Sitting of 5 November 1996

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

  KING'S COLLEGE LONDON BILL [Lords]
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That the Promoters of the King's College London Bill [Lords] may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the Bill in the present Session; and the Petition for the Bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable thereto shall be deemed to have been complied with; That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the present Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the last Session;
  That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and shall be ordered to be read the third time;
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during any previous Session.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

  CITY OF EDINBURGH COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
    EDINBURGH MERCHANT COMPANY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
    Considered; to be read the Third time tomorrow.
Oral Answers to Questions
  HEALTH

    Census Information
    Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what conclusions his Department has drawn from the last census. [609]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Horam): Census information, along with other information, helps us to monitor the nation's health. I am glad to tell my hon. Friend that the underlying trend continues to improve.
    Mr. Field: Does my hon. Friend agree that the census shows without any shadow of a doubt that people are living longer, healthier and more fulfilled lives? Is that not the true testament to the reforms that we have introduced in the national health service, as opposed to the myths peddled by the quack doctors of the Opposition?
    Mr. Horam: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and I am delighted to tell him that, standardised for age, the
    1018
    health of people in the Isle of Wight is significantly better than that of the rest of us. Is there something special about the Isle of Wight?
    Mr. Barron: I wonder whether the Minister and the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) are reading from some census other than the one that was carried out in this country. We know from that census, for example, that people in poor housing use the national health service 50 per cent. more than the average, adding about £2 billion a year to our NHS bill; that deaths from coronary heart disease among women from the Indian sub-continent are up to 45 per cent. higher than the national average; and that people in lower socio-economic groups can expect to die eight years sooner than the most privileged.
    The growing gap between rich and poor is leading to growing inequalities in health; to tackle that problem we must tackle the underlying causes of poverty, which the census clearly shows to be increasing. We and the people want to know what action the Government intend to take cross-departmentally about the increase in poverty and the consequential health inequalities.
    Mr. Horam: I am quite surprised at the hon. Gentleman; he is the one surviving member of the Labour health team from before the summer, so I should have thought that he would have more knowledge than the rest. He ought to know that the census is one of the items included in the capitation formula that decides the amount of money that goes to every health authority in the country. The formula is adjusted year by year to take into account exactly the sort of factors that he is talking about. I am surprised at him, because I thought that he was better briefed.
    Mr. David Nicholson: All Government Members will support the Secretary of State in his efforts to secure resources to treat the growing numbers of people requiring health care, but does the Minister recognise that concern about bureaucracy, form filling and paper pushing in hospitals and NHS trusts is not confined to the Opposition Benches but is felt just as strongly on our side? If hospitals and trusts give priority to patient care rather than to form filling and paper pushing over the coming months, they will have the vigorous support of their Members of Parliament.
    Mr. Horam: That is precisely why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State put together a package worth £300 million, which is designed to do away with such excessive bureaucracy and form filling. The money will go directly to patient care.

    Nurses' Pay
    Mr. Cousins: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many trusts have so far settled nurses' pay in the present financial year. [610]
    The Minister for Health (Mr. Gerald Malone): Sixty-six out of the 412 that have made offers.
    Mr. Cousins: The Minister must know that nine out of every 10 NHS trusts have not settled the current pay round for nurses, and the next pay round is due to begin.

    1019
    All over the country, nurses and managers are locked in unnecessary disputes, because managers cannot let their hospitals go deeper into deficit. What message of hope does the Minister have for nurses this week?
    Mr. Malone: My message of hope for nurses this winter is the pledge that the Government have given continuously to fund our health service in real terms on an increasing basis year on year. That is a pledge that the Labour party will not make.
    There are now 412 detailed offers on the table for nurses and other health care professionals to pick up through negotiation. I hope that they will do that and conclude negotiations as quickly as possible. Whether or not they settle is a matter not entirely within my control.
    Mrs. Roe: Can my hon. Friend confirm that a staff nurse can now earn more than £340 a week with additional payments for unsocial hours and overtime, while a sister with ward responsibilities can now earn more than £410 a week?
    Mr. Malone: Yes, I can generally confirm those figures. If my hon. Friend looks at what was happening in 1979, she will discover that, in today's money, average nursing pay was £191, compared with £326 today under this Government.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Any decisions that the Government may have made this morning to increase resources for the health service are clearly welcome.
    As the Minister well knows, this week marks the 50th anniversary of the setting up by statute of the national health service, promoted by William Beveridge and supported by my party in the post-war Parliament. Besides additional resources, removing unnecessary costs would also make a difference. I refer, for instance, to the costs incurred by local pay negotiations in the health service. If it is indeed a national health service, why do not Ministers heed the proposals of all the professionals and have national pay negotiations, thereby releasing a lot of time and money that could be spent on patient care?
    Mr. Malone: I remind the hon. Gentleman that it was this Government who put in place the review body for nurses' pay which underpinned our commitment to national fairness for the nursing profession and other health care professionals. The pay review body remains in place. The nursing profession and other health professionals agreed to the introduction of local pay under a framework last year. That is what we are working towards; it will bring real benefits to people all across the country once it is finally introduced.

    Patient Treatments
    Sir Sydney Chapman: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of in-patient and out-patient treatments in the national health service in 1978–79; and what were the figures in 1995–96. [611]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): In-patient acute treatments rose from 5.1 million patients in 1978 to 9.2 million in 1995–96. That represents
    1020
    an increase in the number of acute patients treated of 80 per cent. in 17 years. In the same period, out-patient attendances increased from 28.4 million to 35.9 million.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: I warmly welcome that staggering increase in the number of patient treatments. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is due to the Government raising expenditure on the NHS from £8 billion in 1979 to about £40 billion this year; and to the Government ensuring that those ever-increasing resources have been used in the most effective way for the benefit of patients? Will my right hon. Friend therefore accept that the figures that he has given prove beyond doubt that the Government's NHS reforms have been on the right lines?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is exactly right on both counts. We give two pledges to the NHS, neither of which is given by the Labour party. The first is a commitment to insist that the health service is efficiently managed. The second is the Prime Minister's guarantee to raise the real resources available for health care in the service year by year by year. That is a pledge which the Labour party refuses to give.
    Mr. Cunliffe: Is the Minister aware that, since the health authority closed down the accident and emergency department of Leigh infirmary—it was eventually replaced by a minor injuries unit that opened 24 hours a day—the authority has reneged on its assurances of a 24-hour service and now, in a disgraceful cost-cutting exercise, proposes to close the unit between 10 pm and 8 am? What does he propose to do to safeguard the welfare of the affected patients?
    Mr. Dorrell: I give the pledge that we shall continue to increase the resources available for the treatment of patients in the health service. I also give the pledge that we shall continue to insist that those resources are used in the way that is most efficient and gives the most effective health care to the patients in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and in every other constituency.
    Sir Irvine Patnick: I have made my right hon. Friend aware of the day case centre at the Royal Hallamshire hospital in Sheffield. Are not the staff to be congratulated on the way in which the unit functions? If that unit were copied throughout the country, would that not reduce waiting lists and waiting times? Will the Secretary of State take an opportunity to visit the unit and see how its wonderful facilities are made available to everyone through the national health service?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is on to an important point. I certainly hope to visit my hon. Friend's constituency, but my problem is that day case units are becoming available throughout the country. Were I to undertake to visit every day care unit, I should have to visit every constituency represented by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
    The units to which my hon. Friend referred have, over the past 17 years, seen an increase in the number of patients treated as day cases from 500,000 in 1978–79 to 2.8 million last year—a fivefold increase. My hon. Friend is right to say that that is a more efficient way of treating them, but it is a better treatment from the patient's point

    1021
    of view. A patient does not want to be in hospital If the option is to be home by tea time. That is what day case treatment offers them.
    Ms Jowell: Can we get behind the Secretary of State's favourite barrage of statistics? Will he confirm that a patient who is treated and discharged too early and who has to be readmitted counts as two finished consultant episodes; whereas a patient who stays in hospital until he or she has recovered and is able to cope at home counts as only one? The first course is bad for the patient, but good for the statistics, while the second is good for the patient, but bad for the statistics. Does that not show the absurdity of using finished consultant episodes as a measurement of performance in the NHS?
    Mr. Dorrell: It is the hon. Lady who is quibbling about statistics. She quibbles because she refuses to give a pledge parallel to the one given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—the pledge to ensure that health service funding rises in real terms year by year by year. That is the question that hon. Members on the Labour Front Bench have to answer, but they resolutely refuse to address the issue.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend remember the statement of the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) that the test of the NHS reforms would be whether they resulted in the treatment of more or fewer patients? Have we not passed the Cook test with flying colours?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is precisely right. In 1991, the Cook test was set by the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). It was: would the Government accept the test and judge the success of the reforms on whether the health service treated more patients? The fact is that, since 1990, the health service has grown by one third in terms of the number of acute patients treated.
    Mr. Skinner: The Minister cooked the books.
    Mr. Dorrell: The Cook test that the hon. Gentleman should apply has been passed with flying colours by the NHS under this Government.

    Health Issues (Public Consultation)
    Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he takes to monitor local public consultation processes on health issues. [612]
    Mr. Horam: The Secretary of State reviews all trust mergers and all substantial variations in service provision that are contested. In doing so, he takes account not only of the responses, but of the adequacy of the consultation exercise.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: What steps does the Secretary of State take to ensure that commitments given in public consultation exercises on closures or changes of use are followed through? For example, in Wakefield, when the county hospital was closed, we had a clear commitment that it would be replaced by a purpose-built geriatric unit. When Manygates maternity hospital was closed, we had a clear commitment that we would be given a purpose-built
    1022
    maternity unit. When the neurosurgery from Pinderfielcls general hospital was transferred to Leeds, we had a clear commitment that we would have a rehabilitation centre at the hospital. None of those commitments has been fulfilled. What is the Secretary of State doing about that?
    While I am on my feet, let me ask the Minister to explain the shambles that has occurred in the public consultation process on the proposed merger of the two Wakefield trusts. The consultation process was stopped half way through and passed over to the health authority because the Government had wrongly advised local people on the way to handle the issue.
    Mr. Horam: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. We have nearly doubled the length of time for consultation in Wakefield—and that consultation involves the merger of the two trusts. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is cavilling at that, as he opined some time ago that there were too many trusts in the Wakefield health authority. Perhaps we can discuss those issues at greater length during Thursday evening's Adjournment debate.
    Mr. Dunn: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for taking the trouble to visit my constituency yesterday to see for himself the site of the proposed district general hospital at Darenth park. Will he take it from me that, whatever the consultation that took place in north-west Kent, all the communities in Dartford, Gravesham and north Sevenoaks are united in their determination to support the Government's private finance initiative, which will lead to the new district hospital at Darenth park?
    Mr. Horam: I take my hon. Friend's point. Darenth park is a heartening example of the progress being made through the private finance initiative. I should re-emphasise that that is the way to obtain new hospitals without having to wait in the queue for public expenditure. The initiative has been successful in Darenth park, and I am sure that the consultation process there will be successful.
    Mr. Pearson: Is the Minister aware that many district health authorities are leaving it to an advanced stage of the NHS trusts' capital investment planning process before going out to public consultation, even though the capital investment plans may involve a major strategic change such as the closure of hospitals? Does he consider that to be acceptable? Will he consider reviewing the NHS management executive guidelines on consultation' involving the consumer to make it explicit that consultation, if it is to be genuine, must occur as early as possible and well before hundreds of thousands of pounds are wasted on management consultancy fees?
    Mr. Horam: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. It is sensible to have something concrete to consult about. When plans are embryonic, consultation can occur too early and, as the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) said, it can go wrong. It is important to consult in the right way and at the right time.

    "Fetal Sentience"
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what response he intends to make to the document "Fetal Sentience", a copy of which has been sent to him. [613]
    Mr. Horam: Prevention and relief of unnecessary pain is a primary concern in clinical practice. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has set up a working party to conduct an independent review on the evidence of fetal awareness and to consider whether there is any need for change in current practice. I understand that the working group will report in the new year.
    Mrs. Winterton: Does my hon. Friend agree that that authoritative paper, written by 15 of the world's top doctors and scientists, shows that the structures necessary for the perception of pain are present and functional from the 10th week following fertilisation? Does he agree that the onus should now be firmly placed on those who claim that the unborn child feels no pain during abortion and that they should prove their case? Is it not a good time to review the workings of the law in this sphere, bearing in mind that 4.5 million abortions have taken place—90 per cent. of them merely for social reasons?
    Mr. Horam: I assure my hon. Friend that the working party set up by the royal college will look into all the scientific and medical evidence that comes before it. I am sure that it will give a balanced view. On my hon. Friend's second point about reviewing legislation, that is a matter for Parliament.
    Mr. Alton: Notwithstanding that reply, is it not a matter for the Government rather than the royal college to examine how legislation works? Given that, since 1990, we allow abortion up to and even during birth in the case of a handicapped baby and up to 24 weeks gestation in the case of a perfectly healthy unborn baby, is it not time now to consider from a legislative point of view the latest scientific evidence about foetal sentience and the pain and awareness experienced by the unborn child? Will the Minister contrast the lack of care that is shown towards the unborn with the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, which gives protection even to an amoeba?
    Mr. Horam: The hon. Gentleman knows a great deal about this. As he is aware, there is conflicting medical evidence on foetal awareness. Clinicians who are expert in the field must undertake a balanced study of the evidence. Of course the Government will give full consideration to the working party report.
    Dr. Spink: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a lack of knowledge and understanding of foetal sentience, even in the House? Does he agree that it is time for the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology to examine the matter and report to the House?
    Mr. Horam: I take my hon. Friend's suggestion, which we shall consider. However, it is right for the evidence to be studied by the royal college, which has undertaken to be specific in its report. It is better for the matter to be
    1024
    examined by one group rather than by two or three, especially if one of those has Government status. The royal college is the right body to consider the evidence.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: Is the Minister aware that several highly critical papers have appeared in the British Medical Journal, suggesting that foetal pain is a misnomer? Will he give the House an assurance that he will wait until a report is published by Dr. Anne McLaren before he makes any Government pronouncement on the issue?
    Mr. Horam: Yes, I take the hon. Lady's point. That is why I used the phrase "foetal awareness", which is perhaps a more accurate description of what we are speaking about and could include pain. Clearly, the subject requires careful consideration.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Does my hon. Friend not find it rather odd that many of those who lobby for animals to be treated as sentient beings also lobby for abortion on demand?
    Mr. Horam: I hear my hon. Friend's point.

    Dental Services
    Mr. Ainger: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists in England were providing national health service treatment for children and adult patients without restriction in 1985 and in 1995. [614]
    Mr. Malone: The number of dentists in the general dental services in England was 14,255 at 30 June 1985 and 15,927 at 30 June 1995.
    Mr. Ainger: That answer does not strictly address the question. Does the Minister recall the statement made by the Secretary of State on 15 October this year, when he said that there was continued steady growth in NHS dental services? How does he justify that statement when, in the past two years, 1,900,000 fewer people have been registered with dentists in England and Wales, and more than half the population of England and Wales is not registered with a dentist at all? Does he accept that there has been a serious decline in NHS dentistry over the past few years, and that it is time that the Government addressed it?
    Mr. Malone: No, I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. I read the exchanges between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the hon. Gentleman before I came to answer the question. My right hon. Friend was right: under this Government, NHS dental services are growing. A record number of NHS dentists are providing them. In Wales, that figure in 1985 was 741; it has gone up to 849. I accept the point behind the hon. Gentleman's question. There are problems in certain parts of the country, which we are addressing—in the long term through the purchaser-provider relationship, as the Select Committee on Health recommended, and in the shorter term through the access fund that we announced, through which 22 schemes are getting under way, and more flexible use of the existing legislation allowing us to appoint salaried dentists.
    Sir Alan Haselhurst: Against that welcome background of an increase in the number of NHS dentists, will my hon. Friend nevertheless have regard to the problems that can be created by dentists choosing to leave the NHS, which results in a shortage such as there is now in Saffron Walden? Will he undertake to re-examine the scale of access funds?
    Mr. Malone: My hon. Friend is right to point out that there are local difficulties, and of course there are mechanisms now by which we can address them. The access funds that have been announced will, I hope, be evaluated quickly, and if they are proven to be effective, we shall see whether they are the mechanism that we should use to alleviate that particular local need.

    NHS Funding
    Mr. Roy Hughes: To ask the Secretary of Stale for Health what recent representations he has received from the British Medical Association concerning the funding of the NHS. [615]
    Mr. Dorrell: I am routinely in contact with the British Medical Association. I last met the chairman last week.
    Mr. Hughes: The Secretary of State will be aware that the BMA has warned that the hospital service could collapse this winter. What is he doing to prevent such an eventuality? Would it not be wiser to concentrate finances on nurses, doctors, wards and operating facilities rather than turn this great service into a haven for bureaucrats?
    Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman has not caught up with his party leader, who acknowledges that the national health service needs managing; he also acknowledges that the traditional national health service was undermanaged, so there is no doubt about the importance of strong management in the health service to ensure that resources are made available to treat the growing number of patients who come into our hospitals.
    The hon. Gentleman spoke about the views of the BMA and the hospital service. It is an absolutely regular annual cycle that we hear of problems at this time of year as budgets are being set. The hon. Gentleman might like to know that, in addition to other reports coming out of the health service at the moment, a report from the National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts says:
    "Essentially, the NHS is in a robust position."
    The national health service has benefited from growing resources and is treating a growing number of patients. The Opposition cannot accustom themselves to that fact.
    Mr. Rowe: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many of us would take what the BMA says about the health service with rather more conviction if the BMA were not so keen constantly to support doctors who in private it would admit should be got rid of, and that the trade union activities within the health service by which support is given to manifestly incompetent doctors is a disgrace?
    Mr. Dorrell: I am not going to get engaged in an exchange of insults with the BMA. I welcome the fact that the chairman of the BMA endorsed the primary care Bill, which the Government will introduce during this
    1026
    Session, as an important step forward in the further development of primary care. I also welcome the recognition within the BMA that the Government are delivering more money year by year to the health service, with the result that the health service is treating more patients year by year. Those are the two key facts about the present position in the national health service.
    Mr. Spearing: Does the Secretary of State recall that, last July, I asked, in a written question, what were the deficits in funding for the health service. The Department replied that the figures were not suitable for publication. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Yes; indeed, they were only published after an Adjournment debate on 16 October last. Does the Secretary of State agree that the figures that he has now placed in the Library show that the estimated cumulative deficit on 31 March next year will be at least £120 million net? Do not the deficits and, indeed, the efforts to obscure them from Parliament and the public, show that the Government are not fit to look after the health service and that it is not safe in their hands at all? How would he refute such a charge, bearing in mind the facts that I have just mentioned?
    Mr. Dorrell: The variety of red herrings coming from Opposition Members is amazing. All of them are designed to obscure two central facts about the national health service. Since 1990, resources have increased by a quarter, and the number of patients treated has increased by a third. The hon. Gentleman asked us to publish some information. Now, he criticises us for publishing it. What we have seen in the health service is extra money treating more patients. That is what the health service exists to deliver.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that our commitment to the national health service can be seen in each of our constituencies? For instance, at the Royal Preston hospital, which he visited last year, in my constituency, a new cancer unit is being built, at a cost of more than £5 million. A gynaecology unit will be moved to the same site, at a cost of more than £12 million, and earlier this year a new day care centre opened, at a cost of more £1 million. While I am on my feet, I invite my right hon. Friend to come to Fulwood to visit the hospital to see some of the good work that is happening in our constituencies.
    Mr. Dorrell: My problem is that, each year, I would have to visit every one of my hon. Friends' constituencies in order to keep up with the good news and the developments in the NHS. The problem for those on the Opposition Front Bench is that the Government are committed to providing more money year by year for the health service. That is a pledge which the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor will not allow the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) to give. Labour will not make that pledge.
    Mr. Chris Smith: Is it not the case that everyone, including now the Government, agrees that the health service is facing a real crisis this winter? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] What precisely will the Secretary of State's much trumpeted extra money from the Chancellor do to solve this

    1027
    immediate crisis, or does he intend to spend next year's money to ward off this year's problems? If so, will we not end up with exactly the same crisis in a year's time?
    Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman has blown it again—any excuse, any diversion, any subject other than what those on the Opposition Front Bench think should happen. When the hon. Gentleman is asked what he thinks should happen, answer comes there none.
    Lady Olga Maitland: Does my right hon. Friend agree that he has nothing to be ashamed of in the health care at St. Helier hospital in my constituency? Is he aware that that magnificent hospital provides more treatments and operations and is opening more specialist units than ever before—progress based on an increase in Government spending on health of 79 per cent. in real terms since 1979? The patients are grateful, and delighted with the service.
    Mr. Dorrell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for another local story illustrating the national picture—more money treating more patients in the people's health service supported by the Government.

    Antibiotics (Prescribing)
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to issue new guidance to family doctors on the prescribing of antibiotics. [616]
    Mr. Malone: Detailed national guidance on the prescribing of antibiotics to individual patients would not be appropriate because of local variation in resistance patterns. Only the doctor in charge of the patient is in a position to decide on the most appropriate treatment. The British National Formulary, which is regularly updated and which we fund, provides advice for all doctors on the choice of suitable drugs.
    Mr. Williams: That answer is rather complacent. In view of the link between meningitis clusters and the overuse of antibiotics by general practitioners in those areas, and the rise of methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus in hospitals, is it not clear that resistance to antibiotics is a major health problem, and should not the Government introduce guidelines for GPs to prescribe antibiotics only when they are necessary?
    Mr. Malone: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern on this matter, which the Government keep under close review. It might be helpful if I point out that the idea that antibiotics are on an ever-increasing path of prescription is not entirely right. The increase is still only 3.1 per cent., compared with 3.9 per cent. for all drugs. The Government take the matter seriously and guidance has been issued. The matter is considered by area prescribing committees because that is the most appropriate way in which to meet local needs. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that the matter is kept under constant review by the chief medical officer.
    Mr. Tredinnick: Does my hon. Friend accept that homeopathic doctors can offer treatments which substitute for antibiotics? Might there be scope under the primary care Bill for extending the scope of homeopathic treatment in the health service?
    Mr. Malone: There is already scope for providing such treatment through the GP fundholding system, and I am
    1028
    pleased that a number of GP fundholders do that. I am also pleased that those who provide homeopathic medicines are now beginning to assess the effectiveness of such remedies, as happens in the rest of the NHS.

    Electric Wheelchairs
    Mr. Frank Cook: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have received an electric wheelchair from their local health authority since the introduction of the scheme. [617]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Simon Burns): Since the scheme for severely disabled people came into operation, 64 powered wheelchairs have been issued. By March 1997, wheelchair services are expected to have used the full allocation of this year's £6.4 million additional money.
    Mr. Cook: A good half million individuals are confined to national health service hand-powered wheelchairs. Many hon. Members will know how difficult it is, even for able-bodied people, to propel or manoeuvre such appliances. The departmental guidelines suggest that only people who cannot stand or walk should be eligible for powered wheelchairs. Will the Minister give an undertaking to review those guidance notes? Will he also tell the House what financial provisions will be made in the next financial year?
    Mr. Burns: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this important issue. The Government are determined to provide severely disabled people with as much help as possible. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that two different schemes for wheelchair users were announced. Over the next four years, £50 million extra will be made available, on top of the current funding of £40 million a year, £27 million of which is for powered wheelchairs.
    The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that the setting of the criteria, and the guidance for the assessment of people eligible for a powered wheelchair, were determined at local level in consultation with user groups and voluntary organisations.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Does the Minister agree that the slow take-up of the powered wheelchair scheme is bound to be repeated under the wheelchair voucher scheme, which the Government announced with a great fanfare last February as part of the same initiative? What have the Government learnt since then? Why have disabled people and their organisations waited for months for Government guidelines that have been postponed again and again? Does he accept that the House and disabled people were given a clear pledge last February? When do the Government intend to announce their timetable, their proposals for implementation and their plans to honour the promises they gave to disabled people and to the House last winter?
    Mr. Burns: I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman did not give the Government credit for providing significant additional funding to help the severely disabled

    1029
    with their wheelchairs. With regard to the implementation of the scheme for powered wheelchairs, for which the £6.4 million has been made available—
    Mr. Clarke rose—
    Mr. Burns: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will have the courtesy to listen to my answer.
    The orders were laid in July, and then it was a matter of establishing the criteria of eligibility. The hon. Gentleman would be the first to criticise us if we had rushed that and got it wrong. When the voucher scheme was announced, it was made plain that it would be introduced gradually over the next four years, starting at the end of this financial year. The guidance that has been worked on through the summer is almost complete, following consultations with user groups and other organisations, and we hope to publish it shortly.

    West Middlesex University Hospital
    Mr. Jessel: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the current proposals to rebuild most of the West Middlesex university hospital. [618]
    Mr. Horam: Assessment of the proposals for the redevelopment of West Middlesex university hospital will be carried out when the trust submits its full business case, which is expected to be later this month.
    Mr. Jessel: As the West Middlesex is a popular local hospital that gives first-class standards of treatment to patients over a wide area, will my hon. Friend, as a matter of urgency, give a fair wind to the splendid scheme under which the national health service would continue to own the freehold of the land and a 60-year lease of the buildings—and, of course, to provide free treatment?
    Mr. Horam: West Middlesex university hospital is indeed a popular local hospital, just as my hon. Friend is a popular Member of Parliament. I am glad to say that his enthusiasm is contagious: it is shared by the clinicians and managers who are driving for the scheme. I can tell him, for example, that the trust and consortium that are behind the scheme are now meeting twice a week to give it maximum impetus. I hope that it will proceed at full speed.
    Mr. Flynn: Is the Minister aware that the hospital is one of those in which the so-called hospital bug—methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus—has occurred? Has he read the devastating and moving speech made in the other place by Lord Fitt, who described the death of his wife from that so-called hospital bug? When will the Government look at the number of infections—according to the King's Fund, as many as 50 per cent. of hospital in-patients contract infections of some kind when they are in hospital—and when will they start to measure not the quantity of patients who go to hospital, but the quality of treatment that they receive?
    Mr. Horam: The hon. Gentleman has raised an important point. MRSA is a matter of concern. He ought
    1030
    to know, however, that the NHS has sent guidance on the subject to local hospitals, and that local groups and clinicians will be examining it very carefully.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Ms Primarolo: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 November. [638]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet, and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Ms Primarolo: Is the Prime Minister aware that, according to his own Government's statistics, the average family living in council housing has been £3 a week worse off since the last election? Is not the main reason for that the fact that the Government have increased taxes 22 times since the election, and put VAT on fuel?
    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Lady is worried about the net cash position of council tenants, she might look to see who runs the highest tax rates across the country. The highest band D tax rates are imposed by Labour councils: Coventry, Salford, Hartlepool, Manchester, Islington, Redcar, Hackney—I will not continue the list; the hon. Lady knows them. If it is a Labour council, the council tax is high.
    Sir Fergus Montgomery: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government are doing everything in their power to help with the rebuilding of Manchester city centre following the terrible damage inflicted by the IRA bomb, while using some of the existing initiatives to help to regenerate our inner cities?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, following the bombing in June last year, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said that a task force would be set up to oversee the city's recovery. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt), the sponsor Minister for Manchester, announced in Manchester today that EDAW had won a competition to redesign the city centre. That is an important step forward in the redesigning of Manchester, and, I hope, towards a greatly improved future Manchester city centre. Money has already been allocated from European funds, and it is quite possible that, if appropriate application is made, further funds will come forward.
    Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister admit what he denied just two weeks ago: that, with casualty departments closing and waiting lists up in many parts of the country—and with some hospital trusts technically bankrupt—the national health service is indeed in a state of crisis?
    The Prime Minister: No, I do not accept that. Nor do I accept most of the misleading statistics that, the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have used in recent

    1031
    weeks. If the right hon. Gentleman was so concerned about funding, perhaps some time ago he might have matched our pledge to increase funding in real terms each year.
    Mr. Blair: Perhaps the Prime Minister will now accept what his own Government's statistics show: that, although they have spent an extra £1.5 billion on the national health service, it has gone into bureaucracy and administration rather than proper patient care. That is why there are 20,000 more senior managers and 50,000 fewer nurses since the Tory internal market reforms.
    I ask the Prime Minister to talk to people who use the national health service and who know when they go to a casualty department that something is seriously wrong; who know, when their appointments are cancelled and they are told that they are better off going privately, that something is wrong. Why does he not talk to women who had children in the national health service a few years ago and have had children recently and know the difference in the standard of facilities? Would it not be better for him to admit the existence of this problem and try to solve it rather than deny what everyone knows: that something is seriously wrong in the national health service?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman talks about management and bureaucracy in the health service. Perhaps he can explain to the country why he opposed the abolition of a whole tier of bureaucracy—regional health authorities—saving £100 million a year? The right hon. Gentleman's party opposed that. If he thinks that a £43 billion service does not need proper management, perhaps he might remember what the Socialist Health Association said:
    "The NHS was traditionally under-managed and the party"—
    Labour—
    "should avoid bureaucrat bashing."
    The right hon. Gentleman knows that it needs to be properly managed, that it is now being properly managed and that, as a result, money is being allocated to where it should go. He knows that waiting lists are falling, that the number of operations being performed is increasing, that a wider range of treatments is being produced and that the national health service is something that this country should be proud of, not something to be used as a political football by the right hon. Gentleman whenever that is appropriate.
    Mr. Blair: I do not think that the Prime Minister—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. If any of the Whips have anything to say, let them come to the Front Bench and say it.
    Mr. Blair: I do not think that the Prime Minister understands. This country is very proud of the national health service, but it is not proud of what the Government have done to the national health service. Is not the fear that any extra resources that are put forward now are just sticking plaster to see the Tories through to the election? Why will not the Prime Minister admit what the country knows: that there will be a crisis every year in the national health service while this Government remain in office?
    The Prime Minister: I seem to recall that it was a Labour Government who closed hospitals, cut nurses' pay
    1032
    and genuinely created a crisis in the health service. The right hon. Gentleman would be well advised to give up these kindergarten soundbites and concentrate on reality. NHS spending will be more than £34 billion this year—more than £720 for every man, every woman and every child. That is an increase over and above inflation of about three quarters since 1979. There were over 9 million episodes of hospital care in 1995–96—25,000 every day, up 46 per cent. in 10 years.
    As the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) said, the acid test is whether more people are being treated. They are, and they are being treated better and offered a wider range of services. The right hon. Gentleman knows that but he will not admit it: he is more concerned with his politics than with the reality of improving treatment.
    Sir Jim Spicer: Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to see the statement made last week by the railway franchising director in which he states in clear and unequivocal terms that, over the next few years, taxpayers will be saved more than £2 billion as a result of privatisation? If we add to that better punctuality, service and customer care, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is time that the Opposition prophets of doom and gloom recanted and accepted reality—that privatisation is good for the railways and good for the taxpayer?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is quite right. Not long ago, the Opposition were trying all sorts of scares about privatization—safety on the railways, services being cut—all of which have been shown to be utterly and comprehensively wrong. The reality is that new rolling stock is being introduced, the service is being improved, there is more investment than before and extra services are being run on a range of lines throughout the country. The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) may shake his head, but all he is showing is that he is ignorant—not that he has any knowledge.
    Mr. Ashdown: We have said what we would do to provide extra funding for the health service, both next year and now. If the Government have decided to commit more money to the health service for next year, that is a good thing. If they have decided that the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), the former Foreign Secretary, was right when he said that cutting taxes would be rejected in Britain if it was bought at the cost of closed hospital wards and sacked teachers, that is even better. But does the Prime Minister not realise that the crisis in the health service is not next year—it is now. Wards are being closed—now. Operations are being cancelled—now. Waiting lists are growing again—now. That money is needed—now. Will he provide it and, if not, what will he do to avert the national health service crisis and to prevent any further hospital ward closures this coming winter?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman had better wait for the statement by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on health service funding. It will be made clear at the time of the Budget. I have nothing further to say to the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon except this: it was the right hon. Gentleman who, just a few days ago, was lecturing us about spending

    1033
    and debt. Now he is advocating extra expenditure. Whatever happens to be his tune for the day, he will shift to it. We have said—and we have kept the promise throughout 17 years—that we will provide extra resources for the health service to ensure that it is able to match the needs of the people of this country. That is why more people are being treated, and better treated, than ever before. The growth in the health service over the years has outstripped every other area of government, and I have made it clear that, in future, it will beat the inflation rate year after year after year. That is a pledge that people do not have to look in the mirror to see. They can look at our record. We have done it.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend accept that one of the present Government's great success stories is the fact that they have brought about a growing economy with low inflation and falling unemployment? Will he now accept an invitation from me to visit Macclesfield, where all those facts are arnply demonstrated—where we have a Conservative-controlled authority, where unemployment is falling and where we have an area that is proud to be Tory?
    The Prime Minister: I am delighted that Macclesfield is doing so well. Throughout the country, we see falling unemployment, increasing growth, increasing jobs and increasing prosperity. That will continue to be the case while we retain a Conservative Government following the policies that we have followed in the past few years.
    Mr. Wigley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 November. [639]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Wigley: Is the Prime Minister aware that more than 40 per cent. of retirement households in these islands depend entirely on the state pension—and that for a single person it is only £61 a week? Is he further aware that, if the link between pensions and earnings had not been broken in 1980, the pension would be £83 a week? On what basis can the Government deny pensioners who depend totally on the state pension any share at all in the increase in prosperity over that period?
    The Prime Minister: Of course I understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns. That is why we have always recognised the significance of the state pension as the cornerstone of income in retirement, and ensured that it has kept up with the increase in prices. In addition, of course, I accept that for many people the state pension is not intended to be the sole income. That is why, in preparation for the future, we have encouraged personal responsibility and additional pension provision and why,
    1034
    for the present, we have targeted additional resources on the safety net of income-related benefits for people who have no resources other than the state benefit. That is apart from the entitlement that they would certainly have to council tax benefit and housing benefit, so we have targeted a great deal of additional resources to ensure that people who do not have a substantial income and who perhaps depend entirely on the state pension have additional help.
    Mr. Carrington: As my right hon. Friend knows, millions of ordinary people own shares in privatised utilities. Does he agree that a windfall tax on those utilities would damage those investments and push up prices for the consumer?
    The Prime Minister: There is no doubt about that. It is no good promising on the one hand to cut VAT on fuel while, on the other, proposing a windfall tax on the utilities which would put up the price of fuel by more than any potential reduction in VAT. Thus far, the shadow Chancellor seems to be spending the windfall tax on a number of different things, including helping the long-term unemployed back to work, improvements in child care provision—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—new environmental tasks, small business VAT relief—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]. I am glad to hear Labour Members cheering. How much will the windfall tax be, and upon whom will it be levied? What will it do to the price of the utilities, which are used by everybody in the country? The more Labour Members cheer the spending, the more we know that the windfall tax will rise.
    Mrs. Ewing: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 November. [640]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Ewing: On this historic day when a certain individual tried to set fire to the House of Commons, will the right hon. Gentleman give some serious consideration to the thousands of pensioners and disabled people who, this winter, will be afraid to put on the fires in their houses? Will he give serious consideration to a reduction of VAT on fuel, a review of the home energy efficiency scheme and an automatic payment, thereby giving us a better reason to remember 5 November?
    The Prime Minister: I have always rather fondly hoped that we celebrated Guy Fawkes day because he failed to blow up the House of Commons. The hon. Lady's point is similar to that raised a few moments ago by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), and I hope that I can rest on that answer.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sure that you will have noticed that I have Question 3 to the Prime Minister on Thursday. We can all see your concern at the fact that the questions and exchanges during Prime Minister's Question Time appear to be getting longer and longer, particularly from the Leader of the Opposition. I have counted the number of words: on Tuesday, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) used 342 words to put his three questions and, on Thursday, he used 380 words, and that was after Hansard had cut it down a bit. I wonder whether you would use the sensible device whereby, once the right hon. Gentleman has used over 150 or 200 words, you do not call him for a third time.
Madam Speaker: I also keep records, not just once in a while, but daily. I know all those hon. Members—Government Front-Bench, Opposition Front-Bench or Back-Bench—who take far too long to put their questions or give their answers, and it would take me a long time this afternoon to name them all.
Mr. Jim Dowd: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. This is a matter that has been raised with you on numerous occasions, and your views are well known, but I seek clarification.
During the past couple of weeks, the Secretary of State for the Environment paid a visit to my constituency on official business, and just last week, the Secretary of State for Transport did the same. On neither occasion was I extended the courtesy of a telephone call or a note to inform me that they were undertaking those official duties. Although I feel that ordinary Back-Bench Members need not be bound by this, Ministers have staff precisely to deal with such matters. Can you tell the House whether you have received notice from the Government that they intend to discontinue the previous practice, or is this further proof not only that they have run out of ideas and energy, but that they have no manners?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman and the House are fully aware of my views on this matter, but I do not agree totally with what he has said. I think that it is a
1036
matter of courtesy for Back Benchers, just as it is for Ministers, to inform other Members of Parliament of visits to their constituencies. I am disagreeably surprised to learn that private offices did not inform the hon. Gentleman of those visits. No doubt he will take up the issue directly with the two private offices concerned.
Mr. Graham Riddick: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Do you believe that the Leader of the Opposition or the deputy Leader of the Opposition should notify hon. Members whose constituencies they visit—
Madam Speaker: Order. This matter can become very tiresome, not only for hon. Members but for the public. I have made my views on this matter known on numerous occasions. I do not discriminate: as far as I am concerned, every hon. Member is equal. Let us leave it at that. Hon. Members should notify an hon. Member before they visit a constituency. I cannot continue emphasising that point, and I refuse take it any further now.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Has a decision yet been made whether it is in order for the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) to be a member of the Standards and Privileges Committee, after he has admitted receiving assistance from a solicitor for Mr. Al-Fayed for the drafting of 58 early-day motions?
Madam Speaker: It is my understanding that the Committee discussed that matter, in addition to matters relating to one or two other hon. Members who are on the Committee, and decided that there was no reason why the hon. Members concerned should not remain on the Committee.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(4) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

