Ltd.

  AHA Construction Services Ltd.

  Mr. Howard Hastings

  Hastings Hotel Group

  Mr. John Hazelwood

  Birds Eye Walls Ltd.

  Mr. Nick Hutton

  Greenup and Thompson Ltd.

  Mr. Terry Morgan

  British Aerospace Defence Ltd.

  Mr. Nick Stuart

  Secretary of State Representative

  Mrs. Susan Todd

  Polymedia Ltd.

  Mr. Derek Wanless

  National Westminster Bank

  Ms Mary Chapman

  Chief Executive of Investors in People UK

  Public Relations
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much her Department spent on(a) advertising, (b) public relations and (c) entertainment in each of the last five financial years. [1271]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Newport. West (Mr. Flynn) on 16 October 1996,Official Report, column 997.

  Public Selection
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list, in relation to the proposed selection of pupils for secondary schools by ability or aptitude, as provided in clause 4 and schedule 1 of the Education Bill(a) the purpose for which these two qualities are directed and (b) how these qualities differ from the purposes to which pupils not so selected are to be directed in (i) the same and (ii) other schools. [2331]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Different schools have different strengths, and some choose to specialise in particular areas of the curriculum. The provisions set out in clause 4 and schedule 1 of the Education Bill will give admission authorities the flexibility to offer a proportion of places to pupils with particular aptitudes, or of high ability in one or more subjects or generally, without seeking central approval.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what requests she has received for the imposition of a statutory duty on(a) maintained secondary schools and (b) secondary grant-maintained schools for an annual governors' review to introduce, or vary, selective admission procedures, naming the persons or bodies concerned in each case. [2333]

  Mr. Squire
  My right hon. Friend has received no such specific request. She is, however, aware that many parents, for whom it is not presently a possibility, wish to have the option of selective education. It is right that schools should consider on a regular basis whether the 380
  wishes of parents and the needs of children in their areas would be better served by the introduction extension or of selective admission arrangements.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what changes she plans to make to cash limits and running cost limits on votes within her responsibility for 1996–97. [2626]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class IX, vote 1, Department for Education and Employment: programmes and central services, will be amended as follows:

  Class: IX

  Vote: 1

  Existing cash limit: £8,744,945,000

  Change: £197,000

  New cash limit: £8,745,142,000.

  The cash limit for class IX, vote 1 will be increased by £197,000 from £8,744,945,000 to £8,745,142,000. The cash limit increase is the net effect of the following: take-up of entitlements announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 12 July 1996, Official Report, columns 326–31, under the end-year flexibility schemes for capital expenditure (£2,189,000) and EU structural funds (£177,283,000—offset by receipts from the EU and increased appropriations in aid). We have also funded a £300,000 increase in specialist schools expenditure from our non-voted provision. Transfers to other Departments include £263,000 to the Department of Health for the drugs challenge fund; £2,000,000 to the Home Office for school security measures; £67,000 to the Department of the Environment as a contribution towards the Manchester bomb appeal; and £90,000 to the Office for National Statistics to provide funding for staff moved under machinery of Government changes. These transfers to other Departments have been partially offset by a transfer of £128,000 from the Home Office to fund the costs of probation service training.

  The running costs provision for class IX, vote 1 will be increased by £558,000 from £366,705,000 to £367,263,000. This is the net effect of the transfer of £648,000 from the Department of Trade and Industry towards work done on an agency basis by the Department for Education and Employment, offset by the transfer to the Office for National Statistics of £90,000.

  The increase will be offset by savings or charged to the reserve and will not, therefore, add to the planned total of public expenditure.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Community Care
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many community care assessments have been carried out since 1 April 1992. [1102]

  Mr. Moss
  The new community care assessment arrangements came into operation on I April 1993. In the period since, up to 30 June 1996, a total of 24,983 assessments have been carried out.

  Carers
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many carers assessments have been carried out since 1 April following guidance relating to the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995 in Northern Ireland. [1103]

  Mr. Moss
  Statistics relating to cases where individual carers have requested a separate assessment of their needs are not collected centrally.

  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps are being taken to monitor the implementation of the guidance issued relating to the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995 in Northern Ireland. [1107]

  Mr. Moss
  Health and social services boards were directed by the Department to offer carers a separate assessment of their own needs if so requested, as elsewhere in the UK, from 1 April 1996. This requirement was reinforced by its inclusion in "Regional Strategy for Health and Wellbeing 1997–2002". The Department will monitor the implementation of the guidance as part of the overall strategy monitoring arrangements.

  Public Relations
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much his Department spent on(a) advertising, (b) public relations and (c) entertainment in each of the last five financial years. [1264]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information requested for the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments is listed.

  £000

  Advertising

  Public relations

  Entertainment1

  1991–92

  10,587

  1,660

  807

  1992–93

  9,562

  1,724

  872

  1993–94

  8,105

  1,898

  921

  1994–95

  8,320

  1,969

  832

  1995–96

  10,945

  2,087

  587

  1Entertainment has been defined as Official Hospitality.

  Female Staff
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many women are currently employed by his Department; and what proportion this is of the total. [1247]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information requested is contained in the table:

  Total number of staff

  Total number of female staff

  Female staff as percentage of all staff

  Non-industrial staff

  23,683

  12,371

  52.2

  Industrial staff

  3,581

  77

  2.2

  All staff

  27,264

  12,448

  45.7

  The table shows the position as at 29 October 1996.

  382

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Lenient Sentences (Appeals)
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Attorney-General how many requests to appeal against the leniency of sentences he has received this year; how many he has supported; and how many sentences have been increased as a result. [269]

  The Attorney-General
  During 1996 the Law Officers have considered the sentences imposed upon 115 defendants. Forty-nine of these cases have been referred to the Court of Appeal. In relation to the 42 cases which have been heard to date, the sentence has been increased in 32, or 76 per cent.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was his Department's estimate at the time of its introduction for the reduction in claims for incapacity benefit which would result from the introduction of the all work test; and what was the reduction of claims finally realised for each year since 1995. [756]

  Mr. Burt
  No estimate was made of the effect of the all work test on new claims for incapacity benefit. In 1995–96 there was a reduction in new incapacity benefit claims of around 100,000 over the previous year.

  Benefits Agency
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are his plans for the future of Great Ancoats street Benefits Agency office. [1958]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  This is a matter for Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Tony Lloyd, dated 1 November 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what are his plans for the future of Great Ancoats Street Benefit Agency (BA) Office.
  To enable BA to achieve improvements in customer service and further efficiency improvements as part of the Change Programme, Area Directors are looking critically at their estate in an effort to reduce running costs, whilst maintaining the service delivery to their customers.
  The need for a customer outlet at Bishopgate House, Great Ancoats Street, Manchester is currently under review. The number of callers to this office has decreased over recent months leading to a close examination of the cost effectiveness of providing a service from this office. A further reduction in callers is expected with the introduction of Job Seekers Allowance.
  No firm decisions have yet been made and a full consultation exercise with customer liaison groups and representatives has yet to be undertaken. I will ensure that you will be afforded the opportunity to comment on any more detailed proposals at that stage.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.
  383

  Payments Backdating
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to amend the regulations governing backdating of social security payments; and if he will make a statement. [180]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  We are reviewing the provisions on the backdating of benefits and will announce any change in due course.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the weather stations used for the purposes of cold weather payments. [181]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is as follows:

  Abbotsinch (Glasgow Airport)

  Aberporth

  Aultbea

  Aviemore

  Bedford

  Bingley (Wilsden)

  Boltshope Park

  Boscombe Down

  Boulmer

  Bracknell

  Braemar

  Brize Norton

  Caple Curig

  Cardinham (Bodmin)

  Carlisle

  Chivenor

  Coltishall

  Crosby

  Culdrose

  Dumfries

  Dunkeswell

  Dyce (Aberdeen Airport)

  Elmdon (Birmingham Airport)

  Eskdalemuir

  Eskmeals

  Fylingdales

  Gatwick

  Great Malvern

  Heathrow

  Herstmonceux

  Hum (Bournemouth Airport)

  Kinloss

  Kirkwall

  Leeds

  Lerwick

  Leuchars

  Linton on Ouse

  Liscombe

  Loch Glascarnoch

  Lyneham

  Machrihanish

  Manston

  Marham

  384

  Mumbles Head

  Newcastle

  Nottingham

  Plymouth

  Portland

  Rhoose (Cardiff Airport)

  Rhyl

  Ringway (Manchester Airport)

  Scilly, St. Mary's

  Sennybridge

  Shawbury

  Southampton

  St. Mawgan

  St. Catherine's Point

  Stansted

  Stornoway Airport

  Thorney Island

  Tiree

  Tulloch Bridge

  Turnhouse (Edinburgh Airport)

  Valley

  Waddington

  Wattisham

  West Freugh

  Wick Airport

  Wittering

  Yeovilton

  War Widow's Pension
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of his total liability for war widows' pension from the changes brought in by the Pensions Act 1995 since 19 July 1995; and what has been the actual expenditure over that period. [183]

  Mr. Heald
  The estimated cost of restoration of war widows' pensions under the Pensions Act 1995 to the end of September 1996 is £30 million.

  Information on actual expenditure to date on such pensions is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many persons have successfully claimed a war widow's pension on the basis of the provisions of the Pensions Act 1995. [184]

  Mr. Heald
  As at 30 September 1996, 14,474 successful claims for restoration of a war widow's pension have been made under the provisions of the Pensions Act 1995.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total budget for war widows' pensions in the last year for which figures are available; and how many claimants were involved. [185]

  Mr. Heald
  Expenditure on war widows' pensions in 1994–95 was £293 million. As at 31 March 1995, 48,405 war widows' pensions were in payment.
  385

  Fraud Hotline
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the projected annual cost to operate the freephone hotline number of social security fraud. [186]

  Mr. Heald
  The cost of running the national benefit fraud hotline is expected to be in the region of £1.5 million per annum.

  The savings from early calls to the service is almost £1 million. It is estimated that total savings so far will be in the region of £5 million.

  Female Staff
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many women are currently employed by his Department; and what proportion this is of the total. [1246]

  Mr. Burt
  Excluding casual staff, 66,163 women—68 per cent. of the total—were employed by the Department at 1 October 1996.

  Child Care
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of the(a) women who are mothers and (b) men who are fathers who are employed by his Department have received assistance from the Department with child care. [1280]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The information is not available.

  Public Relations
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much his Department spent on(a)advertising, (b) public relations and (c) entertainment in each of the last five financial years. [1263]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is in the lists:

  Advertising

  1991–92: £4,834,813

  1992–93: £4,452,277

  1993–94: £5,964,988

  1994–95: £3,597,308

  1995–96: £6,383,467.

  Entertainment (Official hospitality)

  1991–92: £91,934

  1992–93: £175,901

  1993–94: £165,565

  1994–95: £127,139

  1995–96: £99,929.

  The Department does not incur expenditure on public relations.

  Appeal Tribunals
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many appeals concerning the all work test were heard by social security appeal tribunals in the March 1996 quarter; and how many and what percentage were decided in the appellant's favour, where the appellant(a) attended the hearing but was not represented, (b)was represented but did not attend, (c) attended and was represented and (d) did not attend and was not represented. [2023]
  386
  Mr. Burt
  The information is in the table.

  Quarter ending 31 March 1996

  Total

  Decided in appellants favour

  Percentage

  Appeals Heard

  7,378

  3,407

  46.2

  Appellant only attended

  3,028

  1,403

  46.3

  Representative only attended

  96

  44

  45.8

  Appellant and representative attended

  2,741

  1,846

  67.3

  Not attended

  1,513

  114

  7.5

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many appeals were heard by disability appeal tribunals in the last quarter for which information is available; and how many and what percentage were decided in the appellant's favour, where the appellant(a) attended the hearing but was not represented, (b) was represented but did not attend, (c) attended and was represented and (d) did not attend and was not represented. [2024]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is in the table.

  Quarter ending 31 March 1996

  Total

  Decided in appellants favour

  Percentage

  Appeals Heard and decided1

  5,175

  3,197

  61.7

  Appellant only attended

  1,357

  757

  55.7

  Representative only attended

  507

  360

  71.0

  Appellant and representative attended

  2,641

  1,945

  73.6

  Not attended by appellant or representative

  670

  135

  20.1

  1There were 7,385 appeals heard in the quarter ending 31 March 1996. A total of 5,175 were decided and 2,210 were adjourned.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which venues have ceased to be used by social security appeal tribunals since January 1996; and which venues it is proposed to cease using. [2025]

  Mr. Evans
  The following nine venues have ceased to be used by social security appeal tribunals since January 1996: Mansfield, Bridgend, Merthyr Tydfil, Pontypridd, Gloucester, Yeovil, Huddersfield, Scunthorpe and Paisley.

  The independent tribunal service has no plans to close any other venues.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will place in the Library copies of the standard letters sent to appellants by clerks of social security appeal tribunals, disability appeal tribunals and child support appeal tribunals directing them to notify the clerk if they wish an oral hearing to be held. [2027]

  Mr. Evans
  These standard letters are the responsibility of the president of the independent tribunal service, His Honour Judge Bassingthwaighte, who will write to the hon. Member shortly.

  Appeal Forms
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will place in the Library copies of the appeal forms approved by him for the purposes of
  387
  regulation 3(1) of the Social Security (Adjudication) Regulations 1995 as amended, with effect from 21 October. [2026]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  A copy of the current appeal form has been placed in the Library.

SCOTLAND

  Dounreay Nuclear Plant
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what notification he has received of prosecutions to be undertaken under(a) the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 and (b) the Radioactive Substances Act 1993 by the procurator fiscal for the nuclear installations inspectorate and Scottish Environmental Protection Agency in regard to radiological incidents at the Dounreay nuclear plant. [1089]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I am advised by my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate that the procurator fiscal at Wick has received a report from the nuclear installations inspectorate concerning the installation at Dounreay. The procurator fiscal is investigating the matter and will report the outcome of his inquiries to Crown counsel for instructions.

  Clydebank and Anniesland Colleges
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current salary of the principal of Clydebank college. [1602]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The annual accounts for 1995–96 for Clydebank college disclose that the principal's remuneration, excluding employers' pension contributions, was £64,000 for the financial year.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the role of the college boards in respect of the merger of Clydebank and Anniesland colleges. [1606]

  Mr. Robertson
  In the event that both boards of management decide to pursue the possibility of a merger, they would be required to undertake a full option appraisal. This would have to be undertaken in line with the Scottish's Office's merger principles and criteria, which were sent to the Association of Scottish Colleges in June of this year. These criteria require full consultation with students, staff and relevant local and national interests.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask The Secretary of State for Scotland what salary has been offered to the incoming principal of Clydebank college; and what contribution to it will be made by the Scottish Office. [1604]

  Mr. Robertson
  The salary of a college principal is a matter for the college board of management. The Scottish Office will not be contributing to the salary of the incoming principal of Clydebank college, but will be providing financial assistance to the college to enable the incoming principal to take up post before the retiring principal leaves, thus permitting a period of overlap. The scale of this assistance has still to be determined.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current salary of the principal of Anniesland college. [1603]
  388
  Mr. Robertson
  The annual accounts for 1995–96 for Anniesland college disclose that the principal's remuneration, excluding employers' pension contribution, was £48,000 for the financial year.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on what date the principal of Anniesland college accepted the post of principal of Clydebank college; on what date his representative met the principals and chairs of both colleges; and on whose initiative the meeting was arranged. [1607]

  Mr. Robertson
  The principal of Anniesland college accepted in principle the post of principal of Clydebank college on 9 September. The principals and chairmen of both colleges met, at his invitation, an official of the Scottish Office on 12 September, for exploratory discussions on the issues that the boards would have to consider if they decided to examine merger.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what have been the financial terms on which the principal of Clydebank college has accepted early retirement; and what contribution the Scottish Office has made to this settlement. [1605]

  Mr. Robertson
  The terms of any severance package are matters for the college's board of management to determine with the principal.

  From the current phase of the colleges restructuring fund the Scottish Office has provisionally allocated Clydebank college £10,677 towards the principal's lump sum enhancement.

  M80
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to announce the route for the new M80; and if he will make a statement. [1754]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The results of the consultation exercise recently carried out on the two route options are still being analysed. My right hon. Friend will consider the merits of each route once this and other relevant information is available to him.

  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many representations he received on the two options proposed for the M80 extension between Stepps and Haggs; how these were distributed between the two options; and if he will make a statement. [1221]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 1 November 1996]: Forty-three representative bodies gave evidence at the consultation forum held to determine views on the two route options. In addition, over 800 letters have been received. A number of concerns were raised in relation to each of the route options, and analysis of the responses is still in progress.

  Mr. Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to announce his decision on the line of route for the proposed M80 motorway between Stepps and Haggs; and if he will make a statement. [1224]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 1 November 1996]: The results of the consultation exercise recently carried out on the two route options are still being analysed. My right hon. Friend will consider the merits of each route once this and other relevant information is available to him.
  389

  Castle Urquhart
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to reach a conclusion on Historic Scotland's proposals for car parking and related commercial developments at Castle Urquhart, Inverness-shire; and if he will make a statement. [1591]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This is not a matter for my right hon. Friend, as the application is currently before the planning authority, Highland council. I understand that the council is in the process of setting up a working party to meet with Historic Scotland to consider the way forward.

  "Wildlife and Agriculture in Scotland"
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what response he has sent to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds about the recommendations in "Wildlife and Agriculture in Scotland: A Secure Future". [1003]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  My noble Friend the Minister with responsibility for agriculture and the environment has been sent a copy of this report, which he hopes to discuss with representatives of the RSPB in due course.

  Government Expenditure and Revenue Document
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will provide the same information for the 1994–95 "Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland" report as that provided for the 1993–94 report, referred to in his answer of 17 October,Official Report, columns 1141–42; and if he will make a statement; [1463]

  (2) how many of the 2,250 copies of the "Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland" report were distributed in response to people who had written in requesting one and how many were sent out unsolicited; how many staff, and at what grades were involved in the research and writing of the document; what are the average annual costs of employing members of staff at these grades, including the share of running costs and support costs; what percentage of these staff's annual time was concerned with the report and related work; and if he will make a statement. [1464]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Scottish Office produced 2,500 copies of the report "Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland, 1994–95". The publication date was Monday 21 October 1996 and, to Tuesday 29 October 1996, approximately 600 copies have been distributed. The cost of design, printing and publishing the document was £5,384 and the cost of the launch and publicity was £25. The cost of research staff time involved in its production cannot be identified separately.

  Accurate information on the distribution of the "Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland, 1993–94" report is not available by the type of detail requested.

  The work undertaken by staff on the "Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland" reports was carried out as an integral part of their normal work of providing economic advice and statistics and cannot separately be identified.
  390

  Female Staff
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many women are currently employed by his Department; and what proportion this is of the total. [1258]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  At 1 April 1996, there were 2,200 female staff in the Scottish Office core and its executive agencies other than the Scottish Prison Service: female staff accounted for 42 per cent. of the total. At that date, there were 615 female staff in the Scottish Prison Service, accounting for 14 per cent. of the total.

  Child Care
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of the(a) women who are mothers and (b) men who are fathers who are employed by his Department have received assistance from the Department with child care. [1292]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Office operates a number of family-friendly working practices that indirectly assist staff with child care. These include the provision of two contracted workplace nurseries, flexible working hours, alternative working patterns, maternity-paternity leave and paid-unpaid special leave. We do not hold statistics on the total number of mothers or fathers who have benefited from these arrangements.

  Green-field Sites
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the total area of green-field sites he expects to be developed in the next five years. [1222]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 1 November I996]: My right hon. Friend has made no estimates of this nature.

  Home Affairs Budget
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much and what percentage of the Scottish Office budget has been allocated to home affairs in each year since 1990 at 1996–97 prices; and if he will list the categories of expenditure. [1476]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 31 October 1996]: The table sets out expenditure by the Scottish Office Home Department, other than on social work services, and Scottish Courts Administration, together with total expenditure within the Secretary of State's responsibility. The table includes expenditure by central Government only: it does not include expenditure by local authorities. Comparisons over years are affected by the Secretary of State taking on responsibility for additional functions. The principal instances are set out in full in chapter 1 of the publication "Serving Scotland's Needs—The Government's Expenditure Plans 1996–97 to 1998–99", Cm 3214, a copy of which is in the Library.
  391

  £ million, 1996–97 prices

  1990–91 Outturn

  1991–92 Outturn

  1992–93 Outturn

  1993–94 Outturn

  1994–95 Outturn

  1995–96 Outturn

  1996–97 Plans

  TOTAL EXPENDITURE WITHIN THE SECRETARY OF STATE'S RESPONSIBILITY

  11,758

  13,301

  13,849

  14,376

  14,677

  14,734

  14,494

  HOME AFFAIRS

  Central Government expenditure

  Legal Aid Fund

  78

  87

  115

  126

  131

  129

  133

  Legal Aid Administration

  7

  8

  8

  9

  7

  7

  7

  CICB Compensation

  21

  23

  23

  21

  19

  23

  36

  CICB Administration

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  3

  Other services related to crime

  2

  2

  2

  2

  3

  3

  5

  Scottish Prison Service

  150

  157

  148

  164

  172

  165

  174

  Police

  20

  22

  20

  25

  25

  27

  27

  Fire Service

  2

  2

  3

  3

  3

  4

  4

  Civil Defence

  4

  3

  2

  2

  2

  1

  1

  Miscellaneous Services

  1

  1

  1

  2

  1

  2

  1

  Police Superannuation

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  0

  Fire Superannuation

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Scottish Courts

  72

  83

  86

  85

  62

  60

  59

  Central Government grants to local authorities current grants

  Police

  260

  267

  276

  288

  286

  294

  316

  Civil Defence

  4

  3

  4

  3

  3

  3

  3

  Capital grants

  Civil Defence

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Police

  1

  0

  2

  1

  1

  1

  0

  Total home affairs expenditure

  690

  660

  694

  733

  718

  740

  769

  HOME AFFAIRS PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL EXPENDITURE

  WITHIN THE SECRETARY OF STATE'S RESPONSIBILITY

  5.9 per cent.

  5.0 per cent.

  5.0 per cent.

  5.1 per cent.

  4.9 per cent.

  5.0 per cent.

  5.3 per cent.

  Figures adjusted to 1996–97 prices using the GDP deflator.

  Brown-field Sites
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the total area of brown-field sites which is available for redevelopment; and what estimate he has made of that area to be redeveloped in each of the next five years. [1223]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 1 November 1996]: My right hon. Friend has made no estimates of this nature. However, the hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that information on the amount of vacant and derelict land in Scotland is reproduced in the Scottish Office statistical bulletin environment series "Scottish Vacant Derelict Land Survey 1995", published in October this year. A copy is available in the House Library.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each district and islands council area the final outturn expenditure for 1995–96 in(a) the housing revenue account and (b) the non-housing revenue account. [1616]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 1 November 1996]: The latest information provided by local authorities on outturn expenditure is set out in the table.

  Final outturn expenditure 1995–96

  Authority

  HRA

  Non-HRA

  Borders

  Berwickshire

  0.349

  0.500

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  1.730

  0.703

  Roxburgh

  3.019

  0.837

  Tweeddale

  1.066

  0.693

  392

  Final outturn expenditure 1995–96

  Authority

  HRA

  Non-HRA

  Central

  Clackmannan

  3.465

  0.718

  Falkirk

  11.911

  1.566

  Stirling

  7.908

  1.904

  Dumfries and Calloway

  Annandale and Eskdale

  2.542

  0.467

  Nithsdale

  5.362

  1.045

  Stewartry

  1.278

  0.270

  Wigtown

  3.210

  0.713

  Fife

  Dunfermline

  7.720

  0.912

  Kirkcaldy

  8.713

  1.005

  North East Fife

  2.612

  1.208

  Grampian

  Aberdeen

  19.016

  4.423

  Banff and Buchan

  4.948

  1.454

  Gordon

  5.006

  1.871

  Kincardine and Deeside

  5.069

  0.687

  Moray

  4.847

  1.170

  Highland

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  1.113

  0.503

  Caithness

  2.432

  0.714

  Inverness

  4.955

  0.876

  Lochaber

  3.692

  0.703

  Nairn

  0.825

  0.145

  Ross and Cromarty

  2.701

  3.064

  Skye and Lochalsh

  1.036

  1.057

  Sutherland

  1.355

  0.749

  Lothian

  East Lothian

  6.606

  1.385

  Edinburgh

  30.650

  21.401

  Midlothian

  5.544

  0.711

  West Lothian

  6.860

  0.914

  393

  Final outturn expenditure 1995–96

  Authority

  HRA

  Non-HRA

  Strathclyde

  Argyll and Bute

  4.704

  5.683

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  1.616

  0.184

  Clydebank

  5.576

  0.340

  Clydesdale

  3.690

  0.810

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  1.683

  0.687

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  3.178

  0.285

  Cunninghame

  8.340

  3.718

  Dumbarton

  6.621

  1.146

  East Kilbride

  1.702

  0.410

  Eastwood

  1.495

  0.201

  Glasgow

  90.404

  24.009

  Hamilton

  10.089

  2.177

  Inverclyde

  10.683

  4.300

  Killmarnock and Loudoun

  6.024

  0.596

  Kyle and Carrick

  7.820

  0.935

  Monklands

  14.358

  1.172

  Motherwell

  15.547

  0.966

  Renfrew

  23.986

  4.361

  Strathkelvin

  5.000

  0.770

  Tayside

  Angus

  4.900

  0.858

  Dundee

  15.610

  9.559

  Perth and Kinross

  6.046

  2.077

  Number of children in the Nursery Voucher Scheme Pilot Areas aged 4 years old1 in receipt of preschool provision

  Registered social work facilities

  Local authority area

  Local authority schools2,3

  Other local authority provision3,4

  Independent schools 2

  Private provision4

  Voluntary provision 4

  East Renfrewshire

  366

  75

  16

  121

  288

  Highland

  90

  2

  0

  7

  128

  North Ayrshire

  325

  28

  0

  408

  823

  1 Age as at 31 December.

  2 Numbers at September 1995.

  3 Includes nursery schools/classes and special schools.

  4 Numbers at November 1994.

  5LA figures include jointly administered facilities and day nurseries.