RAILTRACK GROUP
That the Railtrack Group PLC (Target Investment Limit) Order 1996 (S.I. 1996, No. 2551) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation—[Mr. Brandreth.]
Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day

  Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill
  Order, for Second Reading read.
  Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
  3.35 pm
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Before describing the Bill's provisions, I thought that I should deal briefly with the two reasoned amendments that have been tabled by the Opposition parties. I hasten to say that I use the word "reasoned" to refer to the procedure of the House rather than to the nature of Labour's amendment.
  I am struck by the fact that the Opposition have declined to give this Bill a Second Reading. Their refusal seems to be in stark contrast to their behaviour yesterday in relation to the Crime (Sentences) Bill introduced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, because the provisions of that Bill are almost identical, except in some specific, key areas—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) seems to confirm that that is the reason why he and his colleagues oppose this Bill.
  The key provisions with which the Opposition disagree are restriction of liberty orders for adults, reform of criminal legal aid, and police powers to confiscate alcohol from people under 16 years. I find it extraordinary that the Opposition are seriously saying that they oppose the Bill on the grounds of those measures. What conceivable opposition can there be to giving police the power to confiscate drink from youngsters under the age of 18 congregating in public places? What conceivable reasons can there be for opposing restriction of liberty orders?
  I have read the Opposition's amendment, and I found that they are opposed to the Bill because it
  "proposes to introduce, without any Scottish piloting or examination, electronic tagging for offenders and lays the way open for electronic tagging of offenders under the age of 16, thereby threatening the operation of Scotland's unique Children's Hearings system".
  I ask the hon. Member for Hamilton to read the Bill. He will find that it makes specific provision for people over the age of 16. The Bill contains no provision for electronic tagging of individuals under 16. It is true that the Government have said that they will consult on those matters and consider their introduction at a later stage, but—as the Bill does not contain such provisions—that is not a reason to vote against Second Reading.
  The other explanation that we are offered for this volte-face by the Labour party—[Interruption.] It is a volte-face. Only three Labour Members voted against the Crime (Sentences) Bill, not one of whom was Scots. The only people who opposed that Bill were the Liberals, who divided the House on their amendment and on the Bill's principle on Second Reading.
  It was not opposed by the Labour party, and I find it extraordinary that the Opposition should be seeking to oppose these measures which are to apply to Scotland.
  1038
  The hon. Member for Hamilton may, however, rest on the fig leaf that, according to Labour's reasoned amendment, the Bill
  "seeks to reverse the key reforms introduced in the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 passed in this Parliament".
  The hon. Gentleman is seeking to justify his opposition to a Government measure on the grounds that, he says, it "reverses the key reforms" of a previous Act. It does no such thing—it builds on them. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head; I will happily give way to him if he will explain what the 1993 Act did in respect of sentencing, and why he believes that this Bill is a reversal of it.
  Mr. George Robertson: The 1993 Act provided for automatic remission. The Minister's own notes for the Bill say that prisoners are to be denied automatic remission. That is one aspect of the reversal; I shall later give details of others. Instead of blustering about a reasoned amendment, why does the Secretary of State not try to defend the legislation?
  Mr. Forsyth: I shall come on to that. The hon. Gentleman says that the 1993 Act provided for automatic remission, but surely he must know that it restricted people's ability to get parole, especially if they were the more serious offenders. It also introduced new provisions whereby, if people were released from prison but reoffended within the period of the sentence, they should be returned to prison. That made it harder for people to be released from prison early, and at the same time ensured that, if people were released from prison, they were subject to proper supervision.
  How the hon. Gentleman can put his name, under that of the Leader of the Opposition, to an amendment which argues that the Bill is reversing the key reforms of the 1993 Act, I do not understand. In what way is it reversing them? It is in fact going in the same direction and making the meaning of a sentence clear. It makes prisoners more subject to the sentence of the courts. It is travelling in the same direction as the 1993 Act, not trying to reverse it. I invite the hon. Gentleman to explain his position.
  Mr. Robertson: I thought that the decline of the Conservative party since the Secretary of State took office might be worth referring to. The background note to the Bill, issued by his Department, states that the Bill would abolish the current system of parole and early release and replace it with a system whereby prisoners would be able to earn a maximum of one sixth of their sentences through good behaviour. They are the words of the Government's own document, and if it does not mean abolishing the system, what does it mean? What is this semantic rubbish? Will the Secretary of State kindly tell the House and the country why this electioneering Bill has been introduced in the first place?
  Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman has not explained why he uses the word "reverse". I accept that it goes further—[HoN. MEMBERS: "You are abolishing parole."] Indeed we are abolishing parole, but if the hon. Gentleman understood the 1993 Act, he would realise that it tightened the system. It required—[Interruption.]
  If the House is not prepared to take my word for it, let me remind it of what my right hon. Friend the right hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang),

  1039
  the previous Secretary of State for Scotland, said on Second Reading of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Bill. He said:
  "An even more important change made by the Bill is to provide for the full outstanding portion of any sentence to be served, should the offender commit another offence punishable by imprisonment after his release, but before the full period specified in the sentence has elapsed. It is this measure that restores meaning to the full sentence of the court, and ensures that the deterrent effect of the sentence lasts for the full period intended by the court which passed it."—[Official Report, 19 October 1992; Vol. 212, c. 239.]
  The hon. Gentleman has acknowledged—
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham rose—
  Mr. Forsyth: I am dealing with the hon. Member for Hamilton.
  He has acknowledged that the progress being made in this Bill is that it is to continue the principle, established by my predecessor, of restoring the meaning of the sentence of the court.
  Is the hon. Member for Hamilton seriously trying to tell the people of Scotland that the Labour party is tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime when he is going to vote against provisions to give the police powers to deal with juvenile under-age drinkers and provisions for hooligans and others who could be dealt with by electronic tagging? We can see the nature of Labour Members' rhetoric and their behaviour in the House.
  The hon. Member for Hamilton has still not explained why, if he is concerned about honesty in sentencing and the other matters in the Bill, he and his party have not voted against the measures.
  Ms Cunningham: I am now entirely puzzled. As I recollect, 50 per cent. automatic remission was brought in in 1993 for those whose sentences were four years or shorter. That policy has operated between 1993 and 1996. Will the Secretary of State's new proposals change that? Our clear understanding from everything that has been said is that the proposals will change that policy and that the Government are going back on a measure that they introduced three years ago.
  Mr. Forsyth: The Bill certainly changes the situation. If it did not, we should not be introducing it. We took a step in the right direction in 1993, and we are taking a further leap in the Bill.
  To complete the education of the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham) on the matter, under the 1993 Act, parole ceased to be available at one third of sentence. I am sure that she knows that. She seemed to be following what the hon. Member for Hamilton implied about changes to parole. The 1993 Act made parole available after half the sentence rather than one third of it. Parole will now no longer be available, and we are requiring remission of one sixth of the sentence to be earned. We think that people should serve the sentences passed by the courts.
  1040
  I hope that the whole of Scotland knows that the Labour party thinks that prisoners should not serve the sentences passed by the courts and is opposed to the principle of the Bill that any remission, which will be limited to one sixth of sentence, must be earned.
  Mr. George Robertson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Forsyth: I shall give way in a moment. I want to finish my answer to the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross, who seems confused about the 1993 Act.
  That Act also required all prisoners serving four years or more to be subject to supervision on release, and introduced supervised release orders for short-term prisoners at the court's discretion. In addition, it required any prisoner convicted of a further offence after release but before the end of the sentence to be returned to prison.
  It is wrong for the hon. Lady to say that we are going back on our previous position. We are going ahead and building on the principles that we established, that the court's sentence should have real meaning and that prisoners should be required to serve their sentence. When remission is granted, it should be subject to supervision. Those principles are maintained.
  Mr. Robertson: Tomorrow's Hansard will show the words that the Secretary of State has just uttered alongside those of the right hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale, now President of the Board of Trade and formerly Secretary of State for Scotland, who said, on Second Reading of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings Bill:
  "There are those who argue that the sentence of the court should mean precisely what it says—a fixed number of years in custody."
  He must have been referring to the current Secretary of State for Scotland, who was then a junior Minister at the Home Office. He went on:
  "The Government believe, however, like the Kincraig committee, that a better approach is to allow, within the compass of the total sentence, for a period in custody, and a period in the community during which the offender will be encouraged to resettle under supervision."—[Official Report, 19 October 1992; Vol. 212, c. 238]
  Now, however, the Government background note says that the Bill would abolish the current system of parole and early release and replace it with a system whereby prisoners would be able to earn a maximum of one sixth off their sentence through good behaviour.
  Why is the Secretary of State wasting time at the beginning of this important debate trying to defend the indefensible? He is turning his back on a measure that was passed by this Parliament and abolishing what his predecessor put in place.
  Mr. Forsyth: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has now found his briefing. If he continues to read the quote beyond the next two paragraphs, he will find the quote that I gave the House. I will not read it all again, but I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to it. The most important sentence is at the top of column 239:
  "It is this measure that restores meaning to the full sentence of the court, and ensures that the deterrent effect of the sentence lasts for the full period intended by the court which passed it."—[Official Report, 19 October 1992; Vol. 212, c. 239.]

  1041
  The hon. Member for Hamilton is trying to make bricks without straw. No one is arguing that we are not going beyond the 1993 legislation. We are determined that people should serve the sentences of the court and that any remission, which should be limited to one sixth, should be earned. Even 93 per cent. of Daily Record readers support the Government in that respect. It is unfortunate that: the hon. Gentleman does not seem to be in touch with public opinion on the matter, just as he is not, I believe, in touch with public opinion in respect of a number of the Bill's other provisions.
  The hon. Member for Hamilton implies that I am wasting my time in dealing with these trivial matters. I am dealing with the amendment he tabled and I am trying to show him how absurd it is for him to argue against this Bill when he was not even here in the House last night to vote against similar provisions applying to England and Wales.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Forsyth: I would like to make a little more progress. I am still dealing with the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Hamilton.
  The amendment talks about the Bill providing
  "hopelessly optimistic and unrealistic estimated costs and manpower implications".
  That is completely untrue. We have made our estimates on the worst-case scenario—that is, that there will be no judicial compensation for the proposed changes to the rules that apply to remission.
  Not all judges agree. Some judges take into account the fact that at present, when there is automatic release at the halfway point, someone who has a sentence of eight years will automatically get out after four years. Some judges say that, under the new system, in which the criminal will serve the full sentence apart from one sixth, they will not take account of that fact. Others say that they will. We have based our manpower and cost estimates on the assumption that there will be no judicial compensation.
  The Government are fully prepared to ensure that prison places are provided to meet the disposals of the courts. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Hamilton is not prepared to sign up to that principle—a principle that is central to government. It has to be right for hon. Members on both sides to acknowledge that prison is necessary, that those who ought to go to prison should be put there, and that, if that means more prisons, more prisons must be built. That must be right.
  Mr. John Maxton indicated dissent.
  Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I was quoting the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), who said in 1993:
  "Prison is necessary; those who ought to go to prison should be put there, and if that means more prisons, more prisons must be built."—[Official Report, 23 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 344.]
  Those are the words of the Leader of the Opposition. That, presumably, is why the Leader of the Opposition was not in the Lobby voting against the Crime (Sentences) Bill last night.
  1042
  I wonder whether the Leader of the Opposition is aware of what his name has been put to today, because it seems extraordinary that he could oppose a Bill for Scotland one day while appearing to support a similar Bill for England the previous day.
  Dr. Godman: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Forsyth: I am still dealing with the amendment. When I have finished, I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  The amendment also says that the Bill
  "fails to address the real problems of crime".
  I do not know whether the hon. Member for Hamilton is aware that 1995 is the fourth successive year in which recorded crime has fallen. The amendment talks about 17 years of rising crime. Where has the hon. Gentleman been for the past four years? Has he not seen the success of the policies pursued by my right hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale, now President of the Board of Trade?
  The hon. Member for Hamilton talks about the clear-up rate falling. In fact, the clear-up rate rose in Scotland from 1994 to 1995. Six out of eight of Scotland's police forces showed a fall in the number of crimes recorded in 1995.. It is sad that the hon. Gentleman is so intent on playing party politics that he is not even prepared to give the Scottish police credit for their outstanding job in improving the clear-up rate and reducing the incidence of crime in our country.
  Mr. Robertson: The Secretary of State said that I made reference to the clear-up rate; where and when?
  Mr. Forsyth: If the hon. Gentleman is acknowledging that he has not made reference to the clear-up rate, I accept that. In the amendment, he says:
  "and miserably fails to address the real problems of crime in Scotland which have so greatly increased in the last seventeen years."
  I am pointing out to him that the clear-up rate has risen, and that the incidence of crime has fallen. If he says that he has not mentioned clear-up rates specifically, I accept that, but I hope that he will acknowledge that the clear-up rate, which is improving, and the crime rate, which is falling, do not bear out the situation suggested in the amendment.
  I said that I would give way to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), and I now do so.
  Dr. Godman: I am pleased to give the Secretary of State a breather.
  My question relates to a matter of deep concern to me. Clause 23 offers welcome additional assistance to child witnesses, and I readily acknowledge that sympathetic and compassionate changes have taken place in the way in which children are cross-examined in our courts; but why do the Secretary of State and his Ministers and officials so stubbornly refuse to extend such protection to others who are equally vulnerable? I refer to people with learning difficulties, for example, or those with mental handicaps. Why are they not given the same protection? That could surely have been provided in the Bill.
  Mr. Forsyth: I shall be happy to investigate the matter, and to discuss it with the Lord Advocate. It may be a

  1043
  matter that the hon. Gentleman would like to explore in Committee; I hope that he will have the opportunity to serve on the Committee and make just such points.
  Mr. George Foulkes: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton complain about the length of my speeches. One reason why my speeches are so long is that I give way to the hon. Gentleman. I do not intend to do so now.
  Mr. Foulkes rose—
  Madam Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State said that he would not give way.
  Mr. Foulkes: I am trying to help him.
  Madam Speaker: Order. He does not need any help. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat.
  Mr. Forsyth: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
  Mr. Foulkes rose—
  Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not persist. He knows full well that the Secretary of State said that he would not give way at the moment.
  Mr. Foulkes: I was giving him another chance, Madam Speaker.
  Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will get his chance to speak later.
  Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker.
  Having dealt with the Labour party's amendment, I turn to that of the Liberal party. I have to say—
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: This is a Second Reading debate.
  Mr. Forsyth: Indeed, and I think that I have a perfect right to complain about the nonsense being put about concerning our Bill. The Liberal Democrats' amendment says that the Bill
  "will require the building of unnecessary new prisons".
  That is a concept with which the Leader of the Opposition would certainly not agree. What are unnecessary new prisons—prisons used to house people who are a threat to our society and who have been convicted by the courts? The Liberals appear to think that we can be protected by having people outside prison rather than in.
  Mr. Campbell: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Forsyth: In a moment—then the hon. and learned Gentleman can deal with both parts of what I am saying.
  1044
  The amendment also states that the Bill will
  "damage the process of parole leading to a greater risk to the public".
  The hon. and learned Gentleman seems to think that people are less likely to be a risk to the public if they are out of prison on parole than if they are inside, behind bars, secure and locked away from the public. That is an extraordinary position, which I never thought to see reflected in a Liberal Democrat amendment.
  Mr. Campbell: May I draw the Secretary of State's attention to the part of the Bill entitled "Financial effects of the Bill", which refers to the resource implications flowing from the proposals in part III on the early release of offenders? As he knows, the Opposition contend that that is a reversal of the policies adopted by the Government in 1993.
  The same paragraph in the explanatory memorandum states:
  "They are likely to result in an increase in the prison population … of 2,200 five years after implementation. An increase of this order would add £65 million to £100 million per annum at current prices to expenditure on prison places."
  That is unnecessary expenditure. The money should be spent on the prevention of crime, not on punishment arising out of a ludicrous reversal of policy.
  Mr. Forsyth: The best way of preventing crime is to keep criminals behind bars.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: No, it is not.
  Mr. Forsyth: Reoffending rates clearly show that, if burglars and others are behind bars, they are not out burgling people's houses.
  Mr. James Wallace rose—
  Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman must not get too excited. I am still dealing with his hon. and learned Friend.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman seems to think that money should govern the number of prison places and the disposals of the courts. We, by contrast, think that the courts should make the punishment fit the crime, and that we should find the resources to meet the disposals of the courts. It is ludicrous to argue that the disposals of the courts should be governed by considerations of finance. It is the first duty of government to protect the public; that means that dangerous criminals should be put behind bars for as long as the courts think appropriate to the nature of the offence.
  Mr. Campbell: I shall take no lessons from the right hon. Gentleman on the responsibility for putting criminals away. I spent four years as advocate-depute in the Crown Office, prosecuting in the High Court, and I venture to suggest that I have put away more criminals behind bars than the right hon. Gentleman has had hot dinners.
  The point is: we are in a period of scarce resources, the Government tell us. That being so, we should apply them in the most effective possible way. The most effective way of bringing comfort to the population is by preventing crime, not by punishing those who commit it.
  Mr. Forsyth: I do not disagree about preventing crime. As for putting away criminals, and hot dinners, I have no

  1045
  doubt about the hon. and learned Gentleman's achievements—although I hope that his advocacy in the courts was somewhat better than it has been in respect of this Bill.
  Mr. Campbell: That is a personal attack.
  Mr. Forsyth: The hon. and learned Gentleman is concerned about putting criminals away. My concern is that, once they are put away, they should stay away behind bars. It is no earthly good securing a sentence of 10 years in the court if people are let out after five years. We think that they should serve their sentences and not return to the community after five years, subject to supervision or anything else. I repeat: they must serve their sentences, and if they get remission it should be earned by their behaviour in prison—working, dealing with their reoffending behaviour, alcoholism, drugs and so on.
  Mr. Campbell: The right hon. Gentleman must understand that, when resources are scarce, the public are much more likely to be confident of the judicial and legal system if they believe that the resources are being spent on prevention.
  The right hon. Gentleman talks about people earning their remission. Why, then, does he not acknowledge that early remission will depend on the subjective view of prison officers, who, as a result, will be open to charges of favouritism or—more seriously—to the threat of intimidation?
  Mr. Forsyth: The hon. and learned Gentleman is strengthening the case against himself. First, he tells us that we must let prisoners out early because that will save resources which can then be spent on crime prevention. It is not a matter of either/or. We need to do both; and we need to keep prisoners in prison.
  Secondly, the hon. and learned Gentleman seems to imply that it is not right that prison officers should decide whether prisoners have earned remission through good behaviour. Nothing could more clearly show how the system needs to be changed and why this Bill is the right measure to bring before the House today.
  I turn now to the provisions in the Bill—in particular, to the provisions in respect of automatic life sentences.
  Mr. Michael Connarty: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Foulkes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Forsyth: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty), as he is an old sparring partner.
  Mr. Foulkes: I am an old sparring partner, too.
  Mr. Connarty: The Secretary of State must clear up one point. He has said that the previous Bill in 1993—I sat on the Committee on that Bill, and was convinced by the Government and by my own side that it was a good measure—was going to have people out in society for 50 per cent. of their sentence. They would be serving their sentence, but in society, under licence.
  1046
  The logic advanced very strongly by Conservative Members was that the sentence would continue to its final point, but 50 per cent. would be served in the community. That was said to be a good thing, because, out in society, people would be forced to rehabilitate themselves properly and not return to crime. Is the Secretary of State now rejecting that principle in this Bill?
  Mr. Forsyth: No. Indeed, the only change is that we think that criminals should spend longer in prison and that their remission should be earned, not automatic. As for sentences served in the community, yes, there will be supervision, and we plan to extend that. The hon. Gentleman will hear more of that later if I can make progress with my speech.
  It is, of course, for the courts to ensure that the punishment fits the crime. I am none the less persuaded that there are occasions when the only appropriate sentence is a life sentence—occasions when an offender has committed a violent or serious sexual offence following conviction for a similar offence. In such cases, we need a sentence that will ensure that he or she will not be set free to walk the streets again until it is judged safe to do so; a sentence that ensures that the criminal will not escape the threat of being returned to prison until the day he dies; and a sentence that ensures that the public have the long-term protection they deserve from the most dangerous offenders.
  I shall give the House an example—one that, I know, is of concern to several hon. Members, especially those from Ayrshire. I refer to the Maguire case. In February 1977, Gavin Maguire was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment on two charges of rape, a charge of assault to ravish and other charges. In October 1983, he was released after serving two thirds of his sentence. In November 1986, he was sentenced again to to 10 years imprisonment for attempted rape and serious assault. In July 1993, Maguire was again released after serving two thirds of his sentence. In August 1995, he was charged with another sexual assault, with which the Crown decided not to proceed at that time because of limited evidence. On 28 November 1995, Maguire was released from custody—18 days later he murdered a 15-year-old girl.
  Under our proposals in the Bill, Maguire would have served his initial sentence in full, and to receive one-sixth early release he would have had to participate in prison programmes that addressed his offending behaviour. He would have received an automatic life sentence for the second offence, and would not have been released until he was judged to be no longer a risk to the public. Even if he had been released from custody, it would have been on life licence, and the circumstances that led to his being charged with the third offence would almost certainly have been sufficient to justify his recall to custody. Had that happened, he would have been unable to murder a young teenager. That is the point of these proposals. Tragically, it is too late for Maguire's young victim, but we in this House can act to save the lives of others.
  There were 23 cases in 1994 alone in which a second serious offence was committed and in which the provisions in the Bill would have applied. Five of those 23 cases involved people convicted for at least the third time.
  Mr. Michael Stephen: Was my right hon. Friend as surprised as I was to hear the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) saying that he does not believe in punishment, but only in prevention?
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: That is not what I said.
  Mr. Stephen: Read Hansard tomorrow.
  Does my right hon. Friend think that there is any way in which Maguire could have been prevented from committing that terrible crime, save by being locked up in prison?
  Dr. Godman: You spoilt a good intervention.
  Mr. Forsyth: I did not hear what the hon. Gentleman said.
  I know that we are in the run-up to the general election, but such measures should not be a matter of controversy across the Floor of the House: they involve the protection of the public. It does not seem unreasonable to require an automatic life sentence in circumstances such as the Maguire case.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Forsyth: I must make some progress: then I shall give way.
  It does not in any way fetter judicial discretion as to the period that should be served by the person, once convicted. It will still be for the judge to set the relevant period—the minimum number of years that should be served. It is a life sentence, but the minimum number of years spent in prison will be determined by the judge and release will be granted only on the basis of an assessment that the person involved no longer represents a risk.
  I find it difficult to understand why Opposition Members are not prepared to support the Government on the legislation. It requires the High Court to impose a sentence of life imprisonment on an offender convicted of a second qualifying serious sexual or violent offence unless there are exceptional circumstances that justify not doing so. The judge will set the minimum period and the parole board will decide when it is safe to release, subject to the continued sanction of the life sentence.
  Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way on this occasion, as I wish to be helpful. I am sure that he would agree that it is important not only to get the sentence right, but to get convictions. I had a helpful meeting earlier this afternoon with the Lord Advocate about a particular case in my constituency involving four alleged rapes. I shall not go into detail, but the case involved the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) on the importance of making it easier for people with learning difficulties to give evidence—such people are particularly and peculiarly vulnerable.
  I wish to ask the Secretary of State a question in support of what my hon. Friend said. The Lord Advocate was helpful this afternoon, and said that he personally thought that the Government should consider an amendment to enable people with learning difficulties to give evidence using a video room or screen. I hope that
  1048
  the Secretary of State will consider an amendment or a new clause to take account of that matter, which is not party political.
  Mr. Forsyth: I have already told the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow that I will be happy to consider the matter in Committee—I shall also happy to hear representations from him. I hope that the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) will have an opportunity to serve on the Committee that considers the Bill—he is shaking his head, but these are important matters, and it would be his chance to give us the benefit of his advice. We would welcome his appearance in the Committee, as it would liven up our proceedings. We always welcome the way in which he robustly outlines his position in the Scottish Grand Committee.
  Mr. Foulkes: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Forsyth: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman again—he can make his point in Committee.
  Mr. George Robertson: I merely seek information from the Secretary of State on the statistic he gave us. He said that, during 1994, there were 23 cases of individuals being convicted for more than a third time. The Crown has the power to appeal against the leniency of sentences. On how many occasions did the Lord Advocate appeal in relation to the leniency of the sentences on which the law is now being changed?
  Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman has a brass neck. He voted against the provisions enabling the Lord Advocate to appeal against lenient sentences. The Labour party opposed the Crown's right of appeal against lenient sentences, just as it has opposed every other major measure that we have introduced to toughen the position. The hon. Gentleman now has the brass neck to argue that the Crown should appeal in particular circumstances as a justification for opposing what we are proposing. [HON. MEMBERS: "What is the answer?"]
  The answer that we are proposing is that I said that there were 23 qualifying cases, of which five involved people who had been convicted for at least a third time. The Bill contains provisions that will make life sentence automatic. No one has ever suggested that the Crown should use its right of appeal except in the most exceptional circumstances. We are making a general provision that will provide for the protection of the public—the proper way to deal with that is in the Bill, which the hon. Gentleman is going to vote against tonight.
  If the hon. Gentleman votes against the Bill tonight, we will harry him all the way to the election and beyond, and tell the people of Scotland that he was not prepared to give them the protection to which they are entitled from sexual and violent offenders who repeatedly carry out villainous crimes in Scotland.
  The crimes that lead to automatic life sentences are the worst, most offensive crimes against people. They are listed in clause 1. Drug traffickers can exact as high a price from our children as murderers can. A clear message must be sent to repeat drug dealers that they, too, will be dealt with severely.

  1049
  Under clause 2, anyone convicted for a third time of a class A drug trafficking offence will receive a minimum sentence of seven years, unless there are exceptional circumstances. The maximum will, of course, remain life. Such offenders must be taken out of circulation for a very long time, to keep them away from those they seek to harm.
  Mr. Wallace: The whole House would share the view that the war against drug traffickers must be pursued relentlessly. If some of the resources that are being devoted to the Bill were applied to keeping open Customs and Excise posts in the most vulnerable parts of Scotland to prevent illegal drugs from being smuggled in, that would be a far more effective way of tackling drug traffickers than some of the measures in the Bill.
  Mr. Forsyth: That is a point of view, but it does not absolve the hon. Gentleman of the responsibility that he and the Labour party will have tonight. They will vote against the Bill—against the provisions that will require a minimum sentence of seven years for repeat drug dealers.
  Mr. Wallace: They cannot be sentenced until they are caught.
  Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman says that drug dealers cannot be sentenced until they are caught, but he will vote against measures that will impose a severe sentence. As for his point about catching drug dealers, I prefer to take advice from those on the front line—the Customs and Excise officers, who have been remarkably successful. The advice that I have received from Customs and Excise is that it is more effective for them to concentrate their resources on detection, intelligence and surveillance, as that will produce better results.
  Customs and Excise has had some spectacular results, and I am guided by it, although I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's point. It is disgraceful for him to use that argument as a screen for his failure to walk through the Lobby to vote for tougher sentences for repeat dealers in class A drugs.
  Mr. Wallace: Most of the customs officers to whom I have spoken believe that it is essential for them to maintain a presence in the remoter parts of the highlands and islands of Scotland, so that they can gain intelligence in order to catch drug traffickers. The newly appointed chief constable of the Northern constabulary believes that we are opening ourselves up to illegal drug smuggling if we allow those areas not to have a customs presence. What regard does the Secretary of State have for the advice of such people?
  Mr. Forsyth: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I must take advice from the senior officials in Customs and Excise, who have been so spectacularly successful and whose responsibility it is to decide how to deploy the resources. They have taken that decision.
  The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to say to Customs and Excise, "You're doing a brilliant job dealing with the drug traffickers and drug dealers. You've had some spectacular successes, but the chief constable in the north of Scotland has a different view, so the Government are taking a different view." We should be guided by the people who are charged with those responsibilities, and who have carried them out so successfully.
  1050
  May I say to the hon. Gentleman, who represents a fishing constituency, that that is a red herring. He is taking us away from the Bill. Everyone in Orkney and Shetlancl should know that the hon. Gentleman will go through the Lobby tonight to vote against tougher sentences for drug dealers in Scotland.
  Mr. Robert Hughes rose—
  Mr. Ian Davidson rose—
  Mr. Forsyth: I will give way to the two hon. Gentlemen, but then I must make progress.
  Mr. Hughes: Does the Secretary of State accept that what matters is not only what is in statute, but how statute is applied? Will he comment on the provision of an earlier Bill, which I supported, that allowed the proceeds of drug dealing to be confiscated from high-up drug dealers? How often has that provision been used in Scotland, and what is the value of the assets that have been seized?
  Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. We have provisions to confiscate assets from drug dealers and other serious offenders. Those provisions have been used and I would be happy to give the hon. Gentleman the precise details if he tables a written question. I certainly share his determination that the assets—the ill-gotten gains of drug dealers and others—should be confiscated. but he will know that that is a matter for the courts, and I would be the last person to get involved in criticising the decisions of the judiciary.
  It is not only in the case of life prisoners that we want to identify offenders who may pose a continuing threat. We will target resources on those judged a risk, and do our utmost to stop them from reoffending. The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) was keen to make that point. Clause 3 enables the court to, impose a supervised release order of between three months and two years, or one sixth of sentence—
  Mr. Brian Wilson: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Forsyth: I have said that I will not give way again.
  Mr. Davidson rose—
  Mr. Forsyth: I did, however, say that I would give way to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan.
  Mr. Davidson: Does the Secretary of State accept that tougher sentences for drug dealers take effect only from the date of sentence? In parts of my constituency are dealers who have been charged by the police, yet it takes up to two years before they appear in court to be sentenced. That is demoralising, not only for the police but the local inhabitants, who see dealers being pursued and caught by the police, yet nothing happens and they continue to peddle death from council houses or owner-occupied houses in residential areas. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to speed drug dealing cases through the courts, to ensure that longer sentences are applied more quickly?
  Mr. Forsyth: The first step is not to let them out early—a proposal which the hon. Gentleman will vote

  1051
  against. The second step, as he rightly says, is that we need to improve the speed with which the procedures are carried through the courts, and he will find in later provisions of the Bill reforms in respect of legal aid, which I believe will make a considerable difference to the procedures in the courts. We are also looking to provide more resources for the courts.
  I accept that the implication of our law and order package is that more people will end up before the courts. The hon. Gentleman is quite right. I share his frustration at the speed with which the legal processes grind on. Some of that is within my area of responsibility; some of it is the responsibility of others. I share his concern that these matters should be addressed, and some of the provisions in the Bill will help that.
  Mr. Wilson: Will the Minister give way on that point?
  Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman has only just come into the Chamber.
  Mr. Wilson: I shall keep trying.
  Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman can keep trying, but I shall not give way to him. If he has not the courtesy to be here from the beginning of the debate, I shall certainly not give way.
  Mr. Wilson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think that all hon. Members, including the Minister, know that there are other duties in the House that prevent hon. Members from coming in for a few minutes of a debate but where vital constituency interests are at stake. The idea that the Minister should use that as an excuse for not accepting a legitimate intervention seems very poor indeed.
  Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order for me, but the Minister is entitled not to give way. I have to say that he has been enormously generous this afternoon.
  Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker. If the hon. Gentleman is able to catch your eye, perhaps he will be able to make a contribution. My right hon. Friend will be happy to deal with any points that the hon. Gentleman has to make, but that does mean that the hon. Gentleman will have to remain for the debate.
  As I was saying, clause 3 enables the court to impose a supervised release order of between three months and two years, or one sixth of sentence—whichever is greater—on any offender receiving a determinate sentence where it considers it necessary for the protection of the public. Also, unless there are exceptional circumstances, an order will be mandatory for offenders who have been convicted on indictment of a qualifying violent or sexual offence. In relation to sexual offences, courts will have the power to impose an order lasting up to 10 years. That is quite a step forward.
  Even determinate sentence prisoners who are not judged to be a serious risk on release will have a major incentive to behave. They will need to understand that any reoffending during a one-sixth period after release will be treated extremely seriously. Under the terms of clause
  1052
  33, any new offence during this period will be treated as an aggravated offence for the purposes of sentencing. That is an important provision, which emphasises the way in which the Bill is an extension of the strategy set out in the 1993 Act.
  I come now to the provisions in respect of DNA testing. Experience sadly shows that convicted sex offenders may have established a pattern of repeat offending. We have learnt from that, and have developed DNA technology and a national DNA database. The police already have power to take DNA samples from newly convicted offenders, and clause 43 allows them also to take samples from convicted sex offenders who are currently serving prison sentences. Those will be stored on the database and increase the likelihood of matching crimes with criminals—an important tool in the fight against crime, and something which I should have thought would be welcomed by Liberal Democrats, given their earlier remarks, but against which they will vote tonight.
  Mr. George Robertson: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who has given way several times, but before he leaves mandatory minimum sentences, there is an important point with which I hope he will deal.
  Yesterday, in his Crime (Sentences) Bill, the Home Secretary proposed that three convictions for burglary would lead to a minimum sentence of three years. There is no such provision in the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill. Last Monday, the Minister of State said that that was because burglary—house breaking—was not such a serious problem in Scotland. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us why such determined action has been taken against burglary in England, but not in Scotland?
  Mr. Forsyth: As the hon. Gentleman tabled an amendment which refers to rising crime during the last 17 years, he will not know that the number of burglary cases has fallen by about 35 per cent., and that the police have been successful. If the hon. Gentleman wants to press me on extending mandatory sentences to include burglary, I should be happy to consider that in Committee. I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman. Would he like me to do so?
  Mr. Robertson: This is the right hon. Gentleman's Bill and, believe it or not, he is still the Government, temporarily notwithstanding.
  I want to know from the right hon. Gentleman why he has not put that provision in the Bill. Was the Minister of State right last Monday when he told the House that there was no need for it, because the courts already had the power under Scottish common law? If that argument applies to burglary or house breaking, it applies to a range of other things as well. Will the right hon. Gentleman come clean, instead of asking debating questions?
  Mr. Forsyth: I think that that was a no.
  The answer is straightforward. I thought that the former Labour Solicitor-General, Lord McCluskey, who sits on the judicial bench, had been busily arguing that we are slavishly following the English, so I was slightly surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman criticise my Bill because it does not have the same provision as that in the Bill which he did not vote against last night.

  1053
  This may be the explanation. I asked the hon. Gentleman that question because I thought that I had found the answer to why he intends to vote against this Bill tonight but did not vote against the Crime (Sentences) Bill last night—because it does not have the same provision in respect of mandatory sentences for repeat burglars. If that is the case, I would be happy to help the hon. Gentleman in some way. [Interruption.]
  The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) has decided that there may be fun to be had here. We may have an amendment in respect of repeat burglary. But the answer, as the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East will be able to tell hon. Members, is that the provisions in respect of mandatory minimum sentences for drug offences are being applied in the Bill because drug offences have always been dealt with on a United Kingdom basis.
  Drug dealers are mobile and operate across borders, while burglars tend to get around Scotland, but I do not know that there is a great traffic between Scotland and England. [Interruption.] I am not aware of a load of burglaries being committed by people who have come from England. That is more like the kind of remark that I expect from the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham). The answer given by my right hon. Friend was that the incidence of repeat burglaries in Scotland was less than in England. That is quite right.
  The hon. Member for Hamilton asked me why we were not providing a mandatory sentence. I knew that his next question would be about drugs, so I explained the position. On mandatory life sentences, I went at great length through the Maguire case in Ayrshire, which shows that we need these provisions in Scotland as much as they are required in England.
  If the hon. Gentleman were to press me on the issue of burglaries, I would certainly consider it. He may like to reflect on that.
  Building on the principle that the full sentence must be served, we want to strengthen the protection of the public by the introduction of a hospital direction. That will ensure that mentally disordered offenders who respond to treatment are transferred to prison, and are not released until their prison sentence has expired.
  Clauses 5 to 10 provide for the introduction of the new disposal for courts in sentencing an offender who is well enough to stand trial, but who is suffering from a mental disorder that warrants admission to hospital. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Falkirk, East says, from a sedentary position, "Cure them, and then put them in prison." If someone is fit to plead and has committed a serious offence, he should serve the sentence of the court to the full extent once he has been dealt with in hospital.
  That is an important new disposal that combines elements of custody and treatment by attaching to a sentence of imprisonment an immediate direction to hospital. For the first time, we are making available a disposal that helps the courts to deal with those who should be sentenced to prison, but who first require a period of hospital treatment.
  We must ensure that the courts are equipped to hand down the most appropriate disposal in each case, and that there is sufficient flexibility in the court system. To enhance that, clause 11 increases the sentencing powers of sheriff courts in solemn cases from three to five years.
  1054
  The powers of sheriffs sitting alone and of stipendiary magistrates will also be increased from three to six months, and from six to 12 months for certain repeat violent offenders.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: The Secretary of State's proposal to increase the powers of the sheriff court in solemn procedure to sentence up to five years constitutes a substantial change in the present arrangements. As there are now more temporary than full-time sheriffs in Scotland, will he give an undertaking that any person who is liable to face a sentence of up to five years will have the advantage of having his or her case tried by a full-time professional judge?
  Mr. Forsyth: If the hon. and learned Gentleman is arguing that temporary judges should not be ranked alongside other judges, he is getting into dangerous territory. I hear what he has to say, but I assume that anyone sitting on the bench is competent to deal with the cases before him.
  I know that the problem of under-age drinking in public places is of considerable concern to some hon. Members; notably my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) and the hon. Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell). We are determined to clear up street corners, derelict property, shopping centres and all the other favourite haunts of those nuisance makers. Clause 53 provides new powers for the police to confiscate drink from under-age drinkers in public places, and, importantly, from those suspected of supplying alcohol to people under the age of 18.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr will be in the Lobby tonight voting for these measures. The hon. Member for Monklands, East—she of Buckfast Abbey fame—will be in the Lobby voting against them. That is the difference. Say one thing, do another.
  There are times when custody is essential for the protection of the public and for deterrence. Where that is not necessary—this point was made by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East—custody should not be used for want of suitable community-based disposals. That is why we introduced supervised attendance orders as an alternative to custody for fine default. Last year, 1,400 orders were made, and we expect 3,000 to be made this year. I am happy to tell the House that we will extend supervised attendance orders to cover the whole of mainland Scotland by spring 1998. I am making available additional resources of up to £1 million to achieve that.
  Clause 4 provides a further disposal for the courts, which will provide an alternative to custody. It will be called a restriction of liberty order, and will enable the courts to curtail an offender's movements for up to 12 months, using electronic monitoring. For months and months, we have heard from the Opposition that we do not take account of the alternatives to prison, but when we produce a new alternative to prison—electronic monitoring—they decide to vote against it.
  As I have said, I shall be consulting on extension of the orders to under-16s. The hon. Member for Hamilton seems to be against such an extension. I should he happy to hear his response to the consultation, but how better to

  1055
  keep a well-known convicted football hooligan away from the terraces on a Saturday afternoon than to confine him to his front room?
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: What about Gazza?
  Mr. Forsyth: I was not thinking of any players in this context. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I had better not be tempted down that road.
  As a further disposal for the courts, I am considering how disqualification from driving should be made available as an alternative disposal for a wide range of offences beyond driving offences, and for fine default. I shall be consulting the judges individually before deciding on detailed proposals, which I hope to present during the passage of the Bill.
  The costs of criminal legal aid must be brought under better control, and the Bill contains a range of powers to assist in that process. We must ensure that the system of legal aid rewards lawyers who progress cases fairly and efficiently, while upholding the right of every accused person to a fair trial.
  Clause 44 sets a framework for ensuring a good quality of service from solicitors and their firms. Only those who comply with a published code of practice will be able to register to provide criminal legal assistance. Clause 46 will enable the Secretary of State to prescribe fixed fees for criminal legal assistance, and clause 47 will enable bulk contracts to be made with firms on the register. Clause 48 gives the board increased powers to investigate suspected fraud and abuse, and to enforce compliance with the code of practice.
  Clause 45 enables us to evaluate the benefits of establishing a public defender scheme in Scotland, as recommended by the Hughes Royal Commission on legal services in 1980. The Government do not believe that it would ever be appropriate to provide criminal legal aid entirely through a salaried service, but pilot schemes employing a small number of solicitors in one or two areas will help realistic assessment of the costs and benefits of providing legal aid through directly employed solicitors.
  No one can accuse me of introducing this measure for reasons of dogma or ideology. It provides a degree of competition for the private sector. The Labour party has called for such a measure for years, but tonight it is going to vote against the Bill that introduces it.
  The Bill contains two clauses—clauses 14 and 17—that result from the recommendations of the Sutherland committee on appeals criteria and miscarriages of justice. They extend the statutory criteria against which a convicted person may appeal. Part II also provides for a right of appeal by the Lord Advocate against a court's decision not to impose an automatic life sentence, a minimum sentence for drug trafficking, a supervised release order or a hospital order.
  I have outlined what I consider to be the main provisions in the Bill. In addition, chapter II of part III provides for the testing of prisoners for alcohol, and the provision of medical services in prisons. Part IV amends police funding powers to allow more flexibility in the use of the £700 million that we spend on the police in Scotland. It also allows fingerprints to be taken
  1056
  electronically to be used as evidence in criminal trials. Clause 12 increases the maximum penalty for certain statutory sexual offences; clauses 21 to 24 make changes in the law on evidence. Other minor procedural matters are also dealt with in other clauses, and in the schedules.
  The Law Society of Scotland has described the White Paper that heralded this legislation as one of the most important documents produced in the past 10 years in terms of its impact on the Scottish legal system, the consumers of that system and the legal profession. I agree with that assessment, and think that it will have an impact for the better.
  It responds to the needs of the Scottish people and to their expectations of being afforded real protection from the perpetrators of evil. It also responds to their desire for a criminal justice system that they understand and of which they can be proud. It seeks to inspire confidence in them that the rights of the victims of crime will be put before those of offenders and that our prisons will be kept for the most dangerous prisoners, who will not be released until it is safe to do so. It will give them the confidence that we shall responsibly with public money.
  These are fundamental rights and expectations and surely the people of Scotland deserve no less. The Government think that and we will deliver. I hope and trust that, in doing that, we will be aided by all hon. Members who claim, at least in public, to have the interests of the whole community at heart.
  4.40 pm
  Mr. George Robertson: 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 a Second Reading to the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill which, without proper review or study, seeks to reverse the key reforms introduced in the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 passed in this Parliament; proposes to introduce, without any Scottish piloting or examination, electronic tagging for offenders and lays the way open for electronic tagging of offenders under the age of 16, thereby threatening the operation of Scotland's unique Children's Hearings system; provides hopelessly optimistic and unrealistic estimated costs and manpower implications; and miserably fails to address the real problems of crime in Scotland which have so greatly increased in the last seventeen years."
  This is a strange day for the Secretary of State for Scotland to allege that the Opposition are out of touch with public opinion, because the Conservatives have gone back down the ladder to 11 per cent. in today's Scottish public opinion polls. I am reminded of the caution that politicians should always bear it in mind that opinion polls are only a snapshot of opinion. However, if this snapshot was a postcard, it might come from Westminster city council saying, "Wish you were here." It marks the beginning of the end.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Raymond S. Robertson): Nobody will understand.
  Mr. Robertson: That is an interesting intervention. Perhaps that is correct, because the Secretary of State has been quite clever at covering his tracks. He was one of Lady Porter's solemn lieutenants as a member of Westminster city council. I am glad that the hon.

  1057
  Gentleman reminded me to remind the House and the wider public that, in a good year, the Secretary of State might just manage to get back on to that council.
  After 17 years of getting crime and punishment all wrong, the Government say that the Bill purports to stem the tide of criminality that affects so much of Scottish life. It does nothing of the sort. It is not designed to protect the public but to protect the wafer-thin majorities of Tory Ministers. It is not about solutions or about why crime is still so bad but about slogans for the election. The Bill does not contain policies to get to the root of criminality and lawlessness. It is about headlines and soundbites to wrong-foot the Opposition parties.
  The Government have had 17 years to tackle crime and if they have not got it right by now they will never get it right. I should like to read a quote to the House.
  "When parents dare not let their children go out to play; when senior citizens who have given a lifetime of service to the community are forced to spend their sunset years … as prisoners in their own homes; then we have reached a point where action must he taken."
  Those are not scaremongering words by Opposition Members and they did not come from the Liberal Democrats or from the liberal do-good lobby. They are the words of the Secretary of State for Scotland last year when he came back to Scotland and described it after 16 years of Conservative government. I do not disagree with the Secretary of State's description.
  Mr. Bill Walker: If the hon. Gentleman's assessment that the Bill is designed to improve Conservative prospects in Scotland is right, what is it about the Bill that appeals to the people? If it appeals to people and gives us votes, it must be right. If, as he claims from opinion polls, it does not appeal to people why is he opposing it?
  Mr. Robertson: The idea that the Conservative party in Scotland has ever done anything that successfully managed to get on the side of public opinion is a myth that only the hon. Gentleman can live with. The Secretary of State said that the poll tax would have people dancing in the streets, but it had Mrs. Thatcher dancing out of Downing street, and it was the rage of Scottish people that made the Government as unpopular as they are today. The hon. Gentleman would be well-advised not to make any more such interventions.
  Which Government, supported by the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) in part, have been in power for 17 years and have brought Scotland to the position that was described by the Secretary of State in the magazine "Flourish"? It is the hon. Gentleman's Government, and they have supervised Scotland's criminal justice system and allowed that picture of domineering lawlessness to happen and endure and to cause so much misery to mothers and old people. Which Government have fractured our society, divided our local communities and destroyed the jobs and hopes of young people and have seen the right to peaceful streets and homes for the elderly denied? It is the hon. Gentleman's Government.
  The Government have brought in one criminal justice Bill after another, one failed experiment to follow the last one, and every one of them was supposedly the definitive answer to the problems of law and order. But the Government now confess, without any contrition or
  1058
  apology or morsel of regret, that they have failed the Scottish people on crime. That is what the Secretary of State's article said, and his words in "Flourish" are a confession of failure.
  The Secretary of State and the Government are looking into an electoral abyss and plaintively tell us that the Bill is the magic solution and that the serial bunglers of the past 17 years who have 1,000 offences to be taken into consideration have, at the last second of their government, got it right and that they should be trusted.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: If the measures that were introduced last night were right for England—the Labour party did not vote against them—why does the hon. Gentleman intend to vote against measures that seek to address those problems?
  Mr. Robertson: It has taken the Minister a long time to get round to mastering procedure. Ours is a reasoned amendment and I intend to deal with the points in it. We will not oppose the Second Reading. A reasoned amendment is the traditional way to make points about the bad features of a Bill and I shall also be clear about the bits of the Bill that we accept.
  Mr. Forsyth rose—
  Mr. Robertson: The right hon. Gentleman is bouncing up. He spoke for nearly an hour and 10 minutes, admittedly with interventions, but it was still one of the longest Front-Bench speeches for a long time.
  There are clear differences between the Bill that was presented yesterday and the one that we are debating. Those differences are in the reasoned amendment and that is why we shall press that amendment to a vote.
  Mr. Forsyth: I am rather puzzled. The hon. Gentleman has said that he will not vote against Second Reading, but the amendment reads:
  "That this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill".
  May we take it that the hon. Gentleman will not vote for his own amendment?
  Mr. Robertson: I know that it has been a bad day for the Secretary of State, but he and every hon. Member knows the purpose of a reasoned amendment. Other parties may take a different view from us and that is quite realistic. In last night's vote fewer than half of Conservative Members voted for Second Reading of the Home Secretary's Crime (Sentences) Bill. [Interruption.] The good boys were there. In addition, 16 fewer than the number who voted against the reasoned amendment voted for Second Reading, and the President of the Board of Trade did not vote on either occasion. What a surprise.
  Mr. Forsyth: People outside should be aware of what the hon. Gentleman is saying. He seems to be arguing that, if the House votes for his amendment, which declines to give the Bill a Second Reading, that will be all right. If his amendment were passed, the Bill would fall. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman has moved an amendment whose purpose is to prevent the Bill from going ahead. Not only has he moved the amendment, but he is

  1059
  wriggling in trying to pretend to the people of Scotland that he is not doing what he is doing, which is trying to defeat the Bill.
  Mr. George Robertson: I notice that the right hon. Gentleman had to send a junior Minister to the Table to get an explanation for this. The point is that, if the reasoned amendment is carried and the Government care to deal with the issues in the amendment, they can redraft the Bill and bring it back, and we would support it. It is sad that the right hon. Gentleman will not have more time in the House of Commons to learn more about procedure. When it was in opposition, his party used the method of a reasoned amendment to get its case over, and I dare say that it will do so again when it goes back into opposition next year.
  The Government are trying to say that, at the last minute before the election, they have got the policy right and that they should be trusted. I say, "No chance." The Bill seeks to reverse the major reforms put through this Parliament only four years ago by the previous Secretary of State for Scotland. However the present Secretary of State wriggled around on that, the background notes to the Bill make it clear without any doubt that the Government are abolishing the provisions of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993.
  Hardly had that "complete answer" found its place on the statute book, and long before it could even have been tested or reviewed, or its efficacy assessed—indeed, before a single case had come up for sentencing under the new sentencing guidelines—the Act is to be swept away as if it had been the work of the do-gooding liberals that the Secretary of State so despises, and replaced by yet another magic solution. It simply will not wash.
  If the Secretary of State believes that our present sentencing system is a dishonest charade, what does that say about his predecessor, now the President of the Board of Trade? The Bill will sweep away the provisions for parole and early release. Those provisions were not the grand design of the judges. They were not the design of the Law Society, of the Labour party, of Liberal Democrats or of the Scottish Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, but the brainchild of the right hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang). [Interruption.]
  The provisions were the considered view of Lord Kincraig and his Committee, which sat and considered them in detail. They were then adopted with enthusiasm by the right hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale, now the President of the Board of Trade. Perhaps, if he was not in office but had been sacked, like all the other Tory grandees who in the House last night told the Home Secretary how defective his Bill was, he would be saying tonight that the Secretary of State for Scotland has got it wrong as well.
  Perhaps we should call this Bill, "The Repeal of Ian Lang Bill". That might have been its proper title. It is noticeable, however, that this Bill's parent—the President of the Board of Trade—is not here. He was here at the birth.
  Mr. Forsyth: I will try to make this the last time that I intervene. While we are exchanging quotes from our
  1060
  predecessors, perhaps I could draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), his predecessor as shadow spokesman on Scotland, complained:
  "The incompetence in the Government's administrative approach has left Scotland yet again following behind England and Wales."—[Official Report, 19 October 1992; Vol. 212, c. 245.]
  On this occasion, the measures for Scotland are being introduced alongside those for England and Wales, so presumably the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) will at least absolve us of the charge that was made at that time. If the 1993 provisions are being changed by this Bill and if he is against it for that reason, why did Labour not vote against the legislation of my right hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang), which did the same in respect of the English 1991 legislation?
  Mr. Robertson: The 1991 legislation was at least in a previous Parliament. There was a general election between the two pieces of legislation. The Government are repudiating legislation that was put through in this Parliament by the Secretary of State's predecessor. The Bill would abolish the current system of parole and early release and replace it with a new system—to use the Government's own words. They are throwing out Lord Kincraig's considered conclusions and the views of Ministers at the time. Of course we supported the legislation at that time, because it was based on a committee, on a review and on evidence, and there was a study on which we could come to a conclusion.
  At that time, the right hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale commended and thanked my hon. Friends the Members for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) and for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) for their support in getting that Bill through. The Secretary of State for Scotland should perhaps consider that precedent and reflect on why this has become a matter of party political controversy. As the President of the Board of Trade did not manage to vote last night in either of the Divisions in the House. I wonder whether he will be in the Division Lobby tonight. If he could not support the Home Secretary, will he be able to support his successor, who is doing him down?
  In this position, I am bound to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland: how can he attack us for not supporting Conservative criminal justice Bills when he does not support them himself? He is damning them, so before he starts lecturing us about the need for honesty in sentencing, let us have some honesty from Tory Ministers first.
  Of course we should be tough on crime. I and every Labour Member share the frustration of our constituents who are fed up with seeing violence, who are angry at having their houses broken into, not once but time and again, and who despair at vandalism, disorder and the drugs menace that seems to be spreading like a modern plague. The people of Scotland, the ones whom the Secretary of State talked about in his "Flourish" article last year, woke up last Monday to the Daily Record headline: "Murder mayhem as five are killed" in one weekend in Scotland. They share the Secretary of State's view expressed in his article last year, but, after 17 years of this Government, Scotland has got to that position. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin), who sits silently behind the Secretary of State, should simply wait.

  1061
  There are some welcome provisions in the Bill, which I will come to. It is not all bad, and that is why we will not vote against Second Reading tonight. There are, however, other provisions about which we have serious concerns. We will seek to amend them in Committee, unless the Government can present solid evidence to justify their case. We will then review our position after Committee and on Third Reading.
  Let us consider what the heavyweight critics have said. Rarely have we heard such a deafening chorus of condemnation against a Scottish criminal justice Bill. Lord Ross, the Lord Justice Clerk, has described these plans as "superficial", "ill thought-out" and based on "ignorant, selective, shallow populism." Lord Hope, the former Lord Justice General of Scotland, has spoken of his "serious concerns" about the practical difficulties surrounding the plans' implementation and has spoken out against what he regards as the importation of English law and order measures into the Scottish system. The Scottish Prison Officers Association has expressed its concerns about the impact on Scottish prisons.
  Do Ministers not yet understand that they should be squaring up to criminals instead of to Scotland's judges? Do they not understand that to ignore the views of people who work at the sharp end of Scotland's justice system is to flirt with disaster? The reform of our criminal justice system should be based on consensus, not on Tory conference clapometers.
  Mr. Stephen: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), who said yesterday that judges "must be listened to", but that
  "their voice is not decisive. In the end, Parliament must decide."—[Official Report, 4 November 1996; Vol. 284, c. 934.]
  Mr. Robertson: Of course and Parliament is discussing the matter, but, as the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd) said in a devastating speech that was critical of the Home Secretary's Bill, the judges must be listened to. It would be nice to think that the Government Scottish Front-Bench team ever listened to those judges at all.
  Reform of our criminal justice system should be plugged into what is appropriate for Scotland, and not be a throwback to the Secretary of State's former role as bag carrier for the Home Secretary, when the right hon. Gentleman was Minister for prisons—again something that seems to have been lost in the mist of time. I think that people used to call him the Minister for prison escapes rather than the Minister for prisons.
  Mr. Bill Walke rose—
  Mr. Robertson: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman. Generosity knows no bounds, but I am not giving way again.
  Of course, there should be honesty and consistency in sentencing, but to cut remission drastically will lead to a dramatic increase in the prison population, as we know, turning our already crowded prisons into powder kegs. That point was made last night by the former Foreign Secretary, by the former Home Secretary and by the right hon. Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd), the Secretary of State's former colleague as Minister of State at the Home Office. That is not only our view; the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) has also made that point, and it was put vividly by Conservative
  1062
  Privy Councillors in yesterday's debate. The increase in the cost of prisons will lead to a damaging cut in police budgets, crime prevention programmes and education programmes inside prisons.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth indicated dissent.
  Mr. Robertson: The Secretary of State, from the majesty of his position, says that that is not so. Of course, sentences should mean what they say.
  Mr. Phil Gallie: The hon. Gentleman has made much of the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), but he has also been critical of the Conservative Government's performance on law and order issues. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney did not always get it right—[Interruption.] I am sure that he did not. That apart, I must point out that crime figures have been falling in recent times and clearance levels have been picking up. The hon. Gentleman seems to close his mind to those facts.
  Mr. Robertson: That was a helpful intervention, which I am sure that others will read in the morning with great interest. The dispute between the doomed Conservatives will be of interest outside, but the wise words offered by those distinguished Tory grandees yesterday are likely to carry some weight when the present gimmick-ridden and election-based legislation is properly examined by those outside.
  I had intended to use this later, but since the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) has intervened, this seems to be an ideal opportunity. In November 1994, the hon. Member for Ayr asked the Home Secretary
  "what plans he has to set minimum jail sentences for those who sell category A drugs; and if he will make a statement."
  The answer was provided by a junior Minister in the Home Office who, at that time, happened to be the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth). The answer said:
  "None. The courts should be left to determine appropriate sentences in individual cases.
  The maximum penalty for supplying category A drugs is life imprisonment. We look to the courts to pass very long prison sentences in the most serious cases."—[Official Report, 3 November 1994; Vol.248, c.1334.]
  I am sure that the hon. Member for Ayr remembers that vividly, as will others who look for any degree of consistency in the Government's policies.
  Mr. Wilson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the greatest gap between rhetoric and reality is in sexual offences and rape, to the enormous detriment of my constituents? Does he recognise that the Tories' failure to act against recidivist rapists, in spite of repeated pleas and warnings, has led to terrible tragedies in my constituency in Ayrshire? They have done nothing to deal with the problem of repeat rapists, but now have this deathbed repentance.
  For all these years, repeat rapists have been allowed out of the gaol at Peterhead without any indication of whether they have mended their ways. To come along now and say that they have found a solution only heaps insult upon the injury done to my constituents. To point to the Bill now—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Interventions should be shorter than that.
  Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend is right. It is all very well for Ministers to come along now and say that they

  1063
  have an answer. In an interesting answer earlier in the debate, the Secretary of State quoted 23 cases, of which five would qualify under these provisions. We can take it from his non-answer at that time that the Lord Advocate did not appeal against the leniency of any of the sentences handed down by the court in those cases. Is that right?
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: There were 23 cases, five of which involved three or more offences, so 23 would fall within the provisions of the Bill. I am not clear whether the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) thinks that his hon. Friend is in favour of this. Does the hon. Member for Hamilton intend to support these provisions? If not, what will he say to his hon. Friend?
  Mr. Robertson: I will answer that, and the Secretary of State may find out something at that time.
  The Secretary of State keeps asking questions instead of answering them. He seems to think that he is already in opposition. The right hon. Gentleman said that in 1994 there were five cases that fell into the category of repeat offences. In not one case—23 or five—was there an appeal. That point must be taken on board. We deserve to know whether the sentences were right or wrong. The court had the discretion to impose life sentences, but there was no appeal by the Lord Advocate.
  The impact of the Government's proposals will simply be to increase sentences across the board. As the Secretary of State reflects on the opinion poll rating today, I wonder why there are so many gaps in the Government's crime strategy for Scotland. Why is there nothing about bail and the perennial complaint from the police and the prosecutors about criminals offending and reoffending while on bail? [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman may say that it was in the last measure, but he is busy tearing that up. If the problem still exists, why is he not doing something about it?
  If the right hon. Gentleman is serious about tackling crime, surely, in this year of all years, he should be looking at the broader picture of what causes crime and the sources of crime. What about the wider, comprehensive approach that was promised in the White Paper before it fell down the drain of empty soundbites?
  In the 89 pages of the White Paper, why did the Government devote only 22 short paragraphs to the critical wider social issues and only 10 lines to training and unemployment, which are the most fundamental issues underlying the growth in crime? Why is there so little attention to crime prevention—only 13 paragraphs in the White Paper and nothing in the Bill? Why is there nothing about the persistent problem of anti-social neighbours—small numbers of people can pollute and destroy whole communities? Has he no comfort to offer those whose lives are made a misery? In towns all over the country, underpinned by poverty and deprivation, the problems of crime and disorder breed.
  The Bill has gaps. There is nothing about the punitive strategy against criminal injuries compensation for which the Government were responsible and which came into play this year. There is nothing about witness protection when we know that that is a considerable problem in Scotland. There is nothing about the recommendations of the Sutherland committee report on how miscarriages of justice should be handled.
  1064
  We have some of the fig leaves produced by the Government, but not the central recommendation of that distinguished committee, which is that there should be an independent body to consider such matters. Those issues need to be tackled and will be tackled by a Labour Government. The sooner we get the chance to do that, the better it will be for Scotland.
  I want to make another serious criticism about something else that is not in the Bill but which was promised through a medium from which we expect to hear all the Secretary of State's new thinking—The Sunday Times. The Secretary of State has already told us that the Bill promises electronic tagging for Scotland, but there has been no piloting, no research and no attempt to run trials. Instead, we are to use the inconclusive English experiments as the basis for reform in Scotland. Instead of rushing into measures without proper trials, why do not the Government base their arguments on proper pilot studies and research? Why has not the Secretary of State run pilot schemes first?
  Mr. Forsyth rose—
  Mr. Robertson: Before the right hon. Gentleman jumps up again, let me tell him that we are prepared to consider electronic monitoring if it can be shown to work, but not at any price. I will give way for the last time.
  Mr. Forsyth: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was listening to what I said earlier—which was that, in the Bill, electronic tagging applies only to people over 16, but that we will consult on extending the provision to those under 16. We have made it perfectly clear that our intention is to pilot those provisions in Scotland. However, it is not possible to have a pilot without the power to have one, and the Bill provides that power.
  The hon. Member for Hamilton is in the ridiculous position of wanting to vote down the Bill, through his reasoned amendment, because it does not provide for piloting the provision for those under 16 years old. The Bill provides for electronic tagging for those over 16, and the Government have always made it clear that that provision would be subject to a pilot. If the hon. Gentleman got his facts right, he would not be wasting the House's time.
  Mr. Robertson: The fact does not seem to have penetrated through to the Secretary of State that we will not be voting against the Bill: we will be voting for a reasoned amendment that asks the Government to go away and think again on the critical issues—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Gallie: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Today I will have to make a decision on which way I vote on the Bill. At that point, I will be faced with an amendment that says:
  "That this House declines to give a Second Reading"
  to the Bill.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not for the Chair to give guidance to any hon. Member on how they may wish to vote on any subject debated in the House.
  Mr. Robertson: I am not surprised that the hon. Member for Ayr is seeking guidance on how he should

  1065
  vote. With the Tory party on 11 per cent. in public opinion in Scotland, and with the size of the hon. Gentleman's majority, I would advise him to vote Labour.
  Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it correct that, if the reasoned amendment is successful, the Bill will fail?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: In one word, the answer to the question is yes.
  Mr. Robertson: After reflecting on the reasoned amendment, the next Government, or this Government, can introduce a Bill—[Interruption.] That is the purpose of a reasoned amendment. The synthetic noise by Conservative Members today—a very bad day for the Scottish Tories—is what will be remembered—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State says that it is getting better. Public opinion was 11 per cent. when he started his frenzied bid to grab attention, and it is back to 11 per cent. today. Yes, things are getting better. Things are getting better for Scotland, when the Labour party is on 45 per cent. and the Tories are on a mere 11 per cent.
  I should tell the Secretary of State that it is all very well to tell the House, "We have not proposed tagging for people under 16, but we might consider something later on." The seriousness of what is being suggested should not escape even him. The Secretary of State's "senior sources" have said:
  "We are now exploring with officials the dispersal of electronic tags for children."
  He says that he will consult on that measure. The Government consulted on the poll tax, but they rejected the results of that consultation. They consulted on nursery vouchers, and they rejected the virtually unanimous opinion that was expressed. They consulted on water "quangoisation", but—despite the fact that 97 per cent. of the people in half of Scotland voted against it—they rejected that consultation.
  People who believe that the children's panel system is good and that it has worked well, who believe that it is the envy of countries across Europe and who are deeply concerned that tagging offenders and children under 16 will put an articulated lorry—never mind a horse and cart—through that system will take no comfort from the thought that the Secretary of State will consult on the matter. The Secretary of State knows only too well—because the headquarters of the reporters administration is in his constituency—that the system will be irreparably harmed if the experiment proceeds. A knife placed at the heart of the youth justice system should not be his legacy when he leaves Stirling.
  As for the Government's other proposals, we want there to be honesty, consistency and progression in sentencing through the provision of guidelines, as well as a proper licence system for sex and violent offenders. We will, of course, support additional targeting and supervision of those who are deemed to be of greater danger to society, in addition to new measures on DNA samples and the registration of convicted sex offenders. Similarly, few people would object to proposals to create a new offence of seeking employment with children for those who are convicted of a sexual offence against a child.
  1066
  We are also committed to tough sentences for those who commit serious crime, and we support the use of indeterminate, reviewable sentences for repeat rapists.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Robertson: No.
  Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman has not given way to me in this debate.
  Mr. Robertson: It is a rare display of taste on my part.
  I question whether the Government's decision to remove all judicial discretion in such cases might make automatic sentences counter-productive. Lord Ross, the Lord Justice Clerk, has suggested that juries might be reluctant to convict sex offenders if those offenders face a mandatory life sentence. That reluctance was demonstrated by juries in capital murder cases. Given that it is already difficult to obtain convictions in such cases, should not we consider the danger that the proposals might lead to further acquittals?
  Moreover—as various rape crisis and women's aid groups have pointed out—it is possible that the perpetrator, the rapist, might go further than committing rape and eliminate the witness. Is there not a danger that the provision will result in further horrific cases in which the rapist goes on to murder his victim?
  Mr. Maxton: The Secretary of State was shaking his head when my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton made the point about a rapist killing. It is worth reminding the House that yesterday, in the debate on the Crime (Sentences) Bill, the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), a former Home Secretary, made exactly that point.
  Mr. Robertson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments, because there is a case to be made that that will happen. Such views have been expressed not only by women's groups, but, as he said, from such Conservative Back Benchers as a distinguished former Home Secretary. The point should be considered, at the very least, as part and parcel of our consideration of the Bill.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: The hon. Gentleman mentioned an issue that—in his effort to be brief—he rather passed over. The issue is whether a jury would be reluctant to convict someone on a second occasion if they were aware that the consequence of a conviction would be a life sentence. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that any advocate conducting the defence would be bound to put in evidence before the court the fact that the accused had a previous conviction, to bring that very point to the forefront of the jury's consideration?
  Mr. Robertson: The hon. and learned Gentleman has, in the context of the practicalities of the Bill, made an important point. As we already know, the Bill has been very poorly thought out, and it has been condemned by those who deal with such crimes.
  I remind the House that Scottish courts already have power to deliver life sentences for repeat offenders. I have repeatedly asked the question—which has not been

  1067
  answered—whether the wish to turn that discretionary power into an obligation is meant to imply that the courts have been too lenient. The Government have not produced any clear evidence to justify that conclusion.
  Ministers have said that, in practice, Scottish judges have only rarely used their powers. I can cite a few cases involving repeat offenders in which no life sentence was delivered. In each of those cases, however, the relevant question was not whether the court delivered a life sentence but whether it should have delivered such a sentence.
  Moreover, in each of those cases, the Crown had the power of appeal. How many times—I have asked this question repeatedly, and I have received no answer—has that power been used? In his reply, I hope that the Minister will give us a specific answer and the reasons for it. I hope that the Minister will also respond to the concerns expressed by Lord Hope, who pointed out some of the serious anomalies that would be created by the Government's proposals.
  Perhaps because of the anomalies that have arisen, which even Ministers have noticed, the Government have conceded that they will have to allow judicial discretion in "exceptional circumstances"—although the Government have given absolutely no indication of what that will mean. The discretion could be allowed in every case; or it could result in very lenient sentences by judges who initially set the tariff. If sentences are to be not automatic but discretionary, what is the purpose of the Government's proposal?
  We are opposed to the use of inflexible, automatic determinate sentences, on the practical grounds that they are very likely to result in an increase in acquittals—as has happened in the United States—and, as Ministers have acknowledged, they require exceptions to avoid patent injustice. In fact, the Government rejected mandatory minimum sentences for such crimes as burglary during the passage of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993.
  I repeat the words of the right hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale, the former Secretary of State for Scotland, in 1992:
  "There are those who argue that the sentence of the court should mean precisely what it says—a fixed number of years in custody. The Government believe, however, like the Kincraig committee, that a better approach is to allow, within the compass of the total sentence, for a period in custody, and a period in the community during which the offender will be encouraged to resettle under supervision."—[Official Report, 19 October 1992; Vol. 212, c. 238–9.]
  That was the position in 1992, but now, only a few years later in the same Parliament, the Government have completely changed their position on minimum sentences, and for no apparent reason.
  The Secretary of State did not even bother to include his proposals for drug traffickers in the White Paper; we had to read about them in the Scottish Daily Mail. They fly completely in the face of the answer he gave to the hon. Member for Ayr in 1994. We read about serious new proposals on the front page of the Scottish Daily Mail, yet the Secretary of State has the cheek to ask Opposition Members to grant the Bill a quick and speedy passage.
  I am glad that the Secretary of State has now established the Criminal Justice Forum, but what is the point of establishing a new consultative body when he
  1068
  and his predecessors have shown a cavalier approach to any form of consultation on sentencing or anything else? We need consistency in sentencing, which is why we shall continue to support moves towards a formal system of sentencing guidelines using current statutory powers as well as a sentencing information system for the use of High Court judges.
  Why does the Secretary of State ignore the special nature of Scotland's legal system when, as the Minister of State, Scottish Office said last Monday when giving an alternative explanation for there being no mandatory sentences for burglars, many of the cases are based on common law? The Minister of State said in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall):
  "Moreover, Scots law has traditionally relied much more on common law. We believe that all the necessary powers are properly in place."—[Official Report, 28 October 1996; Vol. 284, c. 427.]
  Our system is based on a common law for which there are no tariffs or sentences. In those circumstances, one has to understand the full background of an individual case and know what the plea in mitigation is before one can say whether a sentence is appropriate. However, that does not appear to concern the Secretary of State in his drive to pursue the same unthinking law and order agenda in Scotland as he did in England and Wales when he was at the Home Office.
  We need a Government who recognise the special nature of the Scottish criminal justice system and who are prepared not just to be tough on criminals but to tackle the underlying causes of crime, too. Crime and criminality cannot be excused and, under Labour, never will be. We will attack those who defy society's rules of order and get to grips with what lies behind the situation acknowledged by the Secretary of State and everyone else in Scotland.
  After 17 years of failure, we are told that the Bill is the answer to Scotland's crime problem. It is not. The Government have no arguments and no answers left. It is high time that they went and gave someone else the chance to deal with a problem that affects so many people in Scotland.
  5.23 pm
  Sir Hector Monro: Scottish people who may have the misfortune to see the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) on "Scottish Lobby" on Sunday will be wholly mystified about what he is doing in his party. As you rightly ruled, Mr. Deputy Speaker, were the reasoned amendment to be accepted, the Bill would fall. Those of us who have been here for some time know that perfectly well. It is no use the hon. Gentleman saying, "Fine; the Government can bring in another Bill tomorrow," when he knows that that is not how the House works. The House has a legislative programme and, if a Bill of such importance fell, it would be very serious for the Government.
  I have read in the newspapers that the Leader of the Opposition is to harry the Government morning, noon and night. I presume that the hon. Member for Hamilton expects to win the vote tonight. I think that he is in for a rude awakening when the amendment falls, but the fact that he has revealed that he wishes to defeat the Bill proves to the people of Scotland that Labour is, as ever, very vulnerable on anything to do with law and order and crime.