  Mrs. Liddell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what notification he has received in respect of pre-school providers that have gone out of business as a result of competition from other providers in the pilot areas of the nursery voucher scheme. [1825]

  Mr. Robertson
  [holding answer 1 November 1996]: None.

  Mrs. Liddell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of the vouchers that have been redeemed to date, have been redeemed in(a) the public, (b) the private and (c) the voluntary sector. [1829]

  Mr. Robertson
  [holding answer 1 November 1996]: Of the vouchers for which claims had been paid by 25 October, 61 per cent. had been used in the public sector, 13 per cent. in the private sector and 26 per cent. in the voluntary sector. A number of claims had not yet been made, and these proportions will change as outstanding vouchers are submitted.

  Mrs. Liddell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) parents and (b) eligible children in each of the pilot areas of the nursery voucher scheme have not taken up the entitlement to apply for a voucher. [1824]
  394

  Final outturn expenditure 1995–96

  Authority

  HRA

  Non-HRA

  Islands Areas

  Orkney

  0.770

  1.182

  Shetland

  4.534

  0.261

  Western Isles

  3.165

  4.674

  Scotland

  425.081

  125.729

  Nursery Vouchers
  Mrs. Liddell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many four-year-olds were in(a) private, (b) voluntary and (c) local authority pre-school provision in each of the pilot areas of the nursery voucher scheme, for the latest date for which figures are available prior to the issuing of vouchers. [1823]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 1 November 1996]: The information is set out in the table, except for Argyll and Bute where information is not separately identifiable for the pilot area. It is important to note that children may attend more than one type of pre-school provision.

  Mr. Robertson
  [holding answer 1 November 1996]: Precise information on the numbers of eligible parents is not available. The four pilot authorities have estimated that there are 3,763 eligible children in the pilot areas. As at 25 October, 3,716 books of vouchers had been issued.

  Mrs. Liddell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from pre-school providers outside the pilot areas whose rolls have decreased as a result of the piloting phase of the nursery voucher scheme; and if he will list the providers. [1826]

  Mr. Robertson
  [holding answer 1 November 1996]: My right hon. Friend has received one such representation.

  Mrs. Liddell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many providers have received initial validation to accept voucher-bearing children in(a) public, (b) private and (c) voluntary sectors. [1828]

  Mr. Robertson
  [holding answer 1 November 1996]: Centres in the pilot areas are registered for the use of vouchers only if they are already subject to inspection by HM inspectorate, or if the HMI, having examined its profile of education provision, is satisfied of their capacity to deliver quality education. There are currently 152 centres registered as eligible to redeem vouchers—64 public sector, 18 private sector and 70 voluntary sector.

  Pre-school Education
  Mrs. Liddell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many three-year-olds were in receipt of pre-school education in the period 1994–95; and how many have registered since August 1996, broken down by(a) type of provision and (b) unitary authority. [1827]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 1 November 1996]: Information on three-year-olds attending education authority and independent schools, as

  Number of pupils in Scotland aged 3 years old1 in receipt of preschool education

  Education authority2

  Nursery schools

  Special schools

  Independent schools

  Education authority

  September 1994

  September 1995

  September 1994

  September 1995

  September 1994

  September 1995

  Scotland

  12,927

  12,634

  179

  152

  558

  559

  Aberdeen City

  473

  488

  21

  12

  66

  92

  Aberdeenshire

  155

  141

  10

  15

  0

  17

  Angus

  86

  92

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Argyll and Bute

  40

  53

  9

  2

  21

  38

  Clackmannanshire

  209

  171

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Dumfries and Galloway

  187

  178

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Dundee City

  795

  721

  6

  0

  0

  0

  East Ayrshire

  500

  466

  6

  2

  0

  0

  East Dunbartonshire

  54

  40

  0

  6

  79

  75

  East Lothian

  292

  340

  0

  0

  1

  0

  East Renfrewshire

  154

  155

  0

  0

  5

  6

  Edinburgh, City of

  1,491

  1,574

  7

  6

  220

  153

  Falkirk

  342

  344

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Fife

  744

  775

  4

  2

  22

  18

  Glasgow City

  3,557

  3,198

  25

  27

  63

  89

  Highland

  125

  130

  2

  4

  0

  0

  Inverclyde

  203

  183

  0

  0

  3

  0

  Midlothian

  311

  321

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Moray

  69

  42

  1

  0

  22

  14

  North Ayrshire

  134

  150

  0

  1

  0

  0

  North Lanarkshire

  567

  590

  35

  41

  0

  0

  Orkney Islands

  45

  41

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Perth and Kinross

  261

  268

  2

  5

  17

  11

  Renfrewshire

  422

  392

  10

  5

  0

  0

  Scottish Borders

  31

  37

  2

  0

  0

  2

  Shetland Islands

  67

  91

  0

  0

  0

  0

  South Ayrshire

  90

  128

  2

  5

  22

  24

  South Lanarkshire

  437

  348

  31

  16

  5

  7

  Stirling

  145

  199

  0

  0

  12

  13

  West Dunbartonshire

  414

  428

  1

  0

  0

  0

  West Lothian

  527

  550

  4

  3

  0

  0

  Western Isles

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1 Age as at 31 December.

  2 Includes a small number of Grant-Aided and Self-Governing Schools.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Sitting Times
  Mr. Dixon
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will publish in the Official Report the letter sent to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) giving details of the number of days and hours the House has sat in each of the last 10 years. [1656]

  Mr. Newton
  The information requested by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey in his oral question to me of 28 October is as follows. A copy of my letter to him of 28 October has been placed in the Library of the House.
  396
  at September 1994 and September 1995, is set out in the table by unitary authority. While information is collected centrally on the numbers of three-year-olds attending other voluntary and private sector centres, it is not currently possible to identify whether a three-year-old in such a voluntary or private sector centre is receiving education as distinct from care. Information on the number of three-year-olds who have enrolled for pre-school education since August 1996 is not yet available.

  Session

  Days

  Hours

  1986–87

  109

  930

  1987–88

  218

  1,978

  1988–89

  176

  1,581

  1989–90

  167

  1,468

  1990–91

  160

  1,374

  1991–92

  83

  696

  1992–93

  240

  1,985

  1993–94

  154

  1,258

  1994–95

  159

  1,313

  1995–96

  146

  1,278

  For purposes of comparison with other Sessions, 1986–87 and 1987–88, and 1991–92 and 1992–93 should be aggregated. In each case, these comprised one short and one long Session.
  397

  Sitting Times

    Parliamentary Questions
    Mr. Allen
    To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will review the procedure which prohibits the tabling of questions during prorogation. [1193]

    Mr. Newton
    The hon. Gentleman may wish to draw this point to the attention of the Procedure Committee.

  HEALTH

    Mental Health
    Dr. Lynne Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the Royal College of Psychiatrists has finalised its arrangements for the training of its members in mental health law. [1035]

    Mr. Burns
    No.

    Dr. Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if research into the decision making and outcomes of mental health review tribunals has started; who is conducting it; and when it will be completed. [1031]

    Mr. Burns
    The research which is being undertaken by the Policy Studies Institute began in January 1996 and will be completed by 31 March 1998.

    Dr. Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the numbers of psychiatric patients detained(a) under the Mental Health Act 1983 and (b) under other legislation, as a percentage of all admissions to NHS hospitals for psychiatric treatment, in the financial year 1989–90. [1036]

    Mr. Burns
    The information requested is shown in the table:

    Formal admissions to NHS facilities for the financial year 1989–901

    England

    Number of admissions

    Admission as a percentage of all admissions3

    Formal admissions under the Mental Health Act 1983

    16,974

    7

    Other Act admissions2

    59

    0

    1Excludes admissions into Special hospitals.

    2Other Acts includes Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act 1991, Section 47 of the National Assistance Act 1948, Section 1,2 and 12 of the Children and Young Persons act 1969, children Act 1989 and Section 3 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973.

    3All admissions is taken as number of admissions to mental illness and learning disability specialities.

    Dr. Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many psychiatric patients aged between 16 and 64 years were(a) discharged from hospital in the 90-day period April to June for which returns are being collected by the NHS executive and (b) readmitted to hospital within 90 days of discharge. [1034]

    Mr. Burns
    Information on emergency psychiatric readmissions to hospital within 90 days of discharge was collected for the first time during the first quarter of 1996–97.
    398
    Between April and June, in the region of 27,000 patients aged 16–64 had been discharged from the care of a psychiatric specialist. During the same period in the region of 5,000 patients aged 16 to 64 were readmitted as emergencies to the care of a psychiatric specialist within 90 days of previous discharge.

    Heart and Circulatory Disease
    Mr. Ian McCartney
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what has been the cost to United Kingdom industry, in each of the last five years for which figures are available, of sickness absence caused by heart and circulatory disease; [1131]

    (2) how many working days are estimated to have been lost, in each of the last five years for which figures are available, due to heart and circulatory diseases. [1130]

    Mr. Horam
    This information is not collected centrally.

    Health Checks (Children)
    Mr. Blunkett
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children have received health checks in each of the past five years. [1099]

    Mr. Burns
    This information is not collected centrally.

    Wheelchair Vouchers
    Mr. Ian McCartney
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what will be the basis for determining the value of the proposed wheelchair voucher. [1135]

    Mr. Burns
    It will be the cost to the national health service of providing a new wheelchair that, in the opinion of the NHS therapist or other qualified professional, would meet the clinical needs of the user.

    Speech Therapists
    Ms Jowell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many speech therapists per 1,000 population there are in(a) inner London, (b) outer London, (c) Liverpool, (d) Manchester, (e) Newcastle, (f) Leeds and (g) Birmingham. [1126]

    Mr. Horam
    The precise information requested is not available centrally.

    The number of speech therapists employed by the NHS hospital and community health services by health authority areas is available from the Department of Health's statistical tables "NHS Hospital and Community Health Services staff by health authority areas, England 1995"—the latest year available—copies of which are available in the Library. Information on the estimated 1995 population in health authorities is also available from the Library in "Office for National Statistics Monitor for Population and Health: Mid-1995 population estimates for re-organised local and health authority areas in England and Wales".

    The number of speech therapists per head of population within health authorities should be interpreted with caution because in some cases the population served by the organisations in each authority may be greater than the population of the health authority itself.

    Strokes
    Mr. Allen
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are his Department's latest estimates of the number of people who have had strokes in each of the latest three years for which figures are available. [1450]

    Mr. Horam
    Information on the total number of finished consultant episodes with primary diagnosis cerebrovascular disease in national health service hospitals in England is shown in the list:

    1992–93: 137,396

    1993–94: 145,761

    1994–95: 140,413.

    Source:
    Hospital Episode Statistics, Department of Health.

    Mr. Allen
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met the Stroke Association; and what matters were discussed. [1451]

    Mr. Horam
    The Secretary of State has not met the Stroke Association in the last year.

    Mr. Allen
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the research commissioned by his Department on(a) strokes and (b) related illnesses in each of the last three years. [1448]

    Mr. Horam
    The information requested is in the following list.

    1996

    The influence of developmental indices and blood pressure in young adults on risk of stroke and ischaemic heart disease in later life.

    Multi-centre trial of out-patient occupational therapy for stroke.

    A prospective study of cardiovascular risk-conducted within the framework of the British Regional Heart Study (on—going since 1985).

    1995

    A study of discharge from hospital using stroke as a tracer condition (on-going since 1991).

    Snoring, obstructive sleep and sleep apnoea—stroke.

    Incidence of aetiology and management of stroke.

    A detailed investigation of implementation of research-based knowledge by practice nurses in relation to risk factors for CVD and stroke.

    Does psychological treatment improve the outcome after stroke?

    Development of a measure of social outcome following a stroke.

    Stroke Collaborative Review Group: rehabilitation.

    Treatment of visual neglect after stroke.

    Validation of the stroke drivers screening assessment for patients with acquired neurological disability.

    Screening for stroke.

    A controlled comparison of alternative strategies and stroke rehabilitation.

    Can the effectiveness of inter-disciplinary team care for stroke be improved?

    A policy for the drug treatment of high blood pressure.

    Early prediction of rehabilitation needs following acute stroke.

    Social. environmental, psychological and physical approaches to stroke rehabilitation.

    400

    1994

    The Tees Stroke register.

    The incidence, natural history resource use and outcome of stroke.

    The treatment of urinary incontinence in stroke patients.

    Formulation of guidelines for dental rehabilitation of stroke patients.

    Development of an early warning discharge policy following acute stroke.

    Co-ordinated stroke audit and research (COSTAR).

    Rehabilitation of arm function.

    Mr. Allen
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what standards apply to the treatment of strokes; and what steps he is taking to ensure consistency of treatment throughout the United Kingdom. [1452]

    Mr. Horam
    Clinical standards in the treatment of all diseases are primarily a matter for the relevant professional bodies. Decisions about the best type of treatment to be given in individual cases is for the clinician concerned in consultation with his patient, where this is practicable. The Department's clinical effectiveness programme will help to ensure that all patients have access to services of proven effectiveness, enabling the best use to be made of available resources.

    Standards of treatment in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Scotland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

    Mr. Allen
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assistance his Department gives to the Stroke Association. [1449]

    Mr. Horam
    The Stroke Association has received regular funding from the Department for projects to enhance the provision of stroke and coronary heart disease services in primary care. The most recent grant came to an end in 1995–96.

    Health Authority Funding
    Mr. Allen
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what proposals he has in respect of the future funding of Nottingham district health authority; and if he will make a statement; [1425]

    (2) if he will list those district health authorities which currently receive more than 100 per cent. funding on the current formula, giving the percentage funding in each case; [1423]

    (3) which district health authorities with teaching hospitals in England are receiving less than 100 per cent. funding using the current formula, giving the percentage funding in each case; [1422]

    (4) what additional money would be available to Nottingham district health authority if it were funded to 100 per cent. on the current formula (a) in the current year and (b) in 1997. [1424]
    401
    Mr. Horam
    If Nottingham health authority were at its weighted capitation target in 1996–97, it would have received an extra £7,029,000.

    No decisions have been made regarding 1997–98 allocations or for future years. These decisions are taken annually in the light of the overall level of resources available to the NHS. We are committed to the principle of achieving equity in resource allocation based on weighted capitation as soon as practicable.

    Tables showing (i) those health authorities above their weighted capitation target and (ii) those health authorities with a teaching hospital situated within their boundary, which are below their weighted capitation target, will be placed in the Library. However, weighted capitation targets do not reflect any element for the cost of medical education and research. These are funded separately.

    Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
    Mr. Martyn Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to use the test for the molecular marker specific for new variant CJD to screen(a) all cases of spongiform-like disease in humans and (b) all available preserved specimens of brains from cases of degenerative brain disease; and if he will make a statement. [1658]

    Mr. Horam
    This technique has yet to be fully evaluated and more work needs to be done, including the replication of the technique in other laboratories, before its usefulness as a practical screening tool for new variant Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease can be established. This work will be a priority in our centrally directed programme.

    Maternal Deaths
    Mrs. Wise
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) direct maternal deaths and (b) indirect maternal deaths registered in England and Wales in 1991 and each subsequent year were of women born in (i) the United Kingdom, (ii) the Republic of Ireland, (iii) the new Commonwealth and Pakistan, (iv) other countries and (v) unstated countries. [1838]

    Mr. Horam
    The number of direct and indirect maternal deaths in England and Wales for the period 1991 to 1993, the time scale covered by the latest report of the confidential inquiry into maternal deaths was 113 and 85 respectively. Information on country of birth was not available.

    Maternal deaths occurring from 1994 onwards are the subject of a continuing inquiry and details will be published in the next report. due in 1998.

    Head Lice Treatment
    Mrs. Ann Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the reason for the withdrawal of the head lice treatment, derbac, from the NHS prescription list. [1943]

    Mr. Malone
    Derbac is available on the national health service for the treatment of head lice.

    Obstetric Interventions
    Mrs. Wise
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he has issued to NHS trusts in connection with obstetric interventions(a) without the consent of and (b) against the expressed wish of the patient. [1843]
    402
    Mr. Horam
    None. Advice on clinical issues is a matter for the royal colleges and professions involved. It is for clinicians to determine the most appropriate form of treatment, including medical interventions, for individual patients. As far as possible, this should be done with the knowledge and consent of the patient concerned. On the rare occasions when this is not possible, this is ultimately a matter for the courts.

    Acute Care
    Sir John Gorst
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his Department's current definition of acute care. [1002]

    Mr. Horam
    Clinical practice varies throughout the national health service. Different hospitals use the term "acute care" in different ways.

    Keep Warm, Keep Well Campaign
    Mr. Hinchliffe
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the projected budget for the keep warm, keep well publicity campaign. [182]

    Mr. Horam
    The projected spend for the keep warm. keep well publicity campaign in 1996–97 is £550,000.

    Benefits Agency
    Mr. Hinchliffe
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice he has issued to local authorities regarding the duties of social services departments where the Benefits Agency out-of-hours service is inoperative. [1429]

    Mr. Burns
    The impact of the possible withdrawal of the Benefits Agency's out-of-hours service is being assessed.

    Child Care
    Mrs. Roche
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of the(a) women who are mothers and (b) men who are fathers who are employed by his Department have received assistance from the Department with child care. [1286]

    Mr. Horam
    Information of the parental status of staff is not available.

    Public Relations
    Mrs. Roche
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much his Department spent on(a) advertising, (b) public relations and (c) entertainment in each of the last five financial years. [1269]

    Mr. Horam
    Information for the financial years 1991–92 to 1995–96 is shown in the table. Functions which are commonly associated with public relations for the Department of Health are carried out by the Department's press and publicity division. The division now includes the public inquiry office and provides direct marketing, print, storage and distribution services for the whole Department. The running costs figures are therefore
    403
    not comparable over the years. The Department does not have an entertainment budget but official hospitality expenditure has been included which contains both general hospitality and working lunches.

    £ million

    Financial year

    Total advertising expenditure

    Press and publicity manpower and running costs

    Official hospitality expenditure

    1991–92

    8.70

    1.50

    0.17

    1992–93

    5.05

    1.75

    0.25

    1993–94

    6.10

    1.90

    0.22

    1994–95

    4.30

    2.00

    0.23

    1995–96

    2.35

    3.00

    0.32

    Deregulation
    Mr. Steen
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the rules and regulations he proposes to repeal or amend by means of a reference to the Deregulation Committee before the end of 1996; and if he will make a statement. [1392]

    Mr. Horam
    The Department is currently consulting on the following proposals for use of the deregulation order-making power:Children and Young Persons Act 1933:
    To allow children under 16 to work longer hours on Sunday;
    Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 and the London Local Authorities Act 1991:
    To reduce the licensing requirements for skin piercing businesses.

    The timing of any reference to the Deregulation Committee will depend on a number of factors, including the outcome of consultation.

    Female Staff
    Mrs. Roche
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many women are currently employed by his Department; and what proportion this is of the total. [1253]

    Mr. Horam
    The Department of Health employed 2,697 women on 1 October 1996. This represented 56 per cent. of the total staff employed.

    Cystic Fibrosis Trust
    Mr. Whittingdale
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what amount has been given in section 64 grant to the Cystic Fibrosis Trust by his Department in 1996–97 and in each of the last five years; and for what purposes. [2047]

    Mr. Horam
    In the period in question, the Department gave the Cystic Fibrosis Trust the following three-year section 64 project grants:

    Family Support Project:

    1990–91: £22,000

    1991–92: £20,000

    1992–93: £18,000.

    404

    Family and Adult Support Volunteer Network:

    1993–94: £16,000

    1994–95: £14,000

    1995–96: £12,000.

    Cystic Fibrosis Advocacy Project:

    1996–97: £25,000

    (this grant will continue in 1997–98 and 1998–99).

    Multiple Pregnancies
    Mr. Alton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his policy with regard to selective termination of pregnancy when such an operation is solely to terminate one or more of the foetuses that make up a multiple pregnancy; and if he will make a statement. [2139]

    Mr. Horam
    The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 clarified the legal position on selective termination of a pregnancy. Whether or not selective termination should take place rests on the opinion of two doctors, formed in good faith, that it is justified within the terms of the Abortion Act 1967, as amended.

    Beta-interferon
    Mr. Bayley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much the NHS spent on beta-interferon in the first six months of(a) 1996–97 and (b) 1995–96. [2329]

    Mr. Malone
    Information on the net ingredient cost of all beta-interferon products dispensed in the community in England is shown in the list. Information on the cost of drugs dispensed in hospital pharmacies is riot available centrally.

    1995

    January-June: £63,000.

    1996

    January-June: £163,000.

    Notes:
    Data are only available for the first three months of the 1996–97 financial year. In order to provide a six-month comparison period, data are therefore provided on the basis of the first six calendar months for each year.
    Figures are rounded to the nearest £1,000, and include the cost of any prescriptions written by hospital consultants but dispensed in the community.
    The data are from the prescribing analysis cost system generated by the Prescription Pricing Authority and cover only those prescriptions which were dispensed in the community.

    Childhood Leukaemia
    Mr. Maclennan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has supported on childhood leukaemia by ensuring that the national database of childhood leukaemia held by the childhood cancer research group remains open; and what plans he has for future funding. [2332]
    405
    Mr. Horam
    The Department of Health supports the childhood cancer research group. A new contract has been placed to run from 1 January 1996 to 31 December 2000 to a value of £350,000 per year. One of the main objectives of the core-funded programme is the development and management of the national registry of childhood tumours, which includes virtually all cases of cancer and leukaemia in children aged 0 to 14 in Great Britain.
    406

    Finance
    Mr. Bayley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list in cash terms the baseline allocation figures for each English health authority which have been circulated to finance directors for comment. [2328]

    Mr. Horam
    A table showing the health authority recurrent baselines will be placed in the Library. These have been circulated to health authorities for validation and may therefore be subject to amendment.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Exeter.