  1069
  It is important that the people of Scotland realise that, in the past 17 years, the Labour party has voted against the majority of Bills relating to crime—there have been many—and terrorism. Even today, despite having spoken about the Bill for nearly an hour, the hon. Member for Hamilton said hardly a good word about it. Indeed, he indicated his opposition to almost every clause, one way or another. No one listening to him could feel that in his heart he supported the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has worked very hard to bring law and order to Scotland, and has introduced a Bill that the people of Scotland want.
  This is, after all, a Bill to protect the public from dangerous and persistent criminals. Why should the Labour party vote against it?
  Mr. Wallace: Because it is important.
  Sir Hector Monro: Or why should the Liberal party, for that matter, vote against it?
  The Bill will bring in automatic life sentences for second-time serious violent and sexual oft riders, including, of course, rapists and armed robbers. Why should anyone want to vote against such a proposal? The Bill will ensure that criminals are not released from prison if they remain a danger to the public. Why should anyone want to vote against that? The abolition of early release from prison will help to increase public confidence in the criminal justice system. The Bill will ensure that the sentences served match what the court said and are not reduced after the prisoner has served 50 per cent. of his sentence.
  Mr. Maxton: I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the speeches of the right hon. Members for Witney (Mr. Hurd), for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) and for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd) last night rehearsing the arguments against mandatory life sentences.
  Sir Hector Monro: I thought that my right hon. Friends made excellent speeches. The hon. Gentleman should remember that this is a Parliament and that we are here to discuss issues. Everyone has a right to express his view. My right hon. Friends are perfectly entitled to speak and to give the House the benefit of their experience gained in office, but things have moved on. Crime is a dynamic—it does not stand still. It changes every year, especially where drugs are involved. Every day, we learn new ways to defeat the drugs problem.
  Mr. Fabricant: Does my right hon. Friend not think it extraordinary that the Labour party chose not to vote against the Crime (Sentences) Bill yesterday and did not table a reasoned amendment then, but it did so today? Given that the Labour party seems to disagree with the concept of a minimum sentence scheme, does my right hon. Friend think that this exposes a split between the Scottish element of the Labour party and the rest of the party?
  Sir Hector Monro: Logic leads one to that assumption. We see Opposition Front Benchers perform U-turns morning, noon and night. They play everything off the cuff and get half of it wrong.
  It is disappointing that the hon. Member for Hamilton is to oppose the Bill's provisions to promote the defeat of crime. Clearly, that is something with which we shall have
  1070
  to deal in Committee, but I hope that he will adopt a more positive attitude to my right hon. Friend's ideas, so that we can further reduce crime in Scotland.
  My right hon. Friend's points on early release follow consultation in the document "Making the Punishment fit the Crime" and the subsequent White Paper. The change in parole is indeed an extension of the present arrangement, because it replaces automatic parole with earned release for good conduct. We must take that seriously and ensure that prisoners make a genuine attempt to face the community that they are to join after they leave prison.
  It is right that individuals should be assessed and should not have an automatic time scale for release. It would be good to have the resources and accommodation for phased release or for more places to be available for certain types of offender in open prisons, which are a good stepping stone back into the community. I suspect that the prisoners about whom we are talking would never be granted the privilege of going to an open prison.
  I hope that we do not let up on training in prisons. I have seen effective training in painting, carpentry and other trades in the Dumfries young offenders institution.
  I know that, like my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State takes a great interest in post-release supervision arrangements. I hope that he will tell us more tonight about supervised release orders. I am not sure whether such orders will be initiated when a case is heard in court or whether the issue will come up later through the parole board when release is considered.
  On automatic sentencing, it is right to impose a mandatory sentence after a second serious sexual offence, while still leaving the court discretion if appropriate. I am not sure that a third offence relating to a class A drug should not be treated in the same way as a second serious sexual offence. The only way to beat the drug problem in Scotland is to be draconian and to make certain that people realise that being caught with drugs means that they are in for a serious sentence.
  Mr. Wilson: May I take the right hon. Gentleman back to the argument on sex offenders? Does he appreciate that the problem with the offences alluded to was not that people were released on licence but that they were released under no form of supervision? Does he recognise the argument by women's organisations that, when a recidivist rapist attacks a woman who recognises him, a mandatory life sentence provides an incentive, arguably, for that person to go the whole hog and kill her? That is the argument against mandatory life sentences.
  Instead of 17 years of inactivity, would it not have been better to introduce a measure that prevented recidivist rapists from coming out of gaol without being reported to social work departments or to the police, leaving them under no supervision? Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the rhetoric of leaping from one extreme to the other is not necessarily the cure?
  Sir Hector Monro: The hon. Gentleman is making a case that needs careful thought and argument. Before he came into the Chamber, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State explained that there had been a

  1071
  discussion with the Lord Advocate today about the case to which he alluded. There seemed to be a prospect of some way forward.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: The key point is that the courts have always been able to require such supervision. We are debating an instruction from Parliament—an instruction that the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) intends to vote against—that the courts should always impose a minimum automatic life sentence in such cases. The difference between that and a mandatory life sentence is that the judge would then set the period to be served.
  The argument that there is no incentive not to commit murder is wrong. The judge would set a minimum period to be served in prison, reflecting the seriousness of the offence, but after that the prisoner would be out for the rest of his life on licence because he had a life sentence. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North is trying to wriggle out of the fact that he is not prepared to vote for a measure that would have provided protection for his constituents.
  Sir Hector Monro: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for putting so clearly a point that he also put in his speech. He is absolutely right. The measure may occasionally result in rough justice, but I should be much happier if someone who caused a third serious sexual offence was locked up for life with no argument. The public want that, and the Bill will give them that.
  The proposals on electronic monitoring orders are also right. We must prepare the way ahead. I do not understand why the hon. Member for Hamilton opposes the proposals. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that they do not apply to those under 16. Once the legislation is in place, we can set up pilot schemes to see how it works. This could be a worthwhile measure, particularly for dealing with the young hooligans who are causing so much mayhem throughout the United Kingdom. We can also learn from experiences in England and Wales.
  I read with interest the clause about mentally disordered offenders going directly to hospital. What is the difference between the proposal and the current situation? As my right hon. Friend knows, people are sent to the Crichton Royal hospital in my constituency under order from the courts with the requirement for close supervision. What difference are we introducing on such confinement?
  The proposals are important, but relatively modest when one considers the overall picture of crime. I really wonder why the judges are going into orbit. Young advocates, such as the dashing young hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), are keen to secure maximum sentences when prosecuting, but when they are promoted to become judges they become lenient, liberal and inconsistent. It a strange metamorphosis from advocate to judge. I would expect them to become tougher than the prosecutors.
  My right hon. and learned Friend is right to say that the people of Scotland want criminals to get tough sentences and they want those sentences to be carried out. That is the basis of the Bill.
  1072
  I am not carried away by statistics, because almost any conclusion can be drawn from the criminal statistics, so many of which are available on Scotland, but I think that the Government's record is good.
  Mr. Wallace: Oh!
  Sir Hector Monro: I beg your pardon.
  The Government's record is good and the statistics are beginning to reflect that. It takes a while to make a sea change in criminal activity. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) is a great man for sedentary interventions. We have heard all the nonsense that he said about Customs and Excise. He got that totally wrong, and now he is getting criminal statistics totally wrong. Perhaps he could wait and just vote against the Bill this evening to show what the Liberal Democrats really think of it.
  I should like to put in a good word for the police, who have to put the legislation into practice. [HON. MEMBERS: "They support the Bill."] The police certainly support what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is doing. My local police force—the smallest in Scotland—has carried out jobs as varied as work relating to the M74 and work in Stranraer on the Irish problem. A small force can maintain good discipline and statistics. I am glad that its crime figures are falling.
  I think that the police will be pleased that teenage drinking is to be curtailed. One message which we can send is that future generations must take discipline in the family, from school onwards, more seriously. Although national service was inefficient and unnecessary from the point of view of the Army, it certainly instilled discipline and good manners in many people. Of course, I would never suggest bringing back national service.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has an opportunity, through the Scottish Office block grant, to support voluntary organisations, and they should be given help when it is possible to do so. Many of them do a tremendous amount to help youngsters. I refer to the Army, the Navy and the Air Cadets, in whom my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) takes such an interest. I also refer to the scouts, the Boys Brigade, the YMCA and the YWCA. All those organisations are helpful in bringing discipline to youngsters who might otherwise indulge in crime and hang around street corners. We should help those organisations whenever possible.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising that point. It may be of interest to the House to know that the General Officer Commanding the Army in Scotland is keen to take forward proposals along the line that my right hon. Friend suggests. We have been working closely with him and we will provide resources from the Scottish Office to allow the Army to extend its activities that enable youngsters, often from deprived backgrounds, to be involved in all kinds of outdoor activities and to work alongside the Territorial Army and others. I agree with my right hon. Friend that such activities are beneficial and something that we should build on in the months ahead.
  Sir Hector Monro: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend; I know that he is interested in this matter. It was

  1073
  good to have him reiterate what is happening and to know that the GOC Scotland supports him. I am sure that the Air Officer in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and the Navy will also support my right hon. Friend's work. We should help not just service-based organisations, but civilian ones. We must ensure that they have the best facilities possible to help them to keep youngsters off the streets. That point also applies to the world of sport and recreation, although I may be going wide of the Bill in saying so.
  The new facilities that are available to help the fight against crime, such as closed circuit television and the latest technology, are very beneficial. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will look after the interests of the police and the other protection services when he undertakes the annual review.
  We have had valuable briefings about the Bill from the Law Society of Scotland and the Scottish Consumer Council, which dealt especially with legal aid. However, it is important that the message we send out from the House to Scotland is not Labour's message but the Conservative message, which is that we are determined to fight crime in every possible way, even if it means introducing legislation year after year after year as things change. We must be prepared to move with the times and to give the authorities all the powers they need to fight criminals. Tonight, the Scottish people will be astonished to see that Labour intends to vote against the Bill.
  5.42 pm
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe: It strikes me as remarkable that Conservatives have said not a word in this debate about social factors. One of the best defences against crime is surely to bring children up in loving homes—they are far less likely to commit a crime than those who are unfortunate enough to have missed that experience. It is not a question of stern disciplinarians ensuring that children get the belt if they misbehave. A child who is brought up by loving, caring people is much less likely to end up in a life of crime, because that child internalises a sense of discipline which makes him or her less likely to commit a crime in the first place.
  When we contemplate today's society, in which there is widespread homelessness, unemployment and poverty, we should regard it as remarkable that the vast majority who suffer such appalling experiences do not commit crime; only a tiny minority do. We must deal with crime when it occurs, not only by punishment, but by crime prevention measures.
  One of the better ways in which to ensure that children grow up in a law-abiding way and with respect for other people's needs and rights is to give them pre-school training. Pre-school education has been proved, by research in the United States in particular, to be enormously effective in ensuring that children grow up in a law-abiding way and with respect for other people, yet in Scotland today we have a system that does not guarantee a nursery place for all three and four-year-olds. The Government must address that point if they are serious about preventing crime.
  Another aspect is the protection of people's homes.
  Mr. Gallie: The hon. Lady may have heard the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) say earlier that crime has been getting worse over the years. My
  1074
  impression is that the provision of nursery places by the state has increased over the years. In the good old days to which the hon. Gentleman looked back, there were no nursery places. Can the hon. Lady expand on that point?
  Mrs. Fyfe: The hon. Gentleman should realise that it is not true that, in former days, there were no nursery places. During the second world war in particular, when the men were away fighting and the women had to go to work, the state provided nursery places for every child whose mother required it. We have fallen from that happy state.
  Mr. Bill Walker: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Fyfe: I will give way when I have finished this point.
  The evidence shows clearly that children who have had the advantage of pre-school education are less likely to commit crime. If we want to prevent today's three and four-year-olds and those who are not yet born from inclining towards criminality, we have to think about that point.
  I know from my own surgeries—other hon. Members have found the same—that the behaviour of anti-social neighbours causes greater immediate misery in most people's lives than does the exceptional crime. We have come across persistent noise-making at all hours of the night, vandalism, threatening behaviour and verbal abuse, all of which make people's lives a misery. Local authorities in Scotland, and in particular the council in Glasgow, have expressed a willingness to work with the police to tackle the problem effectively, but they need the resources to do so.
  Mr. Walker: I was not being nasty when I tried to intervene earlier, but I wanted to check on something the hon. Lady said, because I thought that I might have misheard her. I am sure that she does not wish to mislead the House. If she checks, she will find that it was not the case during the second world war that every child whose parents required it could have nursery education. I can assure the hon. Lady of that, and I can give her chapter and verse on where nursery education was not available in Dundee.
  Mrs. Fyfe: That is a trivial intervention, because we are talking about society today, not society half a century ago.
  Mr. Walker: I was there.
  Mrs. Fyfe: Not only did the hon. Member fly the bombers: he ran the nursery schools as well. For the sake of accuracy, the provision of nursery places was extremely widespread at that time compared with now. I will not quarrel with the hon. Gentleman about whether the coverage was 90 per cent., 80 per cent. or 100 per cent.
  I shall now return to the subject of anti-social neighbours. They cause daily misery to thousands of people and concrete provisions to deal with them should be included in the Bill. Anti-social neighbours affect more people more of the time than many crimes do.
  Clause 1 deals with automatic life sentences generally, and, other than in exceptional circumstances, proposes automatic life sentences for rapists. I and many women in women's organisations throughout Scotland have

  1075
  complained repeatedly about cases in which the judge has been far too lenient and given someone a tap on the wrist or a few months for a serious crime. Of course we object to that.
  I must point out to the Secretary of State that, to be given a sentence at all, the accused has to be found guilty. The majority of men who appear in our courts on rape charges are acquitted. I do not believe that all the women involved are lying, although some may be. We need to look once again at how rape cases are dealt with in court so that a man who commits rape does not expect to get away with it—because that is the most likely outcome in the vast majority of cases.
  Mr. Fabricant: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Fyfe: I want to continue on this point first.
  The Secretary of State has shaken his head when listening to those who have objected to automatic life sentences on the ground that it might tempt a rapist to commit murder while he is about it. I should like the Secretary of State to consider that point more seriously. If a rapist knows that, if he commits murder, he will not be sentenced any more harshly and that he is less likely to be caught if the victim is dead, the possible advantage of murder is bound to occur to him.
  I do not know how often that factor has occurred in recent rape cases in Scotland, but it is certain that in many instances the rapist might come close to murdering his victim in any case. A rapist will be desperate to stop a woman who is screaming and trying to run away, and the distance between nearly killing her and actually killing her could be small. That is why I beg the Secretary of State to consider the matter more seriously.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: The hon. Lady makes an important point, but she is mistaken. She said that the sentence would be the same, in so far as it was a life sentence, but we are talking about automatic, not mandatory, life sentences, and the court would take account of the nature of the offence. A rape is a serious offence, so the judge would set the minimum period to be served, which might be eight or 10 years; for a murder, although the courts can specify a minimum, they rarely do so, and the sentence would be longer.
  It is not correct to say that the effect on the criminal would be the same. What would be the same for both types of criminal is that, after release, they would be on licence for the rest of their lives, and they would be released only if the court was satisfied that they no longer represented a threat. The seriousness of the rape, the way in which it was perpetrated and the possibility of murder would all be taken account of in the penalty implemented by the court. The hon. Lady is therefore quite wrong, and that mistake has been made both by Opposition Members and by others who have confused mandatory and automatic life sentences.
  Mrs. Fyfe: I have followed the Secretary of State's argument, but I must repeat the point that, if the victim is dead and therefore cannot give evidence, the perpetrator is less likely to be found guilty or to be brought to justice in the first place.
  Mr. Wilson: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in the circumstances under discussion, the idea of the criminal
  1076
  discriminating between mandatory and automatic life sentences is fanciful? Her point is exactly right, and the problem is created by the Secretary of State going, as usual, for headlines and talking about life sentences for rapists when what really matters is that nobody should get out of prison—and nobody for years past should have got out of prison—for such offences without being under supervision and without showing some capacity to reform. Having failed society on those counts, the Secretary of State will not resolve the problem by talking about life sentences. All he wants is a cheap headline.
  Mrs. Fyfe: I agree with my hon. Friend, because the Secretary of State has not addressed the core points about people being let out of prison without supervision and without evidence of their having reformed and understood the seriousness of their crime. When such people are let out, it is hardly surprising that terrible events such as the one referred to earlier by my hon. Friend take place.
  I wish that, instead of treating this debate as a party political knockabout, the Secretary of State would address our genuine worries. We are trying to protect women from horrible crimes, so we should all think about it seriously.
  Mr. Forsyth: I do not regard the debate as party political knockabout, because I know that it is fundamental and that the hon. Lady takes the issues extremely seriously.
  A sentence that does not allow for a person's release until he is considered to be safe in the community and provides for him to be returned to prison at any stage after release if he shows any conduct that causes concern is a life sentence. That is what we are providing for, so I am slightly surprised that the hon. Lady is not supporting us—it may be because of the confusion between mandatory and automatic life sentences to which the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) rightly referred.
  A sentence that will not allow out on licence repeat offenders who are likely to reoffend unless they are considered safe, and return them to prison if they cause concern, is a life sentence, and that is what we are imposing. Only by giving the courts that direction from the House can we achieve what we seek.
  Mrs. Fyfe: The courts have had extensive powers for years but, as in the case referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), they have not used them. We can discuss the matter in detail in Committee, but let us at least agree that we are serious about tackling the problem. I am sure that most people who commit the appalling crime of rape will not distinguish between the niceties and do not even know about them. We shall have to recognise that fact.
  Mr. Wilson: It is important that our debate should not be bedevilled by headline talk of life sentences, and that we should reach a consensus now and agree that everybody wants to ensure that never again is a recidivist rapist who is likely to reoffend allowed out of prison without supervision or knowledge of where he is going. We do not want rhetoric from the Secretary of State; we want to prevent such travesties as the Maguire case and the Mullen case from ever happening again.
  Mrs. Fyfe: Other aspects of the Bill are also important. I hope that we will discover in Committee, if not tonight,

  1077
  why the Bill confines the confiscation of alcohol to under-18s. It has been pointed out by social work departments that under-18s do not socialise solely with other under-18s. Some people in a disorderly crowd drinking in the street could be over 18 years old, and others under 18. A police officer could get into unnecessary difficulty trying to distinguish between the two. We should examine that more closely.
  Recent research has shown once again that women are sentenced disproportionately toughly compared with men convicted of similar offences. There are women in prison at the moment for crimes such as fine default. I know that the Secretary of State agrees that that is not reasonable, but I would be glad if he would agree tonight to conduct some research into whether women in Scotland are being sentenced disproportionately harshly, because the evidence we have comes from United Kingdom-wide research.
  When discussing other ways in which to deal with matters such as fine default, the Secretary of State has mentioned banning from driving. I hope that his common sense will tell him that a woman who is in prison because she has not paid her television licence will hardly be deterred by being forbidden to drive—it would hardly be an issue in her life.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Davidson) pointed out earlier that people are upset and angry about those who apparently—but not really—get away with drug pushing, because people who are arrested sometimes wait for a couple of years before coming to trial, which gives the impression that they have got away with it. People in my constituency have said that there is no point reporting offenders, because they only reappear in the street the next week; they do not realise that such people can be awaiting trial for a long time. The Secretary of State said earlier that there was a provision in the Bill to deal with that, but—perhaps it is my fault—I cannot see it. If there is no such provision in the Bill, it is certainly in the Secretary of State's power to do something about it in Committee. I hope that that point will be taken up.
  On children in court, clause 23 is useful and I see no objection to it at this stage, but people who have abused or harmed children will not serve a sentence if they are not convicted in the first place. In the all-party Scottish children's group, we have identified three concerns about children in the courts that could be resolved by simple legislative action, and I hope that the Secretary of State will be open to our proposals—as his colleagues in another place were extremely supportive of them.
  One proposal concerns the competency of child witnesses. The courts are currently bound by case law which frequently prevents young children from giving evidence. As a result, many criminal trials and care proceedings have had to be dropped because good evidence cannot be presented.
  The problem is that a child who is too young to take the oath has to persuade the judge that he or she understands the difference between truth and lies, and promises to tell the truth. Because young children cannot think in abstract terms such as truth, and because judges often experience difficulty communicating at a level appropriate to young children, many children who could have given reliable evidence hardly get beyond giving their names.
  1078
  The solution that the group supports is that the evidence of a witness unable to take the oath or to affirm should be heard subject to reservation. The child's competence and credibility could then be assessed on how the evidence is given, instead of the current test.
  Legislation already allows children to be heard in chambers. When that law was passed, it was clearly intended that children should be questioned and heard in less demanding circumstances than open court—in less overawing surroundings—yet I hear that children are being heard by judges in court rooms instead of more pleasant surroundings. That point needs to be tackled. Speaking in court can be extremely intimidating for a young child, irrespective of whether the judge has a wig on. I am glad to note the Secretary of State's acknowledgement of that.
  As for the protection of vulnerable witnesses, complainers in criminal trials on sexual offence charges are protected from cross-examination on their sexual history unless they make an issue of it themselves, but that protection does not apply to one of the most vulnerable groups of witnesses—children in children's hearing cases who say that they have been victims of abuse. There have been cases in which children have been subjected to distressing cross-examination of exactly the sort that is rightly disallowed in criminal trials. The solution would be a simple amendment to confirm that the relevant sections of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 also apply to court hearings under part II of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995.
  I seem to recall that the Secretary of State's colleague, who is on the Bench beside him, has undertaken to look into this problem at a later stage. Perhaps we shall return to it in Committee.
  The status of children's hearing proceedings is the next point at issue. They are intended to be private, with the aim of encouraging openness and honesty in identifying a family's problems and what can be done about them, but while there are controls on who may attend a hearing and what can be reported, there is no statutory guarantee of confidentiality. One result is that parents facing concurrent prosecution on child abuse or neglect grounds often feel unable to say much even if they want to talk about their difficulties. Some abusers evade important questions on the grounds of not wishing to incriminate themselves.
  A further problem is that children's panel members sometimes find themselves cited to give evidence in matrimonial cases. The usual aim seems to be that they will boost one parent's case by explaining why they placed a child with that parent. The Crown has never sought to use statements from a children's hearing as evidence in criminal proceedings. A statutory confirmation that statements or admissions made during children's hearing proceedings are not admissible in other proceedings, except on a charge of perjury, would not adversely affect prosecutions but would support a better use of the hearings system.
  Because we all support the hearings system as a way of dealing with children who are in trouble, whether they are miscreants themselves or the victims of abuse, neglect or criminal behaviour, I hope that the Secretary of State will give careful consideration to these points.

  1079
  Last, clause 12 deals with sexual offences against girls, but boys are not mentioned. I am not sure whether that is because the Secretary of State considers the law satisfactory in respect of assaults against boys, or whether the point has simply not been considered.
  I have today raised a large number of points which I hope the Secretary of State will tackle. We shall certainly be tabling amendments, which I hope will find support. to deal with them.
  6.3 pm
  Mr. Phil Gallie: People reading tonight's debate will be somewhat mystified to discover that we are voting on an amendment that declines to give the Bill a Second Reading. They will be mystified because the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) says that he wants the Bill to proceed but is using his motion as a device to bring about a debate. I realise that the hon. Gentleman is an expert in Opposition matters, but he is certainly not an expert in the affairs of Government, which he has never experienced. Very few of his party have; and after the hon. Gentleman's speech tonight. we can all understand why.
  Back in June, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State issued a White Paper on crime and punishment. It was an excellent document, but Opposition Members continued to question the Government's reasons for pursuing legislation with a crime and punishment message. They do so because Governments have to take account of changing circumstances.
  There has been a lot of discussion of drugs in the debate, and I want to comment further on the drugs scene. Fifteen or 16 years ago, the menace of drugs in this country was not nearly as apparent as it is today. The same goes for Europe, although perhaps not for the United States, where the problem appeared earlier and on a larger scale. I believe that drugs have been a major factor in the increase in crime.
  I welcomed the June White Paper, which was clearly in tune with the hopes and aspirations that I had been expressing in this Chamber since my election in 1992. Recognising the merits of the document, I tried to publicise it in my constituency, where it attracted a great deal of interest and, by all accounts, support. I should be interested to hear how many comments of support for the White Paper my right hon. Friend has received—I suspect many, but we have not heard much about them.
  I set about carrying out a survey in my constituency. One of the questions in it was devoted to law and order issues of the kind faced up to in the White Paper. The survey was sent out to 17,000 voters, and I am pleased to say that we had 5,200 responses—remarkable in marketing terms. The responses showed that it is perhaps better to heed the ideas of the public than the words of Lords Hope, Ross or McCluskey, all of whom are steeped in the ways of the legal establishment in Scotland. [Laughter.]
  Perhaps the legal fraternity, including the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), should listen a little more carefully to what the public are saying. The public are the people who depend on the law for a reasonable existence in which they can feel safe and
  1080
  protected. The hon. and learned Gentleman, by mocking my comments, mocks the general public, too. It is a pity that eminent figures in the law despise the feelings of lesser beings who have not achieved such learned positions.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: I do not laugh at the notion that the purpose of the law is to engender confidence in the public that the law will be properly implemented and enforced. My complaint is that these provisions do nothing in that regard. Moreover, if the hon. Gentleman thinks that Lord McCluskey is a member of the establishment, he must have a rather curious idea about what the establishment consists of.
  Mr. Gallie: I dare say that Lord McCluskey will be interested in the hon. and learned Gentleman's comments.
  I should like to run through the results of the survey that we carried out. Individuals were asked to identify areas of concern across a range of national policies. More than 40 per cent. identified law and order as their No. 1 priority, with issues such as health and employment also mentioned. I should point out to Opposition Members that there was little support for any change to the national constitution, despite the remarks that we often hear from Opposition Members.
  Mr. Wilson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gallie: I always give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman is so sweet. Will he elucidate—what survey is he referring to? Who are "we"? Was it one of the Tory surveys that the party sends out?
  Mr. Gallie: Yes, it was organised by my constituency. I am quite prepared to hand round the survey sheet for hon. Members to see; it was designed not to pick up Tory votes but to ask questions about key issues. I make no apology for the fact that I put my faith in the public to give me guidance on certain issues. That is why I am referring to the survey, which showed that over 40 per cent. of people had specific concerns about law and order.
  Of those responding to the survey, 87 per cent. felt that there were real grounds for doubt arising from inconsistencies in court sentencing practices. Their concern gives me some comfort, because I have complained about the problem for a long time. Every hon. Member will have heard about judgments in sheriff courts and higher courts that have led people to scratch their heads and ask, "How on earth could that be? What is the comparison? How can someone get 18 months for kicking a person to death in one court, but someone convicted on a murder charge in another court gets a life sentence?" We should examine those issues, and recognise that judges and sheriffs are not wise above all other beings.
  The performance of judges and sheriffs should be subject to review. Of those responding to our survey, 84 per cent. could not understand why judges and sheriffs were allowed to go on into their dotage without any controls whatsoever imposed on them. No one can query their judgment, other than the Appeal Court—their fellow judges. No matter how they perform. little or no judgment is passed on their performance, and that worries many people.

  1081
  When asked whether fixed-term sentences should be served in full, 83 per cent. of those responding said yes—83 per cent. thought that the Government were on to something in wanting to make four years imprisonment mean exactly that.
  Mr. John McAllion: Did you ask about hanging?
  Mr. Gallie: The hon. Gentleman is slightly impetuous.
  We asked whether there should be a referendum on capital punishment. I was going to raise that subject, because I was slightly surprised that only 60 per cent. of people were in favour—I had expected a higher figure. We did not specifically ask them whether they were in favour of the restoration of capital punishment; had we done so, the number in favour might have been greater, but that is another matter. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman will have a chance to speak later. He need not keep shouting from the back—if he wants to intervene, I shall give way.
  Mr. McAllion: The survey the hon. Gentleman conducted in his constituency fascinates me. He asked about hanging, but did he also ask about thumbscrews and racks, or is there is a limit to the hard line that the hon. Gentleman is prepared to take on crime?
  Mr. Gallie: The hon. Gentleman's point is unworthy of an answer, and I shall not give him one. I have said that we asked people whether they wanted a referendum on capital punishment, and 60 per cent. said yes. However, that was not the purpose of the survey. We were trying to find out whether there was general public support for the main issues included in the White Paper.
  We asked what a life sentence should mean, and many people felt that life should mean life, but not a significant majority. Most people felt that, unless there were exceptional circumstances, a life sentence should mean a minimum of 15 years. That is not the current position. I am happy with the definition of a life sentence, and the fact that my right hon. Friend the Scottish Secretary will have some control over such sentences.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: When my hon. Friend asked about life sentences meaning life, I assume that he was asking about mandatory life sentences, not discretionary or automatic life sentences. When he carries out his next survey, it will be interesting to find out whether people know the difference. Will he comment on Opposition Members' confusion about the differences between those types of life sentence?
  Mr. Gallie: I have to admit that we tried to keep the survey fairly simple. We recognise that the great mass of the British public do not understand the niceties of our legal system—they leave the definitions to others. The people who responded to the survey expect the legal system to have a sense of justice and fairness.
  The hon. Members for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) and for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Davidson) suggested that we should be able to deal more quickly with those who have been charged with drugs offences. The hon. Lady's comment was that such individuals were frequently arrested by the police and back on the streets within a day or two at most.
  1082
  Some time ago, I received assurances from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about guidelines on bail, where it would be a case of "two strikes and you're out". I strongly support that proposal, and I hope that the hon. Member for Maryhill, who has supported such a proposal in the past, will come into line on that aspect of the Bill. It would certainly help in the circumstances that the hon. Lady described.
  Great support was expressed in the response to the survey for restricting the consumption of alcohol on our streets by those under 18. The hon. Member for Maryhill asked, why 18? In fact, it is illegal for those who are under 18 to obtain alcohol, to be given it or to buy it, and it is illegal for people to sell it to them. It seems nonsense to most people that, if they manage to obtain alcohol, there is really nothing in the law to enable the police to stop them drinking it. It is a constant source of aggravation to my constituents.
  Mrs. Fyfe: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gallie: I will give way to the hon. Lady in a minute.
  My constituents see gangs of youngsters with super-lagers or Buckfast wine and other fortified wines—it is a shame that the hon. Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell) is not present—and they are mystified by the police's inability to do anything about it unless there is a perceived breach of the peace. The proposal to enable the police to confiscate alcohol from youngsters will remove that quandary and give the police a useful device to control a situation that, at times, goes well beyond the limit. I note that the Scottish Police Federation welcomes the proposal, as does the federation for the police south of the border.
  Mrs. Fyfe: There are people on our streets who are causing a nuisance by drinking in the open air, of whom it can be said that it is many a year since they were 18. Are the police supposed to distinguish between those who are under 18 and those who are over 18 in a crowd of young people? They cannot do so, and it is nonsense to expect them to be able to do so.
  Mr. Gallie: I disagree with the hon. Lady. I have driven through her constituency—not stopping to make speeches, I hasten to add—and seen youngsters of 13 or 14 on the streets. If neither the police nor the hon. Lady cannot identify 13 and 14-year-olds, something is wrong.
  I understand that Glasgow city council has used local authority powers to impose an overall drinking ban. That is fine—the measure is of value in some areas—but blanket bans are not logical. I represent a holiday town, and I recognise that families want to have picnics in the park. I have no objection to their having a bottle of wine or a couple of cans of beer with their picnic; but I do object if the youngsters are drinking in public, because, to my mind, that is against the law. The measure gives police the power to control the problem—it is a wise move.
  I am mystified as to why the Labour party wants to vote against this well-thought-out and necessary Bill. We should consider the Labour party's performance last night over the Crime (Sentences) Bill, which affects England and Wales. I wonder whether its performance involves

  1083
  something deeper, and whether it recognises that it desperately has to win seats in some areas of England and Wales that have been way beyond it in the past. On that basis, it has bitten the bullet and is trying to kid us into thinking that it is tough on law and order and will back my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
  The scenario in Scotland is perhaps different. We all acknowledge that a huge majority of Members of Parliament in Scotland come from the Labour party, which currently picks up the majority of votes. I wonder whether the Labour party in Scotland is taking the Scottish vote for granted and turning its back on the people. It seems to be saying that what happens in England and Wales is one thing, but what happens to us in Scotland is another, and we will do what we want because we do not have to count the voters. Those honest Labour Members of Parliament who see the value of the Bill should join us in the Lobby tonight—that would be logical.
  Clause 1 involves life sentences for rapists. I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) arguing against the wise steps advocated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. We must attempt to rectify what has happened in the past and ensure that the problems never recur. When Maguire was released, the courts had a responsibility to maintain some supervision over him, but they let us down. They will not do so again if they use the life sentence provisions suggested by my right hon. Friend.
  I am slightly perturbed about the list of qualifying offences for life sentences. I commend the list of qualifying offences contained in the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill, which includes sodomy or attempted sodomy. I wonder whether my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would point out to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary the omission from the English Bill—the Crime (Sentences) Bill—of those qualifying offences. My right hon. and learned Friend may have missed a trick and the English Bill should perhaps follow the example of the Scottish Bill—or perhaps there is a good reason for the omission.
  I query the seven-year sentence for someone who has committed the offence of drug trafficking for a third time, as it seems a remarkably lax sentence. That figure should be raised to 10 or perhaps 15 years. Drug traffickers are purveyors of death.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: It is a minimum.
  Mr. Gallie: I recognise that seven years is a minimum sentence for drug traffickers, but it is too low and should be higher. There is no justification for anyone who attempts to sell drugs and is convicted for the third time.
  I welcome the abandonment of automatic release. I argued strongly in 1992–93 that the automatic halving of sentences was wrong. Prisoners should be able to earn remission, but I underline the word "earn". I was horrified by the comments of the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East, who seemed to suggest that there would be problems in implementing the measure because it might put pressure on prison warders who could be subjected to threats from prisoners.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman seems to be suggesting that we should give up if threats are involved. That would be wrong: we should not give in to people
  1084
  because they use threats or threatening behaviour. The prison service will be well equipped to make judgments. Prison officers are aware of those prisoners who merit early release, and I welcome the fact that they will play a part in the process.
  Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) will be aware that some prisoners in Perth prison have, for a long time, regularly threatened officers. There is nothing new in that.
  Mr. Gallie: Absolutely not. Prison officers are well equipped to deal with such problems, and I am sure that they will be able to cope, and that they will welcome the Bill's proposals.
  I was surprised to find that the Bill contains no mention of the right of appeal for the prosecution against summary court judgments. I am advised by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that the subject is covered by a statutory instrument; if so, I welcome that. I shall be pleased if we do not have to introduce further legislation on that much-needed aspect.
  I much approve of DNA sampling—another measure included in the Bill. I welcome the fact that prisoners can be checked for alcohol.
  I fully approve of electronic tagging, and I would welcome further investigation into its use for juveniles. A small minority of juveniles commit many criminal offences. Electronic tagging might be a useful way of controlling that problem. I wonder about the costs involved, and I shall listen to the debate with interest to see whether my right hon. Friend gives us guidance on the costs of tagging.
  There are to be changes in the operation of the Legal Aid Board involving the appointment of solicitors who could, to an extent, be defined as public defenders. I wonder whether that is a step too far. The introduction of state-appointed lawyers smacks of nationalisation, but I am prepared to read the clauses carefully when the Bill reaches its Committee stage. I shall listen with great interest to what is said, but I am putting down a marker to show that I have some reservations.
  The Legal Aid Board has a job to do, as does the Law Society—some self-regulation is necessary. I realise that concerns have arisen about the abuse of the legal aid system by some legal firms, but I should like to think that controls could be introduced without having to adopt the public defender approach.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: This is the first time that I have been accused of supporting nationalisation. It is proposed to pilot the use of the public defender system to ensure value for money for the taxpayer and to ensure that justice is carried out speedily. I know that my hon. Friend has supported both those principles enthusiastically in the past, and I shall be happy to discuss those matters with him before the Bill reaches Committee.
  Mr. Gallie: I thank my right hon. Friend for that assurance. I would never doubt his commitment to ensuring that we do not adopt the nationalisation policies previously advocated by the Opposition—I am happy to say that even they now seem to have abandoned them.
  Mr. Bill Walker: If, like me, my hon. Friend finds that the professional body that produces the most complaints

  1085
  from constituents is the legal profession, perhaps we should find a method of making sure that lawyers behave properly. The Law Society's procedures for ensuring that may be flawed.
  Mr. Gallie: I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend's point, but we are the party that believes in self-regulation. The Law Society has a part to play, and I would expect it to discuss with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State the means of achieving that.
  Finally, I believe that the legal aid system is sometimes abused in the criminal sector. A person should have the right to choose his lawyer, but I recognise that some people try repeatedly to change their lawyer. The Legal Aid Board can exercise some control, and I would welcome the imposition of further controls.
  I look forward to going into the Lobby tonight to give my 100 per cent. support to this excellent Bill, which I thank my right hon. Friend for introducing.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. James Wallace: I shall deal later with the points raised by the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) about state-provided defence lawyers. He may wish to reflect that, although that may be characterised as nationalisation, part V of the Bill gives sweeping powers to the Scottish Legal Aid Board to undertake investigations of legal practices. The Law Society has stated that, were the Government to give it sufficient powers, as they have in other respects to regulate its members, it would undertake investigations itself, thereby saving the taxpayer a considerable amount of money. The hon. Gentleman may wish to consider that part of the Bill in terms of value for money for the taxpayer, as the Government seem to have lost sight of those objectives when they prepared it.
  It would be rare if one objected 100 per cent. to any Bill presented to the House. There have been a few such occasions—the poll tax legislation, for example, was 100 per cent. objectionable. There are measures in this Bill that my colleagues and I would support, such as those on DNA sampling, the consumption of alcohol by under-18s in public places, and part of the Government's proposals for implementing the Sutherland committee report.
  That is a good example of why we cannot bring ourselves to support the Bill as a whole. The Government accepted part of the Sutherland committee report but ignored the crux of it, which would provide for an independent body to consider whether cases of alleged miscarriage of justice should be referred for appeal.
  The Bill is good in small parts, but is flawed in many important respects. Above all, it will fail to attack crime, which is its stated purpose. That is why we tabled the reasoned amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), myself and others. Having tabled an amendment stating that we decline to give it a Second Reading, we are prepared to follow through and vote against the Bill.
  Before going any further, I should state that I am a non-practising member of the Faculty of Advocates and the unpaid parliamentary adviser to the Procurators Fiscal Society for Scotland. However, any remarks that I may make this evening are entirely my own, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
  1086
  The Bill is all too typical of the Secretary of State's tenure of the Scottish Office. Every new idea is conceived in a great frenzy of activity. It may be superficially attractive at first, like candyfloss, but when one tries to put it to use, it melts away, leaving a sticky mess. The right hon. Gentleman vamped up the Bill with a great number of speeches and a White Paper that paid lip service to consultation. It is hailed as an effective attack on crime, but closer examination reveals it to be as flawed as it is ill conceived. If ever implemented, it would not only leave expectations dashed, but worse still, it would take away vital resources which, if otherwise applied, would be more effective in the war against crime.
  No party has a monopoly on concern about the rise in crime. The right hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) said that he was not happy about dealing in statistics and did not think that they mattered much in respect of crime figures. I understand his reluctance. He has supported, and at times been a member of, a Government under whom, over the past 17 years, crimes in Scotland have increased by 156,000 and recorded offences by 125,000. From 1979 to 1995, the number of non-sexual crimes of violence has increased from 10,025 to 21,119. The Government have presided over an increase in violent crime of more than 100 per cent.
  I am not surprised that the right hon. Member for Dumfries wanted to run away from that figure. It shows how ineffective the Government have been in combating crime. With all the measures that they have introduced, the same claims have been made. Very little has been achieved, other than an increase in crime.
  We are told in the explanatory and financial memorandum that, if the Bill is implemented, in five years the prison population could increase by 2,200. Perhaps that is testimony to the deterrent effect of the measures proposed in the Bill.
  Not surprisingly, mandatory sentences have been the subject of considerable debate. There has been an interesting discussion about mandatory life sentences and automatic life sentences. Will the Secretary of State ponder on the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe)? It was a valid point that has been made several times during the debate. The same argument was advanced in the Chamber last night by the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker). In certain circumstances—for example, a woman being raped—the criminal might kill the only potential witness because a life sentence awaited him.
  The Secretary of State says that we have got it wrong: it is not a life sentence. That is simply the headline that he wants to get over to the press and the people of Scotland. The sentence could be less than a life sentence, but would automatically be called a life sentence. There would not be much consolation to the victim if the perpetrator made the same mistake.
  In the Crime (Sentences) Bill to which the House gave a Second Reading last night, the reference is to mandatory life sentences. In this Bill, the reference is to automatic life sentences. Can the Secretary of State tell us now, or can the Minister of State tell us in his winding-up speech. what difference there is in the legislative provisions between the Crime (Sentences) Bill and this Bill—the Dostoevsky (Scotland) Bill—that creates the distinction between mandatory life sentences and automatic life