Foreign and Commonwealth Office: Overseas Posts
Viscount Waverley Viscount Waverley asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether any budgetary or other measures will be introduced during this Session of Parliament that would necessitate the Foreign and Commonwealth Office closing any overseas posts.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, we cannot anticipate the result of the Budget. The pattern of overseas diplomatic representation is kept under close review, the purpose being to sustain the global foreign policy to which this Government are committed.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Is he aware that UK domestic competition is set to increase as a result of European Union membership and that France maintains double the number of staff in its overseas missions around the world, while Germany has a third more? Will he please recognise that for the sake of our exporters and our export-driven economy it is essential that the United Kingdom maintains a strong presence overseas?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I reiterate that we are committed to maintaining the global foreign policy needed to support British interests and to provide essential services to business and the public. I cannot pre-empt the Budget.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that his ambiguous Answer is thoroughly unsatisfactory? Is he further aware that the European Commission has already established 126 overseas posts, which it calls embassies, which are in direct competition with the embassies of the various member states? Will he make quite sure that British interests are not in any way brought into disrepute or lack credibility as a result of those wholly unauthorised establishments—made without the consent of the Council—in various parts of the world?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I reject being called ambiguous on this matter. I have not been at all ambiguous with that statement. I cannot pre-empt the Budget. Even the noble Lord opposite would not expect me to pre-empt the Budget. For further conversation on this matter we shall have to wait until the Budget.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that the British Government have been
522
economising by using facilities provided by other governments in a number of capitals, in particular, by the German Government in Alma-Ata and elsewhere? Does he feel that that gives the right image of the kind of independent British foreign policy of which the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, and others would approve?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, we have to look at this matter sensibly. Obviously, to over-duplicate services does not make any sense whatever. The noble Lord might like to look at the number of locally engaged staff within the British foreign service, of whom we have far more than any other country.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it could be argued to the contrary: that if the French have twice as many officials on the job as we have, they must be twice as badly managed?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, that is a very tempting inference.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, as this Government stand for value for money, the value for money given by our minute foreign service is quite remarkable? Does he further agree that it is quite irrelevant, if I may politely say so, to talk about local staff? Excellent as they are, they do not represent our country; nor can they interpret it to the countries where we are represented. The issue is the size of the foreign service itself. I recognise that commitments cannot be given ahead, but may I hope that much more recognition will be given to the fact that this is absolutely outstanding value for money?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I totally agree. Of course we look for value for money. What we get from our staff overseas is absolutely superb and I should hate to think that any other interpretation should be put on it, certainly by ourselves.
Lord Gillmore of Thamesfield: My Lords, in the light of the services rendered by posts overseas to British exporters and investors as well as to the Government and the British traveller, services which the noble Lord commended, does he agree that post closures are likely to prove a false economy?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I do not believe that we have been talking about any post closures. At this stage changes are neither ruled in nor ruled out in advance of the Budget. There has been no statement that there will be post closures.
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, will the noble Lord bear in mind the great difficulties encountered by people doing business with the further parts of the former Soviet Union? Many business people in those areas have to travel 1,000 miles or more to Moscow or Leningrad in order to apply for a visa as it cannot be done purely by post? Will he bear in mind the enormous business that we lose because of those difficulties? I must declare

523
an interest as I have pointed out before the difficulties that I have encountered in doing business with those areas.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I appreciate what the noble Lord said. It may be worth noting that since 1990 we have opened or reopened 29 new posts, mainly in central and eastern Europe and the Far East. We have closed eight posts in the same period.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, bearing in mind that the Government are determined to cut public services, whether or not desirable, in order to make way for tax cuts to try to secure an electoral victory, can the Minister say what thought has been given to the possibility of more joint representation with our European Union partners? Can he also comment on whether or not the joint representations that presently exist have been successful and what savings may have emerged from them?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I come back to the fact that we cannot pre-empt the Budget. We have been asked to do so in questions involving expenditure cuts in that area. We do not know whether expenditure will be cut and therefore I cannot answer that part of the noble Baroness's question. In relation to the second part of her question, if it is appropriate, makes sense financially and is efficacious, we shall look at joint efforts. Any continued or expanded joint effort will have to wait for the Budget.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the low morale that exists in the Foreign Office after years of cuts in that sector by the Conservative Government?
Lord Chesham: No, my Lords. Where I have been recently there was no indication whatever of low morale. The foreign service does a terrific job and needs all the support we can give it.
Lord Richard: My Lords, the Minister did not answer my noble friend's question. Are the Government satisfied with those joint representations which already exist and are the Government considering the possibility of having more? It is a simple question.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I gave a simple answer. Where it is efficacious, money saving and they have worked, we are satisfied. As to further joint efforts, we shall have to wait for the Budget to see what funding is available.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am sorry to be difficult on a Monday afternoon, but can the Minister answer the question? Are the Government satisfied with the joint representations that have already taken place?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, of course. If not, we would not have them.

Legal Aid
2.45 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What was the cost to public funds of legal aid in the last year, and what is the estimated cost in the current year.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, net expenditure on legal aid in 1995–96 was £1.391 billion. The provision for the current financial year is £1.477 billion, though on present trends it would appear as though actual expenditure will be slightly higher than that.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend happy with that further increase in expenditure in this area? Is he aware that many of us feel that public expenditure of this kind ought not to be increased and ought to be controlled?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have intimated proposals for providing machinery for controlling the total size of the legal aid budget. The details are set out in the White Paper. In the meantime, quite a lot is being done under the present system to try to control what is being paid out. For example, I am hoping to introduce a system of graduated fees for advocacy in the Crown Court at the beginning of 1997 which will cover cases lasting up to and including 10 days. It is also proposed to introduce a system of standard fees for civil legal aid work, including matrimonial cases. That will provide greater control over expenditure and incorporate early and certain payment for quick and efficient work.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor aware that such changes as have been made are welcome? However, does he recall that some months ago I raised the question of a German national, living in Italy, who sued a Japanese company through the courts of this country and received substantial legal aid to do so, to the surprise of most Members of your Lordships' House and the public outside? Can the noble and learned Lord tell us whether measures have been brought to bear, as he indicated they would, to prevent what most of us consider to be an abuse of the system? If not, it is about time they were.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I indicated before and I indicate again that I have proposals for overall control of the legal aid budget which will deal with the kind of case referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Dean, and give priority to cases within the overall money available. I believe that the specific case mentioned by the noble Lord was an infringement in this country of a United Kingdom patent. However, my general proposals will have the effect of putting priority as between cases of that kind and other cases which your Lordships may think more deserving and allocating funds accordingly.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, will my noble and learned friend comment on the pressure that

525
exists to provide legal aid in cases in tribunals of all sorts? I declare an interest as a person who sits as a member of an industrial tribunal. Can he tell me whether that will add greatly to the cost? Also, does he hold the view, as I do, that it will be damaging to the informality of the tribunal proceedings to introduce legal aid into that process?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, in the present state of controls over legal aid there is no question of extending it further to tribunals. If the legal aid budget was fully controlled, occasions might arise when it would be appropriate to fund certain types of specific cases. However, that would be within an overall priority for legal aid and with a controlled budget. There is no question whatever of that happening under the present system so far as this Government are concerned.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that Mr. Orchard, the Chief Executive of the Legal Aid Board, has recently written that the merits test does not represent a substantial barrier to trivial or frivolous litigation and that he has also written that increasingly the board is finding that it is not in possession of the full facts of cases in legal aid applications? Does he have any plans to deal with this?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the merits test is laid down in primary legislation. Only primary legislation can change that. I proposed in the White Paper that we should change that by primary legislation when parliamentary time is available. So far as concerns ascertaining the facts, the Legal Aid Board is learning more and more how to try to extract from applicants the relevant facts. The Legal Aid Board is not the ultimate judge of the case. It looks to see whether there is a prima facie case within the terms of the existing merits test. But the Legal Aid Board is now finding it rather less certain to rely on the advice it gets from the applicants' lawyers than once it did. This matter requires further action on the part of the Legal Aid Board, and that it is pursuing.
Lord Meston: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord confirm that, contrary to the impression sometimes given, the vast majority of legal aid is not squandered but is properly used on deserving cases which are conscientiously assessed both as to merits and to means? Can he also indicate whether the figures he has given allow for the recovery of the costs of legal aid through costs orders, the statutory legal aid charge and from VAT?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, there is no question of recovery of VAT except under the two heads which the noble Lord mentioned. The figures I have given are figures of net expenditure. It is difficult to say where the balance lies between genuine claims and claims that are less than genuine. But my understanding of the experience of the Legal Aid Board is as I said in answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg. The Legal Aid Board is finding that facts are alleged to it in applications which, once the case starts,
526
often turn out to be not quite accurate. The Legal Aid Board is examining the situation carefully to see whether it can prevent this happening in the future.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, against that background, can the noble and learned Lord tell the House how many applications for legal aid have been rejected by the board over the past two years or so?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I do not have that figure with me. I am happy to write to the noble Lord with an answer to that question. I take it that he means initially refused by the Legal Aid Board, because sometimes the decisions of the Legal Aid Board are altered on appeal by area committees and sometimes following judicial review.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, I have no pecuniary interest in the matter and I am not a solicitor by any means. However, as an ordinary man in the street, perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord whether he is really happy with the situation. Many of us who see cases in one capacity or another are most dissatisfied with the way in which the Legal Aid Board presents itself to people. It seems most unfair in many cases.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it goes without saying that I am not happy with the present position, which is why I have made proposals in the White Paper to change it. On the other hand, the Legal Aid Board is doing its best within the constraints of the present scheme. It is trying to improve its systems all the time. There is no complacency in this operation. I do not think the Legal Aid Board is complacent, as the quotations from the chief executive given by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, show.

Air Traffic Services
2.55 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any plans to privatise the National Air Traffic Services in this Parliament.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, no. The Government intend to bring forward legislation to privatise the National Air Traffic Services early in the next Parliament.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I congratulate the Minister and his colleagues on fighting off the Treasury and on shelving this privatisation proposal twice in the past two years, bearing in mind that the proposal has met with enormous opposition from the industry, from the airlines and from the Transport Select Committee in another place. Meanwhile, can he indicate what plans the Government have for the National Air Traffic Services operation at Prestwick, which covers Scotland and the north of England?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the noble Lord is not correct in saying that the proposal has been shelved.

527
I have just said that we intend to bring forward legislation early in the next Parliament. Secondly, his analysis of the level of concern about this proposal is quite wrong. There is considerable support from the industry for releasing NATS from the constraints of the public expenditure round. Thirdly, with regard to the new Scottish centre project at Prestwick, the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority announced in the summer that the authority was reviewing the two-centre strategy. When it has come to its conclusions, a decision will be reached about further work at Prestwick.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, if the Minister believes that deferring the proposal until the next Parliament is not shelving it indefinitely, he does not understand anything.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the noble Lord has exceeded his normal levels of optimism. I do not think he should count his chickens.

Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST)
2.56 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That as proposed by the Committee of Selection the following Lords be appointed to serve as members of the Board of the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST)—

L. Dainton,

L. Flowers,

E. Selborne.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Broadcasting: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee on broadcasting be appointed to supervise the arrangements for, and deal with any problems or complaints out of, the televising and sound broadcasting of the proceedings of the House and its committees; and that as proposed by the Committee of Selection the following Lords be named of the Committee:

L. Chesham,

L. Gladwin of Clee,

L. Graham of Edmonton,

L. Merlyn-Rees,

B. Rawlings,

B. Seccombe,

L. Thomson of Monifieth (Chairman),

B. Wharton,

E. Winchilsea and Nottingham;

528
That the committee have power to adjourn from place to place and to report from time to time;
That two be the quorum of the committee;
That the committee have power to appoint specialist advisers.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend say why the list of noble Lords selected for this committee does not include my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing, who has a knowledge of broadcasting unequalled by any Member of this House? Why has he not been included in the list?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I seem to recall—and I have no doubt that other noble Lords will as well—the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, asking a similar question a year ago and a similar question two years ago. What I was able to tell him on those two occasions I am unable to add to today. I entirely agree with him that the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, is indeed endowed with great knowledge of broadcasting. The noble Lord will be aware that, as with other proposals before your Lordships' House for appointments to committees and other bodies, extensive consultations take place in the course of the preparation for these proposals to be put before your Lordships, through in particular—I am grateful to them—the usual channels. The names which emerged on this occasion are those of noble Lords who are eminently suitable to carry out the work which is proposed today.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, can the noble Lord enlighten us still further as to whether the name of my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing went forward to the usual channels?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am unable to confirm or deny details about any names which are discussed, not least because there is such an extensive range of ability throughout your Lordships' House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Parliamentary Broadcasting Unit Limited (PARBUL)
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the third Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That as proposed by the Committee of Selection the following Lords be named as members of the Parliamentary Broadcasting Unit Limited (PARBUL):

L. Boston of Faversham,

L. Chesham,

L. Thomson of Monifieth.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

National Heritage Bill [H.L.]
3 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Lord Inglewood): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
It is just two years since the National Lottery was launched and your Lordships will be well aware of the enormous success it has already had in raising funds for good causes—a success which goes far beyond even the most optimistic commentators' expectations.
It is proof of the interest in this Bill that it has encouraged so many distinguished noble speakers and in particular I am looking forward to hearing the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Luke.
Of that money generated by the lottery for good causes one-fifth is available for the support of heritage projects throughout the United Kingdom. The term "heritage" is of course a convenient shorthand for all the tangible survivals of our past. It covers such items as historic buildings and monuments, artistic treasures, artefacts of all kinds, and landscape of scientific or ecological importance. I should say too that the concept of "national heritage" can embrace items of local and regional significance, since it is widely recognised that the quality and diversity of such items are themselves an important feature of the national heritage as a whole.
Responsibility for distributing lottery money for the heritage rests with the trustees of the National Heritage Memorial Fund, which was established under the National Heritage Act 1980 as a successor to the National Land Fund. The National Heritage Memorial Fund's responsibilities in respect of the lottery are in addition to its original responsibilities, while its powers remain those granted it by the 1980 Act.
The National Heritage Memorial Fund has so far made over 530 lottery awards worth £328 million. I shall mention three random examples of recent awards as an indication of the range of projects involved. A grant of £95,000 has been offered for the conversion of an 18th century commercial building in Crail, Scotland, for use as a childcare centre. The sum of £975,000 has been offered for the restoration of HMS "Trincomalee", a Royal Navy sailing frigate launched in 1817 and now the second oldest ship afloat. And at the top of the scale—the largest award yet made—was announced only last Thursday; namely, that £25 million is available to secure the structure, operation and environment of the 87-mile Kennet and Avon Canal, linking the River Thames at Reading with the River Avon at Bristol, a remarkable example of canal construction and engineering.
The National Heritage Memorial Fund has also deliberately begun to develop themes for lottery awards to ensure that the money is distributed in a coherent and thought-through manner. Earlier this year it established a programme to stimulate applications for the restoration of urban parks, and last month saw the launch of a joint National Heritage Memorial Fund/English Heritage programme for church repairs, to which each side has contributed £10 million for the first year.
530
The chairman of the fund trustees, the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, whom I am delighted to see here today, may wish to say a little more about the way in which the National Heritage Memorial Fund has approached its task. However, it is already clear that the lottery is a very valuable source of new support for the heritage.
The Government's aim in bringing forward this Bill is to widen the powers of the trustees generally, and in particular to extend the benefits of the lottery even more widely across the heritage sector. We want to see lottery money being used to enhance opportunities for everyone—and in particular young people—to have access to the heritage, to study it and to enjoy it. We want to ensure too that lottery funding can be an option for any worthwhile heritage project, with no unnecessary barriers standing in the way.
The problem which faces the trustees now is that the existing powers of the fund, as set out in the National Heritage Act 1980 to which I have already referred, effectively confine its funding remit to projects which involve the acquisition, maintenance or preservation of tangible heritage assets. Of course, the current powers are sufficient to enable the fund to support a wide range of major heritage projects and indeed, as I have indicated, it is already taking full advantage of the opportunities.
Nonetheless, the current terms of the legislation do limit the National Heritage Memorial Fund's role as a distributor of lottery funds. It cannot make funds available for access, education and youth initiatives in the heritage field. It cannot provide assistance for information technology projects or schemes for the development of heritage-related skills. It is severely limited in its ability to fund nature conservation work.
The Government want to remove these constraints. We would like to see the National Heritage Memorial Fund undertaking a role in the heritage field analogous to that which the Arts Council and Sports Council are now successfully playing within their sectors but which is at present outside its remit for the reasons I have already explained.
We want the National Heritage Memorial Fund to have the opportunity to fund, for example, special transport schemes to enable children to visit heritage sites; reduced admission charges at sites for the young and the elderly; bursaries for training young people in conservation skills; and projects to ensure the survival of rare flora and fauna. We would like the fund to be able to support a wider range of museum projects, on the lines discussed in the Government's Treasures in Trust document published in July.
We would also like the fund to be able to offer support for two categories of project which enhance understanding of the nation's history independently of its tangible remains. The first is exhibitions relating to an historical subject area. An example might be a museum exhibition on the life and work of an important figure in history or on the ecology of a particular region. The second is the creation of an archive, in any medium, relating to a significant aspect of national history.

531
This might include, for example, an oral record of the distinctive experiences of particular localities or ethnic groups, or a major archaeological survey.
That then is the first theme of the Bill: extending the National Heritage Memorial Fund's funding remit to take in a much wider range of worthwhile projects in the public interest. However, we have been looking not only at the issue of what type of project the fund can support; we have also been considering the question of who is eligible for assistance.
Under the legislation as it stands, eligibility for National Heritage Memorial Fund assistance is confined to public bodies and charitable bodies established for a specific heritage purpose. Of course, this is wide enough to take in a great many important projects. But it also places many projects beyond the reach of the fund which must, by any reasonable standards, be seen as having equivalent heritage value.
Let me mention a couple of specific examples of the problems. Many almshouses are of course run by charities. But they are not normally charities established for a heritage purpose. The National Heritage Memorial Fund has therefore had to reject a number of applications for lottery funding for the restoration of outstanding historic almshouse buildings. I believe most people would see that as something of a nonsense.
Or again, one of our most distinctive forms of historic building is the seaside pier. As noble Lords may be aware, 1996 has been designated as the Year of the Pier. Sadly, many of our seaside piers are in need of major repair work. Those which are in local authority or charitable ownership are eligible for lottery funding and a number of awards have in fact already been made. But many piers are privately owned and are therefore beyond the scope of the fund's current powers. If, for example, a resort has two piers next to each other on the seafront, one of which is owned by a charitable trust and the other is privately owned, the former is at present eligible for lottery funding while the latter is not.
Over two-thirds of our historic buildings are estimated to be in private hands. Hence a substantial part of our built heritage is outside the National Heritage Memorial Fund's existing terms of reference and therefore ineligible for lottery assistance. Nor is it simply a matter of individual historic buildings. There is considerable scope for the allocation of lottery funds for heritage projects of a more strategic kind; for instance, historic townscape schemes as an element of urban regeneration or integrated conservation projects in the countryside. Yet as things stand the National Heritage Memorial Fund is often unable to help because much of the property affected is in private ownership.
The National Heritage Memorial Fund itself, English Heritage and other leading heritage bodies, all take the view that it makes no sense to limit the impact of the lottery in this way. So did the National Heritage Select Committee in another place when it issued its report on the National Lottery earlier this year.
532
The Government fully agree. The availability of lottery funding ought not to depend on who happens to own the property concerned. It should be determined on the basis of the actual project for which funding is sought. The key considerations are: is it a project of importance for the national heritage? Will it produce a clear benefit for the public as a whole?
So that is the second theme of the Bill: the removal of the current restrictions on eligibility for lottery support in favour of a new approach which looks at the nature of the project rather than the identity of the applicant.
I am aware that the proposed new approach to eligibility has prompted two specific concerns. The first is that it is the Government's purpose simply to enable lottery grants to be made to owners of historic houses. For the avoidance of any possible misunderstanding, I should make it clear that my own family home, Hutton-in-the-Forest, near Penrith in Cumbria, which I own and where I drafted much of this speech, is a Grade I listed building open to the public.
I hope it is clear from what I have already said that the privately owned heritage includes a great deal more than historic houses. Indeed, it goes wider than historic buildings generally. The new rules on eligibility will also apply of course to, for example, museums, land and artefacts owned by private individuals. Furthermore, it should be emphasised that eligibility to receive money is not of course the same as receiving it. Eligibility is merely an entitlement to have one's case considered on its merits. It is a matter for the trustees of the National Heritage Memorial Fund how the funds for which they are responsible are disbursed.
Moreover, there is nothing new about giving assistance from public funds to privately owned heritage property. It is a long-established element in the array of policies which we have in Britain to preserve our historic buildings and landscapes, and which command all-party support.
For many years, English Heritage and its sister agencies have been running grant schemes for historic buildings of outstanding quality, irrespective of ownership, to which tight conditions are attached and enforced, including if appropriate clawing back money already given. What is important is that the National Heritage Memorial Fund should continue to work closely with English Heritage and other heritage bodies across the whole of the United Kingdom to ensure that money is applied where it is most needed. I am pleased to be able to tell your Lordships that the National Heritage Memorial Fund has begun constructive discussions with the 21 relevant statutory bodies on future funding priorities in the light of the new powers contained in this Bill, after which it will be consulting more widely.
A separate concern is that the Government's intention is to allow lottery money to substitute for English Heritage funding and thus through a sleight of hand renege on their original undertaking that lottery funds would be additional to existing government expenditure programmes. I am glad to have this opportunity to

533
clarify the position. Money raised by the lottery does not replace existing grant funding. It is separate from it. As the Prime Minister said:
"We will make no case-by-case reductions on conventional public spending programmes to take account of awards from the Lottery. The money will not replace public expenditure".
Nor does this prevent lottery money from complementing other funding. Within the built heritage sector, it is entirely right that projects which are beyond the scope of English Heritage's grant programmes—in terms of either eligibility or affordability—should be able to be considered for lottery funding. What matters is that there should be co-ordination and agreed strategies on the role of lottery funding in relation to other heritage programmes. As I have said, discussions are now taking place to that end.
I would now like to turn to the detailed provisions of the Bill. The main substance is in the first clause. This redefines the funding powers of the National Heritage Memorial Fund trustees as set out in Section 3 of the 1980 Act. The new provision involves three principal changes. First, it extends the fund's funding remit to encompass more than just the acquisition, maintenance or preservation of land, buildings or objects of importance to the national heritage. The fund will now also be able to fund projects to secure access to the heritage; to encourage study, understanding and enjoyment of the heritage; to develop skills relating to the heritage; and to fulfil ancillary purposes. The extended powers cover the natural as well as the cultural heritage, so that the fund will be able to support, for instance, work to preserve rare species of wildlife.
Secondly, the existing exclusive list of recipients eligible for National Heritage Memorial Fund funding disappears. Instead the fund will be able to fund any project which is of importance to the national heritage and is of public benefit. Whether a particular project satisfies these requirements is of course essentially a matter for the trustees themselves, but as regards public benefit, access to the public will obviously be a key consideration. Indeed, there will continue to be a specific requirement on the fund to have regard to the desirability of public access or display in relation to any project being considered for funding.
Thirdly, there is a new power for the National Heritage Memorial Fund to fund public exhibition and archive projects relating to an important aspect of the United Kingdom's history, natural history or landscape and which the trustees consider are of public benefit.
As I have indicated, we are proposing these changes mainly with the fund's role as a lottery distributor in mind. But the changes will also apply to the original National Heritage Memorial Fund, which, as your Lordships know, serves as a fund of last resort for the support of heritage projects in memory of those who have given their lives for the United Kingdom.
I will make only the briefest mention of Clause 2. This repeals existing provisions which require the fund to obtain departmental and Treasury approval to the payment of allowances to trustees and to certain staffing matters. This is a simple housekeeping measure and in line with our general policy of relaxing such controls
534
over public bodies. To the extent that controls continue to be needed, they can be exercised by way of the fund's financial memorandum.
This is only a short Bill, but I believe that all those who care about our nation's history and its future will recognise it as a measure of very considerable significance. It will extend the impact of the National Lottery more widely across the whole heritage sector. It will bring a great deal more of the heritage within reach of lottery funding; and it will open up a whole host of new opportunities for people to discover it for themselves, to study and explore it in depth and to treasure it as one of our greatest national assets, and one of the pleasures of life. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Inglewood.)
3.16 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the Bill so clearly. I was particularly struck by the reference to seaside piers in need of repair. I should like to ask the Minister about the backwoods hereditary Peers of this House, many of whom are beyond repair and, sadly, perhaps facing demolition.
This is an intriguing Bill. Twelve days ago there was not a whisper of it in the Queen's Speech, yet here it is—small, but seemingly perfectly formed. On studying it, I can now understand why. The Bill, although modest, is very worthy in intention and makes positive, helpful contributions about the national heritage. It is not partisan, scores no party points and does not have many votes in it. As such, it was clearly disqualified from inclusion in the mish-mash of sloganising that we suffered last week.
I should like to take this opportunity to say how very much we are looking forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Luke.
I should make it clear at the beginning that we on this side broadly support the Bill because it helpfully gives the heritage lottery distributors more flexibility to distribute grants to a wider range of eligible beneficiaries, putting them, as the Minister said, on a similar basis to the arts and sports distributors. Under the Bill, the heritage lottery distributors will be able to support a wider range of heritage buildings, townscapes and landscapes, including the piers and theatres, and access to that heritage. The Bill will encourage study and understanding and the creation of heritage archives and intellectual property, including the science heritage, and nature conservation, including animals and plants. It helps to embrace the whole heritage mosaic of ownership, public and private, of access and preservation, and especially the improvement of our intangible, as well as tangible, heritage.
The original 1980 National Heritage Act is clearly out of date. The modifications in the 1993 National Lottery etc. Act were inadequate and too restrictive—and we are all responsible for that. The question of eligibility of candidates caused dissatisfaction, with private individuals and commercial companies being excluded. The definition of "eligible projects" was also

535
unsatisfactory, excluding, for example, car parks, oral histories, new cataloguing, information technology databases and so forth. It also left the trustees' administrators subject to excessive Whitehall control. That seems to be well addressed in Clause 2. I understand that those at the pit face are happier with that. The re-modelling of the purposes and powers of Section 3 of the Act in Clause 1 is much more positive, creative and flexible. I particularly like the use of the word "enjoyment", which is so often alien to our legislators, the coverage of "things of any kind" in line 9 and the defined purpose of encouraging the study, understanding, compilation and dissemination of information. Taken with the opening reference to,
"scenic, historic, archaeological, aesthetic, architectural, artistic or scientific interest, including animals and plants",
I feel that some progress may have been made towards a desirably broad definition of our national heritage.
The whole of new Section 3A is very useful. It covers archives and includes living oral histories and exhibitions of heritage. But in the context of study and understanding of our national heritage, I ask the Minister to confirm that such great heritage projects as the Victoria county histories, which are close to my historian's heart, are clearly covered by the Bill. Speaking subject to correction, I believe that they were launched with funds from the 1851 exhibition. They have come to a virtual halt, and it would be appropriate to re-finance them now. They have made great contributions to our knowledge of local heritage.
The proposed assistance to private historic houses has aroused particular interest, even on this side of the House. It may be questioned by some who fear that toffs on wealthy estates will get away with more public subsidy, adding to the welfare state and the common agricultural policy. However, it was supported by the report of the Select Committee in another place. I shall explain why we on this side support the principle, providing strict conditions and criteria are adhered to. I gave my personal support to helping private historic houses in this House at Question Time some years ago—perhaps New Labour, old houses. One cannot understand how logically or fairly one can preserve the built heritage while defining out private historic houses which constitute two-thirds of the built house heritage and receive 11 million of the 15 million visitors to historic houses per year. Surely, it is cheaper and more efficient to have them maintained in private hands with the help of lottery funds than for them to fall into disrepair or wholly into the lap of the state and the National Trust.
The fact is that it is better to have heritage houses lived in. They are more alive and less like museums—one thinks of the noble Minister's house, which is very alive—and visitors prefer that. My right honourable friend in another place the shadow Secretary of State for National Heritage, Mr. Cunningham, also has a long record of support for this initiative. He personally intervened to help rescue Munster Castle in the north east. He has asked for confirmation from the Minister
536
that St. James's Park, the sacred home of the blessed Newcastle United Football Club, would also qualify for grant as top of the league of British footballing heritage.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, not for long!
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I reassure noble Lords and noble friends that it is not meant to be unique to Newcastle. Northampton Town springs to mind, although I accept that with reference to Arsenal and Millwall noble Lords may have serious doubts about the heritage contribution.
Having stated our most generous support for this principle, we on this side insist that the criteria and conditions of grant must be rigorously applied. The key condition must be wide access for the general public, together with benefit to the local community. One must also have firm clawback provisions to prevent owners from making development profits from grants. The access conditions must be strictly enforced. Public access must be genuine and frequent, with none of the fiddles occasionally observed in the past whereby access has been at the owner's convenience but it rarely seems to be convenient to the owner. Grants must have strict prior conditions with regular subsequent monitoring. The rule must be: no genuine access, no grant.
Means-testing should also be rigorous. After all, it would be outrageous and unacceptable for a government which introduced stringent tests for the poor who applied for social security benefits to operate loose means tests for those with rich assets. I ask the Minister whether he can say more about the administrative arrangements for grants. Clearly, we need a sensitive balance. We want grants and conditions to be rigorously selected and monitored but do not want to create a bureaucratic monster, nor give free range to the politically correct petty napoleons or the nannies and ninnies, sometimes sadly found for example among environmental health officers and (speaking from personal experience) even some of the harridans occasionally found in English Heritage. Perhaps the Minister can explain further the administrative arrangements. It is probably best to use the expertise and long involvement of English Heritage in conjunction with the team of the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, which has done an excellent job in the past two years. As to that, I look forward to more details in the schedule.
To look more widely than the strict legislative text now before us, there is concern about the financial plight of certain relevant parts of our heritage. This Bill does not give more resources to the heritage sector. It simply and properly encourages more applicants to apply for existing funds. The heritage lottery fund is already five times over-subscribed by existing applicants under the previous narrower eligibility. Even more worrying—and, I believe, damning of this Government—is the way that the introduction of lottery cash has been used by the Treasury as an excuse to cut direct grants to heritage. This is in total breach of the firm promises given by Ministers in this House at the time that the National Lottery Bill 1993 was being debated; and it is in breach of the personal commitment given by the Prime Minister at the time that lottery funds would be additional.

537
The pledges on additionality have become a sick joke. That was and is deplorable, and all in the heritage world watch the coming Budget with trepidation. I believe that the direct grant to the National Heritage Memorial Fund has been savagely cut in recent years, proportionally by more than any other sector, and grants to historic houses have been reduced.
Most alarming is the plight of our museums, especially the British Museum. While the lottery may help with one hand, the Treasury takes it away with the other and slashes annual revenue grants. What is the point, my Lords, of providing new galleries and exhibitions if there is no one to staff and protect them?
Along with other suffering museums and galleries, the British Museum—our top tourist and visitor attraction—has had its grant cut in real value year after year. Compared to 1991–92, the real value of its proposed grant for next year has been slashed by £6 million (roughly 15 per cent.). That is at a time when the emergence of the new British Library means that the British Museum suddenly has 40 per cent. more space to manage, and £3 million less in its share of the provision for library maintenance and security. That extra space should be seen as a magnificent opportunity for Britain's and the world's most distinguished museum to develop new services. Instead, it adds to the financial crisis which the Government have imposed.
It will be a scandal if the Government force the museum to introduce entrance fees, cutting out millions of visitors at a time when lottery cash is flowing fast, but is excluded from its revenues which the Government cut.
I shall not delay the House further since I suspect the Minister may have a train to catch and the rest of us must eat. I have tried to convey our support for this excellent Bill while at the same time deploring the Government's savage cuts in direct funding to the heritage. I look forward to hearing whether there are any words of comfort in the winding up speech of the noble Baroness.
3.32 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I, too, join in welcoming and looking forward to hearing the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Luke. I have no objection, in principle, to the effects of the Bill. How could I, when two-thirds of what can broadly be considered as the national heritage is in private hands? But I hope to highlight some practical issues, and to draw the Minister's attention to an urgent national heritage issue in Argyll.
First, I need to declare the interest, in that I am vice chairman of a building preservation trust in Clackmannanshire, which is a current applicant for heritage lottery funds for a List A, schedule 1 ancient monument.
My first issue is contained in Clause 1 relating to new Section 3(2) of the 1980 Act, which provides that the trustees may:
"give financial assistance for any project which appears to them to be of public benefit".
538
When I compare that to the wording of the 1980 Act:
"is of importance to the national heritage"—
I am left to wonder: is that too loose and too imprecise? Does it not represent a dilution of the criteria? We are, after all, considering how publicly subscribed funds are to be distributed.
My second issue surrounds the meaning to be derived from new Clause 3(7) which provides:
"the Trustees shall bear in mind the desirability of public access to, or the public display of, the thing in question and of its enjoyment by the public".
That contrasts with the tougher and more focused wording of the 1980 Act:
"the Trustees shall have regard to the desirability of securing, improving or controlling public access to, or the public display of, the property".
The new clause seems to downgrade the fundamental importance of public access. It could seem to allow the trustees to consider a proposal by which the public would be excluded. In the context of grant aid to private individuals, I should have thought that a more rigorous and prescriptive approach would have been more appropriate. Is it good enough to say that, because private individuals own two-thirds of the national heritage, they should be grant aided without substantial benefit accruing to the general public (the subscriber)?
My third issue arises from Clause 2(b) and is a genuine question. Contained within the trustees' expanded power to appoint staff, is there any commitment to open an office in Scotland, or is this an expansion of a centralised service?
At present there is an overload of worthy cases. Why are we being asked to widen the applicant base? The current backlog has the undesirable effect of causing other agencies in funding partnerships to underspend, and so suffer clawback to the disadvantage of the national heritage. We already have a huge number of applicants under the current rules. Is it wise to open the floodgates at this time, especially when the assessment and approval process seems to be taking seven months to two years? I hope that there will be a substantial delay in the implementation of this provision. Perhaps the Minister will consider delay until the Millennium Fund has expired. At that time the residue of the Millennium Fund could be transferred to national heritage funds.
Finally, I wish to draw the Minister's attention to the former railway bridge over the narrows of Loch Creran at Dallachoilish. I do not expect an answer to this today. The Creagan Bridge is owned by the Secretary of State for Scotland and is in urgent need of listing by Historic Scotland. This structure was designed by Sir John Wolfe-Barry, the designer of Tower Bridge and son of Sir Charles Barry, assisted by H. M. Brunel (son of Isambard Kingdom Brunel) and E. M. Crutwell.
This twin lattice girder bridge was designed carefully to ensure that its visual impact did not interfere with its dramatic setting, as it stands in an area of outstanding natural beauty. The handsome, single arch approach spans and the central pier were built of rock-faced granite ashlar, and finished in a romantic Scottish baronial castle style, with crenellated parapets all of which blend with Loch Creran and the surrounding

539
rugged landscape. The threat to that structure comes from a proposal to build another bridge on its site. It is vital that the proposal be converted to a sympathetic adaptation of the existing bridge.
To conclude, I hope that the Minister can help me over my earlier concerns.
3.38 p.m.
Lord Charteris of Amisfield: My Lords, I presume to take part in the debate because I had the honour and the great pleasure of being the first chairman of the National Heritage Memorial Fund—a job which I inherited on April Fool's Day 1980 and gave up in 1992. I shall not keep your Lordships long as I have only two things to say, neither of which has much to do with the Bill but which concern the heritage more generally.
I am entirely in favour of the Bill, which has my full support. It would not have done, mind you, when I was chairman of the National Heritage Memorial Fund because we should not have had nearly enough money to satisfy the enormous demands which will arise as a result of private individuals being able to obtain money from it. I see that my noble friend and one-time colleague Lord Morris of Castle Morris, who was a trustee with me, is nodding his head. Thank you, sir.
I want to talk about two things. First I wish to talk about my successor, the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, who is sitting in front of me. I look forward to hearing him speak later in the debate. Furthermore, I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Luke, has decided to make his maiden speech on this subject.
For 12 years we in the National Heritage Memorial Fund got money out of the Government as and when we could. Towards the end we were receiving £12 million a year and working with a staff of seven. With my noble friend Lord Rothschild came a shower of money in the shape of the lottery funds and with that came a great increase in the number of demands made upon him. As a result, the fund has had to expand considerably. Such expansion is not easy but I am sure that it has been satisfactorily carried out. I spent last weekend as a dilapidated Peer suffering from a sharp bout of flu, reading with great interest the 1995–96 report of the fund. It is clear that my successors have the fund under control and I wish them good luck for the future.
My second point relates to the memorial element of the National Heritage Memorial Fund. That fund did not start on April Fools' Day 1980 but in 1946, when the socialist government then in power established the National Land Fund with £50 million, which was then a great deal of money. That money was the product of the sale of surplus equipment. The fund was established as a war memorial and it undertook some good work.
However, 10 years later, in 1950, the fund was raped and plundered. I hate to remind the Government that it was a Conservative government who did that. The original £50 million was clawed back, which, in my opinion, was a whale of a way to treat a memorial fund! However, it survived and was left with £10 million. When it came into our hands in 1980 there was
540
£12.5 million left. According to the current rate there should have been £647 million, but that had been clawed back.
I am absolutely certain that Her Majesty's Government would never consider such rape and plunder again. However, it is possible to kill the memorial element of the fund simply by allowing it to die through lack of money. As I have said, when I retired, the fund was receiving £12 million a year. Between 1993 and 1909 that figure was £8.8 million a year and next year it will be £7.5 million. Where is it going? Every year the figure is reduced, whereas it should be increased. I am sure that the Government are well intentioned in respect of this matter but I am extremely suspicious of the Treasury, which does not like us, never did like us and would like to kill us off.
I do not know how much a memorial element matters. It probably does not matter very much to a generation which did not experience the war, but to me and my generation, and to those a little younger, it matters very much indeed. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will not forget that point.
3.44 p.m.
Lord Luke: My Lords, I am fully conscious of the privilege I enjoy today as a maiden speaker in immediately following such distinguished speakers. I thank noble Lords for their good wishes.
The Bill that we are considering today widens the criteria by which money becoming available from the National Lottery can be distributed. I am particularly pleased to learn that some of it may be made available to help and encourage children to visit museums. I hope that they will include not only museums such as the Natural History Museum in London, which already does a great deal for children, but also those devoted strictly to arts and antiques, such as the small but excellent Cecil Higgins Museum in Bedford. I remember a spectacularly successful exhibition there, when superb collections of porcelain, glass and watercolours were brought alive for the children of the surrounding area by clever presentation, close co-operation with local schools and, importantly, enthusiasm. In my opinion, any lottery money spent to promote such events will be worthwhile.
As a dealer in watercolours—I restore and frame them—I suppose that in that context I can be said to be contributing in a minuscule way to the national heritage of the future. I am an historian by inclination and find that I am frequently trying to relate current events to historic parallels. For instance, the other day as I was walking across the path from St. James's Palace to Westminster I could not help reflecting on someone who walked the same path several days running some 350 years ago. He was a small man but extremely dignified, stubborn to a degree but immensely brave. A few days later, as we all know, he again walked from St. James's Palace to Whitehall to the Banqueting House and to his death. I do not believe that it is always realised that your Lordships' House had nothing whatever to do with that foul deed; it had been abolished three weeks previously.

541
However, that act, by the very reason of its enormity and the profound effect it had on everyone, was the single most important factor in ensuring that in subsequent years reform and change took place relatively peacefully and our highly successful constitutional monarchy took shape. Hence, there were no bloody revolutions such as those which occurred in virtually the whole of the rest of Europe; no sacking of our cities; and no destruction of our heritage, except of course during the Second World War.
We now have a government department to look after the treasures all around us. Here we are on an island between marshes and the river and on a site which has been a palace for 1,000 years. How can we not be influenced by our surroundings and a profound sense of living history.
The national heritage is being created all the time. As an example I wish to draw your Lordships' attention to a splendid, recently published photograph composed of 12 of the most attractive ladies in public life, portrayed as the Muses of ancient legend; and how nice to see that the most attractive of those is the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, who is not in the Chamber at the moment. I am sure that that photograph will become part of our heritage.
My father once told me that if and when I arrive in this House, I should concern myself with and speak only about matters of which I have at least some knowledge. I know that he kept to that rule during the 53 years that he served in your Lordships' House. I hope to do the same, for the next 53 years of course. I thank your Lordships for your indulgence in listening to me today.
3.50 p.m.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, it is a great honour and pleasure on behalf of the whole House to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Luke, on his excellent and knowledgeable maiden speech. Earlier this year the noble Lord succeeded his father, whom he mentioned, who was a much respected Member of this House for many years. After Eton and Cambridge, the noble Lord entered the family company—Bovril—where he worked until it was taken over, I understand by Sir James Goldsmith, in 1971. I understand that he is now a picture dealer, specialising in water colours. The noble Lord did not say that they are mainly 18th and 19th century water colours which are surely the best and belong to our greatest period in that field—one which is extremely relevant and germane to the subject of today's debate.
The noble Lord has a long record of public service, having been High Sheriff of Bedfordshire in 1969–70 and a Conservative member of Bedfordshire County Council for five years. His services to charity have included being a commissioner and then commander of St. John Ambulance in Bedfordshire. He is also a keen churchman and an active liveryman. The noble Lord has made a notable maiden speech and I hope that we shall hear from him on many other occasions.
I am sure that we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, for explaining with such clarity the purposes and details of the Bill. As my noble friend Lord Donoghue said, it is not often that we on this side of the
542
House are able to welcome a Bill so wholeheartedly from the present Government. Perhaps we should have general elections more often if the run-up to them results in more acceptable Bills.
This Bill is necessary to give the trustees of the National Heritage Memorial Fund more scope to aid a host of projects which hitherto they have been unable to do, as the noble Lord explained. That should enable them to give financial support to our country houses, and in particular their gardens and splendid parks, both those in the National Trust and those which are privately owned and opened to the public.
Many of our finest houses have been lost since the war, but most people today would agree that what remains should be preserved for future generations. That is now accepted by all the main political parties. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Charteris, said, the 1945 Labour Government did much to initiate help and support for that sector. As the noble Lord said, Hugh Dalton, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, resurrected a provision in Lloyd George's 1909 Finance Bill which permitted the handing over of land to the community in payment of death duties, as they were then called. Dalton set aside £50 million secured from the sale of war stores for a special National Land Fund to reimburse the Inland Revenue for land offered by executors. As the noble Lord said, that was envisaged as a memorial to those killed in the two world wars. Many houses and lands have passed to the National Trust as a consequence of Dalton's measure.
The noble Lord did not mention something else which the 1945 government did. That was the appointment by Sir Stafford Cripps in 1948, when he was Chancellor, of the Gowers Committee. That was a committee set up to look at houses of outstanding historic or architectural interest under the distinguished chairmanship of Sir Ernest Gowers. The committee reported in 1950.
Gowers recommended inter alia that designated houses with their parks should be preserved as private residences occupied preferably by the families connected with them, provided—and this was important—that the buildings were open to the public. He recommended that there should be tax relief for repairs and maintenance, and relief from inheritance tax for contents of national importance provided that those remain in the house and are not sold.
Those measures taken by the Attlee Government, which also saved the Regent's Park terraces when the Crown Estates wanted to demolish them, did a great deal to save the situation.
Sadly, though, there is another side to the picture, as the Treasury, as usual, kept a tight fist on the National Land Fund for many decades and the fund was raided from time to time by Chancellors, mostly Tory Chancellors, for quite other purposes. However, in 1980 the present Government agreed that the fund should be used for the purpose for which it had originally been created, and it became the National Heritage Memorial Fund. The Government deserve every congratulation on that decision. Since 1980 the NHMF has spent £166 million and I understand that it has rescued 15 great houses, secured thousands of acres of important landscape and saved hundreds of works of art.

543
Since 1994 the National Lottery has contributed important additional financial support and the whole picture is now much more encouraging. When the heritage lottery fund was first set up, the Government gave a definite undertaking, as my noble friend said, that lottery funding would be additional to government funding and that the core funding would not be reduced. I am afraid that that has not been the case: the Arts Council grant has been cut by a cumulative £18 million since 1993; the NHMF itself has suffered further Treasury raids; the level of funding in 1993–94 was £12 million; by 1995–96, that had been cut by one-third to £8.8 million; and next year a further cut is expected of around 6.5 per cent. to £7.5 million, which is a very big drop.
This year is the 50th anniversary of the land fund. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, whether the Government will mark that anniversary by restoring the grant to at least its original level. English Heritage can make grants for capital repairs such as roof repairs to historic houses. Those grants have been cut by the Government, a Government who call themselves Conservative. I assume that the intention is to replace those grants by lottery funding. I ask the Government to confirm that those Section 3 grants can continue, irrespective of lottery funding. It is expected that the NHMF will take on projects now financed by English Heritage. The Historic Houses Association wants grants for once-in-a-lifetime repairs. Will that be allowed, provided of course that the house is open to the public?
I gather that the Historic Houses Association has no objection to a means test as that would be essential to establish the present financial position of the owner but also as a guide and safeguard for the future.
Perhaps I may also ask the Government whether grants can be made for parks, as well as for the house, of special interest and importance, such as those designed, for example, by Capability Brown and, indeed, for special gardens of exceptional beauty. At present, the English Heritage grants for parks are limited. There is also the question of partnership funding. Initially the Government required that all heritage lottery funding should be matched by the applicant. Sometimes the contribution had to be as high as 50 per cent.
Charitable contributions are becoming increasingly difficult and this has meant that some grants could not be taken up. I welcome the recent more flexible attitude towards partnership funding. I hope that that continues. Applications for more than £100,000 would now require about 25 per cent. partnership funding, while, for those below, the threshold is 10 per cent. I think that that is much more attainable. It should also make it easier all round.
It is official policy, I believe, that lottery funding spent on the arts should be used for the widest public benefit. Our historic houses are visited by 11 million people a year, and they are an important contribution to tourism. Many of these remain in private ownership, which, to many visitors, is an additional attraction, as Gowers pointed out over 45 years ago. The time has
544
come, therefore, when help to preserve this unique part of our national heritage needs to be wider and more flexible. The Bill goes a long way to meet these current difficulties and, in general, I welcome it.
4.1 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, mentioned the important question of the financial position of historic houses towards the end of his speech. In a few moments I shall be referring to what the present chairman of the Historic Houses Association, Mr. William Proby, whose grandfather presided over the committee which chose me as a candidate in 1945, has just written to me and asked me to mention. However, before I go any further, I should also point out that Sir Richard Proby was also the grandfather of my noble friend Lord Inglewood!
We are in a very strange and unusual position in this debate because, however much we approve of a Bill, normally we ask the Government what they are going to do to implement it. We have a pretty clear idea of that but, in fact, a great deal of the responsibility for implementing the Bill will fall upon the National Heritage Memorial Fund. Today we have the great advantage of having with us the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild. He is to speak immediately after me and, for that reason, no doubt noble Lords will wish me to keep my remarks fairly short.
However, I should like to echo the tribute paid by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, to my noble friend Lord Luke. I was the Member for Huntingdonshire, which adjoins Bedfordshire, for many years. Therefore, I was conscious of the wonderful work that the father of my noble friend Lord Luke and his family have done in Bedfordshire. Indeed, its effects often crossed the border into Huntingdonshire. My noble friend referred to the long period of service that his father gave in your Lordships' House, but I should remind noble Lords that the late Lord Luke lived to be 90 years of age. I only hope that the present Lord Luke, my noble friend, will do the same so that we may hear his interventions as often as possible, though not necessarily confined in the way he suggested.
Perhaps I may deal quickly with the question of the Historic Houses Association. My noble friend Lord Inglewood said that the lottery would not replace public expenditure. That was good news because it conflicts with several of the comments which have already been made about public expenditure being reduced where National Lottery aid has been granted. I hope that in future we shall have the advantage of continuing public help where it is really needed, as well as the advantage of lottery funds.
As regards the Historic Houses Association, government cuts have greatly reduced the grant aid for historic houses in recent years. As the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, said, that could mean interference with public enjoyment. As the noble Lord pointed out, 11 million visitors a year visit historic houses. Such houses are most costly to maintain and to run. However, the public are only charged rather moderate fees for visiting them. Therefore, it is most important that the Government should keep an eye on their position.

545
Mr. William Proby has asked me to say that the Historic Houses Association welcomes the proposed changes to the National Heritage Act and the advantage to be gained from the heritage lottery funding being placed on the same basis as other lottery distribution as, for example, is being made for sports and arts. It will not only help historic houses but it will also help their environment. It will help to improve landscapes, and other things like theatres and seaside piers. Nevertheless, there is an anxiety in the Historic Houses Association (which is a very vigorous body that had a most successful conference in London only last week) about the increasing cost of funding such houses and, indeed, as regards receiving adequate support in that way both from the Government and the lottery.
I turn now to a separate matter—principally archives. I have in mind the new Clause 3A(2) to the National Heritage Act 1980 which, under the heading "Financial assistance towards exhibitions and archives" on page 2 of the Bill, refers to the projects for which,
"assistance is to be given to—

(a) set up and maintain a public exhibition, or

(b) compile and maintain an archive".