  1087
  sentences? On looking at the first clause of each Bill, I could not see what makes the difference, but it may lie elsewhere. It would be interesting to know.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: I should have thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman—
  Mr. Wallace: I am not learned.
  Mr. Forsyth: Perhaps that can be remedied. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would be aware of the considerable differences between the Scots and English systems—for example, for mandatory life sentences in the English system, the tariffs are set by Ministers.
  The Scottish Bill provides that the period of a sentence that would be served by an offender would be set by the judge and that eligibility for release would be determined by the parole board making a recommendation to the Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman is telling the House that he would oppose a sentence that would allow repeat sex offenders to be out on licence for the rest of their lives, but if there was any concern about the threat that they represented to the community, they could be returned to prison. I am surprised that he takes that position, because without doubt the measure is in the interests of public protection.
  Mr. Wallace: I was certainly aware that there was a difference between a mandatory life sentence that gave the power into the hands of Ministers to determine when a person may be released, and the discretionary life sentences that are already available. That is the answer to the right hon. Gentleman: those sentences are already available to the High Court, if a judge thinks that they are warranted by the circumstances of the case or the danger to society posed by the perpetrator of the crime. The Bill takes away that discretion, although there has never been any substantial complaint that it has been abused or not properly applied over the years. The Secretary of State's eyes boggle, but he failed to answer the question raised by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) about how many times the Lord Advocate exercised his power to appeal where he felt that the High Court had been too lenient in passing a sentence.
  Mr. Forsyth: I did not make the point to the hon. Member for Hamilton, because he is not a lawyer; the hon. Gentleman is, and he knows very well that the Crown's right of appeal is to the court, and the court has to decide whether the sentence passed by the judge was reasonable. If a judge imposed a determinate sentence of a long period, it is very unlikely that one would be able to persuade the court to take a different view. We propose to change the law to require courts to impose an automatic life sentence for the protection of the public, and Parliament is entitled to take that view. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman takes the view that we should rely on the discretion of the judiciary on a matter that is clearly for the public interest and for Parliament to decide.
  Mr. Wallace: The Secretary of State has summed it up in a nutshell: that judges, after many years of training and after all the other things that we ask them to do, simply
  1088
  cannot be trusted, and that in individual cases Parliament knows better than those who have had extensive training. I do not deny that judges must work within the parameters set by Parliament, but I challenge whether tonight—of the thousands of cases that will come before the Scottish courts in the next five, 10 or 20 years, with their different circumstances—the House knows better than the judges what the sentence should be.
  Let us take this further, because the Bill invites Parliament to pass an automatic life sentence on someone who has already committed a qualifying offence and thereafter commits a robbery involving a firearm or an imitation firearm. I am not saying that that is not a serious offence; it is a very serious offence. But what is the difference between that and, for example, a robbery committed by someone who holds the victim at knife point? That, apparently, would not command an automatic life sentence. What is it that makes us able tonight to make these distinctions and apply them irrespective of the particular circumstances of a case?
  Mr. Forsyth: Wriggling.
  Mr. Wallace: The Secretary of State says that I am wriggling. I am not; I am pointing out the inconsistencies of his proposed legislation, which will lead, as Lord Ross, the Lord Justice Clerk, said, to considerable injustice and perceived unfairness.
  That could also have a further consequence. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) said, it is quite possible for counsel—indeed, it may well be the duty of counsel for an accused who is up on a second offence—to put before the jury the fact that, if the person is found guilty of the offence, the judge will be required to pass a life sentence. The jury may not think the circumstances of the case proportionate to the passing of a life sentence and they may acquit, by a verdict of not guilty or not proven. They may also believe that there is a scintilla of reasonable doubt, which, given the fact that a life sentence will be imposed automatically, will lead to an acquittal. We might see, as a result of what the Government propose, an increase in the number of wrongful acquittals, and that would do nothing to protect the public.
  The other possibility is that trials will be longer, as the incentive to plead guilty will disappear. There has been much outcry in the past few weeks about victims, particularly of sexual offences and rape, being subject to extensive cross-examination by the perpetrator. The consequence of passing the proposed legislation will be that the number of cases in which the victim of crime has to be subjected to detailed cross-examination, possibly by the perpetrator himself, will almost certainly increase.
  The Bill has not been properly thought through. The mirror measure in England and Wales is the Crime (Sentences) Bill. Let us suppose for the sake of argument that an offender's first offence is the equivalent in England of lewd and libidinous practices towards children and his second offence is a rape in Scotland. In such circumstances, the automatic life sentence will not apply because there is no equivalent provision on lewd and libidinous practices in the English legislation, but if the rape is committed in England and the lewd and libidinous practice is committed in Scotland, the automatic sentence will apply—another illogicality resulting from the rushed preparation of the Bill, more with an eye to the publicity it would attract than to achieving the proper aims of justice.

  1089
  Clause 11 increases the sentencing power of the sheriff. I do not think that there is much objection to that in principle, although I echo the point made by my hon. and learned Friend, who said that, if more cases are tried in a sheriff court as a result of the Bill, it is important that there are enough full-time sheriffs to ensure that the cases are adequately and properly handled. At some stage—perhaps in the not too distant future—a balance might have to be struck because of court work loads and an advocate-depute might think for some reason that one case should be heard in the sheriff court and the other, which is similar, in the High Court. But because the case is heard in the sheriff court, it will not be a qualifying offence. Something as arbitrary as that might determine whether a person was subjected to an automatic life sentence.
  We believe that the Bill contains many flaws that could lead to acquittals, which would not necessarily be in the interests of justice. There is the drug trafficking mandatory minimum sentence. I made a point earlier, which is still valid, about the closing of Customs and Excise posts at points around our coastline where it is easiest for drug traffickers to smuggle in their drugs. The Secretary of State says that he has to take advice. The reason why that advice has to be proffered in the first place is that the Government are cutting resources for the Customs and Excise service so that they can give tax cuts to their supporters and to people they want to attract at the next election. They make tax cuts on the one hand and cut the resources of the Customs and Excise service on the other.
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: Does my hon. Friend agree that the point that he raises is particularly perverse—the Minister of State might want to refer to it when he winds up—because all of us from the highlands and islands lobbied the Minister of State a number of years ago, before the previous general election, on law and order expenditure in the highlands and islands of Scotland, and the Minister of State acknowledged then that one reason why he came forward with an increase, following the disquiet expressed by the chief constable at that time, was specifically because of the drugs threat on the western coast and in the northern and western isles?
  Mr. Wallace: Indeed. That concern was raised recently by the newly appointed chief constable.
  I turn now to the provisions relating to early release. It is not the length of the sentence that determines whether a particular sentencing policy has worked but how the prisoner will behave when released. In spite of the Secretary of State's efforts at the beginning of his speech to pretend that somehow this was a development of the 1993 legislation, it is far removed from the proposals of the Kincraig report.
  I think that 98 per cent. of prisoners are eventually released. What we had under the Kincraig report, implemented in the 1993 legislation, was imprisonment plus a period in the community plus resettlement under supervision—the very points that the former Secretary of State for Scotland made on Second Reading of that Bill. The Secretary of State challenged me and my hon. Friends earlier and said. "If they are in prison, they won't be committing crimes." But he omitted to mention that, when they leave prison, it is possible that they could commit crimes.
  1090
  Yesterday, the parole board issued a statement in which it said:
  "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 non-parolees … since 1968 35 per cent. of those on parole have been reconvicted two years after release, compared to 55 to 60 per cent. of those nonparolces."
  Those figures relate to England and Wales, but they are recent.
  Far from curbing crime by eliminating early release arid the kind of arrangement that was expected under the 1993 Act, more prisoners are likely to be released without adequate supervision, with the greater likelihood of a higher reoffending and reconviction rate. That does nothing to reassure people that the Government's current sentencing policy is appropriate.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fife, North-East said that prison officers will determine who will receive additional days. That will become an administrative act, and will open prison officers up to possible intimidation. The fact that that already happens in our prisons is no justification for extending it. At present, added days are determined by the governor after a disciplinary hearing. It is a big change for a person's liberty to be determined by an administrative act rather than a proper disciplinary procedure where the rules of natural justice prevail.
  The Scottish Association for Mental Health needs to be persuaded that hospital orders are necessary, as sufficient sentencing powers are currently available to the courts to achieve the same results. It bodes ill for any relationship between doctor and patient if the patient knows that, if he gets better, he will be sent to gaol. That will not encourage better health.
  The Secretary of State was wholly disingenuous when, towards the conclusion of his remarks, he quoted selectively from the submission of the Law Society of Scotland in response to his White Paper, clearly suggesting that the Law Society of Scotland supported the White Paper. Those of us who met its president today know that the opposite is the case, and that it has a series of objections to the Bill.
  Where is the choice or independence if one is told who one's solicitor will be? Not only will choice be denied, but any choice that has already been exercised may be taken away. No one would think that a particularly satisfactory arrangement. Likewise, as I have said, on only five occasions during the past 10 years has the Scottish Legal Aid Board brought any cases to the Law Society's notice for further investigation. It is odd that it should now have such extensive powers of search and disclosure when no fault which needs to be addressed has been proved in the present system.
  There is another potential difficulty. The powers relating to the disclosure of documents are such that they could erode the bond of confidentiality between client and solicitor, and not necessarily in respect of the criminal legal aid case which prompted the inquiry. If all documents relating to what happened in court on a particular morning when an alleged irregularity took place had to be disclosed, solicitors and other clients with nothing whatever to do with the Legal Aid Board could be involved. Such documents would be open to civil servants and quango appointees in circumstances which many will find unacceptable.

  1091
  The Bill talks about the suspension of payments to solicitors where allegations have been made by the Scottish Legal Aid Board. That means not suspension of payments but suspension from the criminal legal aid system, which is a severe penalty when there is only an unproved allegation. By all means withhold fees if there is a complaint about a particular case, but to deprive people of a significant part of their livelihood on the basis of an allegation as yet unproved goes too far.
  The Bill requires substantial public expenditure. If we are to tackle crime efficiently, we must prevent it and ensure that it is detected and there must be efficient sentencing. The Bill offers no hope of an improvement in the detection of crime, which, at the end of the day, is the best deterrent. The Scottish police tell us that in England and Wales 24 per cent. more is spent per officer in capital expenditure and 16.5 per cent. per officer in revenue expenditure. Resources would be better directed towards ensuring that our police can improve crime prevention and detection.
  That means not just more officers on operational duty, but more civilian support staff to release other officers for operational duties. It means computerisation to deal with routine functions and to apply new technology in the detection of crime. It means better facilities and a more reliable replacement programme for vehicles. One councillor on a Scottish police board told me that there was a limit to the number of years that they could postpone buying a new police car simply to stay within the budget.
  Our police forces are being starved of the necessary resources to allow them to do the job adequately. The Government's response to that crisis is to come forward with a Bill which will not achieve any of the objectives that it sets for itself. Far from achieving them, it will set matters back by ensuring that resources do not go where they would be most effectively used in the battle against crime which we all wish to win.
  6.55 pm
  Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) attacked the Government's record on crime. If the increase in crime was confined to Scotland and the United Kingdom alone, his comments would be justified. But crime has risen and continues to rise throughout the industrial democracies. In particular. the rate of crime in Europe has risen dramatically. That is not surprising, given the easy and rapid movement of large numbers of people. It would be astonishing if patterns were not repeated.
  The challenge is to deal with that situation and to deter mobile criminals. It is no good simply saying that crime in Scotland is rising. We must consider the world in which we live and how to address the problem. The Bill, which I welcome, will go a long way towards restoring the Scottish people's confidence in the rule of law.
  Whatever our learned judges and others may say, people look to Parliament to respond to their concerns and to introduce laws to address those concerns. They expect Parliament to listen to those with an axe to grind because they are directly involved. That is what lobbying is all about. They expect Parliament to make the judgments and decisions.
  1092
  Given the Bill's long title, it is astonishing that hon. Members should suggest that it will not be possible in Committee to table reasoned amendments. Most of the points that I have heard could have been addressed by means of reasoned amendments.
  What we have seen today is the reality of new Labour. It has one policy for England and Wales, where it supports minimum sentencing, and another policy for Scotland, where it is against minimum sentencing. The question that we should be asking is which is the real Labour. The Islington-Hamilton divide is endemic. It wrecked Labour's policy on devolution, causing the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) to take a principled stand and resign. I understand his position, because I too have taken a principled stand and resigned on a constitutional matter about which I felt deeply. It wrecked Labour's devolution policy, and it will wreck its law and order policy as well.
  Disraeli once described political parties as organised hypocrisy. New Labour must be the textbook example for students of modern politics. For us politicians, it may just be hypocrisy, but for the British people, especially Scottish people, new Labour means chaos or catastrophe, or it would if ever a Labour Government were forced on us.
  The only consistent theme in new Labour policy is the white flag. Labour will wave the white flag at the unions. Labour Members will surrender the constitution, they will surrender to Brussels, and would surrender to the criminals in our society if they had their way on this Bill. They talk about law and order. I have a long memory and I have served on every law and order reform Bill Committee in the past 17 years.
  Mr. Connarty: As the hon. Member has been on the Government side for 17 years, can he tell us why they have made such a mess of it?
  Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman obviously did not listen to my opening remarks. If he had, he would have heard me explain that the Bill deals with the problems created by a modern, mobile society, especially in Europe and the rest of the western world.
  We must put in place a combination of measures. The Bill is only one part of that combination. It is not the solution; it is the road towards a better way of dealing with crime. No Bill, in isolation, will address all the problems. We must amend the law in the light of experience. Criminals are much more mobile now. We must produce Bills that will deter, and this Bill is part of that approach. Its purpose is to create deterrence. I have always believed in deterrence, which is why I have always supported the nuclear deterrent and capital and corporal punishment. I am not saying that they are answers in themselves, because they are not. But they are part of a package.
  What is wrong with modern society is that we seek simple, single-issue solutions when the problems are always much more complex. The Church has responded recently. I agree with the cardinal: he was right to address the issue. He and the Leader of the Opposition may have words, but one cannot deny that the cardinal is right to speak out on behalf of his Church. That is his job, and I support him. In fact, I think that he is a splendid cardinal, and I am not a Roman Catholic. He tries to address some of the fundamental problems.

  1093
  We live in a world that has substantially abandoned old standards and values. That worries Tom Winning, because he sees standards being eroded and not being replaced with other standards and values. In schools, in the workplace and on the football fields people no longer have a code of conduct that is acceptable to the majority. The Bill, in part, tries to address that problem, and I welcome it.
  I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) and the Government for funding the DNA laboratory in Dundee. I am sure that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) also supports that. The Tayside force led the way in this field, and now that it has extra funding, its laboratory is being extensively used by other Scottish forces. I welcome that. Modern policing and modern detection is about having the right equipment and the right people.
  I shall deal briefly with another comment of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. The use of aircraft for coastline surveillance is much more important than having people on the ground. With the size and length of our coastline, we could never have enough people on the ground to ensure that every part of the coast was covered. That cannot be done: it is not realistic. Using modern equipment makes it a more viable proposition, so the use of aircraft is much more important.
  We must introduce measures that will give people confidence. The courts must be reminded that Parliament's job is to tell them what to do: it is not their job to tell Parliament. They can advise Parliament and they can lobby—everyone has that right in a democracy—but Parliament must ultimately decide. I shall not go into detail on the Bill tonight, because I will have ample opportunity to do so in Committee. As my right hon. Friend knows, I never sit silent in Committee. I look forward to considering amendments, introducing amendments and listening to the reasoned amendments of hon. Members who have been so critical tonight.
  7.4 pm
  Mr. Michael Connarty: I do not often agree with the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker), except at a social level, but he used a short phrase that I agree with when he said that this Bill "is not the solution". Unfortunately, because of soundbite politics, the Secretary of State tried to sell it as a solution. That is the frightening thing about the context of the Bill. It was embarrassing to hear the fumbled and mumbled expressions used by the Secretary of State to try to tie this Bill in with the Bill that we debated in 1992, when we helped the Government to pass the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993. I hope that he was embarrassed by that: I certainly was.
  The Minister of State always reads a good brief, and he will no doubt read his brief well at the end of the debate. I hope that he will admit that he was embarrassed. He also served on the Committee on that legislation, and he argued the case for the 1993 Act very well. To have to contradict it will be a further embarrassment, although he will cover it well as he is trained to do so. I will return to the Chamber to listen to his response.
  Law and order is a key demand of the citizens of Scotland in my constituency and in every constituency. When we consider Bills, we must take account of the key
  1094
  demand of our citizens for security and peace of mind, free from threat to themselves, their families and their communities. That is what people want in every constituency of Scotland, and no doubt throughout the rest of the United Kingdom. The Bill will not necessarily give them that. The terrible thing is that it may hold up a banner that will hide from them the reality of what may happen as a consequence, and that will make them think that it is a solution. If we go too far, we shall fail to make the progress that we want to make.
  I am wearing the "Scotland Against Drugs" badge, as most Ministers are: if it is not on their lapels, I am sure that it is in their pockets or on another suit.
  Mr. Wallace: It is difficult with a poppy as well.
  Mr. Connarty: I made a point of not covering it with my poppy for the debate.
  There is a discussion in Scotland about the type of advertisements that the "Scotland Against Drugs" campaign intends to use. They have all the flaws of those used in the campaign against AIDS and HIV in the early 1990s. Their portrayal of every drug user as a victim who will end up a vegetable or even dead was extreme and ridiculous. Everyone trafficking in drugs or selling a tab of E looked like the devil without his tail. That is so ridiculous that the vast majority of young people will reject the advertisements, and that will not help our fight against drugs. I hope that that organisation gets that message.
  When I learned about the constitutional history of the United Kingdom, I was taught about Hanging Judge Jeffries, who hanged people for stealing sheep. Even though people were caught with the sheep in their hands, they were acquitted of sheep stealing. The ridiculousness of the sentence compared with the crime was apparent, so it led to less rather than more justice. That is what is worrying about the Bill.
  The Secretary of State, for whom I have a great respect intellectually, has not had time to take on board the fact that the population in Scotland needs a toughening up on crime and on the way in which we act against criminals. Because we are rushing towards an election, we have what the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) called the Dostoevsky Bill. It may be nearer "The Possessed" than "Crime and Punishment".
  Mr. Fabricant: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want to mislead the House—I know that he is not speaking of his own volition but merely quoting the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace)—but it was not Dostoevsky but Tolstoy who wrote "War and Punishment".
  Mr. Connarty: I know that Hansard sometimes has problems with my accent, but I was referring to "Crime and Punishment", not "War and Peace". I believe that "Crime and Punishment" was the book referred to by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland—who, like most people in Scotland, received a broad education which included literature. Pupils did not have to choose to study English literature in order to read the classics. The Secretary of State for Scotland should have stuck to rewriting "The Brothers Karamazov" rather than trying to rewrite "Crime and Punishment", as he has made a complete mess of it.

  1095
  There are fundamental questions that we all ask again and again—in opposition, in government and in society. Does prison sentencing reform criminals? Does prison sentencing, in the long run, protect society from further criminal action? The question has now become, "Will automatic sentencing deter people from criminal behaviour?" If it will not, it will not work with the grain of society's wishes or, I believe, with the grain of the wishes of the House.
  When is a life sentence not a life sentence? Is it automatic, or is it mandatory? I note that clause 13 attempts to connect automatic sentencing with the rights given to people, and to deal with sentencing policy in relation to what we know as a designated life sentence for a person aged under 18 in Scotland. There are heart-rending cases of young people sent to prison who, well over 20 years later, are still serving their designated life sentences. I am glad that those arrangements will be tightened up, although I am not sure that automatic sentencing will make the necessary difference.
  That is the question that we must ask about the Bill. Will it make a difference? We want it to, which is why we have tabled a reasoned amendment objecting to the way in which the Government have cobbled together a series of ideas without sorting them out or researching them properly, and without working with the commissions, judges or other learned persons who are already trying to give us advice. The Government have merely put together some of what appear to be the Secretary of State's own prejudices and made them into a Bill.
  In a reply to me, the Secretary of State said that the Government were not rejecting the principle contained in the 1993 Act—that it was best for 50 per cent. of a sentence to be served in prison, and then, if no trouble occurred in prison, for the remaining 50 per cent. to be served on licence in the community. The offender could then become rehabilitated, under supervision. That was a good principle. The Minister of State argued it well, and we supported it: the deputy shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), and others helped to put the 1993 legislation on to the statute book. The present Secretary of State did not reject the principle then, but everything in this Bill clearly does so.
  We are now faced with a strange situation. A criminal's fitness to be released will be tested solely on the basis of his behaviour in prison—behaviour that will mean only that he is a good prisoner and adapts well to the prison regime. It will not mean that his behaviour is good in the sense of his having become a better citizen; it will mean that he is good at working with the warders and with the other members of the criminal underworld with whom he is imprisoned. For between three months and two years, or one sixth of his sentence, that criminal will then be released into society.
  It seems that we are going to screw down the spring more and more, and then release it as though it were a cork emerging from a bottle of something very fizzy. Having been released into society, the criminal will pose a real problem for us in the longer term. Prisons do not currently rehabilitate prisoners, which worries me greatly. The focus of society should enable those who commit
  1096
  crimes to be led away from the path of criminality and towards another life—because there is a better life for them, because they can live in peace with society or because there are pressures on them not to reoffend when they are out of prison.
  I believe that the 1993 Act was implemented only five weeks ago. No sentences have been cut in half; we have not tested the legislation. That is what worries me most. The Secretary of State wants a high platform from which to wave a flag—he wants some bylines and soundbites—but we should at least have considered the implementation of the Act and whether the theory proved correct, and if necessary introduced even stronger amendments. At present, we have nothing on which to test it. We have thrown it out before it has even been tested in the market in the way that the Government would normally recommend.
  Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Member is making, from his standpoint, a very reasoned case. But are not his constituents, like mine, deeply concerned about the fact that criminals appear to be getting off too lightly and that the whole legal structure seems to be designed to assist the criminal? That is what bothers people, and that is what the Bill attempts to address.
  Mr. Connarty: I fully concur with the impression gained by my constituents and, I am sure, those of many other hon. Members, that criminals do seem to get off far too lightly. But many members of society seem to get off too lightly in the courts. I found it just as frightening to read in the press yesterday about the case—it was not in my constituency—of someone who, travelling at 70 mph in a 30 mph zone, knocked down and killed a 70-year-old woman. When he arrived in the High Court, the sentence was 200 hours of community service because of the "stress" in his life—200 hours of community service for killing a 70-year-old woman, and, indeed, driving away from the scene of the accident. It was not possible to prove that he had been drinking, but the sentence was ridiculous none the less.
  A constituent of mine was killed by a lorry driver who was clearly out of control and should not have been driving so fast. That young man killed someone. He was sentenced to imprisonment, and appealed. In the meantime, his partner became pregnant. He went back to court, where the sentence was reduced to 200 hours community service. The father of the young woman who was killed—apparently, the lorry ran right over her—has lost his business and the family has fallen apart. She was an only child. That strikes me as an appalling sentence, and there are many more such incidents.
  I now write so many letters to local sheriffs and the local procurator fiscal that I may be hauled up for murmuring a judge unless I am protected by this austere place. I see so many people let off on the basis of what I consider to be plea bargaining, which is not supposed to exist in the Scottish courts: people who plead guilty to a lesser crime are let off a more serious crime. In cases of what I would describe as attempted murder, when people end up with plates in their heads after being given serious kickings on a Friday or Saturday night, the perpetrators get away with a simple plea of assault or breach of the peace five or six months later. That frightens me, and it frightens everyone in society.

  1097
  The Opposition feel that this Bill is not the way to tackle the problem, which is why we have tabled our reasoned amendment.
  Mr. Bill Walker: The Bill is the way to tackle the problem. The hon. Gentleman can table amendments in Committee.
  Mr. Connarty: If a genuine attempt had been made to construct a useful Bill, we could look forward to that. When I debated with the present Government the provisions which later became the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, we were promised—after evidence had been taken—amendments and fundamental changes. But then the Government dragooned their troops, who included five English Committee members so that they could secure a majority, to vote slavishly for the Government line. They accepted no sensible, reasonable amendments from the Opposition. It was ridiculous. They accepted only amendments that they decided to insert after taking evidence in a Special Standing Committee.
  That is what worries me. We shall end up with what we have on paper now, with no serious, fundamental amendments. I do not think that we would even have tabled a reasoned amendment if we had thought that a constructive dialogue would take place; but the Minister and his subordinates will read their briefs, and then Conservative Members will vote slavishly for the Government line.
  This is not really about trying to get something done about crime and criminality; it is about giving the Secretary of State some soundbites and platforms. He will play to an aspect of the Scottish people's fear. That is what the Conservatives' election platform will be about—trying to make people so afraid that they are afraid of change. I do not mind that in a Scottish context, because the latest opinion poll, published today, shows that the Conservatives have 11 per cent. support while Labour has 55 per cent. If voting patterns are not changed, I shall not be at all displeased.
  We have heard a good deal about recorded crime. Along with my hon. Friend the deputy shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, I work as a co-ordinator of the anti-crime and drugs campaign in Scotland, and I commend the way in which the police forces and community groups have tried to do something about crime, launching initiative after initiative. I am struck by the fact that, when I visit constabularies, I am told, "Do not put credibility in the figures for the other constabularies because they fiddle the figures."
  Recorded crime is not the real level of crime. I will give some examples. If five cars are broken into in a street, it is recorded as one crime, one incident. The same applies if half a dozen houses are broken into at the same time. My office was broken into when I left a window open and there were about 10 crimes in the same stretch of street as my office. That was recorded as one incident. Whether we record crimes now as we did in 1979 might explain some of the fall in the figures. As we heard from the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and from my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), the figures are not good. Many of the figures are being fiddled so that it looks as though crime is coming down when it is not. Only recorded crime is coming down.
  I do not want to go into detail on too many clauses, but clause 5 and those that go with it frighten me. As the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said, it is wrong to say
  1098
  that someone who is mentally disordered should be sent to hospital for treatment and that he should afterwards proceed to prison. We are saying, "Leave hospital: do not pass go, do not collect £200, but go to gaol." That is nonsense. Someone is either ill and requires treatment as part of his rehabilitation or he requires imprisonment because he is lucid and has criminal intent. If the two are mixed up, it will cause serious damage to the process, which is to rehabilitate and decriminalise people, to take them out of the criminal cycle and put them in a useful place in society.
  Clause 4, which I would call the "Clockwork Orange'' clause, is also frightening. That film was based on the premise that people could be reprocessed by electronics. It was a kind of "Logan's Run", a science fiction film in which everyone was tagged and society knew where he was going. Those who tried to break out of the cycle were followed by the secret police. That is worrying.
  I have an eighteen-year-old daughter, but she is not an adult in the sense of not being my responsibility. I do not know what kind of device would be used, but how can we think of anyone in a family wearing some sort of bangle or brooch? Will it be placed around the neck? Miners in Scotland used to wear a leather collar to show which pit they worked in. Will electronic tagging be carried out along similar lines? There are serious problems I want to try to change people's behaviour, but that will not be done by putting some electronic device on their bodies. That is a science fiction nightmare and I wonder what anyone thinks can be gained by a society in which people have to wear electronic tags.
  The Bill deals with drinking in public places and taking drink off young people. Why does it not suggest a total ban on drinking in the street? Why do the Government chicken out and say that local authorities and the licensing boards can decide to have a ban? There is a ban in Glasgow in all public places except those that are: licensed, and that makes sense. The issue is not about age, about knowing whether a person is 14 or 18: it is about the fact that young people congregate in the streets. Sometimes they are aged 20 to 22 and they are passing round bottles. That is deemed to be all right, but it is not; it is more frightening to have a groups of 20 to 24-year-olds hanging about in the streets. We should look seriously at the places where we do not want people to carry and drink alcohol, and then we can take it from there.
  The issue is not age. Why is there this thing about the young? Why do we think that those under the age of 18 are somehow more threatening? Is it because of our own age, or is the Secretary of State older than he looks? I feel more frightened of adults with drink in them or on them than of young people.
  We must be concerned about the signals that we are sending. We are here to nurture and look after the young and promote them, not stamp on them, imprison them and treat them as though they are the problem in society. In our society, the problems have been brought about by adults, by the Government of 17 years, not by people who were not even born then. There is a frightening message going out on the whole question of picking on young people and saying that they must give up their drinks.
  The Bill is deficient in many ways. That is why we have tabled a reasoned amendment. It contains nothing about anti-social neighbours. In last year's debate on the

  1099
  Queen's Speech I told the tale of what I called my village from hell. At that time, eight houses were being demolished and five boarded up. Now 18 houses in that village are boarded up. People do not want to live in that village because three families who were put there 16 years ago destroyed it.
  At present, there are no powers available to the police in Scotland to do anything about that. There have to be witnesses willing to go to court, but case after case against the families has collapsed between the time of reporting and the time when the case was due in court. If the Government want to do something about people's lives and peace and security, they should do something about that instead of presenting a measure like this one.
  There is nothing in the Bill about bail and reoffending while on bail. That has been stressed again and again. It contains nothing on the social agenda, but there is such an agenda in crime. It is about education in prison and about reskilling prisoners and giving them a chance. Some people say, "Why spend resources on such people? They are out of society, they are criminals. Don't spend money on them; spend it on the other groups in society who need it." Society needs to get rid of the conflict caused by people from a criminal environment who coming out of prison and going straight back to that environment.
  I do not mind if I am called a woolly liberal, because I do not think I am. I am not doing this for people in prison: I am doing it for the peace of mind that I want for my kids, my family and my community, which is not just the people I represent but the people I know who do not want to live in that society. There is a young offenders institution in my constituency and I want to see those young people come out as better citizens even if that means spending on the social agenda and providing more education, not cutting it as the Government have been doing.
  Neither the Bill nor the White Paper contains much about crime prevention and the Government have to come up to scratch on that agenda. The Minister was at the launch of Operation Shopkeep. I went to a conference on retail crime. There are 5 million incidents of retail crime a year, 1.5 million people are arrested and 50,000 come to court, although I do not know how many of them are given a worthwhile sentence. There are suggestions about how we could allow automatic fines of a multiple of the value of the goods that people steal so that there would be some way to claim them back. There is nothing in the Bill about responding to that agenda.
  The Bill is cumbersome. It is only within the past five weeks that we have brought in the 1993 legislation, and it will take three years for this measure to come into effect. There are massive bureaucratic costs. The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) gave figures for some of the measures in the Bill. It will be very wasteful if it is not effective, and such measures have not been effective.
  Finally, how are we to deal with the 2,200 new prisoners? I already have a prison in my constituency. It is interesting to note that the Bill states that prisons should not be put in certain areas because they might affect inward investment or economic enterprise zones. Yet it is all right to stick a prison beside a housing scheme with working-class families or, in my case, in a middle-class
  1100
  area and expand them and mess around with the infrastructure. Women prisoners are put in with young offenders, and the communities in which the prisons are situated are disrupted.
  Some people may bid for a prison, but it is not an attractive proposition. Where will the four new prisons that will be needed in Scotland for these extra prisoners come from? The prisons will be privatised and not state-run. That is the final betrayal of Scotland's prison officers. When the Government brought in market testing, they said that they would not have private prisons in Scotland. Market testing was the bulwark for the prison officers. It was said, "Accept market testing and the contract of agency status and there will not be private prisons". Then along comes this Secretary of State who intends to bring in private prisons. People with convictions sometimes run such prisons. Group 4 does not know whether it is going to the local museum or the local court, but it is cheaper and it is all right because it is private. Are we willing to go that far to implement the Bill because the Secretary of State wants a soundbite before the election?
  The Bill is not just about criminals running the prisons: it is about the lunatics running the asylum. It is about time that the lunatics in the Conservative party got out and let us take over and bring some sanity to the debate.
  7.29 pm
  Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire): As the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) has said, the Bill is about not just criminals, but the victims of crime, and it is the victims of crime that the Bill endeavours to protect. Tonight, I have witnessed more acrobatics than in Barnum and Bailey's or Billy Smart's circuses. The hon. Gentleman wishes to kill the Bill. Presumably, unlike last night, he will vote for the reasoned amendment.
  I remind the House that the first line of the amendment states:
  "this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill".
  We have already heard a Conservative Member ask what would happen if the motion were passed. It would kill the Bill. The hon. Member for Falkirk, East is consistent tonight at least, because he has said that he is anti-minimum sentencing. He mentioned the comparison with Hanging Judge Jeffries, although I will point out later that that is not a correct analogy. The question follows: if the hon. Gentleman is against minimum sentences per se, why did he not vote against yesterday's Bill for England and Wales?
  As another Conservative Member has said, there is inconsistency between Islington and north of the border. There is a north-south divide. It is to do not with divisions of wealth between parts of the United Kingdom, but with divisions between the Labour party north and south of the Scottish border.
  The hon. Member for Falkirk, East thinks that tagging of individuals is degrading, but is it not even more degrading when young people or, come to that, not so young people are out on the streets attacking people? If a tagging system were to ensure that a curfew would work effectively and so protect crime victims, would that not be effective and useful to protect people in his constituency, as well as for those in the rest of Scotland?