We should try to understand our long history, to which—and I hesitate to say this because it is not a word that one is allowed to use much—various races, invaders mostly, have contributed, as well as the people we like to think were the original inhabitants of our country. With the help of those people who have metal detectors, much of that history has been discovered over recent years and, alas, dispersed. Some of those discoveries have gone to museums, but not enough.
So far as concerns England and Wales—and this does not apply to Scotland or Northern Ireland—;I should like to think that the inadequate ancient law of treasure trove will soon be brought to an end and made more sensible by the bringing into force of the Treasure Act, introduced earlier this year by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, with the help of my noble friend Lady Trumpington and, indeed, a number of us on both sides of both Houses of Parliament. Perhaps my noble friend will be able to tell us when that will happen.
I remind your Lordships that the ancient law in England and Wales meant that the only things that were protected were gold, silver and precious jewellery, and nothing much else. However, they were not protected, and did not become a matter of public concern, unless a coroner's inquest had reached a decision that the original owner—perhaps several thousand years ago—had deliberately buried the treasure with the intention of recovery. Of course in the nature of things the original owner was never known, so a coroner's inquest had an almost impossible task. That will remain the law until the Government bring the Treasure Act into force. When that Act comes into force, a much wider range of archaeological objects and historic artefacts will be protected, will have to be reported and will therefore find their way into our museums.
As I said earlier, if we wish our ancient history to become better known we need to have what have become known as portable antiquities properly recorded. A few months ago the Government published a most
546
interesting discussion document entitled Portable Antiquities and they allowed until late June to enable people to express their views on it. I very much hope that the powers contained in that part of the Bill to which I have just referred relating to archives will be used for recording those artefacts in the years to come.
I should mention that Dr. Roger Bland, who is in charge of the coins and medals department at the British Museum, has expressed his great concern on this matter. Now that the views of the public on the proposals for recording these antiquities have been obtained by the Department of National Heritage, we would like to know what the Government think should be done about it. In the hope that it will be accepted as part of the law and of the responsibilities of the National Heritage Memorial Fund, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild—although I cannot expect an answer from him today as that would not be fair—to take on board the importance and the desirability (if the Government agree) of using the power contained in the Bill to record these things because that would add greatly to our knowledge of history. This is such a fascinating subject and one could go on. However, I merely say that the past and the future are often more interesting than the present. This Bill will enable us to enjoy the past much more, and we welcome it.
4.14 p.m.
Lord Rothschild: My Lords, I want to start today by putting on record my hope—shared, I should say, by all my fellow trustees at the National Heritage Memorial Fund—that this Bill gains all party support both here and in another place.
As the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, has so clearly said in introducing the Bill, the need for it arises from our experience in the past year as distributors of lottery money under the 1980 Act. Let me remind your Lordships that the 1980 Act was devised for quite different circumstances to today's. It served, and continues to serve, the "last resort" fund well—that is, the National Heritage Memorial Fund, which my predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Charteris, guided and led with such brilliance and élan. Some changes were made to the 1980 Act by the 1993 lottery Act, but experience has shown us that these did not go far enough. The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, has already given your Lordships some examples of that: for example, almshouses and information technology for access to museums. Under the words of the existing Act—they are restrictive—we can only give our resources to "acquire, preserve or maintain" museum collections. Your Lordships will see that we cannot grant aid, for example, information technology databases to interpret those collections for the public to enjoy.
The noble Lord, Lord Luke, in his elegant and thoughtful maiden speech, gave this House some other excellent examples. I hope I may tell him that we have helped the Cecil Higgins Museum quite recently. In these areas we have from time to time been forced to turn down worthy projects in heritage terms because of the unforeseen consequences of the 1980 Act. The lottery largesse is far greater than any of us ever

547
expected; but so too has been demand. We are currently receiving some £280 million a year; but we are already over five times over subscribed, as the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, drew to our attention. More than ever it will be important for us to establish and to stick to clear priorities. We intend through a process of discussion and consultation to be in a position to announce new funding guidelines by the autumn of next year.
Once the Act is in force, the lottery fund will be able to consider applications on their merits, unconstrained by ownership. That means that where a good project in heritage terms provides substantial public benefit but depends on the participation of private owners, they will in future be eligible for funding. But let me stress that we want to use our money for the widest possible public benefit.
National parks, historic towns and conservation area partnerships will surely be priorities. As regards repairs for individual houses, let me remind the House that English Heritage has a good scheme with means testing for the Grade I and Grade II star listed buildings. The Grade II listed buildings—which will be additional to what English Heritage already covers—may not be such high priorities. We do not want to duplicate the work that English Heritage has done so well for many years. But that does not mean that we cannot help in certain cases to keep heritage entities intact. For example, in the past owners have been forced to sell some important part of their collections to stop the holes in the roof, as it were, of an important historic house. If we are able to intervene, the heritage receives a double dividend. That is something we should surely seek to encourage. Let me say again, however, that our support should surely always depend on clear and additional public benefit, usually in the form of real increased public access.
Let me remind the House that the heritage lottery fund's first full year was only last year and the impact has already been dramatic. In this morning's Financial Times the distinguished commentator, Mr. Colin Amery, began his weekly article by saying,
"In many countries government spending on the arts is under harsh review. But in the UK the extraordinary success of the National Lottery is helping cultural life in ways that would once have seemed impossible."
He ended by saying:
"The lottery funds are the best source of money to democratise the heritage business".
With the extended canvas provided by this Bill we will be able to spread the benefits across an even wider range of projects and to make a memorable and lasting impact as a result. We therefore very much welcome the Bill.
4.20 p.m.
Lord Hindlip: My Lords, I must declare an interest in this Bill. Many of the clients that my firm advises will become, if the Bill is passed into law, clients of the national heritage lottery fund trustees.
I should like to congratulate my noble friend the Minister on his clear speech and on the clarity of the aims of the Bill. In so doing, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Luke, on his excellent maiden speech.
548
I can assure the Minister that my colleagues in Christie's and I will urge those clients we advise to take advantage of this legislation where possible before going to auction, successful though results in the market have been recently.
But while supporting the aims of the Bill, I should like to ask my noble friend Lady Trumpington for further assurances on the points referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, my noble friend Lord Charteris and others: that this funding will be additional to and not instead of government grants. I have been connected with the heritage world now for nearly 35 years and I think that I can be excused for a certain degree of scepticism. We really need assurances that the funding is additional.
The second point on which I wish the Minister to be specific is regarding private owners. I am not a toff. My own family home is now a police station. But I know that the Bill is welcomed by the Historic House Owners Association, whose members, as has already been pointed out, own two-thirds of the built heritage in this country and, as four noble Lords have pointed out, receive 11 million of the 15 million visitors in this country to historic houses. Many of them need help, not just with running costs but with capital expenditure. I urge the Minister, and specifically the trustees of the national heritage lottery fund, to be both generous and flexible in their dealings with private owners. It is quite clear that the public benefit must be served. However, too rigorous requirements, for instance, public access, will damage-1 would go so far as to say ruin—not only the fabric but the ambience of a country house; and too restrictive an application and interpretation of rules can work against the public interest. Flexibility, not rigidity, in the long term can often serve the public interest best. Never forget, my Lords, the example of "the Three Graces". Had the rules been less rigidly applied in that case "the Three Graces" would be the property of the nation at a cost of £1.3 million, and would still be at Woburn. As it is, the poor girls have to go backwards and forwards between London and Edinburgh at a cost of £8 million.
I should like to mention a case—perhaps I may underline my interest in it—with which my firm is experiencing certain difficulties. I refer to the core of the incomparable collection of furniture of the late Prime Minister, Sir Robert Walpole, at Houghton. It would be inappropriate to go into the details of this case, and I shall not take up your Lordships' time in doing so. The point is not strictly covered by the Bill but by surrender in lieu. However, it is worth mentioning as in general terms it highlights a particularly important aspect of public benefit from privately held works of art. I was at a prizegiving last week in Norwich for the excellent business pairing scheme. My noble friend Lady Trumpington was to have appeared at it but I believe that she was engaged in your Lordships' House. There was an exhibition at the Castle Museum of works of art from Houghton. The furniture had been borrowed from the house, with the pictures brought back from the Hermitage in St. Petersburg. The director of the Norwich Castle Museum expressed pleasure over the

549
exhibition which we sponsored and commented how much better the furniture looked in its original surroundings.
That is certainly the view of the public. They like seeing things in their natural habitat. They look better there and they cost the Government far less. Private owners provide excellent curatorial staff. In the main they look after their works of art. They provide free security and, if you like, free museums. By their very definition, country houses spread the benefit for which governments have so often specified the need. Many of the best private houses are in the north or sometimes distant east Anglia—Houghton, Holkam and Blickling to name but three.
I hope that in her winding up speech my noble friend Lady Trumpington can assure us that the Government are behind the private owner, as the Bill sets out. In the past one has had the feeling that the party opposite was almost more committed to this cause than those on our side of the House.
In conclusion, I wish to commend my noble friend Lord Inglewood for including three times in the Bill the word "outstanding". Much has been said about the wider use of lottery money. But I believe that lasting benefits come not from political correctness and the widest possible use, but from a more focused view, from concentrating on outstanding works of art. Although I gather that we shall have Mystic Meg twice a week now, the lottery funds are not guaranteed; and they are not inexhaustible. Please do not spread the lottery too wide. Let us concentrate on the best because I am quite sure that that is the means by which this huge success can work in the long term for the future of this country's most precious and fragile assets.
4.29 p.m.
Lord Chorley: My Lords, in warmly welcoming the Bill, I declare an interest. I retired as chairman of the National Trust four months ago; however, I still retain both formal and informal connections with it.
The Bill is important to the trust directly and, perhaps more importantly, indirectly. It is mercifully short. In fact it has only one substantive clause—or perhaps I should say two, since Clause 2 is not unimportant. It is entirely appropriate that the Bill should begin its passage in this House. It is an added bonus that the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, is in charge of shepherding it through the House. Not only does he have great experience in heritage matters, but I hope I do not embarrass him when I say that he is also a listening Minister—which cannot always be said of some of his colleagues in government.
The Bill is about widening the powers of the National Heritage Memorial Fund. In the 16 years since the 1980 Act, as nobody would disagree, the fund has been a tremendous success story. There were 12 years under the imaginative leadership of my noble friend Lord Charteris. He was brilliantly followed by my noble friend Lord Rothschild, who, as he mentioned, had to cope almost overnight with the huge expansion in the fund's activities which arose from the lottery. The increase in activities, which indeed took place almost
550
overnight, must have been at least thirty-fold and perhaps nearly forty-fold. It is therefore entirely right, 16 years later, and with the expansion of funds that has taken place, to take stock, examine the powers and extend them. The words I wrote down are almost the same as those of the noble Lord the Minister; namely, it is proposed to extend the powers in two respects: first, in respect of what the trustees may support. In that respect I particularly welcome the specific references, for example, to,
"encouraging the study and understanding of them [the objects]",
and also the specific references to assistance for education and training. The Bill goes on to include the setting up and maintaining of public exhibitions and the compiling and maintaining of archives, as already referred to. All these areas are important to those of us in the trust, and they are becoming increasingly more important. Therefore all this is very good and timely news. I shall say no more on that issue, but turn to the second point; namely, whom the trustees may support.
I believe that all would agree that there was a weakness, perhaps understandable, in the 1980 Act which has now become increasingly apparent; namely, it was restricted to heritage and conservation trusts and organisations. As we were told by the Minister and other speakers, that excluded some two-thirds of our built heritage—what I would loosely call the private sector. Not only was that unfair but it left at risk a whole vital area of heritage. Now we have the magic words in subsection (3) of the new Section 3, "for any person".
I wish to say, at the risk of being parochial, that we in the trust regard this extension as of great importance, a major step forward. That may seem strange to those who tend to see the trust as being keen to grab any stately home that comes its way. But the fact is that the trust has more than enough great houses. The burden of maintaining them is a huge drain on our resources. So a healthy private sector is of the utmost importance to the trust. It has always been—I repeat, always—the trust's policy to act only as a long-stop: to step in only when other remedies fail. That cannot be said often enough.
There are other supporting reasons: for example, plurality, the different approach that different families have to showing their houses; with that goes the sense of a house being lived in. I could expand on that but I have made my point. The matter was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue. Then there is the question of costs. Not only does private ownership, through the free input of management and labour from the owner, mean that the nation conserves its heritage relatively inexpensively—indeed in that respect the private sector is remarkably good value for money for the nation—but there is an additional factor vis-à-vis the trust in that, when we take on a house we are required to declare it inalienable; that is to say, we can never sell the house or its contents, or raise money on them. That means that we take on an open-ended liability and have no alternative but to insist on an endowment. Sadly, history shows that we have not, at any rate until the last 20 years, been very good at securing or calculating adequate endowments as the endowments on the great majority of our houses have proved totally insufficient.

551
So much for general principles. I should like now to turn briefly to some practical issues in regard to how the extended powers are to be applied. First, I assume that the NHMF will mainly be concerned with what I loosely describe as capital projects. Some of those may of their nature incur a net—I emphasise net—increase in running costs. I hope in those cases the trustees will in appropriate circumstances be pragmatic (perhaps "flexible" is a better word) and allow an element of endowment funding. I say that because in our general national enthusiasm for accessing lottery funding, which has tended hitherto to mean capital projects, there is a tendency on the part of applicants to underplay (underestimate) the ongoing costs. One wants to avoid such hugely worthwhile projects, as it were, ending in tears some 10 years later when the full difficulty of meeting running costs has only just become apparent. A small element of endowment can therefore make a crucial difference. Having said that, one recognises that proper strings would have to be attached. Proper conditions would need to be imposed, perhaps by way of separate charitable trusts, in the case of individuals.
I suspect, however, that the main weight of funding will be for major capital repair programmes: a new roof is the normal example, but there are others such as rewiring, security systems and so on. They are the sort of repairs that have to be done only once in a generation. Those sorts of events are real killers for the private owner. It is sometimes said that no one should be in the business of running a heritage house unless he or she can meet the ordinary running costs. That is a sensible and true statement, albeit unpalatable. But the blockbusting expense of, let us say, a new roof is an entirely different matter. Selling investments, even if sufficient are available, is unpalatable as it will usually mean a heavy capital gains tax bill, not to mention the crippling burden of VAT in addition to the building costs themselves.
One would also like to see, for major buildings, agreements with owners on long-term programmes of works. To be effective, conservation work—this applies as much to contents as it does to the fabric of the building—requires the steady application of resources over a period of years. That, incidentally, appears to be entirely consistent with the new purpose of, "encouraging the maintenance and development" of conservation skills. Such an approach will also tend to be more economical if it is run on a properly organised and planned basis.
There is one current problem with that sort of approach; namely, the inability of the NHMF trustees to make contractual commitments for more than a short period ahead. I know that my noble friend Lord Rothschild is aware of the issue, so I will leave it at that, except to remark that we believe there are possible solutions which would deal with the NHMF's difficulties in this area.
That brings me finally to the question of the future relationship—the working arrangements—between the NHMF and English Heritage. The noble Baroness who is to wind up will be relieved to hear that on this occasion I do not want to enter the fray on the question
552
of additionality, though I agree with everything that previous speakers have said. Nevertheless, the fact is that English Heritage's ability to meet its normal responsibilities has been steadily reduced in recent years. It seems to me, therefore, that there are two key points: first, to make full use of English Heritage's expertise and not to duplicate it; secondly, for there to be clarity on who is responsible for what.
I listened with great interest to the words of the noble Lords, Lord Inglewood and Lord Rothschild. I reiterate that we must seek to avoid bureaucratic red tape, needless delays and extra cost as well as the danger of falling between two stools.
I have gone on quite long enough. I conclude by repeating my congratulations to the Government and everyone involved on introducing this simple piece of legislation which has great potential for our national heritage. I wish the Bill a speedy passage to the statute book.
4.41 p.m.
Lord Crathorne: My Lords, I too should like to congratulate the Government and my noble friend the Minister on the Front Bench on bringing forward this Bill. Today is a very good day for the heritage. I am sure that we all have great pleasure in taking part in this Second Reading debate.
I want to say a very few words, having had the experience of being a trustee of the National Heritage Memorial Fund. The trustees, and particularly the chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, shoulder a quite enormous burden and workload, which is a point that has not perhaps been sufficiently expressed this afternoon. I am sure that the Bill will very significantly improve the working of the fund for the chairman and his trustees. In that context, I was pleased to see reference made to the fact that in future it will be possible under certain circumstances to remunerate trustees. That has an advantage. At the moment, there are many men and women who simply cannot give up the time required to be an NHMF trustee without remuneration of any kind. I do not know how often the system will be used but it is very satisfactory that it is in this Bill.
Another point that I was delighted to see resolved was in regard to the "eligibility jungle" which existed, where the rules were laid down initially much too tightly. It is easy to be wise after the event. But now projects in multiple ownership, such as townscapes, which are a mixture of private, commercial and public ownership, can receive grants. When I was a trustee I remember that one of the frustrations was that we often had to turn down things because there was a private element or an element which simply did not meet the eligibility test. So that provision is very good news.
Also, the general broadening of the scope to not just a "tangible heritage asset" is so good. That is now very much more broadly defined. As the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, pointed out, and I agree with him, it is nice to see it "encouraging enjoyment". That seems quite admirable.

553
There has been discussion about the owners of private country houses and I think it worth emphasising a couple of points in that regard. It is very much accepted—indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, made the point—that the cheapest way of looking after those lovely houses is when they are in private hands.
A second related point is that there is no question but that the public gain even more pleasure from going round houses in private ownership—perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, will not agree with me—than they do from going round those in the ownership of the National Trust or any public ownership. It is excellent that there will be ways in which, with the correct safeguards, private houses can benefit.
This is an excellent Bill which is supported on all sides of the House. I am sure it will make the job of the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, which he carries out with such great distinction, somewhat easier and perhaps even more satisfying than it is at the moment.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, in his maiden speech, which had all the desirable qualities, including brevity, the noble Lord, Lord Luke, described himself as an historian, and I welcome him to the growing numbers of your Lordships who make that claim. I learnt from his speech that they include the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue. Indeed, he presented—it is the only theme on which I wish to touch—the very considerable anxiety in the community of historians, both professional and amateur, about the future of the Victoria County History.
It was the understanding of the Institute of Historical Research of the University of London, which now looks after the Victoria County History, that when the heritage Bill was modified, as it is now in the Bill before your Lordships' House today, it would be made clear that the Victoria County History would be eligible for support from lottery funds. But examination of the text of the Bill does not make that commitment sufficiently clear. At a time when, as the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, and others reminded us, there are many claims on the lottery money, anyone who wishes to put forward a claim must at the very beginning be certain that there is nothing in the text of the Bill which would or could exclude it. Therefore, I very much hope that that omission or partial omission will be remedied during the passage of the Bill in your Lordships' House.
At present I propose to test it by putting down, together with my noble friend Lord Pilkington, an amendment—possibly a couple of amendments—of a very minor kind to clarify for instance that, where archives are spoken of, works of reference—which the Victoria County History is and for the purposes of our heritage it is perhaps the most important work of reference—could be included. Since neither I nor the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, are masters of parliamentary draftsmanship, I hope that the Government themselves will remedy the omission by proposing amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, and I, and I am sure others representing the historical community in your Lordships' House, will be glad to discuss the matter with Ministers at the appropriate time.
554
It is unnecessary to enlarge upon the importance of the Victoria County History. It is not only a record of our heritage. The fact that it has been in progress for a century makes it part of that heritage. Therefore, I feel that there is no need further to urge the case. I hope that the noble Baroness, when she comes to wind up, will be able to assure us that the Government will either accept a proposed amendment or, better still, propose one themselves. I must apologise to her in that, if the debate is much prolonged, I may not be present to hear her. But in that case the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, will be here and we much look forward to remedying this particular but perhaps rather dangerous verbal omission.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Cobbold: My Lords, first, I must declare an interest. I am honorary treasurer of the Historic Houses Association and also the owner of an historic house in Hertfordshire which is regularly opened to the public and has been the recipient of Section 3A grants from English Heritage in the past.
I welcome the new Bill unreservedly. It seeks to put right an—I am sure unintended—anomaly whereby National Lottery funds have not been available to support the privately owned built heritage but up until now have been available to the private sector through the Millennium Commission and in the arts and sports sectors.
As the Minister and other noble Lords said, by far the greater proportion of Britain's built heritage is in private hands. That is not just confined to large country houses. The sector covers town houses, villages, office buildings, pubs, theatres, cinemas, agricultural and industrial buildings and more. It is our landscape and our built heritage that attracts 23.7 million foreign visitors to Britain and earned for the nation last year some £12 billion, according to the recent annual report of the British Tourist Authority. It makes tourism one of our largest industries and one of the largest employers.
I do not believe that there is anyone in your Lordships' House, and hardly anyone in the country at large, who does not cherish our built heritage and who would not wish to see it preserved for future generations. I am sure therefore that we shall be unanimous in welcoming the Bill. Lottery funds are intended to support those aspects of life that we value but for which it is hard to justify the use of scarce public funds raised from taxation.
Let me turn to the specific case of historic houses, with which I am most familiar. Owners of historic properties were naturally disappointed when the private heritage was excluded in the original lotteries Act, particularly since the supply of Section 3A grants from English Heritage had slowed to a trickle. In welcoming wholeheartedly the new Bill, owners of historic houses recognise the need for an increased public benefit and for access to their houses. But they are concerned about the new procedures and as to how the new arrangements are to be administered.
I was somewhat concerned by what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, in that he was relying very much on the additionality clause—one might ask,

555
additional to what?—in the case of Section 3A English Heritage grants. It may be that Grade I and Grade II starred houses are already adequately cared for, but I am doubtful whether that is the case. In the hope that there will be some funds available for historic houses, I should like to say that we are familiar with the workings of English Heritage and know that it has the staff, the expertise and experience to deal with the specific and specialist problems of historic houses. It is experienced in the important area of means testing and in the judgment of appropriate public access provisions.
Can the Minister say whether it is the intention of the Bill to duplicate that expertise within the National Heritage Memorial Fund? If so, and on the assumption that English Heritage would continue to be involved through the Section 3A grant procedure, that could represent a major increase in bureaucracy that could lead to duplication of the already extensive paperwork, increased bills from architects and legal advisers and an inevitable lengthening of the whole application process.
I hope that the Government will give careful consideration to the efficient operation of the new scheme. For example, it may be sensible for the National Heritage Memorial Fund to make an annual block grant for the private heritage to English Heritage to be administered using its existing procedures and expertise. I pose the question.
I wish to put in a further plea and echo what my noble friend Lord Chorley said. The lottery distributors have a propensity to support capital projects involving construction or purchase of physical assets. Little consideration is given to future running costs. I feel therefore that the endowment fund has an important part to play and nowhere is that more relevant than in the case of an historic house. The National Trust is living proof.
As my noble friend Lord Chorley said, the National Trust will not take on a new property unless it has a substantial dedicated endowment fund. Indeed, he said just now that the endowment funds that it has had in the past have rarely proved to be adequate. My noble friend himself devised a formula within the National Trust to calculate the size of such a fund for each property. The NHMF has provided funds to the National Trust for that purpose in the past and, more recently, from the heritage lottery fund it provided endowment funding for the National Trust's acquisition of Croome Park. So precedents do exist. I believe that endowment funding should be more widely and more readily provided by the lottery distributors and not just in the heritage area.
For an historic house, as the National Trust takes for granted, a dedicated endowment fund is the best possible long-term solution. An historic house endowment fund could make use of the existing legislation covering maintenance funds. Maintenance funds, as currently defined, are not quite the ideal vehicle but would not require much modification to become so.
Finally, I once again welcome the Bill and, as an historic house owner, I uncompromisingly stress my conviction (which I know is shared by the overwhelming majority of members of the Historic
556
Houses Association) that any support from the heritage lottery fund is and must be for the benefit of the historic building and not of the owner—however historic he or she may be!
4.56 p.m.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, my purpose in taking part in this Second Reading debate is to give a broad welcome to the Bill, although I find it difficult to say anything that does not duplicate what has already been said. I have spent most of the debate deleting sections from my speech as noble Lord after noble Lord made those valid points.
Before entering into the detail of the Bill I shall dispose of some formalities. First, I declare a three-fold interest. I am a commissioner of English Heritage which, of course, is greatly interested in this Bill and looks forward to it reaching the statute book with the minimum of delay. I take this opportunity of thanking those noble Lords who have supported, in the course of the debate, the role of English Heritage and its potential role in the future in a way which comes much better from them than it would from me.
Secondly, I am involved with a number of organisations which are actively seeking lottery funding. Although that is peripheral, I count it as an interest. Thirdly, I have a life interest in various historic properties, including listed buildings, which could become eligible for grant as a result of the Bill becoming law. For the sake of completeness I should say that, as of today, no application for lottery funding has been made in respect of any property in which I hold a personal interest, nor is any planned.
Finally, in this general section, I wish to say that one noble Lord who would have liked to be here but sadly is not is my noble friend Lord Astor who was closely involved with the National Lottery etc. Bill as it went through its various stages in your Lordships' House. My noble friend did not anticipate such an early introduction of the Bill and felt unable to cancel a long-standing engagement he had today in the United States. As he would like to take part in subsequent stages of the Bill, he asked me to say that he hoped your Lordships would accept the circumstances which have prevented him from being here today.
The Government are to be warmly congratulated on introducing this short but important Bill. I welcome in particular the provisions to extend the powers of the National Heritage Memorial Fund to allow it to distribute lottery money to private owners. Almost as soon as the National Lottery etc. Act was passed in 1993 it was plain that there was a major lacuna. In relying on the existing powers available to the National Heritage Memorial Fund, the lottery distribution provisions effectively excluded most of the built heritage from assistance, as has been identified many times during today's debate not least by my noble friend the Minister in his opening speech.
It is still argued from time to time that private owners are all rich men and women living in their castles who contribute no public benefit and who do not need public money. As Sir Jocelyn Stevens, the chairman of English

557
Heritage, has robustly put it, this is, of course, bunkum. Most of the privately owned heritage comprises modest private houses, small shops and businesses in our towns and countryside; what the Prime Minister has described as the "people's heritage". They make up the very warp and weft of our historic landscape and townscape, and their condition is critically important if we are to conserve these assets for future generations.
I do not want to rehearse again the contribution made by the historic houses of this country to the nation's life, save to make one point which I do not think has been touched on. It is now well understood that the repair of historic buildings in conservation areas and the improvement of their setting can be a potent factor in encouraging economic regeneration.
Overall, it seems clear that it is in the interest of everyone in the country that private owners should be able to receive lottery assistance where this is essential and secures appropriate public benefits whether through the conservation of historic buildings and ancient monuments, the provision of, or improvements to, public access to them, or, more widely, through economic regeneration and the encouragement of tourism.
There is nothing new in this line of thought. Since 1953 these benefits have been the rationale underlying the existing scheme, funded by taxpayers' money and, as has been said, with the support of all political parties, for grant aiding repairs to historic buildings and operated by English Heritage since 1984 and its counterparts in the rest of the United Kingdom.
It is important that once the Bill is passed, as I hope it very soon will be, the new powers to assist private owners are deployed quickly. The chairman of the heritage lottery fund, the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, who made such an interesting contribution to the debate, has already indicated his desire to commit significant resources as soon as possible to historic town centres and other conservation areas. If I had spoken before the noble Lord I would perhaps have asked him what scale of commitment the heritage lottery fund is considering in this area. However, I do know that discussions are already taking place between English Heritage and the heritage lottery fund about how English Heritage will be involved in the task of distributing these grants.
English Heritage already provides advice and casework management services to the heritage lottery fund in respect of lottery applications within its area of competence. This co-operation has proved very effective, allowing improved focusing of both lottery and English Heritage grants, together with the reduction of bureaucracy and the provision of simplified procedures for grant applicants. The recently announced Joint Church Grants Scheme, which was referred to by my noble friend Lord Inglewood, shows how far this process can go given good will on all sides. It is obviously of particular importance that full use is made by the heritage lottery fund of the skills that English Heritage has developed in the definition of repair programmes, the financial assessment of applicants and projects and the monitoring of works.
I am sure that the House would welcome an undertaking from the heritage lottery fund that it will provide sufficient resources to allow a significant
558
overall increase in the help available to private owners. I believe that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage has already indicated this as a possible way forward in her comments to the National Heritage Select Committee in May this year when she said:
"Rather than restricting Lottery spending to projects which were never funded from government funds, it was possible to allow funding for projects in sectors where government funds were insufficient".
Grant aid to private owners is certainly such a sector. In the face of falling support from the Government, English Heritage has been forced to make large cuts in its individual grant schemes which have fallen particularly heavily on private owners precisely because they have not been eligible for lottery funding.
It is with some regret that I dwell a little on the diminishing support that English Heritage receives from the Government. At a conference held to mark the 10th anniversary of English Heritage in September 1994, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made the unequivocal pledge that the money raised by the lottery will not replace existing government spending. That pledge was quoted in full by my noble friend Lord Inglewood in his opening speech. But since that statement English Heritage has seen first a standstill and then a cut in cash terms. On the 1995–96 base line, English Heritage estimates that there will be £44.7 million less over this and the next three years, and further cuts in the autumn Budget are not considered impossible. As I said, English Heritage has been compelled to reduce significantly the amount that can be offered for repair grant. The casualty is, of course, the heritage.
More ominous, in a way, is the threat that now looms over English Heritage's core competencies as a consequence of those reductions. If that happens, not only will the benefits that the Bill intends to confer on the heritage be wretchedly eroded but the skills developed by English Heritage over many years will be lost to the nation. Specifically they will be lost to those who are charged with the responsibility of seeing that lottery funds are spent effectively and wisely.
This Government had the vision and courage to introduce the lottery and it has been an outstanding success. The benefits to the nation are only beginning to emerge. In bringing forward the Bill the Government demonstrate their willingness to improve upon the original model. I have always felt that we have outrageous expectations of new institutions. New institutions take time to come of age. They often experience a tricky, and sometimes unattractive, adolescence that calls for sensitive handling. I have no doubt that there will be more heritage lottery problems.
Yes, this is a good Bill and I wish it well. It corrects an injustice. But as it goes through its stages, I shall be looking for something further. I ask my noble friend to confirm that the accumulated skills and experience of English Heritage are central to the good working of the Bill. I should like to hear a new commitment by the

559
Government and the heritage lottery fund trustees, giving confidence that the heritage will benefit from the Bill as Parliament intends it to benefit. In practical terms this means money flowing rapidly to private owners for public benefit. And finally, although the undertaking has been given—I do not mind how often I hear it—I would ask once more for confirmation from the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, that lottery money will not be used to replace existing government spending. In saying that, it will not be lost on the noble Baroness that not a single speaker believes that the Treasury is not clawing back this money. I look forward to her comments.
I am grateful for the opportunity provided by the Bill to extend lottery funding to the private owners of historic buildings whose difficulties were first identified more than 40 years ago, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. Many of them have struggled for decades to maintain their properties for the benefit of all and with the very limited public help available. If we are to avoid the loss to the nation of more of our built heritage, large and small, and if we are to take full advantage of the economic and social benefits of investment in modest properties in conservation areas, then the new resources available through the lottery as a result of the Bill must be made available to them at once. I warmly support the measure.
5.9 p.m.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, I congratulate the Government on this most welcome and necessary Bill. I have no wish further to impose on your Lordships' House by repeating how necessary I think it is. Most welcome is the fact that the Bill has been so widely drawn—it certainly needed to be—and if, by any chance, the Victoria County History has been left out, I am sure that can be put right.
However, I have a certain déjà vu because when the National Lottery etc. Bill was being debated in your Lordships' House some of us knew it was flawed. Several of us put down amendments in order to correct the situation, particularly in order to get the problems of additionality and outstandingness better appreciated. Our expressed concerns were somewhat pushed aside, but we were assured that as the trustees would have complete discretion and flexibility, all would be well. The fact is that they did not have complete flexibility and all has not been well. That is unfortunate because it was not the fault of the trustees of the NHMF. When they were appointed in 1980 they were legally restricted. When the lottery money came along it just did not fit in.
Everyone from the top of the land, from Cabinet Ministers, downwards, thought that lottery money would be used for all heritage good causes regardless of ownership. When the lottery Act came into effect we found that two-thirds were not eligible. I do not believe that the Government can be accused of deliberately misleading the House on this occasion. Perhaps they too were misled. We are delighted that the Select Committee in another place has come down so strongly to get the situation changed.
560
What I believe compounded the situation and what has concerned the private heritage world since lottery funding started, is not so much that important conservation projects have been rejected or precluded, but that it was widely understood—perhaps wrongly—that the majority of the NHMF trustees actually disapproved in principle of allocating lottery money to the private sector on the grounds that the people would object. "Over my dead body", was a comment made to me by somebody from the fund when I suggested that this Bill was required.
I find that amazing because the fact is that since 1953, following the Gower Report, which has already been mentioned, the Historic Buildings Council was set up and millions of pounds of taxpayers' money has been spent on private properties, National Trust properties and so on. It has always been carried out under strict conditions. There have been means tests, access arrangements made, and so on. The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, made a great issue of that, but the fact is that what has been done over the years has been adequate. There have been very few complaints. As long as English Heritage continues to help and lay down the conditions, then all will be well. Certainly, when I was chairman of English Heritage for eight-and-a-half years there was absolutely no let up; in fact, we extended the conditions.
Let us for a moment realise that for their part private owners play a great part in being unpaid curators and in attracting tourists, and they give as much public benefit as anybody else. I have complete confidence that the NHMF and English Heritage will be able to co-operate in ensuring that there are sufficient funds and that they are given under strict conditions. Some projects may well fall into the competence of English Heritage for grants and others will be better dealt with by the National Lottery. Both will require each other and I am sure that it will work out well.
I was delighted to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, that there is no prejudice in principle and that a new chapter has begun. As past president of the Museums Association I would like to pay tribute to the fund for giving so much help already. It has been most appreciated. I believe we can say that a new era for museums has begun. Perhaps I may also say that many of the great museums of the world started as private collections. They have gone on to become local museums and then national museums. That is something that should not be forgotten.
I am delighted that the word "enjoyment" is also in the Bill. When we are dealing with things of national importance, they can also sometimes be of local importance as well. These are mostly Committee points which we can discuss later on. The most remarkable feature of the Bill is how widely drawn it is. I certainly support the provision that trustees should be remunerated. It is very hard work to assess applications; it requires the highest professional qualifications.
Finally, perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, who made some joking remarks about peers, that in today's debate 14 out of the 19 speakers are hereditary peers.
5.14 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I happened to spend the weekend in rather bleak surroundings in a Church of England parish in north Coventry. In this context and with this memory, it is difficult to see historic buildings and landscape as a deserving cause when one sees urban deprivation, poor housing and education and other desperate needs which persist in our society. Nevertheless, I do believe—and I believe the public appreciate this—that these buildings, gardens and parks can also be an environmental asset and an encouragement to those who live close to them and a source of revenue which gives them added value as our national heritage. I was pleased to hear mention of townscapes as deserving of more attention. Perhaps city landscapes could be added to those.
I warmly welcome the Government's decision in this Bill to follow up the Select Committee's recommendations on eligibility and to include private owners where there is public benefit. I declare an interest as a joint owner and administrator of a small country house and garden. This is especially important not just because of the fact that two-thirds of the built heritage is in private ownership, but because so much more property is in private hands as a result of the hiving off of sites owned by hospitals, railways, the Ministry of Defence or belonging to the so-called historic townscapes, which are now in mixed ownership.
But the key question, as has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, is the future role of the Government and of English Heritage. If heritage lottery funding is such a bonanza and is now to get to the parts which English Heritage cannot reach, who will make future decisions on the heritage? Now that English Heritage, itself a slimline version of a grand old government department, has regained its status, self-confidence and authority and the other things which the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, has spoken about, and which has prepared an excellent four-year plan, which I have read, it will be tragic if the lottery fund is allowed to develop alternative wisdom and expertise and so undermine what English Heritage has already achieved. I know from what others have said that this is a concern not only of English Heritage, but of many other people. I am sure that the Minister will give it the fullest attention in her reply.
It is hard to convince people that English Heritage funds for historic properties, whether in public or private ownership, are still very limited and, as has already been mentioned, they have been reduced by government cuts. A sum of £2 million to £3 million for the largest historic houses is a pitiful amount measured against the annual demand and only one-tenth of that sum is additionally available for parks and gardens. Perhaps I may give a recent example: coping stone for a garden balustrade can cost £50 per metre: the replacement of one crumbling section of stone garden wall can require thousands of pounds. Not surprisingly, owners all over the country are cashing in their works of art in order to pay for the fabric of the buildings where they are housed and preserved. This hidden subsidy is too often ignored. It is the background story of our English heritage, which looks so good on the surface. The Government need to
562
explain more fully how it is that not just the lottery but the Department of National Heritage are going to help to save our heritage. Again, I am sure that the Minister will give the fullest possible answer, although at this stage of the Government's expenditure plans it can hardly be satisfactory.
5.18 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, in a week of five important elections around the world, perhaps we should not forget that, after an election in this country, this Government were responsible for introducing the National Lottery etc. Act 1993. This timely Bill is rightly amending that Act. That was after much debate and controversy. It has proved an outstanding success. It is yet another government triumph. I hope that the thousands of people who have benefited will give the Government the credit that is rightly due to them.
The lottery is so successful because it is well run and highly professionally administered. The chairmen of the five funds that benefit so greatly—the arts, sport, heritage charities and the celebration of the Millennium—deserve our congratulations, especially the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, who explained the details so clearly to your Lordships.
It is tempting in a debate like this to go into specific projects for funding. I believe that this is an error. This is a short Bill, as my noble friend Lord Inglewood said, but of great significance. It seeks to make a few specific changes which are to be welcomed. Clause 1 extends the powers of the trustees of the National Heritage Memorial Fund to give financial assistance to projects of importance to the national heritage.
As more than two-thirds of Britain's historic buildings are in private hands, it is surely a good move to allow the National Heritage Memorial Fund to distribute money to private owners for the first time. Most are owners of modest properties, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, and from my noble friend Lord Cavendish, but I repeat (because I think that it is important) that we are talking often about corner shops and terraced houses in conservation areas and not just about stately homes, as many people may think. Such properties make a major contribution to the general economy. Recent surveys have identified that the built heritage, parks and gardens of this country are important factors in persuading both visitors and investors to come here.
New Section 3 will provide for the trustees to give financial assistance in respect of, among others, items of scientific interest and botanical interest. Britain has, at Kew, one of the largest and most comprehensive botanical, taxonomic and horticultural libraries in the world. It allows open access for all bona fide research workers and visitors. I should have thought that that was the kind of project that should be supported.
The essential factor with regard to any project gaining funding must be that it is for the public benefit and that there will be greater public access. Ay, there's the rub. For in this age of open public access (sometimes even without it), what dreaded circumstances often ensue. Such ill omens will pose major problems for millions of

563
people in the future. Public access is not possible without adequate security. Therefore, security is a must, but it has become one of the most costly items in which private individuals—or even public owners—have to invest. There is no escape; today it is an absolute necessity.
An added problem is that security systems now are not only more costly, but have to be more and more sophisticated. They need to be one jump ahead of the vandal or thief to be effective. Alas, nothing is sacred—be it a garden statue, a rare plant or tree, a picture or a piece of furniture, books or manuscripts from libraries. Nothing, if it is of interest or of value, is safe. The cost of basic and essential protection as well as of insurance is enormous. I am speaking about the protection and preservation of our national heritage. Much that is stolen goes abroad—and of one thing I am certain; the thief does not apply for an export licence. Other items are broken up and are never seen again.
The mechanics by which lottery funding could assist privately owned historic property have yet to be finalised. I wonder whether security, mentioned in the new Section 3(2)(c), could be given serious consideration. Can my noble friend Lady Trumpington and the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, as chairman of the National Heritage Memorial Fund, take that on board?
Finally, I welcome the Bill. It is a deregulatory Bill, removing a layer of bureaucracy. That is surely a popular move. But I hope too that the Government will, despite this, keep all the excellent staff and continue to leave the administration independent of the Department of National Heritage so that the great success not only of the lottery, but also of the way in which it is run, will continue.
5.23 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I occupy a rather lonely position today after the gap in our list of speakers. Incidentally, I am told by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, that there is no significance in that and that it is one of those technical hitches to which we are all subject from time to time. I look forward to being with him after the gap in future debates.
We on these Benches follow the views that have been expressed on all sides of this House. We welcome the Bill unreservedly. It is a short and very cleverly structured Bill. I am most grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Inglewood and Lord Rothschild, for explaining it so clearly and for presenting the thinking behind it so precisely.
We must all welcome any opportunity to preserve our country's unique heritage of houses, particularly private houses with their gardens and parks. As noble Lords have said, we all know the enormous financial strain under which many owners of private houses have been struggling for many years. That is why I do not share in any expression of the view that the Bill is seeking to give "toffs"—I think that that was the expression—the opportunity to grow rich from lottery funds. I certainly have not heard that view expressed forcefully in your Lordships' House today although it may be expressed in the other place or outside.
564
What we hand down to our descendants is as important, if not more important, than any tourism considerations. Of course, tourism is a huge money earner for this country and we are always seeking to improve what we offer to travellers from both this country and abroad.
It may be appropriate at this point to refer to what will be new Section 3(7) which cleverly introduces the phrase,
"the Trustees shall bear in mind the desirability of public access".
That rather guarded reference to public access is most important. I fully accept that Members of another place may say that public access must be an absolute condition of money being given to the private owners of such houses but, as we all know, there is a balance to be achieved. If it is not carefully controlled, tourism can be a great polluter. There may well be houses which fulfil the criteria of the fund and receive moneys yet which can offer only limited access because of the fear that the property may deteriorate or because the owner of the house cannot police any greater public access in the way that he feels necessary.
Incidentally, just before the debate started my noble friend Lord Avebury tapped me on the shoulder to relate a dismaying experience that he had yesterday in Berkshire when on an English Heritage sponsored walk. He came across some Saxon burial mounds, and much to my alarm, being a motorcyclist, he found a number of young motorcyclists riding over them. He raised the serious point that a lot of damage is being done to this country's heritage sites because we are not able to protect them not only against motorcyclists—I have never ridden over a Saxon burial mound and nor do I intend to; indeed, I do not even intend to go off the road—but against damage caused in other ways. Undoubtedly, it is important to ensure that those places which are not obviously regarded as part of our heritage, such as Saxon burial mounds, are properly protected against such unthinking vandalism.
I refer now to the excellent maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Luke. The noble Lord was right to refer to the importance of making museums accessible to children. I am still in the position of having a young child and I know that in the London area the museums for children are unbelievable. The Science Museum, the Natural History Museum, the Imperial War Museum, the museum at Hendon and the Victoria and Albert Museum all present what they have to offer in such a way as to make it fascinating to children. That is a great relief to me. Nowadays, all parents have to avoid the dreaded video. I do not represent my party when I say more than that, it is important to get children away from condescending and politically correct children's broadcasts. To get them into museums will bring them great benefits in later life. I agree with the noble Lord that any help to get children into museums and provide them with special conditions of access is desirable. I congratulate the noble Lord on the totality of his speech. I should also like to pursue with him the effects of the decapitation of King Charles I and whether that is the reason why we enjoy the relatively smooth

565
democracy that we have today. It is probably more important than that, but I am only self-educated. I look forward to talking to an historian about these matters.
I am particularly interested in the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, to pay special attention to town centres. In this country, town centres, particularly cathedral cities, have not been particularly well handled in terms of preservation. I think of my own part of the world, the county of Devon, and Exeter in particular. That is one of the oldest cities in the kingdom. That has been handled with scant respect for its heritage. Perhaps there is a particular reason why our cities are not as well preserved as those of other countries in Europe. Recently, I was in a town on Lake Bracciano, to the north of Rome, which looked much as it did before the discovery of America by Columbus. It may be that in Britain the mercantile and industrial period and clearing of the decks to prepare for a new era, which has resulted in the destruction of a good deal of the medieval fabric of our towns, has not had the same effect in those countries.
On Saturday a rather condescending or flippant remark appeared in the Financial Times. By and large, it supported the new measures in the Bill. It suggested that the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, and his fund would seek in some way to prettify (to use a horrible word) or gentrify dilapidated town centres in Britain. I am sure that that is the complete opposite of what he shall be doing. I do not believe that with the formidable array of talent at his disposal he will be disposed to create any kind of theme park image in the towns which he intends to improve. Certainly, there is a good deal to be done in the towns. The ability to give private owners money from the lottery under the provisions of the Bill will make it all the easier for improvements to be made to town centres where hitherto there have been difficulties because of the inability to make such funds available.
I look forward very much to the passing of this Bill without delay. I hope that there will be no carping or cynicism about the use of lottery funds for these purposes at this early stage. Thus far, it has been handled in an excellent way. There are one or two small matters. The suggestion in the Bill that employees should have terms and remuneration entirely at the whim of the fund requires clarification. There is probably a reason why terms of employment have been framed in such a loose way in the Bill. It may be that the noble Baroness will amplify that, although I am not hopeful. Perhaps at a later stage she will let me know the position.
It is an excellent Bill. We have had an excellent debate which is difficult to sum up. All of the views have been interesting. I am sure that any contributions in the other place will be preceded by careful scrutiny of today's Hansard.
5.35 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, we have had an excellent debate. It is always a privilege to be present when your Lordships discuss matters to do with the heritage, for the subject is one on which noble Lords invariably speak with expert knowledge and deep commitment. I am delighted by the cross-party welcome
566
for this Bill. It is a real pleasure for me to add my congratulations to those of other noble Lords on the truly elegant maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Luke. I am devastated that I do not feature as one of his ancient Muses.
As my noble friend Lord Inglewood indicates, the Bill extends the funding powers of the National Heritage Memorial Fund, principally with the aim of widening its role as a distributor of lottery proceeds. I remind your Lordships that we propose changes to the powers of the NHMF in two main respects. The first is an extension of the NHMF's funding remit to embrace a much broader range of heritage projects than is currently possible. The Government want to give people the opportunity to experience the heritage at first hand. We want everyone, especially the young, to have the chance to learn, not just what the heritage can tell us about our history, but what it signifies for our present and future. It is not enough simply to preserve historic buildings, works of art and artefacts. We need to ensure that they have meaning for us and that they come alive.
I particularly welcome the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, relating to private houses. I wrote my speech in my stately Battersea flat long before I was aware of what the noble Lord would say. I wonder whether other noble Lords have shared my experience in visiting castles and houses abroad. Of course, those buildings are among the outstanding achievements of European architecture and are a privilege to visit. Yet, I hope that no one will take it amiss if I say that many of them seem somehow lifeless, simply because they are not lived in. They demonstrate that the heritage is not just a matter of architectural or artistic accomplishment. The past means most to us when it is brought to life and speaks to us. It is therefore of the greatest importance that resources should be available not only for preserving the heritage but also for interpreting it and making it more accessible and enjoyable. It is with this end in view that we propose the extension of the remit of NHMF.
The second change that we propose involves the establishment of an entirely new approach to eligibility for NHMF funding. No longer will eligibility depend on who the applicant happens to be. Instead, the test will be whether the applicant's project is of demonstrable importance to the national heritage and whether it is of clear public benefit. The public benefit test will normally require that the public is guaranteed appropriate access to the particular heritage item with which the project is concerned. The effect of this change will be to allow the terms of reference of the NHMF to embrace the whole national heritage. It will enable priorities for lottery funding to be framed solely on the basis of heritage need and public benefit irrespective of ownership. It will ensure that no worthwhile grant application need be rejected just because of technical difficulties over eligibility.
The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, and my noble friend Lord Beloff raised the question of the Victoria County History. I am aware of the concern about that matter. There is doubt about the project's eligibility for public funding now, but it is our plan that it should fall within the eligibility of the NHMF once the Bill has

567
become law. I believe that it would be wiser for me to look into the matter and write to both noble Lords on the subject. The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, also spoke about the funding of the British Museum being cut by £6 million since 1991–92. The noble Lord will be aware that the Government continue to support our great museums and galleries at a very substantial level. The figure for 1996–97 is £213 million, excluding the Royal Armouries. But, like all other recipients of public funds, they cannot be exempt from the need for reductions in the overall level of all public expenditure.
I understand that the British Museum trustees are currently considering a report suggesting various ways in which resources available to them in future years should be arranged to meet the museum's needs. I am sure that they are right to do so, but I cannot of course pre-empt at this time decisions about the museum's future level of government funding which are properly a matter for the Budget decisions to be announced in due course by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, my noble friend Lord Renton, the noble Lord, Lord Hindlip, my noble friend Lord Cavendish, the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, and other noble Lords all raised that ghastly word "additionality". Various explanations are given of what the policy "the additionality of lottery funds" means. That should be clarified. Perhaps I may try. The Government have always made it clear that money raised by the lottery for good causes was and is intended to be additional to public expenditure. The Government will not reduce public spending programmes to take account of awards from the lottery. That commitment cannot, however, mean that the Government should set aside the issue of what they can afford to spend on any programme which benefits from lottery funds compared to any other public expenditure programme. The opposite view would be to give an automatic protection to lottery-supported programmes which was not available to others. Such a result would be absurd.
In consequence, where the public expenditure programme is increased or decreased, that, in itself, does not prevent, for example, the use of lottery funds to secure projects or programmes beyond the scope of foreseeable affordability but similar to those hitherto financed by public expenditure, or adding lottery funds to the level of affordable public expenditure in any particular area. That approach is not a breach of the principle but a sensible means of ensuring that, with the public funds available, of which the lottery is a part, the real objectives for support for the heritage, the arts, sport and charities are met.
The funding allocation for English Heritage for 1996–97 represented a reduction of 2.5 per cent. in previously planned provision. However, it must be remembered that the total grant to English Heritage increased by 64 per cent. between 1988–89 and 1995–96 (£65.9 million to £108.3 million), including provision for some special projects. As I said before, like all public spending programmes, that is under review and I cannot anticipate decisions which the Chancellor will announce in the Budget later this month.
568
The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, and the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, asked about administrative arrangements for the future. It will of course be for the NHMF to determine the detailed arrangements that best meet the requirements of the legislation. Those will of course give full weight to public access, means testing, monitoring and clawback of grant.
Public access or display will normally be key issues in the consideration of a public benefit in any project being considered for funding. The NHMF already imposes a public access consideration on all grants where that is appropriate. The appropriate degree of access is judged in relation to individual cases. The NHMF also continues to monitor projects after all payments have been made. In the event of failure to comply with a public access requirement, or, indeed, any other conditions attached to a grant, the NHMF would, if appropriate, require repayment of the grant. The NHMF accepts that, if grants are given to private owners of heritage assets, whether land, building or objects, the safeguards will need to be even more stringent. The NHMF will apply its grant conditions rigorously, including the requirement for public access. The NHMF accepts that means testing will be necessary for private applicants.
English Heritage has of course had long experience of means testing, access requirements, clawback of grant, and so forth in respect of its own grant scheme. I understand—the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, might be interested—that, for example, during the year 1995–96 there were some 20 cases in which English Heritage had occasion to recover grant previously paid, involving the sum of £83,000. Not bad!
The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, kindly gave me notice of one of his questions. I do not think that any of us knew the answer to it, so I shall most certainly write to him. I am afraid that my noble friend Lord Crathorne is under a misapprehension: the provision in Clause 2 which he has in mind is concerned only with the allowances payable to the trustees. That could cover, for example, payment for trustees in respect of their attendance at meetings, but it would not cover substantive remuneration for their work as trustees.
The noble Lord, Lord Charteris, to whom I pay tribute for all his work on behalf of the NHMF, commented on the reduced funding of the original Heritage Memorial Fund. The Government are very much aware of the view that there is a continued role for the memorial fund independently of the lottery. The NHMF has put to the Government its case for a restoration of grant-in-aid for the memorial fund. The Government will consider that carefully in assessing priorities during the current PES round.
The noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, asked whether the Bill would duplicate consideration given to applications from private owners currently considered by English Heritage. I agree with him that, wherever possible, duplication in bureaucratic procedures should be avoided. I am sure that the NHMF will want to make full use of the expertise already available in English Heritage, as indeed it already does in respect of applications covering the built heritage.