  1101
  I have always believed in minimum sentencing. On 31 July 1991, in my acceptance speech outside this place after my selection to stand for Mid-Staffordshire, I spoke about the need for minimum sentencing. Sentencing has four functions. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) has said, it should be a deterrent. It should also punish. It must involve rehabilitation. Most important, it should protect society. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has talked about the Maguire case, where an individual was sent to prison for rape, was released, committed a second crime, went to prison, was released and committed a third crime. That could not happen under the Bill.
  Labour Members have said that, from time to time, minimum sentences could mean that injustice will occur, but surely society as a whole must be protected. After all, the Labour party is the great advocate of society.
  Mr. Connarty: I am not quite sure whether the hon. Gentleman listened in detail to the debate about automatic and mandatory sentencing. Does he understand that the Bill does not mean that even Maguire would have been put behind bars for all his natural life? He would have been let out after the period that is going to be agreed by the Secretary of State. The only difference is that Maguire would be under supervision while he was out. He would still be out there. It is dangerous for the hon. Gentleman to suggest that any Bill will prevent insane people from doing insane things.
  Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on that point. The burden of proof would be on Maguire, or anyone else in that position, to prove that he was safe enough to be released into society, where he would be free under licence. To say that Maguire would have been in the public domain and outside prison is therefore not necessarily true. He would have had to prove that he was safe enough to be released. Even if he had managed to deceive the so-called experts and be released into society, as the hon. Gentleman says, he would have been under supervision. One would hope—although one could not guarantee this—that this would have prevented him from committing the third crime.
  Minimum sentences are needed. The Bill needs to go further, because too many criminals believe that, if they commit a crime, they will not be caught. They then think to themselves, "Even if I get caught, I will not be found guilty if I have a good brief', or lawyer.
  Incidentally, the police have often said that one of the reasons why so many not guilty verdicts are given when, in their view, the accused are patently guilty is that people have been able to maintain their silence and have not answered questions. It was this Government who said that, of course, people should be allowed to remain silent if they wished to do so. They are not obliged to say anything, but—this is the big "but"—the legislation passed in the House argued that the fact that the person had chosen to be silent would be brought out in court. The police welcomed that, yet the Labour party voted against that small amendment, which helps the police to obtain convictions. We all know that the professional criminal is trained to stay silent in these cases.
  Criminals think, first, that they will not be caught and, secondly, that, if they are caught, they will be found not guilty. Another reason why they are not deterred is that
  1102
  they think that, even if they are found guilty, but have a good lawyer, he can present a good case for mitigation and they will be let off with a slapped wrist. Again, the hon. Member for Falkirk, East gave a good example of that happening in his constituency. The whole point about minimum sentences is that they deter and convince many people who would otherwise commit crimes that "it just ain't worth it" because, if they are found guilty, no matter what mitigation they offer in court, there is a minimum sentence.
  There is nothing new about minimum sentences. It is interesting to be speaking in a Scottish debate, because Scotland does not have a system precisely similar to English law. The Scottish system is related more to Napoleonic and Roman law. In Spain, there is a minimum sentences system—the "escalones" or steps system—where minimum as well as maximum sentences are prescribed for each step in the judicial punishment scale.
  France, the very heart of Napoleonic law, has a similar system of steps, with minimum and maximum sentences specified. It has the "crime", the grave offence; the "délit", the major offence; and "les contraventions", the minor offences—each with not only maximum but minimum sentences prescribed. Spain and France have found that the minimum sentence deters. It prevents crime. It protects the victim, which is the point of the Bill.
  Mr. McAllion: The hon. Gentleman has given us a tour of the world to demonstrate the sort of legal system that we should have in this country. I am sure that he will admit that in Afghanistan the minimum sentences imposed by the Taliban also deter. Is he suggesting that we should introduce them in this country?
  Mr. Fabricant: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is making a serious point, but there are minimum sentences and minimum sentences. If he is sinking to that level of debate, I can understand the inconsistency of why he did not vote against minimum sentences last night but will choose to vote against them tonight. Rather than sitting there smirking, perhaps the hon. Gentleman would care to explain why, if he is so against minimum sentences, he did not vote against them last night.
  Mr. McAllion: I was not here last night, so that was the main reason for not voting. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue the point, I will address it in my speech. However, I always thought that Conservative Members argued that one of the great strengths of the Union was that Opposition parties could take a different approach in Scotland from that in England and Wales.
  Mr. Fabricant: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for being so honest. I am sure that, in the months to come, analysts will read his comments in Hansard with great interest.
  I have not taken the hon. Gentleman on a tour of the world, as I have talked only about Spain and France so far. However, as he invites me to do so, I shall speak briefly about the United States of America, which does operate under a system of English law. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that President Bill Clinton, a Democratic president—we will know tomorrow whether he is still the president—introduced the "three strikes and

  1103
  you're out" form of minimum sentencing. That is now operating in 24 states. There have been difficulties in some states. The Californian republic has found that minimum sentencing has led to some injustice, but 22 other states have found it an effective deterrent against crime.
  Do Opposition Members accept that we are in this place to protect people and prevent them from being the victims of crime? If Opposition Members are against minimum sentencing, apart from the fact that they could not be bothered to come here, why did they fail to vote against the Bill last night but will vote against the Bill tonight? The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) is in his seat—he now seems to be leaving. I was about to ask him what he will say to his constituents who want protection from criminals now that he has heard the Deputy Speaker say that, if his reasoned amendment is passed, the Bill will fail. What protection will they get? He is saying nothing. His silence says it all.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I must point out that the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) would be out of order if he attempted to answer, because he is outside the Bar of the House and is not allowed to speak.
  Mr. Fabricant: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but when I started to ask my question the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber. As I reached the last two words of my question, he chose to be outside the Bar of the House. The fact that he chose to leave will be recorded. My question was unanswerable by him, but at least the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) was honest enough to say that he did not vote against the Bill because he was not here and because there are differences in thinking between the Labour party in Scotland and the Labour party in England and Wales. It is a divided party far more than any divided Britain.
  Mr. Connarty: I think that the hon. Gentleman should come up for air, because he is talking rubbish. Does he accept that my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) has a proud record of work on Scottish Bills, and is very dedicated? My hon. Friend has chosen to highlight the fact that Scotland still has the right—although it is slowly being taken away by the Secretary of State—to introduce different legislation for Scotland from that in England and to take a different approach to any legislation that comes before the House.
  Mr. Fabricant: I have already said that the hon. Member for Dundee, East has shown integrity by answering as he did. My point is that both Bills concern minimum sentencing and that, apart from under-age drinking, electronic tagging and a few minor technical differences between English and Scottish law, there is virtually no difference between them. I am questioning the Labour party's consistency. The hon. Member for Dundee, East has explained truthfully and frankly why the Labour party will vote against this Bill, but he chose not to vote last night. The hon. Member for Falkirk, East is right to say that his hon. Friend has always shown himself to be honourable in these matters.
  I truly do not understand why hon. Members are concerned about minimum sentences. The Bill says:
  1104
  "the High Court may decline to impose such a sentence if it considers that there are exceptional circumstances which justify its not imposing such a sentence."
  That is a let-out clause. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have said that, conceivably, minimum sentences could lead to injustice. However, the High Court can overrule the minimum sentence provision. So there cannot be any true or clear criticism of minimum sentences in this instance.
  My point—it is worth repeating—is that minimum sentences act as a deterrent. The hon. Member for Falkirk, East said that, at times, judges impose sentences that do not truly reflect the nature of the crime. I have with me some statistics detailing crimes committed in Scotland between 1990 and 1994. There were 252 attempted murders; of those, 80 were found guilty and, of those, 81 per cent. were given custodial sentences and five were given life sentences. The average custodial sentence was only 5.9 years.
  The figures get even worse. For incitement or conspiracy to murder—it is always difficult to win a prosecution on conspiracy—five people were convicted, and the average sentence was only five years. Equally worrying is the fact that for sexual offences—rape and attempted rape—183 individuals were convicted in Scotland. Thankfully, 92 per cent. were given a custodial sentence and one was given a life sentence. However, the protection offered to other potential victims of the crime was only 5.3 years. Hon. Members on both sides of the House should think about that. This Bill is not so much about crime and punishment as about protection for potential victims.
  I want to talk about non-custodial sentences and the electronic tagging provisions, to which the hon. Member for Falkirk, East also referred. The Bill provides an alternative to custodial sentences. However, it is illogical for the Opposition to argue against minimum sentences and custodial sentences while, at the same time, arguing that an alternative method of protection for victims—electronic tagging—should be rejected by the House tonight.
  Under the Bill, persistent offenders—it would apply only to persistent offenders—such as football hooligans, would be confined to their homes and kept off the streets. We hope that that would keep them out of trouble and prevent them from going to prison. If it works in Scotland—I am sure that it will—it will prove to be a beacon for other parts of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Connarty rose—
  Mr. Fabricant: I have been generous; but, since I have mentioned the hon. Gentleman frequently, I shall give way to him.
  Mr. Connarty: Is the hon. Gentleman admitting and boasting about the fact that, once more, Scotland is being used as a guinea pig for yet another crazy Government idea? Is the provision something that is not in the English Bill?
  Mr. Fabricant: I do not think it is a matter of Scotland being used as a guinea pig. If we were to introduce legislation for England and Wales but not for Scotland, the hon. Gentleman would, understandably, be the very

  1105
  first to stand up and ask, "Why should England and Wales have a provision, but not Scotland?" Scotland is not serving as a guinea pig. At least I recognise—having been to Glasgow, Edinburgh and smaller cities, and having seen the vandalism that occurs not only in large cities but in smaller towns—the intimidation of older people on the streets at night.
  The hon. Member for Falkirk, East defends younger people out on the street drinking their lager or their McEwan's bitter. I suggest that that is intimidating to older people. As an alternative to sending them to prison, if we can say, "No, there should be a curfew, which can be implemented by using the latest electronic devices," so be it. Such measures are not degrading. There is more degradation for the victims of crime, and it is about time that the hon. Member for Falkirk, East thinks a little more about the victims than about the regular offenders in such crimes.
  The consequences of minimum sentences can possibly lead to some injustices, although, as I said, the High Court can overturn the minimum sentence provisions. We must, however, accept that society deserves to be protected. I believe that the provision of minimum sentences is a true deterrent.
  Labour Members continually harp on about society. Today and yesterday, however, they have ignored society, which could benefit from these reforms. There is nothing new in the fact that Labour Members ignore society—only in their tactics. Yesterday, they felt so strongly about minimum sentences that they abstained and did not bother to turn up at the House. Today, they feel so strongly about the issue that they will vote for the Labour amendment. If their amendment is defeated and the Bill is passed, however, what will they do to prove their consistency in this matter? They will abstain, for a second time. That is madness, but it is consistent madness.
  On 14 March 1996, what happened with the prevention of terrorism legislation? The Labour party decided to be semi-consistent and to abstain from voting. In March 1995, Labour Members voted against prevention of terrorism legislation and, in March 1994, they voted against it again. Under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, the fact that a criminal had refused to speak to a police officer could be cited as evidence in court. Labour voted against that legislation, and then tried to wreck it. I could go through a very long list of such behaviour. [Hots. MEMBERS: "No."] Labour Members say that they would not like me to go through the list, because of their embarrassment. But I choose briefly to embarrass them.
  In 1991, 1992 and 1993, Labour Members voted against prevention of terrorism legislation. In November 1990, they voted against the Criminal Justice Act 1991. Labour Members say that they are tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. Who are they kidding? In March 1990, they voted against prevention of terrorism legislation. In January 1989, they voted against it. In February 1988, they voted against it again. Labour is the party that is against crime and tough on the causes of crime? It is kidding no one.
  Labour Members voted against the Criminal Justice Act 1988. If I really wanted to torture the Labour party, I could go back to 7 March 1983, but I think that that would be going too far.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I invite the hon. Gentleman not to do so. Perhaps he could bear in mind
  1106
  that the purpose of this debate is to debate the principles of the Bill before us. Other matters may be drawn in to assist him, but I do not want to get off the subject entirely, and the hon. Gentleman is in grave danger of doing so.
  Mr. Fabricant: Madam Deputy Speaker, of course I take your advice, as I always do. I merely wanted to point out that the Labour party is at least consistent in its inconsistency by saying that it supports all the measures that need to be taken to protect victims. When it comes down to it, however—such as yesterday and today, and consistently since 1979—Labour has voted against measures that would protect people.
  Labour says that it is tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime, hut, yesterday, Labour Members could not stir to vote for the Crime (Sentences) Bill. That is a great indictment. Today, there will be a greater indictment when Labour Members vote for their amendment and against the Bill. That is inconsistent. It is new Labour: new abstentions, new tactics, but no new policies.
  7.55 pm
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham: I was somewhat entertained by the speech given by the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant). It was an interesting history of some aspects of the Labour party's voting record in the House. What it had to do with today's debate, however, is another matter entirely. I also noticed the repetitive nature of some of his comments, which suggested that he ran out of substance a considerable time ago but was nevertheless intent on treating us to an ear-bashing.
  Like the hon.Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), I am a non-practising member of the Faculty of Advocates. I must put in that disclaimer for some of the remarks that I shall make.
  Although the Conservative party would very much like to be seen as the party of law and order, its record over the past 18 years gives the lie to that desire. There is absolutely no doubt, however, about the fact that it is the party of law and order legislation, which is a vastly different matter. Before yesterday, the Government had introduced 33 pieces of legislation. That number will now presumably rise to 35.
  People should not be fooled into thinking that all this parliamentary activity necessarily means that the. Government are achieving anything, except perhaps the perception of activity. Unfortunately, the reality behind the perception is a sorry story of rising crime rates, with all crimes of violence increasing considerably since 1979. I do not think that the Government should be proud of that record.
  I noticed the great rush to take credit for an apparent drop in crime over the past four years. It is understandable that the Government would wish to take credit for it. If they are going to take credit for the past four years, however, they must also accept responsibility for the previous 12, which I do not hear them—quite so audibly—doing. They must also acknowledge that, despite the crime decrease in the past four years, crime rates in 1995 were still higher than at any time up to 1989. The Government should not in any way be proud of their record.
  For all the past 18 years, the Government's response has been to flit from one sure-fire answer to another—usually contradictory—sure-fire answer. Some proposals

  1107
  were introduced after a measure of study, and some were not. U-turns have become a matter of course, although they are never presented as such—that might be carrying honesty a wee bit too far.
  Each new proposal has been presented as a panacea, but here we are, once again, debating a Bill that is basically a rag-bag of proposals that is almost incoherent in its approach. It smacks of a last-ditch attempt—not to achieve any results, because I do not think for one minute that Conservative Members believe that these proposals will produce results, but—to kid on that the Government know what they are doing.
  I should like to challenge directly the proposition that the Government know what they are doing, because there is every evidence—from the White Paper, from the Bill and from the pronouncements of the Secretary of State—that there is no real understanding of whether most of the measures can even begin to make a positive difference. Certainly there are indications that some of the measures will have absolutely no effect, and—of greater concern—that some of them will have a negative effect. Had the Secretary of State and his Ministers even bothered to consider the evidence, they would know that.
  A major test of the effectiveness of any criminal justice system must be the rate of reoffending. We all know that reoffending rates in Scotland are far too high. I understand that about 90 per cent. of people entering prison have committed at least one previous offence, and we have the second highest prison population in western Europe, which costs taxpayers an annual £26,479 per prisoner. We have to seek ways to reduce the reoffending rates consonant with a twin desire to punish and to rehabilitate, but where do we find them in the Bill?
  One of the most telling facts in the White Paper, "Crime and Punishment" is to be found in paragraph 10.7, which states that reoffending rates are some three times higher among people out of work than among those in employment. On the basis of that figure alone, if the Government cared about the reality of reoffending they would be seeking to ensure that there was work available for ex-offenders.
  Unfortunately, there is little in Scotland in the way of analysis of reoffending rates, and only very little work available in England and Wales. Indeed, recent parliamentary questions that I tabled elicited answers along the lines of, "We do not collect this information centrally," or, "It would be too difficult to put this information together." That makes it very hard to assess the basis on which the Government approach the issue of reoffending. It is a great pity because, without an understanding of the facts, how can the Government be confident that the changes proposed in the Bill will have the slightest effect?
  I direct the Minister's attention to today's edition of The Scotsman, in which he will find a report on a Barnardo's project dealing with persistent young offenders in central Scotland. It appears to have been remarkably successful in cutting the rate of reoffending. As it has been funded by the Scottish Office, I assume that the Minister is aware of it. In light of the project's apparent success, does the Minister intend to expand it and perhaps build it into the system across Scotland? It appears that an excessively punitive approach might not
  1108
  be the most effective course in the long run, which is precisely what I would have thought we were looking for—but there is no sign that the Bill provides it.
  Electronic tagging has been mentioned by several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire. It is an element of the Bill about which I feel somewhat ambivalent, and I have taken care not to rush to say that we would automatically oppose it, because I can see that it may on occasion be an appropriate measure. I do not dismiss it out of hand, as I can see the usefulness of the disposal and its possible practicality if used as an alternative to imprisonment. However—it is a big however—[Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire would care to listen, as he seems to be unaware of what is happening in England in this regard.
  The pilot studies in England and Wales, and the evidence gleaned from them and from the use of electronic tagging in the United States, suggest that, in practice, it is not all that effective. I am worried that its introduction would mean resources being diverted from other potentially successful community-based projects such as that to which I referred.
  Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Lady mentioned the United States, but is she referring to the Oregon study or the Washington DC study?
  Ms Cunningham: I shall cite one American academic who considered attempts right across the United States.
  The Secretary of State referred to such a disposal—
  Mr. Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Lady unwittingly to mislead the House? There have been no pan-American studies, only studies in certain states.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): The hon. Gentleman asks whether it is in order for the hon. Lady to mislead the House. Hon. Members should not wittingly mislead the House, and I am sure that the hon. Lady was not doing so.
  Ms Cunningham: I was saying that there has been academic consideration of projects in the United States, as there presumably has been of those in England and Wales. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is aware of the projects in England and Wales, which are on his doorstep.
  As I was saying, the Secretary of State referred to disposal such as electronic tagging in connection with reducing the number of prison inmates. We need to be clear that the Government do indeed have it in mind that tagging, or the restriction of liberty order, is intended to be a direct alternative to custody. In addition, I should like some idea of the sort of offences considered appropriate to be dealt with in that fashion.
  I question the advisability of proceeding now with proposals for the studies in Scotland when the pilot schemes in Reading, Norfolk and Manchester are not due to report until March 1997. Perhaps I missed some details about the time scale for the Scottish studies, in which case I stand to be corrected, but surely it would have been more appropriate to await the completion of the trials in England and Wales, especially as the estimated cost of the

  1109
  Scottish pilot studies is about £1.5 million. It would seem sensible to await a final assessment of the schemes in England and Wales before spending £1.5 million on studies that are to be set up without the knowledge and understanding of what is already happening.
  Mr. Matthew Banks: In a spirit of helpfulness, I can tell the hon. Lady that while she was out of the Chamber my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear that the Bill will provide the power to tag people over a certain age, and that there will be pilot schemes.
  Ms Cunningham: I am aware that there are to be pilot schemes in Scotland; I am pointing out that the pilot schemes in England and Wales will not be completed until March 1997 and that, with the Scottish scheme estimated to cost £1.5 million, it seems ridiculous to commit ourselves to spending such a large sum without having seen the results of the English and Welsh pilot schemes. Saving money is supposed to be one of the Government's hallmarks.
  One problem identified in the English study was the stigmatising effect of the tag, which led in one case to an offender being beaten up when the tag was seen—that is hardly something that we want to happen too often. Other problems include domestic friction resulting from lengthy curfew hours; the difficulty of obtaining employment while having a liberty restriction order—in part because of long curfew hours—and, perhaps more important, the marked reluctance of the courts to impose the orders.
  As I understand it, so far the trials show that, after the first full year, in Reading, only five orders have been imposed out of a possible 460; in Manchester, only 49 have been imposed out of a possible 2,330; and in Norfolk, only 44 have been imposed out of a possible 2,280. It has been assessed that the trials cost £14,300 per accused, whereas probation orders cost about £2,500 per accused. I cite these figures because I am genuinely concerned and interested to know how the scheme will work in practice. As I said, I have not set my face against the idea, but I am concerned that it will not ultimately be productive and will cost a great deal of money.
  I am sorry that the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire is no longer here because I wish to mention again the studies in the United States. They have been equally equivocal, leading one professor of law and public policy to say:
  "There has been no effect on recidivism, no reduction in the prison population and no cost savings … The main sentencing effect is to ratchet up the prison population through a high number of technical breaches."
  I hardly think that we want that to happen here. I understand that the Association of Chief Officers of Probation concluded that the United States experience was a shambles.
  I appreciate the Minister's desperate desire to be seen to be doing something—anything—but he must not mislead the public as to the likely efficacy of the proposals. The experience of the trials is that electronic tagging is emphatically not a means by which young thugs will be kept in check. I am therefore anxious to know what kind of offender Ministers have in mind. I have an open mind on tagging adults, but I emphatically oppose any suggestion that it should be used as a disposal for the
  1110
  under-16s. Although that proposal does not appear in the Bill, it is being trailed. As far as I am aware, there has been no consultation on it.
  Clause 45 deals with the public defender system. Such a system seems to be being introduced by the back door. I particularly deplore the Secretary of State's decision to introduce it by stealth and without public debate. He has in mind a fundamental change of the operation of legal representation in Scotland, but he is trying to make the change without any sustained study or public debate. The idea seems to be driven by nothing more than a desire to cut the legal aid bill. His plan would remove freedom of choice of representation, which is extraordinary given the Government's otherwise slavish adherence to the free market.
  To justify the charges of inefficiency levelled against the current system, comparisons are drawn with the systems in England and Wales and in the Netherlands, both of which are different from that in Scotland. Although a public defender system exists in some jurisdictions, there are flaws in the idea which should not be overlooked.
  Whatever his or her title, a public defender will not be independent. How is it suggested that the conflict between duty to the client and duty to the employer be resolved? That problem is compounded by the unlikelihood of a client being able to choose even the individual public defender whom he or she wants.
  There are real dangers to justice. I do not think that anyone in Scotland wants to follow the example of the United States, where far more public money is spent on prosecution than on defence. We have all had graphic illustrations of the difference that money makes in American courts. That has never been an issue in Scotland, and I certainly do not want it to become one. Public defender systems are notoriously under-funded. The Government do not inspire confidence on any sort of public funding.
  On mandatory sentences—or automatic sentences, as we have learnt this evening we had best call them—there are serious concerns, which the Minister must be aware of, about interference with judicial discretion. Those concerns should not be brushed aside lightly. Lengthy references have been made to minimum sentences. Such sentences may be appropriate on some occasions, but one must be careful about their wholesale application because they introduce inflexibility. With inflexibility comes the danger of justice not being done.
  I know that the Government think that judges are unpopular characters who can be brushed aside when it is thought appropriate. The problem for Ministers is that the judge, who must sit through the entire trial and consider an appropriate sentence on the basis of the verdict and in the light of all the evidence that he or she has heard, is the best person to make a decision about the disposal. That is important because, as the Minister well knows, a simple statement of what an offender has been convicted of rarely tells the whole story.
  One immediate practical effect of the "two strikes and you're out" proposals will be to make it impossible to get guilty, pleas. Automatic life sentences will mean automatically going to trial. There will be long trials and there will be more of them. It is almost impossible at the moment to persuade anyone charged with murder to plead guilty, because of the automatic life sentence. It makes no

  1111
  sense to plead guilty of murder if the defendant may as well take their chances and hope that the trial will result in a reduction or a not guilty or not proven verdict. There will be far more of that if the measure is passed.
  I question the motives behind the introduction of the proposal. It smacks of a headline measure, because simultaneous provisions are being made for it to be departed from in "exceptional circumstances". I should like at least one example of an exceptional circumstance so that I can get some feeling for what is thought likely. Is it proposed to hang judges out to dry if they find exceptional circumstances more often than the Government consider appropriate? The suspicion is that any judge who applies the rule will be held up to the public gaze as not doing his job. That is a dangerous game.
  I do not want to get into a half-hour debate on the precise nature of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 on the restriction of remission, as happened earlier today, but I note that the current provision for the early release of prisoners was introduced by the Government in 1993, based on recommendations put forward by a review committee which sat for two years. Those rules have been in operation for only a few years.
  The clear implication is that the 1993 Act has been a failure. I have asked the Secretary of State before and I repeat the question to the Minister this evening: if the Act has been a failure, what evidence does he have of that, and will he share it with us? What studies have been done to establish its effect on reoffending rates or its impact on prisons? What basis is there for the changes now being put forward? I know of no such studies or investigations.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: If the Government believe their propaganda about falling crime statistics, which has been heard many times from the Dispatch Box, is not the conclusion to be drawn that the 1993 Act has been a great success?
  Ms Cunningham: My hon. Friend is right to ask that. Many of the changes in the Bill are being proposed without any proper study or any real consideration of their effectiveness. That is a worrying aspect of the Government's approach to criminal justice.
  As I have said in previous debates, there are three prisons in my constituency—more than in any other Scottish constituency. The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) may think that prisons are always situated in places of extreme deprivation, but a visit to my constituency would show him that that is not necessarily the case.
  I have constant contact with prison staff and with people who are concerned about prisons. I frequently have to deal with issues arising out of having prisons in the constituency. The White Paper says that there will be an increase of 1,000 in the prison population in the first year of implementation, rising to 2,000 over five years. Even if the figures are taken at face value, the likely result of implementation, as the Government have been advised by many within and without the profession, including the Scottish Prison Officers Association, will be an increase in tension in prisons and an increase in the stress on an already overloaded prison staff.
  1112
  From my frequent contact with staff at the three prisons in my constituency—Perth, Friarton and Castle Huntly young offenders institution—I know that real concerns are being expressed in the prison system about the Government's proposals. Those concerns should not be brushed aside lightly.
  Clauses 5 to 10 deal with mentally disordered offenders and have rightly given rise to some concerns. I understand that it is proposed that the period in hospital should be in addition to any prison sentence, which is a fairly unsatisfactory way of going about things, to say the least. There is no justification, if someone is ill at the time he commits an offence and the judge decides that he should be in hospital, for him to be sent to prison once he becomes well. If both the patient and the doctor know that, when the patient is better, he or she will be sent to prison, there is little incentive for him to get better. Doctors may keep patients in hospital longer than necessary if they fear that a prison term would lead to a subsequent deterioration in the patient's health. There are problems in the treatment of offenders who suffer from mental health problems, but the proposals will do nothing to alleviate the difficulties and may just exacerbate them.
  Overall, my great concern is for the way in which the criminal justice system in Scotland is being treated by the Government. They seem to be bouncing around with no clear strategy—a bit of this and a bit of that, a headline here and a soundbite there. It seems to be the case that what the Home Secretary says in England one day, the Secretary of State for Scotland parrots the next day, without regard to the difference in criminal law and professional practice—a difference that has given Scotland one of the best criminal justice systems in the world. No one objects to reform; we are all concerned to tackle the problems we see around us. But there is no evidence that the Bill will achieve that end. The Government are simply perpetrating a con just so they can appear to be doing something.
  The problems are much more deep rooted and difficult to address than the cut-and-paste approach suggests. The Bill does not deal with crime prevention, which is a cultural question that goes beyond clauses in a Bill. A culture of violence is developing: the question is how to tackle that culture. In a previous debate, I referred to the success in New York between 1991 and 1995 when the crime rate was reduced by a staggering 33 per cent. That was the result of a major attack on petty street crime, which is the crime that the vast majority of people fear.
  I know that there is a similar Strathclyde police operation at the moment. Such operations will not succeed if they can last only for a few months. They must go on for a long time—years rather than months—to be effective, and that means real resources. I note that the Strathclyde police operation involves cancelling various kinds of educational leave, taking people out of other work and off computers so that they can go out on to the streets. We cannot go on like that much longer. If there has been an enormous success elsewhere in the world, we should try to emulate it. We cannot do so in the space of 12 weeks, which seems to be what the Government propose.
  Earlier in the debate, the possibility of tagging football hooligans was mentioned. The events of the past couple of weeks show that we are talking about a whole culture. I surely cannot be the only person who finds it disgraceful that a man can openly admit a serious assault yet have to

  1113
  deal with nothing other than a bit of bad publicity. I refer, of course, to Paul Gascoigne. He seems to be getting away with serious assault—and is seen to be getting away with it. Even worse, he is almost being rewarded into the bargain. He has said sorry and he has given a touching explanation of his bad temper. He knows that he is in the wrong.
  But what is the lesson for the thousands of youngsters who lionise people such as him? Is it that, if people earn enough money, they will get away with it? Is it that there is one law for the rich and another for the poor? Is it that some assaults are not real assaults and that society will turn a blind eye? The extent of the establishment collusion in the whole sorry affair is almost the worst part. We heard the defence forwarded by the Rangers football club management, that it was a domestic affair and not their concern, and the self-serving justifications of Glen Hoddle.
  I dwell on that case because it is important in terms of what it tells us about our culture. There is a culture of laddism which is a culture of violence, and it seems to be a culture of getting away with it. The perception is that people can get away with it if they are Paul Gascoigne. They will then think that maybe they can get away with it even though they are not Paul Gascoigne, but just youngsters on the street. Ultimately, we shall have no success in tackling crime where it starts, which is among young people on the streets. Methods to deal with that problem are shamefully missing from the Government's approach. The Bill offers no attempt to deal with the problem, despite evidence that tackling crime at street level is where successes can be achieved.
  8.25 pm
  Mr. Matthew Banks: We have had an interesting and lengthy debate; I do not know whether it will turn out to be the highlight of the debating week in the House. We have been discussing very important issues, and much of our discussion has run in parallel with yesterday's debate, which dealt with England and Wales.
  Earlier this evening, we heard some enormously loud bangs outside. I thought at one stage that the siren for evacuation was about to go off, but then I suddenly remembered that it was just old Guy Fawkes.
  Mr. Davidson: The noise was caused by Scottish Members who had been listening to the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) for far too long, and had gone outside to shoot themselves.
  Mr. Banks: I can only tell the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Davidson) that there must have been an awful lot of Scottish Members outside pointing their guns at him ahead of a ban.
  Time is getting on. I did not see the hon. Gentleman trying to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I do not think that he is in the Chamber for his health. I see that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) is also here, so I will confine my remarks to the points that I wanted to make when I first arrived, although I also want to address a number of the points that have cropped up during the debate.
  I turn first to the remarks of the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham). I have never met Mr. Paul Gascoigne or Mr. Glen Hoddle. I have some sympathy
  1114
  with some of her remarks, although I would draw one distinction. It is possible on such issues for hon. Members, including perhaps the hon. Lady, to appear to be tough on some things, but not to be prepared to back the Government on other aspects of this laudable Bill. I have one or two constructive criticisms, which will no doubt crop up in Committee. However, I wholeheartedly support the broad thrust of the Bill.
  I support the ending of automatic release, supervision following release and tougher sentences, especially for drug traffickers. My right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) and one or two other Members suggested that perhaps the sentences were not quite tough enough. That point will no doubt crop up in Committee.
  The Bill proposes stronger non-custodial sentences, such as tagging, a point to which I will return. It contains provisions on mentally disordered offenders. I strongly welcome those provisions, and I will come back to a point that cropped up in the remarks of the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross and in the remarks of the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty). The Bill also contains provisions on DNA testing, on action on teenage drinking—a cause championed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie)—and on legal aid.
  My right hon.Friend the Secretary of State made it clear, as the result of an intervention by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), that tagging was not applicable to those under 16 years of age. The so-called reasoned amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition seems something of a handy coatpeg on which to hang an objection in an attempt to avoid yesterday's difficulties, when the Labour party wriggled around on the hook to avoid voting against the Crime (Sentences) Bill. However, Labour seems to intend to vote against this Bill tonight. We know that it is not a reasoned amendment, because if it were made it would kill the Bill stone dead.
  My right hon.Friend the Secretary of State made it clear that the Bill is not about doing away with past provisions; the emphasis is much more on building on the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 than on reversing it. He cited a quotation from the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair)—I shall read it with interest tomorrow in the Official Report—that seemed to support the provisions that the Government are trying to put in train for England and Wales, yet the Labour party is opposing the measures for Scotland.
  If the Bill had had Royal Assent and its provisions had been in force at the time of the Maguire case in Ayrshire, at least one person would not have died, and, as my right hon. Friend said, there were 23 other such cases in 1994 alone, five involving someone with three previous convictions and, as far as I can make out, no special circumstances. I have no personal knowledge of the other case mentioned by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), but it sounded similar, and there was something of a contradiction in what he said.
  My right hon.Friend mentioned the new categories for increased sentences. I especially welcome the minimum sentence of seven years for drug trafficking. However, my right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd), a former Minister with responsibility for prisons, who yesterday made a powerful speech that was at times constructively critical of the proposals, made the valuable point that seven years might be too much for someone

  1115
  who had sold a small amount of drugs to a fellow drug-taker, but that it was grossly insufficient for someone who had been trafficking in drugs. I hope that that point will be addressed in Committee.
  I welcome clauses 5 to 10, on mental disorder. I welcome specifically the consultation that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said would be conducted individually with judges in Scotland about the possibility of taking away the driving licence of someone who had committed a non-motoring offence. That could be a valuable sanction.
  My right hon. Friend took a number of interventions on tagging; the only people who need fear tagging are those who commit crime. No one else need worry about it. He also mentioned the comments of the Law Society of Scotland on the White Paper. I was pleased that, although there was some constructive criticism, there was much support.
  The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) and the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) referred to their concerns about the vulnerability of child witnesses. I mean them no discourtesy, but I know from experience of debates on Scottish affairs that they are masters of the Exocet intervention; they have been and gone, and it is a pity that neither of them intends to serve on the Committee, because they made valuable and constructive points that need to be addressed.
  The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) expressed concern about the presence of Customs and Excise in the highlands and islands. My hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) rightly took him to task, suggesting that he had got the emphasis all wrong. The highlands and islands constitute a vast area where sea meets Scotland, and it is almost impossible to have someone at each point watching all the time. I understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns about his discussions with Customs and Excise, but I believe that the present policy of relying far more on increased intelligence to improve the detection rate for drugs is the best way forward.
  The hon. Gentleman also called for tougher sentences for drug traffickers, but that matter is addressed in the Bill, so I do not understand why he and his hon. Friends intend to vote against it. Unlike the Labour party, his party voted against the provisions for England and Wales last night. There is no doubt whatever that the Liberal Democrats—unlike some hon. Members, I differentiate, because there is a Liberal party—are soft on crime, just as the Labour party is. There is no point in saying that we need to be tough if one is not prepared to back the Bill and to consider the details in Committee.
  The hon. Member for Govan rightly commented on the importance of tougher sentences and the ability of the courts to levy them as soon as possible. Support for the Bill would achieve his objective.
  The hon. Member for Hamilton spoke for about 15 minutes before I wrote anything down. I mean him no discourtesy, because I recognise the difficulty—
  Mr. George Robertson: The hon. Gentleman was asleep.
  Mr. Banks: The hon. Gentleman knows that I was not asleep, because I occasionally tried to intervene during his
  1116
  speech. I recognise, as does the whole House, that he is effectively opposing tougher sentences, which the public want.
  It is not a matter of importing English and Welsh methods into Scotland, which, in my view, has always had much better legal and education systems. The so-called reasoned amendment suggested that we should not press ahead with tagging in Scotland, simply because there had not been a pilot scheme for it there.
  That is a ridiculous way to try to get off the hook and excuse oneself for voting against Second Reading tonight, because there are pilot schemes in Manchester, Berkshire and Norfolk and, bearing in mind that we have national sentences for drug trafficking, there is no reason why Scotland should not take advantage of technology that is being tested elsewhere in the United Kingdom. My right hon. Friend made it clear that we wanted to introduce powers to tag offenders over 18 years of age, and not under.
  My right hon.Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) highlighted a number of initiatives that were taking place in Dumfries and Galloway. I was also pleased to hear that the Secretary of State intends to ensure that the Scottish Office provides further support for young people, enabling them to gain valuable experience in education and, to a small extent, in the military. Support will be forthcoming from both the Scottish Office and the Army.
  Several hon. Members have mentioned young people from deprived backgrounds. On a personal note, I might add that I recall the enormous satisfaction I gained in the Army when I played a tiny role in looking after youngsters from deprived backgrounds in Edinburgh. I suspect from what my right hon. Friend said that the increased support on offer will result partly from his discussions with GOC Scotland.
  Speaking of young offenders and children generally, I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe). I cannot remember whether she is an officer in the Scottish children's group, but she is certainly a leading light in it.
  Mr. John McFall: An officer.
  Mr. Banks: Yes. She mentioned the importance of pre-school education, and I think the whole House took her point. We understand that it is enormously beneficial in inner-city areas. I was not entirely convinced by her arguments about this Bill, but I welcomed her warm remarks about clause 23, in respect of children.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr conducted an interesting exchange about young people drinking in the streets. A number of hon. Members seemed unsure about whether the Bill does anything to act on under-age drinking. Perhaps the Minister of State will deal with that later. For myself, I believe that the Bill may provide extra powers in relation to people over 18 supplying alcohol to those who are under 18—but I may be wrong.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr made an excellent speech. I was not surprised to learn the results of his constituency survey. He puts his finger on the nub of a number of issues. It is a great pity that his regular efforts to keep in touch with his constituents are so often denigrated by other hon. Members.