569
The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi—I am most grateful to him for giving me advance warning—asked whether English Heritage Section 3 grants would continue and whether the NHMF would be able to fund grants for once-in-a-lifetime repairs. English Heritage will certainly be able to continue to offer its full present range of grants alongside the awards which it will be possible for the NHMF to offer. Detailed decisions will of course continue to be for English Heritage itself to take in the light of its assessment of overall priorities for the use of the funds it has available for the repair and conservation of the built heritage in England. Likewise, I envisage that the NHMF will be able to make grants to private owners for once-in-a-lifetime repairs following the Bill's passage. Of course it will be for the NHMF trustees to consider individual applications on their merits. I expect that they will want to take advice from English Heritage and other statutory bodies in doing so.
The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, also asked whether grants would be available for parks. Perhaps I may remind him and the House of the broad scope of the NHMF's funding powers as they will stand after the Bill is enacted. The funding powers will apply to items of any kind which are of scenic, historic, archaeological, aesthetic, architectural, artistic or scientific interest. Therefore, parks will be included within that remit. Indeed, lottery grants have already been made for the benefit of some outstanding parks; for example, the purchase and restoration of Croome Park in Worcestershire.
My noble friend Lord Renton asked about treasure trove, which is a subject dear to both our hearts. As he knows, the Government are committed to bringing forward a code of practice in relation to treasure trove and to consulting on that before bringing the Treasure Act into force. We hope to be able to issue the code in draft to interested bodies within the next few months. I therefore anticipate that we should be able to bring the Act into force in the course of next year.
I can assure my noble friend Lord Hindlip that the Government will continue to offer help to private owners, as they do at present, through a range of schemes such as the acceptance-in-lieu scheme. I was most upset to have missed the exhibition of Houghton treasures at the Norwich Castle Museum, which I understand is a wonderful exhibition on a very interesting topic. However, it is not often that we have a vote on the Loyal Address, which prevented me from being there.
The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, asked whether the NHMF was prepared to consider revenue or endowment funding to help with the running costs involved in heritage projects, about committing lottery money on a continuing basis and about substitution for core funding. There may be cases in which time limited revenue funding is appropriate, particularly as part of a specific capital project.
I have answers to several more questions but time is passing. Perhaps I may write to my noble friends Lady Rawlings and Lord Cavendish and to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. I apologise for not answering them now but I wish to wind up the debate.
570
I remind my noble friend Lord Renton that it has been said, "It is better to plan for the future rather than the present because there is so much more of it". I am confident that this short Bill will be welcomed by everyone who cares about our national heritage. It will build on the outstanding success of the National Lottery as a source of support for the heritage. It will open the door to lottery funding for a whole range of exciting new projects; projects to kindle the interest of young people in the heritage and to make the past more accessible, more understandable and—dare I say it?—more fun. I therefore invite your Lordships to agree that the Bill be read a second time.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
5.54 p.m.

Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Infections Resistant to Antibiotics
5.55 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton Baroness Masham of Ilton rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to combat the growing problem in hospitals and the community of infections resistant to antibiotics.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am grateful to have been given time in your Lordships' House to ask the Government this Question. I consider it to be a matter of vital importance. With trust hospitals competing against each other, and the contracting purchaser-provider policy now in place, it is only too possible that when infections break out a cloud of secrecy may come down. Would the Minister agree with me that infection control is far too important a matter not to be treated in an honest and open way? Should it not now be put at the top of the health agenda? All patients, their supporters and staff inside and outside hospitals should know what to do and how to deal with infection control.
With no slack in the system and nurses, doctors, domestic and therapy staff working hard, how easy it must be to cut corners. As one patient leaves a hospital bed another one goes into it. How thorough is the cleaning of mattresses, equipment and dust? Do doctors and nurses always wash their hands between treating patients? In many hospitals, bank and agency nurses are employed who do many different jobs in many different hospitals. In all hospitals, but particularly in large inner city ones, keeping infection under control needs constant vigilance.
About 18 months ago I visited a large hospital outside London. One doctor said to me, "I think the bugs may win". I felt that that was a matter to be discussed in your Lordships' House. The microbiologists and the infection control doctors and nurses are of immense importance.

571
They should be given full support and all hospital departments should have clear guidelines which are adhered to.
Methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is a bacterium resistant to treatment with a wide range of antibiotics. It can become a major infection in hospitals. It is also becoming a problem in nursing homes and in community settings. MRSA is not necessarily any more virulent than other infections but the range of treatment options is more limited because of patients' resistance to antibiotics. Hospital-acquired infections, which are thought to affect 1 million people on any one day, increase patients' discomfort and their time spent in hospital. Lives can be put at risk. There is public concern that hospitals are no longer safe places in which to be and hospital staff are also at risk of infection. Infection increases the cost of treatment. How much are these infections costing the National Health Service today?
Failure to control the spread of MRSA is likely to result in serious infections which are difficult to treat, increased drug and other treatment costs, closed wards or special units and disruption to the normal running of hospitals. The number of infections acquired is a good measure of the standards of care in a hospital. The inclusion of hospital rates of infection in league tables could act as an incentive for improvement. Is it not time to make MRSA a notifiable condition?
Infection-control nurses can reduce the risk of infection both in hospital and after patients are discharged into the community. However, more are needed. A community physiotherapist from Bradford told me that she had had returned a wheelchair cushion on which was written, "patient died from MRSA". She was not sure what the correct procedure should be. Dr. Sandy Macara, chairman of the British Medical Association, states:
"There is a real prospect that the majority of our antibiotics could become impotent for the purposes on which we have relied upon them for 40 years".
Doctors in Gloucestershire believe that they have found evidence of a link between meningitis and the over-use of antibiotics after comparing prescribing patterns in areas of high and low incidence of the disease. The WHO warned recently against the global spread of bacteria resistant to antibiotics. But the spread of resistance to anti-malaria drugs may pose a greater threat. Man's ability to stay one step ahead of the mosquito-borne malaria parasite is in doubt.
There is concern about the continuing increase in cases of food poisoning, with more than 88,000 people affected seriously last year, costing the National Health Service about £30 million per year. A dangerous strain of salmonella typhimorium DT104, which is resistant to antibiotics, is increasing at an alarming rate.
Multi-drug resistant strains of tuberculosis have been on the increase world wide as a result of misuse of antibiotics that were expected to rid humanity of the condition. With the expansion of air travel, highly resistant strains are now only a few hours flying time from western Europe. Studies in the US have shown that
572
the multi-drug resistant TB kills 45 per cent. of people with healthy immune systems within two years. In patients carrying the HIV virus, the mortality rate is 85 per cent. Outbreaks inside prisons and among the HIV community in New York infected hundreds of people, most of whom have died.
If multi-drug resistant TB is allowed to spread in Britain, just think what it might do if it circulated around the Chamber during a long debate in your Lordships' House.
Much has been said this year. The World Health Organisation report in 1996 stated:
"We are standing on the brink of a global crisis if infectious diseases are not controlled. No country is safe from them. A major cause of the antibiotic resistant crisis is the uncontrolled and inappropriate use of antibiotics globally. They are used by too many people to treat the wrong kind of infections at the wrong dosage and for the wrong period of time".
Greece is an example of a country where one has been able to buy antibiotics over the counter for years. It is essential to limit the use of important new antibiotics in both human and veterinary medicine and not to employ them as animal growth promoters which give cross-resistance to those used in human medicine.
As resistance spreads, the life span shrinks. As fewer new drugs appear, the gulf widens between infection and control. Last Monday, Channel 4 presented "Cutting Edge" on the problem of multi-resistant TB. I found it to be most concerning and profoundly sad. Mistakes have been made. If Ministers in the Department of Health have not seen the programme, they should do so. I hope that everyone learns from it. One must ask what the guidelines were on infection control at St. Thomas' Hospital and the Chelsea and Westminster Hospital where patients died. Perhaps the Minister will tell the House.
I hope that when patients have to be treated in isolation, they will be treated as humanely as possible. I hope that TLC will not be forgotten, even though stringent precautions must be taken.
The World Medical Association met last week in South Africa. It declared that the global increase in resistance, including the emergence of bacterial strains resistant to all available anti-bacterial agents has created a public health problem of potentially crisis proportions.
With Unstarred Questions, there is no way of thanking all noble Lords and Baronesses for taking part at the end of the debate so I do so now. Thank you.
6.5 p.m.
Baroness McFarlane of Llandaff: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, for bringing this Question before the House and giving your Lordships an opportunity to discuss a matter of such concern in health care.
I started training as a nurse just over a year before the inauguration of the National Health Service. Antibiotics were not in widespread use in those days and penicillin and streptomycin were only gradually making their impact. In those days, we treated infections with great respect and the protocols for the prevention of

573
cross-infection were followed with meticulous precision. We knew that the lives of patients and staff could depend upon them.
I am by no means wanting to make the case that practitioners of that bygone era were more efficient or more conscientious than the practitioners of today. But I wonder whether the broad range and ready availability of antibiotics have made us rather too reliant on them and less meticulous in our care.
I felt grossly out of date as I came to this debate and so I consulted Margaret Worsley, the deputy director of nursing of the North Manchester Health Care Trust, who has an international reputation as an infection control sister. She brought me a vast quantity of literature. I was impressed by the size and complexity of the problem and the fact that the problem is global and knows no national boundaries.
I believe that the three major problems with resistant strains include methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and epidemic MRSA, multi-drug resistant tuberculosis (MRTB), which the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, mentioned, and vancomycin resistant enterococci (VRE).
It is interesting to look at the Communicable Diseases Report Weekly over the past year. In June of this year it stated:
"The number of hospitals referring isolates of the commonest strains of EMRSA has continued to rise".
In August 1995 it stated:
"The first reported outbreak of hospital acquired multidrug resistant TB (MRTB) in England and Wales has occurred on an HIV unit in London".
In December 1995 it stated:
"Vancomycin resistant enterococci (VRE) pose an increasing risk to hospital patients in the UK".
Indeed, another article suggests that the potential for more widespread resistance is quite disturbing and the public health authorities in the United States fear that vancomycin resistant straphylocaccus is a disaster looming on the horizon.
Infectious diseases resistant to bacteria, as the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, said, know no boundaries. They are found in hospitals, in the community and in residential and nursing homes. The noble Baroness talked about the scale of the problem. The latest figures I have relate to 1987 when it was estimated that the infections cost the health service approximately £115 million and there were 95,000 lost bed days.
In the face of those problems, I believe that action is needed. It is true to say that the problem of antibiotic resistant bacteria is largely a consequence of the manner in which we use antibiotics. Once regarded as "wonder drugs" for use in exceptionally severe infectious illnesses, we now use them on a far more routine basis. Many operations are performed under a broad spectrum antibiotic umbrella and infections from earache to acne are treated with antibiotics.
There is widespread advertising of new antibiotics and it is a temptation to assume that if the older drug
574
does not work, then a new one will be suitable. In that way, we have newer drugs which are usually more expensive and delays are caused in finding the antibiotic of choice for the particular bacterial infection. So we have sometimes a careless use of antibiotics. Yet the protocols for the administration of antibiotics are there. They are provided in the British National Formulary and they are there for every doctor to follow. But, in face of the problems, it is clear that there is a need to apply a far stricter antibiotic policy.
The Department of Health has published guidelines for control of the environment in nursing and residential homes. The Public Health Medicine Environment Group published Guidelines to the control of infection in residential and nursing homes in 1996, and in 1994 the joint tuberculosis committee of the British Thoracic Society published a code of practice which emphasises the importance of infection control, particularly in tuberculosis. However, those protocols need to be more stringently applied. It is part of the role of the infection control nurse to make them known and to monitor their effectiveness. It is the view of the Royal College of Nursing that the guidance needs to be collated by the Department of Health and tackled on a national basis and that the Clinical Standards Advisory Group has an important role to play in issuing guidelines as a matter of priority. We look forward to hearing from the Minister about the intentions of issuing those guidelines.
I have a feeling that at the basis of the problem there lies very basic nursing care. Many of the practices that need to be encouraged are matters of basic nursing care—hand washing by both patients and staff. I have to say that medical staff are not immune in that respect. One of the articles that I read showed that there was a variation of between 22 per cent. and 63 per cent. compliance among different groups of doctors in hand washing. I have watched a consultant doing a round and going from patient to patient without hand washing in between and, indeed, even prodding infected wounds with a pencil. I am sure that nurses do equally horrific things. However, that implies that facilities have to be provided if there are to be safe practices. It is my view that we need to monitor and order the routines and the guidelines that we impose.
One of the interesting facts that emerges from the literature is that the protocols and guidelines issued are often ineffective because of lack of compliance. We must accept professional responsibility for that throughout the health professions. I look forward to hearing too about the very dominant role that needs to be played by the Department of Health.
6.13 p.m.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, there is no doubt that we have a major problem and we are all grateful to my noble friend Lady Masham for raising it this afternoon. There is also no doubt that a partial

575
answer is to use fewer antibiotics, something doctors are constantly urged to do. Let me suggest another solution: invest more in complementary medicine. I speak here as a patient and student of complementary therapies, with a very modest pecuniary involvement as part-time chairman of the British Acupuncture Accreditation Board.
There are a number of distinguishing features of complementary approaches to health care. One is that they are seldom aggressive. This is in marked contrast to the high technology approach of modern Western medicine, whose tendency is to go in with all guns blazing when disease manifests itself. The lesson we have learnt the hard way is that when you do this the bugs fight back. On the other hand, when you treat with herbs, homoeopathy or acupuncture, this does not seem to happen. Garlic, echinacea, tea-tree oil, thyme all have a useful role in clearing up infections.
I spoke to a herbalist friend only last week who was having much success with a combination of echinacea and burdock with the current throat bug that is going round, for which some of the local doctors were using antibiotics. I also spoke to a researcher who is doing some interesting laboratory work with essential oils, specifically targeting the colonisation by MRSAs that we have heard about. Because of the variety of these oils, and the complexity of their molecules in contrast to those of antibiotics, resistance can much more easily be avoided, and I understand that the results so far are promising. Homeopaths will draw attention to the spectacular success of the Royal London Homoeopathic Hospital in the cholera epidemic of 1854, with a mortality rate of 16.4 per cent. as against in the mainstream hospital average of 51.8 per cent.—figures, interestingly, that were suppressed at the time.
A second reason why complementary treatments do not stir up resistance is that many of them work to bolster the overall health and vitality of the patient rather than simply attack the infection. Of course you often need both. But a distinguishing mark of much of complementary medicine, usually overlooked by conventional commentators, is its focus on the host milieu rather than the external pathogen. After all, our guts are full of all kinds of assorted bacteria with which, when generally healthy, we live in harmony.
When a herbalist, using (as it might be) Siberian ginseng, works on a patient's non-specific immunity, there is less need to engage in chemical warfare with invading forces, and with acupuncture and homoeopathy it is no different. It is remarkable what the body itself can achieve, given the right conditions. This again is something the modern doctor has largely lost sight of, with sometimes dire results. I have always been impressed by the story of the professor, in the early days of bacteriological research, who swallowed a whole phial of TB bacilli in front of his astonished class because he was so confident of the ability of his immune system to deal with the consequences.
576
Anything that reinforces a person's immunity and general well-being will reduce the impact of infectious agents and lessen the need to weigh in with antibiotics and provoke all the counter-attacks that we have been experiencing. A good diet based on fruit and vegetables is one such factor. Decent housing, sanitation and welfare are others. I suggest that the Government can perhaps do more in these areas to promote not just freedom from disease but positively good health.
Of course I am not claiming that non-conventional medical approaches have all the answers. I well remember the herbalist who told me for heaven's sake to go and take an antibiotic because that was the appropriate treatment in the circumstances. What I am saying is that some of the well-established complementary therapies can do, without side-effects, much of what modern drugs are doing with the consequences that we have been hearing of. And if the Minister, who has heard me say this before, is not disposed to rely on the results of many centuries of clinical experience in a number of healing disciplines, perhaps, as I have also said before, she will help to promote further well-conducted research into the anti-viral and anti-bacterial properties of these treatments. The practitioners cannot do it all on their own.
For I fear that, unless we come up with some radical thinking in this area, we shall only perpetuate the vicious circle of resistance, to say nothing of the other unwanted side-effects that accompany our present system of drugs-based medicine. It is noteworthy that the World Medical Association is currently calling for the development of "innovative" anti-microbial agents. Whatever else the Government propose to do, I do hope that they will not ignore this particular approach, which, as countless surveys have shown, is also what more and more patients are calling for.
6.20 p.m.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I think this will be the third time that I have spoken about oxygen therapies in your Lordships' House and I do so on this occasion with gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, for introducing this debate.
When I first mentioned my intention to speak about hydrogen peroxide to my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich he said he thought it was only for whitening hair. My own hair has considerably lightened since I first took my seat but I can assure him that this is due to the passing of years and not to the application of hydrogen peroxide.
So, if not for changing hair colour, nor for rocket fuel, what relevance do the oxygen therapies have to healthcare and to antibiotic resistant pathogens? The answer is: a very great deal. We are trying to answer this Question tonight precisely because antibiotics have failed us. That has been graphically underlined by the description of the problem which the noble Baroness gave. The situation we face is the logical outcome of the choices made by medical policy

577
makers and those involved with the training of doctors at about the beginning of the century, but I shall return to that later.
In our debate on 2nd December 1994, on the Motion of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, about the health of drug users, and in our debate on 10th January of this year on the Motion of the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, on non-conventional medicine, I explained the evolutionary basis of the effectiveness of ozone and hydrogen peroxide in maintaining health and the ways of using it. I shall only add that ozone turns into hydrogen peroxide on contact with water or blood. Hydrogen peroxide is what the white blood cells use to destroy viruses and bacteria, so it has a crucial role to play in the immune system.
Hydrogen peroxide is used for cleaning work surfaces; ozone is the most effective fumigatory gas known. The use of the various forms of oxygen for medical purposes should be considered not only for treating individuals suffering from infectious diseases but also for making sure that when people go into hospital they do not acquire new infections.
Since my attention was first drawn to this issue in 1993 I have, as I said, spoken about it three times. I have also met the Minister who will reply to this debate with her advisers on two occasions and I have engaged in quite a protracted correspondence with her. It will therefore be no surprise to her that I raise the matter again. In her most recent letter to me she suggested that before the Government could fund any research into the possible benefits of hydrogen peroxide there had to be a corpus of knowledge about it. Earlier this year I sent her a book which is a facsimile reproduction of one published in the first decade of this century. It contains 300 articles from medical journals which speak highly of hydrogen peroxide. There are in existence, I understand, over 6,000 such articles dating back to the second half of the previous century when oxygen therapies were first discovered in Germany. How much of a corpus of knowledge do the Minister and her department need?
I may seem to have digressed a little but the point I wish to make is the following. The very fact that I encountered this issue and have so assiduously pressed a vast body of information on the department should indicate not just that the subject warrants intensive research, which should include those already expert in the oxygen therapies, but also that if the benefits are as great as I and others have claimed, then by failing to investigate thoroughly the present Government and the department lay themselves open to charges of negligence on a vast scale.
I referred earlier to the direction taken by medical policy and medical education about 100 years ago. The then recent discovery of the pharmacological possibilities offered by the new science of organic chemistry based on the oil industry offered the prospect of rich rewards for the oil barons of the day and as a consequence treatments such as the oxygen therapies fell by the commercial wayside. I was interested in the reference that the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, made about the suppression of the success
578
of the homoeopathic treatment of a cholera outbreak in 1854. It seems that little has changed. The repercussions of that decision 100 years ago are still reverberating round Whitehall because during one of the meetings I had with the Minister, a Department of Health official insisted that there could be no benefit from oxygen therapies if no commercial benefit would follow from research. That astounded me. The commercial benefit to the Government would be immense and the health benefit to the nation even more so.
The facts that we have heard this evening from the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and from the other two speakers have made my case with chilling emphasis. I had no idea before the debate started just how widespread and serious this problem is. It is made more serious by the department's intransigence about hydrogen peroxide and ozone.
6.25 p.m.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, I am very pleased to support my noble friend Lady Masham of Ilton in her Unstarred Question this evening. On 1st February this year at col. 1554 of Hansard the noble Baroness asked a Starred Question on this particular subject, in which I asked a supplementary question of the Minister. It was whether she could comment on a report that the Heriot Watt University was researching into the use of seaweed to combat at least some of these infections. Could she say what progress has been made and whether it has yet had any trials? The Minister also said at the time that guidelines had been issued to hospitals in regard to treating infections in wards. Can she say whether the hospitals have been able to use the guidelines successfully and whether they are allocated any extra funds to acquire the necessary equipment to clear the infections?
My interest in this subject arises from the time, some years ago now, when our son at the age of 10 contracted staphylococcus aureus in his leg. We and he were very lucky and grateful that he was cured by penicillin which was still effective then against this illness.
Research in Australia has demonstrated the effectiveness of tea tree oil in eradicating MRSA in hospitals there. I understand that there have been recent demonstrations of the use of tea tree oil in this country. Would the Minister say whether the Department of Health is interested in the effectiveness of this product, and will it consider conducting research into tea tree oil?
By chance last week I was talking to my younger daughter and mentioned tea tree oil. She said, "Oh yes, it is wonderful stuff, I use it whenever one of my three young sons cuts himself, or even for bad scratches". She uses tea tree ointment. It not only helps the wounds to heal, but it is also an antiseptic against possible infection. I believe I am right that it was originally used by the Aborigines of Australia.
There is a very interesting statement on resistance to antimicrobial drugs adopted by the World Medical Association in South Africa last week. Among its

579
recommendations it advises that national medical associations should encourage their governments to fund more basic and applied research directed towards the development of vaccines and other antimicrobial agents. It also recommends that these antimicrobial agents should be available only on prescription. Can the Minister say whether the Government are accepting the recommendations, and in particular whether they should be available only on prescription?
A British Medical Association press release of last Friday, 1st November, drew attention to the problem of the increase of one form of salmonella. Dr. John Cowden of the Scottish Centre for Infection and Environmental Health in Glasgow, warns in this press release that this type of salmonella is increasingly resistant to many antibiotics. May I hope that the Government will take heed of the warning.
6.28 p.m.
Lord Broadbridge: My Lords, it is with some trepidation that I address your Lordships' House on a bacteriological subject since we number many doctors in our membership, quite apart from those who may be actively involved in the field of drug resistance. However, rather than declaring an interest—which usually means financial—I declare some acquaintance with the topic of today's debate in that, after obtaining my first degree in chemistry at Oxford I spent a year and a half being supervised by Sir Cyril Hinshelwood, a Nobel prizewinner, on a thesis entitled "The mechanisms by which bacteria resist the action of drugs". However, alas, all this is some 35 years ago, and I did not follow a microbiological career.
Broadly, infections can be split into viral and bacteriological infections. There is little that medicine can do for viral infections. Keeping the blood sugar level up certainly helps; but broadly the advice is similar to that given to TB patients earlier in the century—that is, good food and rest. I suppose that the father of modern bacteriology is Sir Alexander Fleming, through whose window at St. Mary's Hospital, Paddington, a penicillin mould floated in and killed everything on the agar growth medium plate on which it landed. Fleming did not develop this observation at the time but most fortunately made a careful record of it. It was left to Sir Howard (later Lord) Florey in the late 1930s with his team at Oxford to develop this crucial observation. Without the formality of first testing it on an animal chain, he treated a policeman, who was dying of blood poisoning in the Radcliffe Infirmary, with startlingly positive results. Thus, by research and development at Oxford and, because of the war in America, penicillin and its derivatives were born. Simultaneously other antibacterial agents were developed in other places, such as the sulphonamides in, I think, Germany.
This has led to a culture where over the past 60 years or so friends and relatives have said, in the vernacular, "Go and see doctor and he will give you something for it". And he does. And it has worked. This brings us to the heart of today's debate: increasingly, the antibiotic does not work and, in the
580
words last week of the World Medical Association meeting in South Africa, (and your Lordships may already have heard them but they bear repetition),
"The global increase in resistance, including the emergence of bacterial strains resistant to all available antibacterial agents has created a public health problem of potentially crisis proportions".
Mechanistically, a bacterium's objective is rather like that of the human race: to survive and multiply. There are two theories about how that occurs. One is that a few members of the bacterial population are better suited to survival than the others—one might perhaps call them mutants—and multiply. The other is that after a lag in growth, all members of the bacterial population adapt and grow. My humble piece of research indicated that the former mechanism prevailed. Like human beings who, if subjected to a nasty shock, adapt their behaviour accordingly, bacteria when presented with a hostile antibacterial agent have, over a considerable time, learnt to do the same. Actually it is probably not their behaviour that they adapt so much as their structure.
A principal factor leading to this state of affairs has been over-reliance on and over-prescribing of antibiotics. As the WMA states, mutation to antibiotic resistance has been exacerbated by the availability of antimicrobial agents without prescription in many developing countries. I have direct experience of this. Developing an abscess on a tooth last month while on holiday in Greece, I was able to buy amoxycillin, a wide spectrum antibiotic commonly prescribed in the UK, over the counter with no prescription. Perhaps I was being naughty but it was what my doctor had prescribed the last time I had an abscess.
Another problem is the necessity for repeated courses of drug treatment because patients either are not advised or take no notice of the fact that it is essential to complete the course of treatment. As a poster on my doctor's wall reads, "Don't stop the treatment just because you feel better". The mean growth time, or mgt, of a bacterium is commonly about half an hour and that is the time taken to double the population. So if at midday you have a million cells, by half past twelve you have 2 million cells, by one o'clock, 4 million, by half past one 8 million, and so forth. Bacterial growth is very rapid, increasing the problem presented by resistant strains.
The only solution to the dramatic and disastrous increase in the prevalence of resistant strains must surely be research, research and more research. This, of course, is going on among participants which may perhaps be likened to a spectrum. At one end there are the heavyweight players, the national and international drug companies, for there will be great profit as well as great good as a reward for a solution. At the other end, there are the more academic research bodies such as universities, colleges, hospitals and institutes. Human invention is a nebulous business and no one can say from where the successful inventive spark may come except that statistically surely the more minds and resources devoted to the problem, the more likely will be success. Chance, luck, intuitive thinking, analysis, a corporate strategy and plan for research all play their part. But if the advanced nations

581
of the world's governments can fund such work to the limits of their reasonable resources, a solution and progress is that much more likely.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, for bringing this vital, in the true meaning of the word, topic to our attention and await eagerly the reply of the noble Baroness, the Minister, who speaks with the great experience of having previously been chairman of a huge health authority.
6.36 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, for bringing this subject before your Lordships' House. As a former Member of Parliament, there have been times over many years when I have questioned whether the existence of this House was relevant. However, I believe that the debate this evening should alert people at the other end of the building; in the final analysis they are the people who will have to take steps to deal with this subject. I approach the matter both on a personal basis and from the point of view of the whole country. I do not wish what happened to me to happen to any other individual or family.
The noble Baroness rightly drew attention to many aspects of the spread of disease. I do not believe that enough stress has been placed on this matter. I hope that people in another part of this building will consider it. The world health authority has said that antibiotics given to animals can ultimately have an effect on human beings when they are treated with antibiotics. Everyone knows of the effect of BSE on animals and CJD on humans. But we are discussing a completely different subject. Attention should be drawn to what has been said by the world health authority: that what has been given to animals can have an effect on people in receipt of antibiotics.
MRSA is a real danger to people in this country and all over the world. It has been said that the problem is out of control because antibiotics have been so freely available. They have been used in an indiscriminate way so that the bacteria themselves have become used to them, and the infection cannot be treated.
I believe that it is the duty of the Government to use all means in their power to find a way to remedy the awful effects of MRSA. I could talk at length on the subject, but let me put the facts before your Lordships in graphic terms. My wife and I had been married for over 48 years. She had suffered from asthma all her life. She had been taking cortisone and the various treatments that are available to asthma sufferers. I spoke to her doctor, who thought that she was taking too much cortisone. He asked her whether it would be possible for her to go to one of the foremost hospitals in Europe, the Chelsea and Westminster, which was built at a cost of millions of pounds. He said that she would be there for only two or three days and staff would try to find a substitute for the cortisone that she had taken over so many years.
I listened to him making that request and, unfortunately, I agreed with him. I took my wife in a taxi to the Chelsea and Westminster hospital. When we
582
arrived on the first floor I noticed that there was some debate going on as to which ward she would go. I subsequently found out that there are some hospitals in this country where staff look at your birth certificate rather than the ailment you have. If you are over 70, you are admitted to the geriatric ward, whatever your complaint. Obviously that was what the debate was about.
My wife was eventually admitted to the Nell Gwynne ward. I went to see her that evening, and the next day. On the third day I visited her, she said, "Gerry, there's a woman at the end of the ward who has some sort of hospital bug, and they're all very concerned about her". They had screens around that patient. I put my hands to my head and said, "Jesus, Ann, if there's a hospital bug, you're going to get it". The next day I went to visit my wife and they gave me rubber gloves and an apron. She had contracted the bug as a result of going into that hospital. I only wish now, in retrospect, that I had never agreed to let her go there. She and the other woman who had MRSA were put into a side ward, an isolation ward. The ward she had been in was a geriatric ward and there were other patients in it; that is exactly the ward in which vulnerable people should not be placed. All people over that age are vulnerable. They are all receiving intravenous injections. As the world health authority states, once you receive an injection you are liable to pick up infections that are there in the ward.
From the day that my wife contracted that infection her health went totally and absolutely downhill. I was with her, as were my five daughters, two of whom are nurses. We stayed with her every second of every day during the time she was there. Eventually, the bug that had entered her respiratory system was creating such havoc that she had to be taken into intensive care. She was on an intensive care machine for 21 days. She was then transferred from the Chelsea and Westminster to one of the foremost chest hospitals in the world, the Brompton hospital in London. When she was transferred there and was admitted to the ward, as I walked down the corridor all I could see was, "No admittance", and again, "No admittance". There were 17 cases in the hospital. People enter that hospital with chest complaints, and all those had contracted MRSA. Again, to transfer patients from one hospital to another only creates further strains of this devastating infection.
The hospital was treating my wife with Vancomycin. Evidently, that is the only drug that can deal with MRSA, but it causes devastation to the human frame. The side effects of the drug used to combat MRSA are horrendous. Patients become incontinent; and they cannot breathe. I decided that MRSA was killing my wife. Eventually, after she had spent so many days there, I told the doctors that I intended to take her out of there. I took her to my home in Kent where there were washing facilities. In September last year, on the day I took my wife out of the hospital, the consultant said to me: "By the way, your wife is very weak". He did not have to tell me. I could see it at every second. He said that MRSA had created such devastation that she would never again be able to deal with an attack of 'flu. He

583
said that if she ever caught 'flu she would not be able to combat it.
However, I took my wife out by private ambulance. In Kent I and my daughters stayed with her every second of every day. We began to build her up. She still had MRSA when she left hospital. She was still taking Vancomycin. On 4th January this year she had to go back to the Brompton hospital for a test. There they said that she had made remarkable progress and that she should return to the hospital in June. When I took her back to Kent, she asked me for the loan of my handkerchief and said, "Gerry, I've got the 'flu". That was exactly what had been predicted by the consultant. So devastating had been the effect of MRSA that she caught 'flu and within a week she had died.
I have a long script in my hand, and there are many things that could be said in this debate. I understand this subject from a very personal point of view. The Government should use all means at their disposal to do what they can to educate nurses, consultants and doctors to wash their hands. Some medical staff think that they should not be forced to accede to such an obligation. But the Government should take any measures they can to bring to their attention the devastating effects that this infection can have.
I should say that, although I have criticisms in relation to what happened to my wife, and will have until the day I die—I took her to hospital for an asthma attack and that eventually led to her death—the intensive care unit at the Chelsea and Westminster hospital must be recognised as one of the foremost clinical and compassionate organisations in this country, and in the world. There was nothing staff could have done to prevent the terrible onslaught of MRSA in my wife's case.
I look upon this debate on MRSA as a matter that is very personal to me. I do not want the same to happen to anyone else. Had it not been for the fact that I took my wife to hospital for an attack of asthma, whereupon she contracted MRSA, I should have been celebrating my 49th wedding anniversary tomorrow.
6.48 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, after hearing from my noble friend Lord Fitt that enormously moving expression of the devastating personal and family consequences that MRSA can have, I believe the whole House would wish to extend sympathies to him and express our appreciation of his courage in talking personally when so often we talk in the most general terms in this House. We also express our thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, for initiating the debate. It is about large numbers of people and about international trends. But it is also, as we heard, a debate about individuals and the suffering that those individuals can undergo.
The noble Baroness who introduced the debate spoke about the tendency in hospitals sometimes to hide the fact that they have antibiotic resistant infections. They have nothing to hide, sadly, in Great Britain at the moment because there is a very high incidence among
584
hospitals many of which are prestigious, highly efficient and high quality hospitals. But perhaps, in the spirit of openness for which the noble Baroness called, I should declare a rather unusual interest. I am the chairman of a London hospital which today has 18 beds closed to admissions because of MRSA on the wards. That is not an unusual phenomenon either in London or throughout the country.
In fact, as was pointed out by the noble Baroness, MRSA is not a notifiable disease. It can be carried by many people without ill effects. Looking at the figures which the Public Health Laboratory Service has recorded, in 1994 there were 1,081 cases, in 1995 there were 1,670 cases and in the first nine months of 1996 there were already 1,666 cases. If the trend continues, we shall be talking about a doubling of MRSA cases within two years. That is a very serious issue for us all.
So far, I have spoken about MRSA. But, as has been pointed out, the issue extends to other diseases. The case of tuberculosis which is resistant to antibiotics is particularly worrying. One has seen the devastating effects that it can have, particularly on populations whose health is compromised, such as the elderly but also those who are HIV positive. It is a new and worrying phenomenon.
It was said earlier in the debate, I believe by the noble Lord, Lord McNair, that the problem was that antibiotics had failed us. That is too sweeping a statement. Many people in this House, elsewhere and throughout the world have good reason to be extremely grateful for the benefits of antibiotics and antibiotic therapy, which in the main have been life saving. What I believe we have seen is the profligate use of antibiotics and it is our failure to control their use, nationally and internationally, that has led to many of the problems. Of course, it is a failure, as was mentioned in the debate, not only in human medicine but also in farming and in veterinary medicine. Those are areas about which we ought to be concerned.
But I should like particularly to dwell today on my concern that many of the trends that we see at the moment in terms particularly of MRSA are intensified by the problems that we are experiencing in our acute hospitals at the moment. Previous speakers have already made reference to how measures that need to be taken to prevent outbreaks of MRSA and to control outbreaks when they have occurred are absolutely crucial to our ability to deal with this problem. The noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, spoke about the importance of hygiene and also about the importance of having the resources to deal with the issues within hospitals that are affected by MRSA.
I have to say that at the moment it is well acknowledged—press coverage over the past couple of days cannot leave any of us in any doubt—that hospitals are working under enormous pressure. That pressure leads to very high bed occupancy. It leads to a very high and rapid turnover of patients. It leads to patients being moved around the hospital from ward to ward because they are admitted to the first available bed and transferred later to a place where they can be more appropriately nursed. When there are crisis situations

585
during the middle of the night and when trying to avoid trolley waits in casualty departments, beds are being put up within ward areas which are closer together than they should be. We all know that proximity increases the spread of disease.
We also know that the staff who work in such wards are working under very intense pressure. Although we have to keep the training, re-training and very high standards in personal hygiene to the forefront for everyone who works within the hospital service, it is undoubtedly true that low morale and increased workloads lead to less rigorous enforcement of the personal hygiene that is so essential if an impact is to be made on these areas.
Perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness who will reply and who, I know, has taken a great interest in these matters and takes them very seriously, whether she can answer a range of points and tell us what we need to know. First, this evening we have spoken about hospitals and the prevalence of antibiotic resistant infections within hospitals. There is also the issue of its prevalence within the community, which has an impact on the discharge of patients who are no longer sick but who may still be infected by MRSA, particularly into community nursing homes.
One aspect that we should not neglect is the danger of stigmatising people who are no danger to themselves or anybody else by horror stories about the effects of being an MRSA carrier and of ostracising them in some way from the community or feeling that they cannot live within a residential home or within a community nursing home. The advice put out by the department has made quite clear that, if proper precautions are taken, that is not so.
Will the Minister say something on that issue and particularly on whether she feels that the number of community control of infection nurses is at a satisfactory level? If it is not, what will be done to promote the employment of community control of infection nurses? I hope that we shall not receive the answer that it is up to local decision-making. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, raised this matter as a question when the House debated previously this issue and there was a great deal of emphasis in what the Minister said about it being a matter for individual hospitals to have their own policy and that what should be done was a matter for local decision-making on the control of infection. The evidence is very clear. It has been set out in the contributions tonight. This is not a local problem but a national problem. We need a concerted national approach if we are to tackle it.
I also ask that we strengthen and encourage the compilation of national statistics as well as national advice, guidelines and monitoring the effectiveness of that advice and those guidelines from the department. That is tremendously important.
Many speakers referred to the statement a few days ago by the World Medical Association in South Africa and to its recommendations that we tackle these problems internationally both through agriculture and in the field of medicine. I wonder whether we could be given some idea about government policy on that issue.
586
Finally, does the noble Baroness accept that the pressures, the high levels of bed occupancy, the rapid turnover and the shortage of trained nursing staff all increase the risk of MRSA outbreaks? If so, what action do the Government intend to take to prevent the present over-heating in our acute hospital services?
7 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, for raising what I believe to be a very important subject. Once again she has put her finger on the pulse. I agree with her too that infection control is too important not to be treated in an honest and open way. That is why we have invested so much in training clinical staff and making managers aware of bacterial resistant diseases.
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, on her first occasion winding up for the Opposition Benches. Like her, I too pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. So often the noble Lord has displayed enormous courage, both in the Province and in your Lordships' House as he has tonight. Of course, I am speaking for the Government on this occasion and have to speak in general terms, but I carry the sorrow and anguish of those who, on occasions, are failed by the National Health Service.
Without doubt, the discovery of penicillin and other antibiotics has revolutionised health care. They have provided untold benefits to patients. They have been in the vanguard in helping to control the spread of infection and made an enormous contribution to advances in medicine and improvements in post-operative care. Simply put, they have helped to save the lives of literally hundreds of thousands of people. It is not surprising, therefore, that any suggestion that we are heading towards a "post-antibiotic era" generates fear and anxiety.
The ability of bacteria to develop resistance to antibiotics is not a new phenomenon; it was identified at a very early stage in their use. That was countered by conventional infection control techniques and other intervention strategies which included limiting or rotating the use of antibiotics. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane of Llandaff, that it is not just medicines and drugs on which we should rely, but good clinical practices in both doctors and nurses. Although successful, those methods were overshadowed by what seemed to be a plentiful supply of new antibiotics. Between 1939 and 1972, for example, over 30 new antibiotics were discovered. Not surprisingly, however, in more recent years the number of new antibiotics has fallen. Microbial antibiotic resistance has always been an issue, but the need to address it has now become more urgent. In considering new strategies and policies to combat its spread, we also need to ensure that the best use is made of the antibiotics currently available and, perhaps, to relearn certain lessons from the past.
I should also emphasise that the development of antibiotic resistant bacteria is not unique to this country. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, mentioned the

587
comparison between this and other countries. In many countries, the spread of these types of micro-organism has now been accepted as more or less inevitable. That is not the case in the UK. One of our most effective weapons is the high quality of the infection control systems in our health service. We also maintain very strict controls over accessibility to antibiotics by making them available only on prescription. That is generally not the practice in other countries. Indeed, in those countries with the greatest problems, as the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, said, it is often the case that antibiotics—even ones we would restrict for the treatment of certain specific conditions—can be bought over the counter. By contrast, other countries, particularly in Scandinavia, have been relatively successful in containing the rise in problems of resistance.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge, for his exposé of that difficult subject. Perhaps I can assure him that the situation in the UK is much better than in other countries. However, there is no room for complacency and I am sure that there is much we can learn from the successful experience of others.
What I should like to do is spend a few moments talking about MRSA, as it is the one antibiotic resistant infection which, in recent months, has tended to attract the most headlines and has clearly proved to be of great concern to your Lordships' House tonight. Phrases such as "killer bug" and "super bug" have been used by the media and are ill-founded. They have invoked anxiety among many patients, their families and friends. They have also conjured up images of our modern day health care system hurtling towards an imminent and inevitable doomsday. That does not mean to say that I wish to minimise the difficulties created by MRSA and other antibiotic-resistant infections or the importance we attach to tackling them. I hope that, through my remarks, I shall help to allay some of the fears and anxieties that have been generated.
MRSA is a relatively antibiotic-resistant form of the bacterium staphylococcus aureus. Staph aureus is one of the commonest of all the bacteria—so common that about one-third of us carry it quite harmlessly on our skin or in our nose and throat. Normally, the bacterium does us no harm, but if the skin is cut, or if resistance to infection is lost or compromised, the germ can multiply and set up an infection. Mostly, it is a trivial infection of the skin, but among patients who are in hospital it can sometimes become more serious. This is because resistance to infection may be poor on account of their illness or treatment. Catheters or drips going through the skin can also provide the germ with a route of entry, as can a surgical wound. In those instances, the bacterium can cause more serious infections, such as septicaemia or pneumonia. Staph aureus has the ability to cause a range of infections from the trivial to, as we heard tonight, the most life-threatening.
MRSA is the antibiotic-resistant variety of the same bacterium and acts in exactly the same way. The infections it may cause are no worse than those of ordinary staph aureus. The reason why MRSA is seen as more of a problem is that if an infection develops it
588
is more difficult to treat because many of the commonly used antibiotics are not effective against it. The infection is not, however, totally untreatable. There are antibiotics that can be used but they may produce more side-effects and they are more expensive. Those factors justify efforts to prevent vulnerable patients coming into contact with MRSA.
Over the years a range of clinical guidelines specifically on MRSA has been produced. They include guidance on methods for the control of MRSA, published jointly by the Hospital Infection Society and the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy in 1986. That guidance was updated and republished in 1990 and formally commended by the department to the NHS in 1994. The department is now working with professional groups on yet a further revision, as the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, mentioned, to take account of the needs of hospitals with high and low prevalence of MRSA and units with various degrees of risk.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Masham and Lady Hayman, raised the question of the growing problem of antibiotic resistant infection in the community. The fear of MRSA has created a great deal of anxiety among owners and managers of some nursing and residential homes. It has also caused distress to residents and their families. Those concerns are founded on a misunderstanding of the nature of the bacterium and the type of infection that it may cause. Residents in most of those homes are at no greater risk of infection than the general population. They do not have medical devices such as drips penetrating the skin and they do not have surgical wounds. There has never been an outbreak of infection due to MRSA in a nursing or residential home, nor do we consider one to be likely.
However, in response to the obvious anxiety, the department worked with the professional organisations to produce guidance on MRSA in the community, and the control of infections more generally. That was issued in May. The guidance stated that a person carrying or infected with MRSA was not a risk to other residents and that routine arrangements designed to prevent all types of infection, such as good personal hygiene, are sufficient to deal with it. To underscore those messages, the department also issued a leaflet on MRSA to health authorities, social services departments and nursing and residential homes. We have also held seminars for managers of those homes, their insurers and the staff responsible for their statutory registration.
I should not like to give the impression that MRSA is the only antibiotic-resistant infection that hospitals have to contend with. As the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, said, there are several other types. These mainly affect patients in specialist units, such as intensive care or transplant units, where patients are particularly vulnerable. In such circumstances, there is often a need to use broad spectrum antibiotics to combat complex infections, which, ironically, as the noble Baroness suggested, may also provide ideal conditions for the bacteria to develop resistance.
I should like to say a brief word about TB. The rates of drug resistance to tuberculosis also remain at low levels. This is not to say that we should in any way be

589
complacent, and I am aware of the recent outbreaks of multi-drug resistant TB within two London hospitals. Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, that I did watch the television programme.
One of the aims of our national tuberculosis policy is to prevent the emergence of drug resistant disease. Drug resistance can often be attributed to poor compliance with treatment. Guidance issued this year from the inter-departmental working group on tuberculosis on the prevention and control of TB makes recommendations for ensuring that TB patients complete their full course of treatment. However, it is inevitable that occasionally drug resistance will emerge, and also that some patients who have acquired their disease abroad will have drug resistant disease. In these cases it is important that healthcare workers are aware of the possibility and that appropriate infection control measures are in place to prevent spread to other people, especially in hospitals. The principles for the control of tuberculosis are well established. More detailed guidance on drug resistant tuberculosis is in preparation. We have paid for a nurse education video and pack produced by the RCN on our behalf. The video has been shown four times on TV. It has been widely circulated and, I know, has been much appreciated by nurses.
The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, raised the issue of a link between antibiotics and food. At its meeting in January this year, the Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food concluded that an in-depth review of the role of food in transferring microbial antibiotic resistance should be undertaken. A multi-disciplinary working group under the leadership of the committee's chairman, Professor Georgala, has now been set up and is currently gathering evidence. The group is aiming to report next year.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, spoke of ward closures. I know she believes, as I do, that the welfare of patients is of foremost importance to hospitals. When an outbreak of infection occurs, the need to protect patients from infection has to be balanced against the implications of disruption to the hospital's routine services as a result of infection control measures. Sometimes, to prevent the spread of infection, it is necessary to close a ward or a specialist unit temporarily to new admissions. Such a decision can only be made by the experts on the spot after careful consideration of the options and having regard to the type of infection and the way it spreads, how vulnerable to infection other patients on the ward are likely to be and the availability of alternative facilities for both infected and non-infected patients.
Guidance from the department has made clear that hospitals and purchasers of their services need to ensure that they have adequate routine provision for isolation of infected patients; nevertheless, in an outbreak some disruption may be inevitable, but it will always be in the interests of promptly controlling the risk to patients.
I am aware that there is a good deal of support available to help combat the development of antibiotic-resistant infections. Leading the fight are consultants in communicable disease control, infection
590
control nurses and microbiologists. The new specialty of consultant in communicable disease control was established in the NHS in the late 1980s, implementing the recommendations of an expert committee chaired by the then chief medical officer. These new specialists are more highly trained than their predecessors and take a more proactive role in combating communicable disease and infection in the population.
In 1995, the department issued guidance strengthening previous recommendations that hospital infection control teams and hospital infection control committees be established. It advised that within hospitals an effective infection control programme with defined objectives should be set in place and kept under regular review. It also recommended that surveillance of hospital acquired infection should become routine and that purchasers should include enhanced surveillance, prevention and control in their contractual requirements. To strengthen these recommendations, specific objectives aimed at ensuring that appropriate arrangements for communicable disease and infection control are in place feature in the planning and priorities guidelines for the NHS for 1997–98.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, raised two specific instances where prevention has clearly not been effective. I do not want to go into detail on the cases at St. Thomas's Hospital or the London Hospital which are the two most recent ones. I can assure her that a full report on the incidents at St. Thomas's is being prepared but has not yet been produced for us to see. The other case was at the London Hospital. A patient with HIV was infected. Clearly a good deal of work is being carried on at the moment as a matter of urgency to trace other individuals and contacts.
I should like to address the issue of complementary therapies. The noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, and the noble Lord, Lord McNair, explored the role of these therapies. I appreciate the strength of the range of complementary therapies and how many of them are very effective for certain groups of people. I know that noble Lords are very anxious that we should carry out research into their effectiveness. That is appropriate today when the whole focus of the National Health Service is on evidence-based medicine. But we have to have research protocols produced of institutions such as the MRC and other research institutions. It is not for us to produce those proposals but for those interested in this area of work. I know that will not satisfy noble Lords but I am afraid that is the position.
The noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, asked about the research which has isolated a substance which is active against MRSA and other antibiotic resistant bacteria. I think probably she was also referring to research in Australia on the effectiveness of teatree oil. We welcome that research. However, other such substances have turned out to be too toxic for clinical use, so it is too soon to say that these may be a new treatment. We are cautiously optimistic.
Finally, I should like to address the issues put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, about prescribing and the use of drugs within general practices. That is where the bulk of prescribing takes place. The number of

591
prescriptions issued and dispensed for antibiotics has grown more slowly than the total for all drugs dispensed in England between 1991 and 1995. Rigid national policies on antibiotic prescribing are not appropriate because patterns of resistance vary from place to place and only the doctor in charge of the patient is in a position to decide on the best treatment for that individual. Local policies are being developed by clinicians in consultation with microbiologists, often through area prescribing committees. A great deal more
592
is being done by the British National Formulary, which is published twice a year, and other prescribing journals. We keep the issue closely under control.
Antibiotic resistant infection represents a considerable challenge, but it is a challenge which we are rising to meet and are determined to combat and overcome. We are not complacent. But compared with many other European countries, our record is enviable, and we shall strive to keep it that way.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past seven o'clock.

  World Food Summit
  World Food Summit
  Bilateral Aid and Education
  Bilateral Aid and Education
  Bilateral Aid to Least Developed Countries
  Bilateral Aid to Least Developed Countries
  Avoparcin
  Avoparcin
  Agriculture Council, 28th and 29th October
  Agriculture Council, 28th and 29th October
  Childcare Facilities for House of Lords Staff
  Childcare Facilities for House of Lords Staff
  Equal Opportunities Commission: Legally Binding Undertakings
  Equal Opportunities Commission: Legally Binding Undertakings
  Equal Pay and Sex Discrimination Legislation: Harmonisation
  Equal Pay and Sex Discrimination Legislation: Harmonisation
  Ballistic Missile Defence Studies
  Ballistic Missile Defence Studies
  Central and Local Government: Relations
  Central and Local Government: Relations
  Council of Europe Human Rights and Biomedicine Convention
  Council of Europe Human Rights and Biomedicine Convention
  WHO: Reports
  WHO: Reports
  Partial Birth Abortion
  Partial Birth Abortion
  Thessaloniki, European City of Culture 1997
  Thessaloniki, European City of Culture 1997