  1117
  The hon. Member for Falkirk, East expressed some concerns which I share, although he perhaps emphasised them differently. The hon. Gentleman frequently speaks in European Standing Committee A. This afternoon, he said that the existence of a minimum sentence was no deterrent to the person who killed one of his constituents some time ago; as a result of all sorts of shenanigans, the person concerned managed to get off—my words, not his. That sort of thing certainly brings the criminal justice system into disrepute. That is why it is important to move towards mandatory or automatic sentences, depending on which part of the United Kingdom we are talking about.
  Special circumstances must, of course, be allowed for. If I have one constructive criticism of the Bill to offer, it concerns special circumstances, and I hope that that point will be dealt with in Committee.
  I certainly do not agree with the hon. Member for Falkirk, East that prison has no part to play in reforming criminals. While that may be true of some, and while we must not lose sight of the fact that punitive measures are also needed, we should also do all in our power to rehabilitate people. I thought that the hon. Gentleman's comments on automatic sentencing were incorrect.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) rightly drew attention to the discrepancies between what Labour says and does. He read out a long list showing how Labour has voted so often against useful measures—the prevention of terrorism legislation, for instance. The Liberal Democrats have done likewise. Clearly, new Labour says one thing but old Labour does another. Certainly, Opposition Members did not hang about in the Lobbies last night, when they could not afford to be seen to oppose yesterday's Bill for England and Wales. Tonight, however, they have chosen to oppose this measure—against the public interest and what the public want.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) and several others mentioned yesterday's speeches by my right hon. Friends the Members for Witney (Mr. Hurd), for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) and for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd). I believe that my right hon. Friends have been misquoted. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney said:
  "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."—[Official Report, 4 November 1996; Vol. 284, c. 933.]
  That consistent tradition is one of backing away from taking tough measures which the public and the Government want brought in.
  Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley said:
  "I was glad to see the provision in the first three clauses that mandatory sentences need not be imposed if there are 'exceptional circumstances' … 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."—[Official Report, 4 November 1996; Vol. 284, c. 941.]
  The Bill relating to Scotland would be just as unacceptable without the analogous clauses.
  1118
  We want automatic or mandatory sentences, with the proviso that judges can take certain matters into account so as to avoid imposing unnecessarily harsh sentences.
  This is a good Bill. It introduces provisions that the public want, and I hope that it will receive sound scrutiny in Committee.
  8.47 pm
  Mr. John McAllion: Earlier this evening, I said that I had not been here for last night's debate, and as I listened to the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) droning on, I began to wish I was not here for tonight's debate, either. It was a dreadful filibuster which added nothing to the debate. Indeed, we have heard a succession of speeches by Conservative Members working themselves up into a frenzy of synthetic outrage about the fact that the Opposition have chosen to treat this Scottish Bill differently from the one dealing exclusively with England and Wales.
  Intervening on the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) earlier, I tried to make him understand our reasons—but I failed. But given that he is someone who thinks Scots drink McEwan's bitter and that Tolstoy wrote "War and Punishment", it is rather difficult to make him understand anything. Even Shakespeare would struggle to make him comprehend.
  I was trying to make the hon. Gentleman understand that it is not Opposition Members who argue that Scottish Bills should be dealt with separately in this House, but the Government. The Secretary of State for Scotland has consistently argued that Scottish Bills should be approached in a distinctive and completely different manner from Bills dealing with England and Wales. He argued that Scotland has a different history, culture, legal system and system for handling criminals and young offenders, and that therefore a different approach to legislation on crime and punishment is required. That is the point I was trying to make.
  Mr. Fabricant rose—
  Mr. McAllion: I am not going to give way to the hon. Gentleman. One of my hon. Friends has been sitting here since 3.30, trying unsuccessfully to get into the debate because of Conservative Members' filibustering.
  If the Government want to be consistent, they should not send the Bill to a Standing Committee that is dominated by English Back Benchers who will ensure a Conservative majority, but pass it to the Scottish Grand Committee and let its members determine the Bill's progress through Committee. We shall not, of course, see such an example of Government consistency. There is a solution to the problem: it is called a Scottish Parliament—a directly elected parliament. If we had one, we would not have the absurd situation that faces us tonight.
  When opening the debate, the Secretary of State called on hon. Members on both sides of the House to rise above electoral considerations and to concentrate on the real problem of crime that affects so many people in Scotland. I might have taken that appeal seriously, were it not for the fact that he then spent the first 28 minutes of his speech making cheap party political points against the Opposition parties. For him to call on the Opposition to rise above electoral considerations and then to spend most

  1119
  of his speech dealing with electoral considerations on behalf of the Conservative party was an example of the pot calling the kettle black.
  The Secretary of State's favourite taunt is to say that hon. Members who dare to disagree with him have a brass neck, but there is no more brassy neck in the House than that of the Secretary of State for Scotland. He consistently says one thing and does another—his actions are completely inconsistent with his words.
  The real lesson of tonight's debate is that it is the Conservative party that is playing party politics with crime and punishment in Scotland. Earlier tonight, I went out to make a phone call and I found the parliamentary private secretary to the Secretary of State for Scotland on the phone, contacting his office and trying to find out what would happen if the Bill was defeated on Second Reading. He asked whether it would be possible to reintroduce the Bill again in the same Session of Parliament. He was desperate for the answer to be yes, so that he could rush back into the Chamber and say that Labour Members were putting the Bill at risk—not because we were in any real sense, but because the Conservatives might be able to make a cheap party political point outside the House if the Bill were to fail. Let the message go out from tonight's debate: if the Bill is lost, only one party will be responsible—the Government party, which has a clear majority and can deliver the Bill if it wants to. The Conservatives have chosen to play party politics with a serious issue and that will not go unnoticed in Scotland.
  The Secretary of State used part of his speech to address the problem of reoffending and how to deal with it. His view was clear and honest. He argued that, if offenders are behind bars, they cannot commit crimes—as he put it, if they are put away, they should stay away. That has a certain simplistic and reactionary appeal for many people in this country, but as we listened to Conservative Members speaking in the ensuing debate, we got a picture of the road down which they have started in making such arguments.
  The reintroduction of hanging was raised—the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) surveyed his constituency to see whether hanging would be a good way of dealing with crime. A hanged man cannot reoffend—that much is certain—and perhaps many Conservative Members think that the Secretary of State's approach is too timid and that the argument should be carried to its logical conclusion. Why not hang, shoot, gas and otherwise kill offenders? That is one guarantee that they will not reoffend, but it is also a guarantee that there will be no civil liberties or civil justice in our society and that innocent people will be killed.
  The Secretary of State's policy flies in the face of academic research into the problem. For example, a paper presented to a probation officers' conference in Scotland in September this year reviewed strategies for reducing the rate of reoffending among convicted criminals. It highlighted a body of evidence from around the world showing that harsh punishment programmes are counter-productive—they do not reduce the level of crime in society, but increase it. Specifically, the research showed that it was important that reoffending programmes should be based in the community, or at least closely
  1120
  linked with the world outside prison—exactly the opposite of the policy advanced by the Secretary of State and Conservative Members.
  No doubt the Government will dismiss that paper as the work of liberal do-gooders and academics who do not really live in the real world; but the academics who presented the paper were Scottish Office researchers—members of the Scottish Office central research unit, speaking at a conference supported by Scottish Office money and staffed by Scottish Office civil servants. I have to conclude that their views expressed in that paper had the backing of Scottish Office Ministers, or they should not have been at the conference. When we understand that reality, we begin to understand that this is a Government who even argue against research findings that they commissioned from their own civil servants in the Scottish Office. We begin to realise that the Government are playing politics with a serious issue affecting Scotland.
  The example of America has been cited several times tonight, but the fact is that although, proportionately, America imprisons seven times more people than European countries, it suffers a much higher crime rate than any European country. America has already gone down the road that the Government are threatening to take Britain down. In American prisons, there are geriatric wards for the people caught by the "three strikes and you're out" rule, who are never to be allowed back into the community. They die in prison—old, disabled or blind men and women who will never be released back into society because of the idiotically reactionary approach taken to the problem of crime in America.
  The lesson of America is that prisons do not work. More prisons and more people banged up in society is not a sign of success in tackling crime—it is a sign of failure. Until now, we in this country have—thank God—understood that lesson, but we are in danger of forgetting it because of the reactionary nostrums voiced by Conservative Members.
  Many hon. Members today talked about the Maguire case and asked whether a rapist would reoffend if the sort of prison regime introduced in the Bill had been available before; but think about it—how does a rapist in an all-male prison prove to the warders that he is fit to re-enter society and that he will not be a threat to the young and vulnerable women there?
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) and I visited Rossie secure unit for young offenders near Montrose. There we saw some of the hardest young offenders in north-east Scotland. We went round their classes and saw that they were model pupils while they were inside Rossie, where they were locked up in small numbers and looked after all day long. They present no problem whatsoever in Rossie, but return them to the communities they come from and it is a completely different story.
  How do we know whether they are fit to return to their communities, unless we are prepared to say that part of their sentence should be served in prison, but another part should be spent outside in the community, under supervision? That way, offenders can be tested to discover whether they are fit to go back into society. That is the only realistic way forward for us, yet the Government are trying to close it off with the Bill.

  1121
  I want to allow my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Davidson) to contribute, so I shall deal only briefly with clause 2 and the Government's claim that they want to crack down on class A drug traffickers. They believe that they can do that through minimum sentencing—seven years for people who fall within the provisions of clause 2. The Government believe that after the drugs have been brought into Scotland, after they have been sold to vulnerable people in Scotland, after the profits have been made, after the pusher has been caught and convicted, and after the damage has been done, they can deal with the problem by minimum sentences.
  The Government brushed aside the protest of my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) about the closure of Customs and Excise offices in the north of Scotland. They brushed aside the argument that preventing drugs from coming into Scotland is a much more effective way of dealing with the drug problem than cracking down on drug pushers with minimum sentences once they are caught.
  Let us consider the facts. A press conference was held last July by Customs and Excise officers in Scotland which dealt with the closure of Customs and Excise offices across the north of Scotland. The officers suggested that at that time the Government were proposing to reduce customs staff by 27 per cent.—Customs and Excise staff on the north and west coast of Scotland were to be reduced from 40 to six. The proposal was to close Customs and Excise offices at Kirkwall, Stornoway, Portree, Invergordon, Fort William and Islay—the front-line staff to whom the Secretary of State claims he wants to listen. They held a press conference at which they provided statistics proving that over the past five years drugs had been brought into Scotland at all the locations where the Government intended to close the Customs and Excise offices.
  Mr. Matthew Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. McAllion: I shall not give way, because I do not have time.
  The reality is that the Government talk tough on crime, but act soft on crime. They make it easy for drug traffickers to get their poisonous material into our country because they do not want to spend public money to support the Customs and Excise officers around the country.
  I understand that, on the night when three young men died at the rave in Hangar 13 in Ayr, there were about 1,250 youngsters at the dance venue. The police believe that about 50 per cent. of them purchased the drug Ecstasy in pill form, that there were about 25 pushers and that the drugs were selling at £15 or £20 per pill. That means that 625 youngsters buying just one pill each would net £9,375 for the pushers on that night. Each pusher would make an average of £375 for a single night and, in one year of such nights, would bring in £19,500. If the only way in which a drug user, hooked on drugs, can feed his drug habit is to get access to that sort of money by pushing those drugs, he will not be deterred by minimum sentences.
  The phrase "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" was used earlier. Today's debate has not dealt with the causes of crime. In the long term, that is the only way in which we can effectively tackle the problem.
  9.1 pm
  Mr. Ian Davidson: This Bill provides the Government with the opportunity to tackle some of the problems relating to crime in Scotland, but unfortunately they have simply chosen to sloganise and try to identify issues that they think are politically popular. Many of my colleagues have covered those points, but I should like to touch on one or two of the issues that the Government have not dealt with properly.
  In an intervention, I raised the issue of delays in cases coming to court. The Government must do something about the number, particularly of drug pushers, but also of those convicted of violent assaults who spend 18 months, two years or sometimes longer waiting to go to court. During that period, they are seen by people in the community as having behaved with virtual impunity. In many cases, they reoffend, but nothing happens.
  Does the Minister have any idea of the corrosive effect that that has, not only on the police, but on community spirit? What incentive is there for people to offer to be witnesses if they know that they will have to spend perhaps two years waiting for the case to come to trial, while they live in proximity to the accused, in danger of being assaulted or worse? The Minister must ensure that the Government take steps to deal adequately with that problem. I regret the fact that the Government seem prepared to leave the problem aside, because it does not involve a simple slogan.
  The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): Does the hon. Gentleman accept that intermediate diets, which we introduced in recent legislation, should go a long way to help to bring cases to trial more quickly? We are anxious to act along the lines that he suggests.
  Mr. Davidson: I accept that that measure will bring forward some cases more quickly, but it is not sufficient to deal with the scale of the present difficulties. Many of those involved in drug dealing will seek to draw out the process for as long as possible and, owing to the scale of the money involved, they will have the money to buy the legal talent to do so.
  I and others like me are handicapped by the way in which the Government operate the Data Protection Act 1988. We are being refused access to information on individual cases on the grounds that the information is held electronically. If we could gain access, it would help us to provide further information—perhaps to the Minister—about cases where people have been charged, but have not been brought to court for some considerable time.
  The second issue concerns youngsters who are effectively out of control. There is no measure in the Bill that would deal adequately with the problem. Let me give as an example the case of youngster S, now aged 15, who has recently been charged with police assault, robbery on several occasions, indecent assault, house-breaking on several occasions, various thefts, driving offences and, not least, vandalism, whereby he has caused thousands of pounds' worth of damage to community facilities and schools in my constituency.
  The existing mechanism has been useless in dealing with that youngster. He has been caught by the police on innumerable occasions and released. He has been reported

  1123
  to the children's panel but no action has been taken. On one occasion when he was sent off to custody, he was put in the front door of the accommodation and walked out of the back door. On another occasion the police caught him and handed him over to the social work department. Social workers were driving him to secure accommodation, they stopped the car for petrol, the youngster got out and walked away and the social workers did nothing because they were under orders not to exert any restraining influence on a person in their care.
  Years—and dozens of offences—later, that youngster has been put in secure accommodation, but the community was terrorised by him over a long period. There are other youngsters like him in my community, but nothing in the Bill will address the problem. That leads the community to feel deserted by the Government and by the system, and the police too become disillusioned.
  Has the Minister any idea how long it took the police to catch that youngster when he absconded from accommodation, or how many hours were spent looking for him when better use could have been made of that police time? Has he any idea of the effect on the community, when windows by the score were smashed in a community centre with a devolved budget, and money had to be spent repairing the damage instead of running the facilities for decent youngsters in the community?
  The Government are not tackling the problem, which is extremely corrosive in local communities. There is no recognition of the fact that, although the children's panel system works for many youngsters, it is ineffective for many others, whose parents are not prepared to play a constructive part in dealing with bad behaviour. There are cases in my constituency where the parent is "known to the police", as the phrase goes, and encourages the youngster to misbehave. A superintendent's or inspector's warning is counterproductive because the parent is pleased to see that his youngster is behaving in an anti-social manner and regards it as a badge of honour. A subculture is developing which nothing in the Bill adequately addresses.
  Similarly, the Government seem unwilling to recognise that many of the methods of disposal of youngsters through children's panels are counter-productive for other youngsters in the community. I know of cases where youngsters are sent off to IT—intermediate treatment—groups. Other youngsters in the community become jealous of them because they see the youngsters in IT groups being taken to swimming pools, leisure facilities and McDonald's. I understand the reasons for that, but ordinary, decent youngsters see bad behaviour being rewarded. They wonder what they have to do to get themselves sent on that project and taken on all those outings without having to put their hand in their pocket.
  During the last summer holidays some local organisations were running summer play schemes. Youngsters in those play schemes complained to the volunteers who were running them and asked why the staff were not doing as much for them as the staff of the IT scheme did for the youngsters in their care. Youngsters in the IT scheme could go to McDonald's and the swimming pool on the same day, but the youngsters who were better behaved and who were being delivered by
  1124
  their parents in order that they could be looked after were getting less than the youngsters who were seen as "bad" and as having misbehaved.
  When bad behaviour is rewarded, is it any wonder that youngsters abscond from school? That is a sensible and rational solution to the difficulties they identify. They see it as, "If you misbehave, you get rewarded. If you behave, you don't." Is it any wonder then that youngsters go out, dodge school, break windows and the like? But there is nothing in the Bill to resolve that problem. Similarly, there is nothing in it to address the difficulties of trying to separate bad youngsters—if I can use that term—or youngsters who misbehave, from decent youngsters by ensuring that community facilities and youth groups are available to keep youngsters out of mischief.
  Many youngsters drift into crime simply because there is nothing else for them to do. I recognise that it costs money. The Government are willing to sloganise on issues of crime but unwilling to spend the money that is necessary to ensure that facilities are made available to stop youngsters drifting into crime. If the Government are serious about tackling crime, they must also be serious about maintaining community facilities, maintaining the youth service, and maintaining the uniformed and non-uniformed youth and voluntary organisations that cater for youngsters. They must be prepared to spend money on sports organisation for youngsters to stop them drifting into evil ways.
  The Government do not adequately deal with the major difficulty of getting convictions—dealing with problems related to witnesses, witness protection and witness relocation. The costs of relocation are underestimated and not adequately provided for. One of the by-products of the sale of council houses is that local authorities no longer have the flexibility of alternative accommodation to allow potential witnesses to relocate, to provide them with the security that would be necessary if they were prepared to step forward as witnesses. None of that is addressed in the Bill.
  Similarly, the Government do not address the anti-social behaviour of many people in our communities. I recognise that this is a very low priority for the existing system of law enforcement, as domestic violence used to be. It seems to me that the existing system is adequately geared to deal with big, one-off events like a murder, an assault, a rape or something similar, but not to deal with small, repetitive offences that have a cumulative and corrosive effect. We really must give these matters more attention, because they impact on more of my community than the major issues, the major assaults, murders and violence that I have mentioned. The Government have to be prepared to deal with these matters in a more up-front manner than they have to date.
  I shall touch on the question of prisons, because a number of my constituents are sent to prison. I wish that the Government were sending more of them off and more quickly. I recognise that, although long sentences protect the public, they do so only for the length of the sentence. If simply by lengthening sentences the Government let people out older instead of improved, I am not sure that much has been gained. I visited Barlinnie last summer and was very disappointed to see how little the prisoners there were getting of what could be said to be "improving". There was little opportunity to do what I consider meaningful work, and little opportunity to do anything that could be considered meaningful education. Many of

  1125
  the prisoners who were there are socially inadequate and badly educated. Many are nasty, brutal—and quite big, actually, which is why I did not bother telling them of my reservations about their behaviour. Their difficulties are inadequately addressed by the existing prison system, and simply incarcerating people for longer is inadequate.
  The Government have to be prepared to tell us that they are willing to spend money on turning prisoners around, because many of the youngsters in my area drift into crime for the reasons that I have given. There is little else to do. They get up to mischief. It is a ladder towards prison. They end up in prison and nothing is done to enable them to remedy their ways. I have spoken to many of them when they have come out again, and they express the view that they wish that they had been given the opportunity to turn themselves around, but if they come out to no jobs, and no prospects, there is little likelihood that they will do anything other than trundle back into prison again. As long as the Government see prisons simply as warehouses for prisoners, the vicious circle of recidivism will not he broken. I regret that the Government are unwilling to tackle that, simply, I fear, because to do so will cost money.
  I also regret that the Bill provides inadequate support for crime prevention in its widest sense. Crime prevention expenditure on things such as target hardening has been enormously effective in my area in cutting the number of burglaries of individual homes and commercial premises. Yet there seems to be no prospect of the Government spending the amount of money necessary throughout Scotland in order to reduce burglaries and the number of people who get drawn into them as an easy way of making money.
  Similarly, the Government should be willing to spend more on street lighting in order to cut down on street crimes. There is a clear correlation between the quality of lighting and the amount of crime in streets. It acts as a deterrent, and it is much cheaper than longer sentences.
  The Government should also be prepared to spend money on public transport in order to reduce the extent to which people are put at risk as a result of being unable to afford or to find public transport to take them where they want to go when they want to go at a reasonable cost. The Government seem unwilling to address that difficulty.
  I regret that the Government have not given local authorities the option to give police the power to move along youngsters who are hanging about, as they were able to do under the old loitering byelaws. Such powers are not an answer to all the problems faced by people in the community, but they would be of considerable assistance. The vast majority of the public wish the police to have such powers, and the police, too, wish to have them. I fail to see why the Government are unwilling to bring forward such proposals.
  We should be willing to accept tagging if we are convinced that it works. I have no objection in principle to a system of tagging as an alternative to custody if it would allow someone to keep his job and his family together and so be less likely to slip into a life of crime or idleness. It would allow offenders to maintain the fabric of their family life while making some contribution to society, perhaps by way of a recompense order which would take some money from them. Tagging should not be a soft option, but if it kept a family together it would be worth while.
  1126
  I am willing to go much further than some of my colleagues, in that I am also prepared to consider tagging for those under 16, particularly if it were used in conjunction with curfew orders. In parts of my constituency, groups of youngsters under the age of 16 are running about, effectively out of parental control, and for them some measures are necessary. If tagging is the only thing that will curb their anti-social behaviour, I am willing to countenance it if I believe that it works.
  However, in that context I would much rather that the Government considered more closely the risk of alcopops drawing youngsters into under-age drinking than simply putting forward their current proposals. If the Government want to tackle under-age drinking, they must be willing to tackle the big brewing interests and the way in which they are deliberately going out of their way to market alcohol to the under-16s. I regret that the Government have a vested financial interest. Because they take money form the big brewers, they are unwilling to tackle the problem. I only wish they would.
  9.18 pm
  Mr. John McFall: This has been an excellent debate, with contributions from the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe), for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) and for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Davidson), and the hon. Members for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) and for Southport (Mr. Banks).
  Many fine points have been made, but the debate has been characterised by the fact that the Secretary of State has fallen on his face again today, accusing my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) of stating that the clear-up rate had deteriorated, when in fact my hon. Friend said no such thing. The Secretary of State should get his facts right.
  A kerfuffle was made about the reasoned amendment. To make it simple for Conservative Members, I shall explain why we tabled that reasoned amendment. There are four or five main points. First, the Bill has been introduced without a proper review or study. The Secretary of State has not consulted anyone about the Bill. I remind him and others of the speeches yesterday evening by the right hon. Members for Witney (Mr. Hurd) and for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), who are distinguished former Home Secretaries, and the right hon. Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd), who was a prisons Minister.
  I remind the House of what the right hon. Member for Witney said yesterday:
  "The operation of our criminal justice system is not in the hands of… the Home Secretary alone or of the Government… it is in the hands of a variety of people—chief constables, the Crown Prosecution Service, judges… prison governors… none of them are creatures of the Government. The House has given them 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".—[Official Report, 4 November 1996; Vol. 284, c.933–34.]
  The Government have not listened: indeed, they have not consulted.
  Mr. Gallie: The hon. Gentleman said that my right hon. Friend has not consulted on this matter. The Secretary of State published a document in June which clearly laid out his intentions, and from that he produced

  1127
  this excellent Bill. He has listened to people. I would guess that there has been a considerable response. Why does the hon. Gentleman say that he never consulted?
  Mr. McFall:The hon Member for (Mr. Gallie) has led me on to my second point, which relates to the comments made by the recently retired Lord Justice-General and Lord President of the Court of Session, Lord Hope, when he addressed the Law Society of Scotland conference on Monday 30 September. The hon. Member for Ayr epitomised the crude political bigotry that still exists on the Back Benches of the Tory party when he said that Lord Hope and others were
  "steeped in the ways of the legal establishment…despising the feelings of lesser beings".
  I do not sit at the dinner table with the Lord President of the Court of Session, but when we are in government we will listen to such individuals, for the simple reason that they are the practitioners in the criminal justice system. They carry out the legal requirements that Parliament puts on them, so they must be part of the debate. That crude political bigotry should play no part in our system.
  The Lord President of the Court of Session said:
  "It is no surprise to me, therefore, that during each of the last seven years there has been a major initiative in the criminal justice Yield, about which we as lawyers have been consulted and to which we have responded to the best of our ability. What is new on this occasion"—
  that is, since the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) came along—
  "is that so much of what is in the White Paper. whose title has given its name to this conference, namely 'Crime and Punishment', appears to have been decided already without consultation. I cannot escape the feeling that it is taking place largely in a vacuum. And I do not think that the Minister who has just spoken"—
  the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), to whom he directed his attention—
  "has been able to enlighten us. What account, if any, has been taken of the points already made in our written response to the White Paper? Nor do we have any indication that any public debate which may take place today will have any real influence on those who are responsible for laying measures before Parliament."
  My hon. Friends and I think that it is dangerous not to listen to those who are in the criminal justice system.
  Lord Hope continued:
  "I should like now to add that unless that commitment is demonstrated by the Government, our endeavours will be no more valuable than the act of tossing coins into a wishing well."
  The Secretary of State should be ashamed of himself for the way in which he has gone about his business. He has received trenchant criticism from the judiciary.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: If the hon. Gentleman thinks, as I do, that the judiciary should remain independent, does he not agree that it is disgraceful for him to take comments made by the judiciary out of context and to seek to make party political points out of them? Is that not politicising the judicial process?
  Mr. McFall: I hope that the Secretary of State had a good meal tonight, because he looked as if he was cracking up late this afternoon. I have a copy of the speech by the Lord President of the Court of Session on
  1128
  30 September, which I will willingly share with the Secretary of State. I have read out exactly what the Lord President said, and he represents the judiciary. To date, there has been no consultation by the Secretary of State with the judiciary. That is a fact, as the Secretary of State knows.
  My second point concerns the reversing of key reforms. The hon. Member for Ayr said honestly that during consideration of the Bill that became the 1993 Act the procedures for automatic release were wrong, and he voted for them reluctantly. On the one hand, the hon. Gentleman tells us that those procedures were wrong; on the other hand, the Secretary of State says that they were merely an extension of the measures implemented by the right hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang). Both of them cannot be right, and we know who is wrong. The hon. Member for Ayr is honest, but the right hon. Member for Stirling is not telling us exactly the truth. He is not giving us—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that the Secretary of State is lying to the House, is he? If he is, I must ask him to withdraw his suggestion.
  Mr. McFall: I will modify my statement and say that the Secretary of State is misrepresenting the position. The Minister of State is a nice man. Indeed, one of my colleagues—
  Mr. Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I can manage without the hon. Gentleman.
  I was not entirely sure whether the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) was in fact withdrawing his remarks, which could suggest that the Secretary of State was telling lies.
  Mr. McFall: Of course I withdraw them. I am saying that the Secretary of State is misrepresenting the position. I repeat what I said before.
  The Minister of State is a very nice man. Indeed, one of my colleagues memorably said that arguing with him is like throwing tomatoes at your granny: you feel guilty about it.
  Mr. Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that it is a genuine point of order.
  Mr. Fabricant: It is, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope so.
  Mr. Fabricant: I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—and, were I in a position to do so, I would ask the Clerk—whether, if one Member accuses another of deliberately misleading—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have just dealt with the matter, and that is final.
  Mr. McFall: As I have said, the Minister of State is a very nice man. How can he sit beside the Secretary of

  1129
  State and introduce this Bill with him, when a few short years ago he approached my colleagues and me asking for support for the 1993 legislation? Let me remind him of what he said at that time. On 19 October 1992, he stated:
  "Although the Bill promotes greater fairness and consistency, it will also strengthen the deterrent effect of long sentences. Offenders sentenced to four or more years will have to wait until they have served at least half of their sentence before being considered for parole, instead of one third as at present."—[Official Report, 19 October 1992; Vol. 212, c.289.]
  That Bill restored meaning to the full duration of a long sentence by ensuring that release, when it came, would be on licence. Yet the Secretary of State, addressing the Police Federation in May, said:
  "We must put honesty back into sentencing."
  The Secretary of State said, or implied, that the Secretary of State of the day, and the Minister of State, were not being fully honest in presenting their political measures, and that he was the one who would put honesty back into the equation. I say—and the House said at the time—that the Secretary of State was taken at his word, that he was being honest.
  To date, there has been no consultation and no assessment of the implications of the legislation. It was sheer prejudice on the part of the Secretary of State to turn the 1993 Act upside down just to suit his own ends. The Minister of State should address that in his winding-up speech and explain why he could introduce that measure in 1993 with such comments and then join the Secretary of State in this debate and turn everything on its head.
  Reversing key reforms will apply more pressure to the prison system. Similar changes in the 1980s resulted in some accommodation by judges on the length of sentences, but it was not enough to neutralise the impact. The Government seem set on a warehousing policy for prisons and no significant additional resources will be available to facilitate the necessary expansion or even the maintenance of prison programmes which attempt to deal with offending behaviour. Any reduction in the number and quality of such programmes will lessen the chance of lowering the current appalling rate of recidivism.
  Catching a criminal and successfully prosecuting him is difficult, uncertain and expensive. Almost 60 per cent. of those who commit serious crimes, and 85 per cent. of young people who commit such crimes, reoffend within two years of leaving prison. It is irresponsible not to lake every opportunity to try to change the offending behaviour when people are in custody.
  No matter how long people are put away for, unless we throw away the key they will come out some day—and on current form the majority of them will commit further offences. The Secretary of State's proposals and his failure to tackle the appalling problem of recidivism will ensure a threat to public safety, because, when young men leave prison and find themselves back on the streets, they are a greater danger to the public than they were before they went to prison. The Secretary of State's negligence is contributing to that.
  We do not advocate the establishment of prison programmes to deal with offending behaviour just because it is the liberal, caring thing to do. Our approach is pragmatic, and evidence suggests that the present system of sentences of imprisonment followed by supervision on release is more likely to reduce reoffending than
  1130
  imprisonment followed by release without such conditions. Discretionary parole is particularly effective in reducing reoffending, and the parole system produces remarkably lower reconviction rates than one would expect from parolees' proposal profiles.
  If the Government's proposals are implemented, periods of supervisory release would be reduced for many long-term prisoners. A prisoner serving six years who does not receive parole is supervised for two years after release. Under the Government's proposal, that period would be one year unless the sentencing court had specifically ordered a longer period. Successful resettlement of difficult offenders often requires supervision over a substantial period, and a reduction in the supervision period might place the public at risk from reoffenders. Resources are required, but there is nothing in the Bill to which the Secretary of State intends to turn his intention.
  The Opposition seek informed debate on electronic tagging. Similar initiatives elsewhere, particularly in the United States, New Zealand and Singapore, have resulted in a large number of failures and technical difficulties and excessive cost. In 1989, the Home Office initiated a six-months trial for people on bail. However, courts made little use of the facility, and, of the 50 persons made subject to the monitoring, 11 committed further offences and 18 broke the bail conditions. The equipment was subject to a high failure rate and it was estimated that the initiative cost about £10,000 per person.
  Electronic tagging is again being tested in England and Wales, and the results are as yet unknown. It is understood that the pilot project will cost about £1.6 million. During the first nine months of the initiative, only 65 orders were made by the courts, and that works out at approximately £26,000 for each person made subject to electronic tagging. It is a pig in a poke and the Secretary of State has no rationale for offering it. We would welcome an opportunity to study the matter but as presented by the Secretary of State we have grave doubts about it.
  The Government are being secretive about the unrealistic estimated cost and manpower implications of their proposals. The Secretary of State knows that his proposals for prisons are unrealistic financially. The financial burden could be crippling. If implemented, the proposals will mean that within 12 months the prison population will be an extra 1,000 and within five years it could be an extra 2,200. That will mean an extra four or five prisons, for the simple reason that our prisons are overcrowded.
  Mr. Thomas Graham: My hon. Friend will be aware that local authority budgets have been cut by more than £395 million in Scotland alone. Most of the voluntary organisations and groups that work with youth have faced incredible cost rises. Many clubs are out of the game. Many young people in my constituency have no clubs to go to. They do not have the finance. The Secretary of State may smile, but people are not smiling in my constituency. Because of the cuts, my young folk are vulnerable to crime. Juvenile crime will rise because of the slashing of local government money. I say to the Secretary of State: I will prove it.
  Mr. McFall: The Secretary of State proposes another four or five prisons and he tells us nothing about how the money will be made available. Over 25 years, four or five

  1131
  prisons will cost about £1.8 billion, on an annual Scottish Prison Service budget of £165 million. He must come clean on the issue. That is why we tabled our reasoned amendment—it was simply because of the obfuscation in which he is indulging in making his proposals, but in giving us no idea of what is happening.
  As some hon. Members have said, we are going to the American system. During the recess, I visited six prisons in Maryland, which has a population of 4 million. Scotland has a population of 5 million. There are 36,000 individuals in Maryland prisons or on remand. Governors of those prisons told me, "There is one thing you can learn from here: prison in America does not work. You have seen the future and it does not work. You should take that message back home." Willy-nilly, however, the Secretary of State goes forward with his warehousing proposal, with not a whit or idea of the cost and waits for a future Government to pick up the tab.
  Mr. Fabricant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. McFall: No. I am sorry, but I intend to continue with my speech.
  I want to mention the real problems of crime and the 17-year legacy. The proposal that the Secretary of State made to begin with of making the punishment fit the crime should be re-entitled, "making the punishment fit the prejudice". We should be looking to a prisons system in the 21st century which offers maximum protection to the public. Our primary concern must be the protection of our citizens.
  What about the Government's record? After 17 years, they tell us that they are going to fight crime resolutely and have the gall and the neck to say that they are going to declare war on crime, but let us remind ourselves of their record. Between 1979 and 1994, crime in Scotland increased by 52 per cent., despite a 31 per cent. increase in the number of people in prison over that period.
  Some of the steepest rises have occurred in crimes that cause the greatest fear to the public. Over the same period, non-sexual crimes of violence rose from just over 10,000 to 19,774, so the message is that the Conservatives have been promoting the violent society that we live in. Year after year after year, their policies are not working. The steepest and most alarming increase has been in drug-related crime, with a 1,140 per cent. increase since 1979. In that year, there were 1,500 drug offences; in 1994, there were 20,000.
  The Secretary of State learned from that initiative. He realised that he was not able to cope with the drugs issue on his own, so he came to see the Opposition parties and others to ask us to join in the "Scotland Against Drugs" campaign. We did willingly so, because we realise the problems in society, but it cannot be done just by Government.
  The Secretary of State had an iota of common sense on that occasion. Why does he not extend that to the rest of the law and order programme? Why does he insist on peddling his prejudices at the expense of good penal policy in Scotland? If he were to come forward with decent proposals such as the drugs campaign, the Opposition would listen to him. It is the same Opposition who have been pushing the Government to implement legislation for Scotland on the carrying of knives.
  1132
  It is the same Opposition who have been pushing the Secretary of State on the subject of stalking. I mentioned stalking five or six months ago and the Secretary of State did not like it. The Lord Advocate wrote to me and said that I was impugning Scots law, because breach of the peace was an offence and would be used. On 18 October, the Secretary of State said:
  "I have concluded that we could increase protection of the public by establishing, alongside the common law, improved measures of protection which the civil law can offer to victims of stalkers."
  Why did the Secretary of State not take that view in April or May when we were asking for something to be done about stalking? Why did he have to wait five or six months? The answer is that he thought that he could get away with it, but then realised that public opinion was against him.
  The Labour party will take no lessons from the Government on a legislative programme to ensure that those who should be in prison are in prison. We realise that we must have a sympathetic penal policy.
  I will leave the Secretary of State with one comment on Cornton Vale, which is in his constituency. There have been five tragic deaths of young girls in Cornton Vale over the past year, but there has been a deafening silence from the Secretary of State. I mentioned earlier that I had visited prisons in America. When I was there, I asked about the policy on suicide. The six prisons in Maryland told me that they never had suicides. Why do we have suicides in Cornton Vale? What is the Secretary of State going to do about it? The new governor, Kate Donegan, said:
  "I'm struck by how many of the young women here have multiple, desperate problems."
  If the Secretary of State is to show compassion, he should start with Cornton Vale. If he does that and engages in a reasonable and sensible dialogue, the Opposition will listen. That is why we are not giving the Secretary of State a blank cheque tonight. We shall scrutinise the Bill line by line in Committee, so that at least when it comes out it will be decent and sensible.
  9.42 pm
  The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): The Opposition intend to vote in favour of their reasoned amendment, which, without doubt, would scupper the Bill. It is no use the Opposition pretending that they are in favour of law and order measures when they have repeatedly opposed almost every significant law and order measure that we have introduced over the years. They intend to do that again tonight, in spite of the fact that some of the provisions in the Bill would meet the circumstances of the appalling tragedy that occurred when Maguire murdered that small girl.
  The hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) said that we had not consulted the judiciary. We certainly have. The judiciary are the high and mighty in the land and I am not at all worried about them. In January, they were consulted about making the punishment fit the crime and they were consulted on the White Paper, which was published in June this year. Some of the Bill's provisions directly reflect what was said by the judiciary. For example, the provisions to increase the sentencing powers for those convicted of lewd or libidinous conduct were directly a result of the judiciary's representations.

  1133
  I must take issue with not just the hon. Member for Dumbarton but Lord McCluskey, who was widely quoted last week as saying that no Scot, whether in the House of Lords or the House of Commons, noticed what was being done. He was referring to the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995.
  I should like to establish the facts. In January this year, the Appeal Court, in the case of Gardner v. Lees, found that the 12-month time limit applying to the commencement of proceedings on indictment applied also to proceedings begun by petition, but subsequently reduced to summary proceedings. It had previously been thought, in accordance with earlier judgments of the High Court, that the 12-month period, which had been introduced under the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980, did not apply to proceedings reduced to summary proceedings.
  The judgment of the Appeal Court was unexpected, and cast doubt on proceedings in train. It was also clear that the judgment would limit the flexibility previously thought to be available to the Crown in reducing cases from solemn to summary proceedings. We therefore tabled an amendment to the law to return it to the position it was thought to have been before the Appeal Court's decision in Gardner v. Lees. At that time, the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Bill was the only vehicle for doing that.
  Before tabling the amendment, I wrote to Lord Hope, the Lord Justice General—the senior Scottish judge—to inform him of what we proposed to do. Of course I wrote to the hon. Member for Dumbarton, as the Opposition spokesman on home affairs in Scotland, to draw his attention to the amendment before it was debated.
  If Lord Hope did not inform Lord McCluskey, that is a matter that Lord McCluskey should usefully take up with Lord Hope. Amendments were debated as the Bill was considered by Parliament, and the Scottish Office issued a circular to Scots courts in July, when the provisions came into effect, to draw attention to them. It is quite untrue, therefore, to suggest that we attempted to slip through the amendments.
  It is also unjustifiable to suggest that our amendments diminish an important right that had been considered to exist since 1980. On the contrary, until the Appeal Court judgment in January 1996, the understanding supported by High Court judgments had been that no such right had been created by the 1980 Act. So the judiciary has most certainly been consulted. If some of the judges do not talk to each other, however, that is their responsibility and not mine.
  The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) asked why we were not presenting measures on anti-social neighbours. The Scottish Affairs Select Committee is examining the matter. We do not wish to anticipate its findings, but we look forward to them.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) raised the issue of children giving their evidence. Children can give evidence without taking the oath or affirming, but the judge must satisfy himself that the child concerned is capable of giving truthful evidence. Those matters are worthy of being considered, and we will no doubt return to them in Committee.
  The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham) mentioned the Barnardo's project, which was targeted on youngsters referred by children's
  1134
  hearings. The funding extension has been granted, and section 10 funding is being considered for the longer term. There have been promising results in preventing young people reoffending at early stages, and I shall encourage dissemination of the facts.
  Our policy is driven throughout by protection of the public, and we are determined to follow through with that. It follows that we do not wish to see minor offenders going to prison; we would much rather that they served community service within the community, which is why we have doubled the maximum number of hours. More than 6,000 offenders are ordered to perform community service each year.
  Just over a week ago, the hon. Member for Hamilton asked me what measures we were undertaking on fine default. I am very glad to say that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has today announced that he is extending supervised attendance orders to cover all of mainland Scotland by spring 1998, and we will be making available additional resources of up to £1 million to make that a reality. Of course, we envisage that that policy will relate to fine defaulters. We would much rather that they served supervised attendance orders or community service than went to prison. We believe that that will certainly happen.
  Mr. Wallace: Why will that provision apply only to mainland Scotland? What will be the position on the islands?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The islands most certainly will be included, and I give the hon. Gentleman my undertaking on that point.
  The hon. Member for Maryhill asked whether research could be conducted on whether women are dealt with more harshly in sentencing than men. I can say only that I very much hope that they are not. Some research has been conducted on this subject, but it has largely been anecdotal. We will consider the hon. Lady's suggestion on that matter.
  As for restriction of liberty orders, I greatly enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Davidson) who, in an enlightened way, supported them as well thought out, which they certainly will be. We believe it is right to consult on whether restriction of liberty orders should be available for the under-16s. We intend to pilot the scheme in Scotland, and we need the relevant powers to do so.
  The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross asked whether electronic tagging would be used as an alternative to custody, and the answer is that it most certainly will be. The moral justification for tagging is that, along with other disposals that can be of service in the community, it is an additional safeguard for the public. The hon. Lady asked in what circumstances tagging orders would be used. They might be suitable for football hooligans or for those whose offending was associated with their presence at a particular place. They could also be used for those who drink too much and get into trouble as a result, or for those who shoplift.
  Mr. Graham rose—
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am tempted to give way, but I have many more points to cover. However, I look forward to the hon. Gentleman being a member of the Committee that debates the Bill.

  1135
  The cost of tagging will be around £1.5 million over two to three years. We believe that will serve the communities in Scotland very much better than the imprisonment of young persons.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) made some relevant points on the confiscation of alcohol from under-age drinkers. The key matter is that, in framing our proposals, we have paid great attention to the evidence from Ireland. Under the Bill, if a young person passes a bottle to someone over 18, the police will have the power to confiscate it if they have reasonable grounds so to do. That matter is properly covered in the Bill, as it should have been, and we shall have an effective law in place.
  I mentioned—
  Mr. Graham rose—
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am tempted to give way, but I must continue.
  Some offenders, while fit to stand trial, are mentally disordered at the time of sentencing. We believe it is necessary to provide an additional safeguard for the public so that the court will be able not only to recognise the need for immediate hospital treatment but, in the case of someone who has committed a serious crime amounting almost to murder, to specify a custodial sentence. My right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) mentioned that important point.
  As for automatic life sentences, it was interesting that the hon. Member for Hamilton did not say that he would support or oppose our proposals. We are not sitting on the fence. I refer to the poll undertaken by the Daily Record, not a newspaper known for supporting the Conservatives. No less than 93 per cent. of the respondents supported honesty in sentencing. Those of us who were concerned, distressed and angered by the Maguire case believe that the provisions are necessary. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) is welcome to vote with us if he wants effective action to prevent that situation from occurring again.
  I should also make it clear that we want automatic sentences of not less than seven years for repeat drug offences. Anyone convicted for the third time of a class A drug trafficking offence will receive a minimum sentence of seven years. That is absolutely necessary.
  The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) asked how often the proceeds of drug deals have been confiscated. I am glad to be able to report that, in the three years from 1993 to 1995, a total of 15 orders were made, with assets amounting to £539,221 being confiscated. In 1996, there have been five orders, with assets of £494,000 being confiscated. We are determined to leave no stone unturned to ensure that that continues.
  It is necessary to provide sufficient places in prisons, either through the private finance initiative or through public expenditure. A range of effective programmes must be put in place to train those in prisons, such as
  1136
  sex offenders, to tackle their offending behaviour. Those who go on such courses are more likely to be considered for remission.
  We are increasing sentencing powers. The sentencing powers of sheriff courts will increase from three years to five years in solemn cases. The Lord Advocate is to be given the right of appeal against a decision not to impose an automatic life sentence, a minimum sentence for drug trafficking, a supervised release order or a hospital order. That provides additional protection for the public.
  Electronic "livescan" fingerprinting is an exciting provision of great importance. It is much easier to take one photographic image than to go through the laborious process of pressing each finger on to a pad. The system also produces a higher-quality print. The exciting aspect of the system for the fight against crime is that it allows the police to check instantly whether a suspect detained in a police station is using a false name or is the subject of an outstanding warrant. I strongly commend clause 42 to the House; it will greatly assist the police in the battle against crime.
  The Bill will be welcomed by all who believe in the rule of law. It is time to redress the imbalance that has grown between those who have to keep the law and those who break it. The recent tide of public opinion makes it clear that that imbalance will not be tolerated. We are alive to the wishes of the public and have listened to them. It is the duty of a democratic Government to respond effectively.
  We are committed to firm action. The fact that even the Opposition admit that people are demanding firm action imposes a duty on us to meet those wishes. When the hon. Member for Hamilton accuses us of vote-catching and populism, he means that our proposals command general support in the country.
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, the Opposition's claim to be tough on crime is laughable. They have voted consistently over the years against countless law and order measures, from the prevention of terrorism Act to the police powers of search for offensive weapons. Whatever the partisan quibbling over the Bill, the reality is that the Opposition are seeking to defeat legislation that will bring fast and effective redress to many victims and potential victims of crime, as well as bringing proper retribution to their criminal tormentors. The people of Scotland will not readily forgive those who seek to obstruct reforms that they urgently desire.
  We shall build a country that is safe, a country where people do not need to walk the streets in fear, a country where victims of crime will see that justice is done, a country where our people have confidence in the criminal justice system. That is our unshakeable resolve. I hope and believe that we can count on the support of all hon. Members who subscribe to that goal.
  Above all, our policy is driven by an absolute resolve that the public of Scotland and of Britain should be properly protected. We shall put in place all necessary measures to ensure that. I challenge the hon. Member for Hamilton—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—to come off the fence and say as soon as possible whether he will support us on minimum sentences for those who commit murder and for repeat sex crime offenders.

  1137
  I am grateful for having had the opportunity to sum up the debate. I commend the Bill most strongly to the House.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 267, Nose 288.

  Division No. 7]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try SE)

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Cunningham, Ms R (Perth Kinross)

  Ainger, Nick

  Dafis, Cynog

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Darling, Alistair

  Alien, Graham

  Davidson, Ian

  Alton, David

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Davies, Chris (Littleborough)

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Ashton, Joseph

  Denham, John

  Austin-Walker, John

  Dewar, Donald

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Dixon, Don

  Barnes, Harry

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Barron, Kevin

  Dowd, Jim

  Battle, John

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Bayley, Hugh

  Eastham, Ken

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Etherington, Bill

  Berth, A J

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Bell, Stuart

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Benn, Tony

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Fisher, Mark

  Benton, Joe

  Flynn, Paul

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Foster, Derek

  Berry, Roger

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Betts, Clive

  Foulkes, George

  Blunkett, David

  Fraser, John

  Boateng, Paul

  Fyfe, Mrs Maria

  Bradley, Keith

  Galbraith, Sam

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Galloway, George

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Gapes, Mike

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Garrett, John

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  George, Bruce

  Byers, Stephen

  Gerrard, Neil

  Caborn, Richard

  Gilbert, Dr John

  Callaghan, Jim

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Gordon, Ms Mildred

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Graham, Thomas

  Canavan, Dennis

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Cann, Jamie

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Chidgey, David

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Grocott, Bruce

  Church, Ms Judith

  Gunnell, John

  Clapham, Michael

  Hain, Peter

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hall, Mike

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hanson, David

  Clelland, David

  Harvey, Nick

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hattersley, Roy

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Henderson, Doug

  Cohen, Harry

  Heppell, John

  Connarty, Michael

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Corbett, Robin

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hoey, Miss Kate

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Cousins, Jim

  Home Robertson, John

  Cummings, John

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  1138

  Howarth, Alan (Stratfd-on-A)

  Mullin, Chris

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Murphy, Paul

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Nicholson, Miss Emma (W Devon)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Oakes, Gordon

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Hughes, Robert (Ab'd'n N)

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Olner, Bill

  Hutton, John

  O'Neill, Martin

  Illsley, Eric

  Orme, Stanley

  Ingram, Adam

  Parry, Robert

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)

  Pearson, Ian

  Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)

  Pendry, Tom

  Jamieson, David

  Pickthall, Colin

  Janner, Greville

  Pike, Peter L

  Jenkins, Brian D (SE Staffs)

  Pope, Greg

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & D'side)

  Powell, Sir Raymond (Ogmore)

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Prentice, Mrs B (Lewisham E)

  Jones, Dr L (B'ham Selly Oak)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd SW)

  Primarolo, Ms Dawn

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Purchase, Ken

  Jowell, Ms Tessa

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Radice, Giles

  Keen, Alan

  Randall, Stuart

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross C& S)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Kennedy, Mrs Jane (Broadgreen)

  Reid, DrJohn

  Khabra, Piara S

  Rendel, David

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)

  Rogers, Allan

  Lewis, Terry

  Rooker, Jeff

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Rooney, Terry

  Litherland, Robert

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Rowlands, Ted

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretf'd)

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Salmond, Alex

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McAllion, John

  Sheerman, Barry

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Sheldon, Robert

  McCartney, Ian (Makerf'ld)

  Shore, Peter

  Macdonald, Calum

  Short, Ms Clare

  McFall, John

  Simpson, Alan

  McKelvey, William

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  McLeish, Henry

  Smith, Chris (Islington S)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  MacShane, Denis

  Snape, Peter

  McWilliam, John

  Soley, Clive

  Madden, Max

  Spearing, Nigel

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Spellar, John

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Squire, Ms R (Dunfermline W)

  Mandelson, Peter

  Steel, Sir David

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Stevenson, George

  Martlew, Eric

  Stott, Roger

  Maxton, John

  Strang, Dr Gavin

  Meacher, Michael

  Straw, Jack

  Meale, Alan

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Michael, Alun

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Milburn, Alan

  Timms, Stephen

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Touhig, Don

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Trickett, Jon

  Morley, Elliot

  Turner, Dennis

  Morris, Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Wallace, James

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Mudie, George

  Watson, Mike

  1139

  Welsh, Andrew

  Worthington, Tony

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Wray, Jimmy

  Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Wilson, Brian

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Winnick, David

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones and Ms Angela Eagle.

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Cope, Sir John

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Alison, Michael (Selby)

  Couchman, James

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Cran, James

  Amess, David

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Arbuthnot, James

  Davtes, Quentin (Stamf'd)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Ashby, David

  Day, Stephen

  Atkins, Robert

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Devlin, Tim

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Dicks, Terry

  Baldry, Tony

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Dover, Den

  Bates, Michael

  Duncan, Alan

  Batiste, Spencer

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Beggs, Roy

  Dunn, Bob

  Bellingham, Henry

  Dykes, Hugh

  Bendall, Vivian

  Elletson, Harold

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Biffen, John

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Booth, Hartley

  Evennett, David

  Boswell, Tim

  Faber, David

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Bowis, John

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Boyson, Sir Rhodes

  Forman, Nigel

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Brazier, Julian

  Forth, Eric

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Fowler, Sir Norman

  Brooke, Peter

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Freeman, Roger

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  French, Douglas

  Burns, Simon

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Burt, Alistair

  Gale, Roger

  Butcher, John

  Gallie, Phil

  Butter, Peter

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Butterfill, John

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Carlisle, John (Luton N)

  Gill, Christopher

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Carrington, Matthew

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Carttiss, Michael

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Cash, William

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Channon, Paul

  Gorst, Sir John

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Grant, Sir Anthony (SW Cambs)

  Churchill, Mr

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Clappison, James

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochfd)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Coe, Sebastian

  Gummer, John

  Colvin, Michael

  Hague, William

  Congdon, David

  Hamilton, Sir Archibald

  Conway, Derek

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  1140

  Hannam, Sir John

  Merchant, Piers

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Mills, Iain

  Harris, David

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Haselhurst Sir Alan

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Hawksley, Warren

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hayes, Jerry

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Heald, Oliver

  Needham, Richard

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hendry, Charles

  Newton, Tony

  Heseltine, Michael

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hicks, Sir Robert

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Higgins, Sir Terence

  Norris, Steve

  Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)

  Onslow, Sir Cranley

  Hogg, Douglas (Grantham)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Horam, John

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Page, Richard

  Howard, Michael

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Howell, David (Guitf'd)

  Patten, John

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Pattie, Sir Geoffrey

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Pawsey, James

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensb'ne)

  Pickles, Eric

  Hunter, Andrew

  Porter, David

  Hurd, Douglas

  Portillto, Michael

  Jack, Michael

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Redwood, John

  Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)

  Renton, Tim

  Jessel, Toby

  Richards, Rod

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Riddfck, Graham

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Jones, Robert B (W Herts)

  Roberts, Sir Wyn

  Jopling, Michael

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

  Keltett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Key, Robert

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Rowe, Andrew

  Knapman, Roger

  Rumbold, Dame Angela

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Sackville, Tom

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Scott, Sir Nicholas

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Knox, Sir David

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Kynoch, George

  Shephard, Mrs Gillian

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Lamont, Norman

  Sims, Sir Roger

  Lang, Ian

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfld)

  Legg, Barry

  Soames, Nicholas

  Leigh, Edward

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)

  Spicer, Sir Jim (W Dorset)

  Lidington, David

  Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

  Lilley, Peter

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Lloyd, Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Spring, Richard

  Lord, Michael

  Sproat, Iain

  Luff, Peter

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Stanley, Sir John

  MacGregor, John

  Steen, Anthony

  MacKay, Andrew

  Stephen, Michael

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Stern, Michael

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Streeter, Gary

  Madel, Sir David

  Sumberg, David

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Sweeney, Walter

  Malone, Gerald

  Sykes, John

  Mans, Keith

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Marland, Paul

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Marlow, Tony

  Taylor, John D (Strangf'd)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Mates, Michael

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  1141

  Thomason, Roy

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Watts, John

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Whitney, Ray

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Whittingdale, John

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Widdecombe, Miss Ann

  Tracey, Richard

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Tredinnick, David

  Wilkinson, John

  Trend, Michael

  Willetts, David

  Trotter, Neville

  Wilshire, David

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesf'ld)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Wolfson, Mark

  Viggers, Peter

  Yeo, Tim

  Waldegrave, William

  Young, Sir George

  Walden, George

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Mr. Timothy Wood and Mr. Bowen Wells.

  Ward, John

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 60 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading):—
  The House divided: Ayes 285, Noes 22.
  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 AND PUNISHMENT (SCOTLAND) 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 and Punishment (Scotland) Bill, there shall he paid out of money provided by Parliament—

  (a) any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State—

  (i) in respect of contracts for the remote monitoring of restriction of liberty orders;

  (ii) in respect of common police services in Scotland;

  (b) any expenses incurred by the Scottish Legal Aid Board in relation to—

  (i)the employment by it of solicitors for the purpose of providing criminal legal assistance;

  (ii)contracts entered into by it with firms of solicitors for the provision of criminal legal assistance;

  (c) any expenses incurred by the Lord Advocate in respect of grants for the provision of forensic medical services; and

  (d) any increase attributable to this Act in the sums so payable out of money so provided under any other Act.—[Mr. Anthony Coombs.]

  Question agreed to.

  CRIME AND PUNISHMENT(SCOTLAND) BILL
  Resolved,
  That the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill may be proceeded with as if it had been certified by the Speaker as relating exclusively to Scotland. —[Mr. Anthony Coombs.]

  Toll Charges (VAT)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Anthony Coombs.]
  10.28 pm
  Mr. Roy Hughes: In seeking this debate about VAT on toll charges, I confess that I am particularly concerned about the two Severn bridges, although if VAT were imposed on those crossings, it would also apply to many others throughout the country.
  Hon. Members, especially my Welsh colleagues, know that, over the years, I have taken a good deal of interest in the Severn crossing. It is, after all, the lifeline of Wales.
  The background to this issue is that tolls at present on the Severn crossings are simply prohibitive. For example, for a motor car the charge is £3.80. For a small van, it is £7.70 and for a heavy lorry it is £11.50. They are, I believe, the highest tolls in the country.
  Many people on either side criss-cross the channel each day to follow their employment. Many on the Newport, East side and in other areas on the Welsh side cross the channel to follow their employment in Bristol and Avonmouth. Likewise, quite a number do the journey in the opposite direction from Bristol, many of them teachers in south Wales.
  On the Newport, East side some years ago, there were many thousands of redundancies in the steel industry, and the people affected at the time were advised by the then Mr. Norman Tebbit, now Lord Tebbit, to get on their bikes. Many of them took that advice, taking jobs in Avonmouth and Bristol, and now have to pay these punitive toll charges. Small companies on either side of the channel—perhaps small plumbing or electrical contractors—need to cross the estuary frequently, and they have to pay £7.70 for their small van. That adds considerably to their costs and subsequently to their charges to the consumer.
  The third category is heavy lorries, which pay £11.50 for each journey into Wales. Incidentally, they carry the goods that provide our standard of living in this country, and it has often been said that, when the cost of transport is put up, it just about puts up the cost of everything.
  The journey out of Wales across these bridges is free, so the toll is paid on the return journey. Consequently, some companies in south Wales instruct their drivers not to use the bridges when coming back into Wales; accordingly, many lorries are diverted into the villages of Gloucestershire. That in turn causes a good deal of consternation in those villages, because of the serious environmental and safety problems that the diversions cause.
  All in all, the toll charges are simply an abomination, and much of the responsibility for this situation rests squarely with the Government. Some years ago, the Select Committee on Transport called for the phasing out of toll charges on estuarial crossings. It was a perfectly sensible recommendation, but, instead of taking that advice, the Government decided to hand over the then existing Severn bridge to a foreign-backed consortium. They also authorised it to build a second crossing, and to charge exorbitant tolls on both bridges so that the company could recoup its costs and more.
  I come now to the nub of my argument. From time to time there are reports in the press that the European Commission is threatening to take Britain to court over
  1146
  its refusal to charge VAT on road tolls. On 26 July 1996, a report by Helen Cranford in Brussels in The Daily Telegraph—a highly reputable newspaper, although I do not often agree with it—said:
  "Britain remained defiant yesterday after the European Commission threatened court action over its refusal to charge VAT on road tolls.
  If the EC wins, the case could force up the cost for dozens of crossings such as the Skye Bridge and the Dartford Tunnel"—
  and, I might add, the Severn crossings.
  The report continues:
  "France, along with Greece and Ireland, has also been accused of failing to comply with the EU directive on VAT. All four countries will be given 40 days to change their legislation."
  That is clear enough. We recognise that the 40 days haveelapsed, but I have been reliably informed that that court action will take a long time and is now expected in the second half of next year.
  There is speculation, too, on how the issue will be handled. Will action be taken against all the offending countries at once or will particular countries be singled out? It has been suggested that France will be the first country to be taken to court, particularly because it has a large motorway network, with many toll positions.
  The Government take the issue seriously. If such a court hearing went against France, it is pretty obvious that a precedent would be set, and action would quickly follow against Britain. I have a letter dated 24 October 1995 from the then Paymaster General, the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), in which he specifically says:
  "If tolls were to be subject to VAT it would have to applied at the standard rate of 17.5 per cent. Under EC law it is not possible to apply a reduced rate of VAT to tolls."
  What would that mean in practice? It raises an interesting situation. Tolls for cars would rise from £3.80 to £4.47, for light vans from £7.70 to £9.05, and for lorries from £11.50 to £13.51. I repeat that, in Wales, the Severn crossings are our lifeline, and the toll charges are already prohibitive.
  Only yesterday, the Western Mail contained the headline "Wales next to bottom in the UK prosperity league table". The article stated:
  "Prosperity in Wales is lower than almost any other part of the United Kingdom, with a person's average income almost half that of a Londoner.
  Of 11 parts of the United Kingdom included in a new prosperity survey, only Northern Ireland has a lower income per head."
  Wages in Wales are abysmally low. It was reported in the press a week or two ago that 13,000 people in Wales are paid less than £1.50 an hour. Those people must be subsidised by the state through social service payments. In other words, the firms that employ those people at such a low rate of pay are being subsidised.
  Male unemployment in Wales is still about 11 per cent. There is much hidden unemployment. Many people who have been made redundant draw state benefits but do not sign on, so they are not recorded in the unemployment statistics. There is no doubt in my mind that VAT on top of the existing tolls would do a good deal of harm to the economy of Wales.
  The European Union Commissioner for Transport is Mr. Neil Kinnock, the former Member of Parliament for Islwyn and former leader of the Labour party. In response to a submission from me on the issue of VAT on toll charges, he said in a letter dated 14 November 1995:

  1147
  "The Commission has been asked by the Member States to promote the harmonization of the different VAT regimes applied… if tolls are levied for the use of a motorway or a bridge, VAT should be levied as well."
  That seems clear enough, but he goes on to point out:
  "if no toll is charged, there will be no VAT payable. In this context, it would be possible, for example, to apply reduced toll rates (or even zero toll rates) for local people and residents who have to use the Severn Crossing often for their daily journeys to and from work."
  I referred to that earlier.
  I took this matter up—I call it a reasonable suggestion—with the French-American consortium that operates both bridges, which goes under the name of Severn River Crossing plc. The reply came from the well-known former Liberal Member for Montgomery, Lord Hooson, who is now the chairman of that company. In a letter dated 2 October 1995, he said:
  "With regard to the suggestion that either no tolls should be levied or that there should be special concessions, these are entirely unrealistic. It was a political decision to build the bridge through the medium of private enterprise."
  That is the attitude of his company. Lord Hooson goes on to talk as if the company is finding it a little difficult to make ends meet.
  The reality is very different, to say the least. A local journalist, Mr. David Barnes of the South Wales Argus, conducted a survey last summer, when we had only the first Severn crossing. He said that the Severn bridge was reckoned to be taking no less than £16,000 per hour. I should point out that toll charges have risen since then.
  I have no doubt that the company is simply profiteering on a massive scale. It is all the Government's fault for entering into such an arrangement with the company. The new bridge should have been paid for by the massive amounts they receive in motor taxation. The original bridge was paid for several times over. The so-called debt was merely a paper figure on the Consolidated Fund; it could well have been wiped out at a stroke.
  We are now faced with the doctrinaire, meddling approach of the European Union. If court action goes ahead, as is being threatened, we could well face additional toll charges. The Government would shed crocodile tears; they would be in receipt of a nice little earner.
  In Wales, it cannot be said too often that the Severn bridges are our lifeline. As a direct result of the Government's handing over control of those bridges to a foreign-backed consortium, we are being subjected to prohibitive toll charges, and, as I have said, the company is profiteering on a massive scale. Any further increases in toll charges would be very damaging to Wales and its economy.
  In fairness, the Government proclaim that they do not want the VAT charges. They should therefore tell the European Union in no uncertain terms that they will not accept such interference in our affairs. In Wales, that is the least we are entitled to expect.
  10.47 pm
  The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Phillip Oppenheim): I am glad that the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) has raised this important issue. He raised a number of other issues that are not directly related to VAT on tolls, and I think that it would
  1148
  be most appropriate if I referred those to the Department of Transport for reply. However, although I hoped that this would be the sort of consensual occasion for which I am best known and, indeed, loved in the House, the hon. Gentleman has provoked me into commenting on one or two matters that are not directly my concern, relating to the whole issue of the tolling of the Severn bridges.
  I must say that I find it a little strange that the hon. Gentleman complains about tolls on the Severn bridges. Until he gets his own party to commit itself to taking away the tolls from the bridges, I shall not be able to take that seriously—but I will now give the shadow Secretary of State for Wales an opportunity to say that his party is committed to taking away the tolls from one or both of the Severn bridges.
  Mr. Ron Davies: The fact is that the present Government privatised the Severn bridge crossings. Is the Minister now suggesting that we should nationalise them?
  Mr. Oppenheim: I will make two points in response to the hon. Gentleman. First, having been given a clear opportunity to give a commitment on behalf of the Labour party to abolish tolls on the bridge, he failed to do so. He then accused us of privatising a bridge when what we have actually done is build a bridge by means of something called the private finance initiative. I suggest that he refer to his good friend the shadow Chancellor, and ask what is official new Labour policy on the PFI. Is this one of the old redoubts of old, unreconstructed stakhanovite Labour? I do not know.
  I shall move to an area in which I hope there is more cross-party agreement. Tolls are not taxed in the United Kingdom. They have never been taxed, and we do not intend to tax them. The hon. Gentleman said that we would shed crocodile tears and pocket a nice little earner if they are taxed. If they were taxed, the Government would have some of the proceeds, but they would not be pocketed; they would go into hospitals and schools. [Interruption.] Opposition Members guffaw. I do not know where they think the money goes. Who builds the hospitals and accounts for the 70 per cent. increase in NHS spending in real terms since we have been in power?
  I emphasise and doubly underline for the benefit of the hon. Gentleman and his constituents and everyone in Wales that we do not intend to tax tolls. We have consistently maintained that position throughout our disagreement with the European Commission on the issue.
  I shall deal with a little of the background to the issue. Since VAT was introduced in 1973, we have viewed the large tolled crossings as activities undertaken by the state. European Union legislation accepts that the public activities of the state and of regional and local governments are not subject to VAT. Tolls charged on smaller private crossings are also exempted from VAT, but under a different provision. The European Commission disagrees, claiming that we should tax tolls in the same way that most services for payment are taxed.
  To put it mildly, this is a very complicated EU legal issue of the type that would have been familiar to any of the priestly clerks who operated towards the end of the Byzantine empire. The United Kingdom is not alone in relieving tolls from VAT. France, the Netherlands, Greece and Eire do that. However, other member states with tolled roads add VAT to the toll charge.

  1149
  The United Kingdom has strong and compelling arguments, to which the Commission has not given sufficient weight. The major tolled crossings are owned and controlled by the relevant Secretary of State, and they exist and operate under Acts of Parliament. They are in every sense an activity of the state, but the Secretary of State empowers local authorities and other bodies to run the crossings.
  A comparison with the normal activities of local government might be helpful; refuse collection is an example. Councils are required by law to maintain environmental and public health standards. One requirement is to clean the streets and remove the refuse, and council tax is levied to pay for that. There is no dispute with the Commission that council tax is VAT-free. It is therefore eminently sensible that providing and maintaining tolled crossings should, by the same token, be VAT-free.
  The Commission first raised this issue some 10 years ago, and in 1989 it announced its intention to pursue infraction cases against the United Kingdom, France and the other member states through the European Court of Justice. However, until July this year, nothing further happened. Then the Commission suddenly announced its renewed intention to deliver its complaint and legal arguments to the European Court of Justice and thus commence infraction proceedings. To put it mildly, that is a somewhat odd way to operate. When that happens, the UK and other member states will be able to respond formally to those arguments and later defend their position before the European court.
  It is a lengthy process, and a formal hearing is unlikely to take place for about a year. We wish to use the time to take legal advice on the Commission's latest arguments and prepare the UK's defence. Furthermore, if there is any area in which the EC directive as it stands does not support the UK's position, we shall certainly do our best to influence the matter and change the relevant directive.
  It is important that the VAT system creates a level playing field and does not discriminate between public services, whether they are publicly or privately provided. It is important that reliefs are not given indiscriminately, not just in relation to tolls but in all areas.
  The Government support the concept of the Commission ensuring that there is a level playing field so that United Kingdom businesses can compete in the single market. It is also right for the European Court of Justice to examine the legal issues where there is a dispute. It is not acceptable, however, that, since 1989, the Commission has prevaricated, and that, instead of approaching the United Kingdom Government again to discuss the issues, it issued merely a press release announcing its intention to pursue cases through the European Court of Justice.
  The Government find it particularly concerning that, last year, Neil Kinnock, as European Commissioner for Transport, referred to the tolls issue, which received much media attention. He said:
  "if tolls are levied for the use of a motorway or a bridge, VAT should be levied as well."
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), the former Paymaster General, has publicly said, that is simply not so. It would have been
  1150
  nice if the former right hon. Member, now an EU commissioner, had got his facts right and consulted us, or at least discussed the issue with us, before making such a comment.
  Despite my earlier harsh words, I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Newport, East had raised this important tax policy issue. I affirm the British Government's absolute opposition to placing VAT on toll charges. We will oppose it in the European Court of Justice. If we find that the directive in any way supports the EU position, we will do our best to influence the directive to change it. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman, his constituents, my hon. Friends and people in Wales and in other regions that benefit from toll bridges.
  10.55 pm
  Sir John Cope rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Has the right hon. Gentleman informed the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) that he wishes to speak?
  Sir John Cope: No, but as a few minutes remain, I wanted to support the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes)—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for Newport, East has no objections, the right hon. Member for Northavon may continue.
  Sir John Cope: I want to support the hon. Member for Newport, East and my hon. Friend the Minister in relation to the arguments about VAT. In my constituency, I have half of both the Severn bridges into Wales. As it happens, not so long ago, I had responsibility for VAT in the Treasury. Of course, the person who should be responding to the debate is not my hon. Friend the Minister, but Commissioner Neil Kinnock and his colleagues in the European Community, because it is they who have raised the possibility of VAT being charged.
  Over many years, I have worked alongside the hon. Member for Newport, East in connection with the bridges. Neither of the bridges would have been built if it had not been for the tolls. The Labour Government supported the tolls on the old Severn bridge just as much as the Conservative Government, and benefited from them. A former Labour Treasury Minister is present who can verify that, if needs be.
  It is not right that the European Commission and the European Union should dictate to Britain—or France and the other countries concerned—whether we should impose VAT on the bridges. From the start, we have not done so. We have the right to continue to zero-rate tolls and to exclude them from the VAT system if we wish. I am glad to have my hon. Friend the Minister's assurance that we will fight any court case as vigorously as we can.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Eleven o ' clock.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Greyhound Racing
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) what assessment she has made of the impact on greyhound racing of the decision to allow a second weekly national lottery draw, in respect of(a) attendances (b) the number of greyhound tracks (c) employment in the Industry (d) total revenue accruing to greyhound racing (e) greyhound racing profitability and (f) taxation revenue; [2318]

  (2) what assessment she has made as to the impact on the off-course greyhound betting Industry of the introduction of a second weekly national lottery draw. [2275]

  Mr. Sproat
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made no such assessment. Under section 4 of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993, the Director General of the National Lottery has a duty to exercise his functions in the manner he considers most likely to secure that the national lottery is run with all due propriety, that the interests of participants in the lottery are protected, and subject to these to maximise the revenue to the good causes. The director general judged that the introduction of a midweek draw would be consistent with these duties.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans she has to meet representatives of the greyhound racing industry to discuss the impact of a second weekly national lottery draw on off-course and on-course betting.[2237]

  Mr. Sproat
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no plans to meet the greyhound racing industry. Responsibility for greyhound racing and the gaming industry in general is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

  BBC
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on the publication of the BBC's statement of promises to viewers and listeners. [2768]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I welcome the publication today of the BBC's first statement of promises to viewers and listeners. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House. The BBC is a unique broadcaster and has a unique relationship with its audience. The new charter and agreement came into effect on 1 May this year. They reaffirm the BBC's independence. That independence requires direct accountability to licence fee payers. The statement of promises forms a new link between the BBC and its audience. It sets out the standards of service that all viewers and listeners can expect from the BBC and the standards against which the BBC board of governors will 408
  carry out its annual assessment and report on the corporation's performance. The statement of promises brings to the BBC the principles of the Prime Minister's citizens charter initiative. A summary version will be available to licence fee payers.

  Female Staff
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many women are currently employed by her Department; and what proportion this is of the total. [1248]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 4 November 1996]: My Department, excluding its executive agencies, currently employs 178 women. This is 49 per cent. of the total staff employed by the Department.

  Child Care
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what proportion of the(a) women who are mothers and (b) men who are fathers who are employed by her Department have received any assistance from the Department with child care.[1289]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 4 November 1996]: 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. However my Department, as part of its equal opportunities policy, offers a range of child care facilities including a subsidised nursery place, a subsidised holiday play scheme and standard civil service maternity and paternity provisions; staff also have the opportunity to take extended leave due to family commitments.

  Public Houses
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for National Heritage what steps she is taking to protect the historical heritage of public house names; and if she will make a statement. [1886]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 4 November 1996]: The names of public houses are entirely matters for their owners to decide. Where a change of name of a public house which is listed as a building of special architectural or historic interest involves an alternation to its fabric which would affect its character as such a building, listed building consent would be required from the local planning authority.

DEFENCE

  Land Mines
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the(a) maximum timed life and (b) self-destruct reliability of (i) area denial and (ii) land mine systems presently in active service with British forces. [391]
  409
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The systems concerned are the HB876 sub-munition of the JP233 area denial weapon and the MLRS AT2 scatterable mine. Self-destruction will normally take place in a matter of hours for the HB876; its self-destruct reliability is currently being assessed. The AT2 mine self-destructs within days and has a reliability which has been evaluated as over 99 per cent. Additionally, in each case mine detonation relies on a short-life battery, and any mine that fails to self-destruct will deactivate within a further short period. Precise self-destruction timings for both mines are classified.

  There is no other area denial weapon in service with the British armed forces, and no other land mine system in service which has a maximum timed life or a self-destruct capability.

  Unidentified Flying Craft
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the reports of encounters by Royal Air Force pilots with unidentified flying craft since 1966 which have not been released to the public; on what grounds they have been retained; and if he will make a statement. [2201]

  Mr. Soames
  The information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the Royal Air Force's practice as regards investigating sightings of unidentified flying craft which correlate with radar information; if there is a requirement to investigate such phenomena by scrambling aircraft; and if he will make a statement. [2200]

  Mr. Soames
  Unidentified contacts penetrating UK airspace or the UK air defence region are identified by all available means, including interception.

  Gulf War Veterans
  Mr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the people who are currently employed on his Department's Gulf veterans medical assessment programme. [1687]

  Mr. Soames
  The personnel currently employed by my Department's Gulf veterans medical assessment programme are:

  Military:

  2 consultant physicians (1 group captain RAF and 1 lieutenant colonel Royal Army Medical Corps)

  1 state registered nurse (squadron leader RAF)

  1 medical administrator (flight sergeant RAF)

  Civilian:

  1 personal secretary

  1 administrative officer

  2 administrative assistants

  1 typist

  In addition, the Middlesex hospital undertakes diagnostic testing at the request of the MAP consultants.
  410

  Married Quarters Estate
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the sale of the married quarters estate to Annington Homes. [2750]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Contracts for the sale were exchanged on 24 September. The transaction was completed today.

  Menwith Hill RAF Station
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what right of access the Health and Safety Executive has to Menwith Hill station; if it makes regular health and safety checks; and how many times it has made official visits to the Menwith Hill station. [2153]

  Mr. Soames
  The Health and Safety Executive has the same right of access to RAF Menwith Hill as at any other MOD establishment. The Health and Safety Executive have visited the site once in June 1996.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what systems are in place to monitor levels of non-ionising electro-magnetic radiation at Menwith Hill station; who is responsible for such monitoring; if their reports are made available to the public; and what precautions are being taken to protect the health and safety of(a) the base population, (b) the local community and (c) the local environment from the effects of non-ionising electro-magnetic radiation emitted by operations at Menwith Hill station. [2157]

  Mr. Soames
  There is no specific legal requirement to monitor non-ionising electro-magnetic radiation. However RAF Menwith Hill observes and operates in accordance with the National Radiological Protection Board guidelines and the Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1992.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will commission a report on the state of the environment at Menwith Hill station, similar to the internal US environmental compliance status survey of 1992; on what occasions his Department has commissioned similar reports in the past; and if he will commission and publish such reports on a regular basis. [2158]

  Mr. Soames
  No. The commissioning of compliance status surveys is the sole responsibility of the US authorities. These surveys are carried out to US criteria and I am satisfied that the standards applied fully meet those applicable in the UK. Therefore my Department has not commissioned any similar reports and does not intend to do so.

  United States Visiting Forces
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which British bases are occupied by United States visiting forces; how many United States personnel are stationed at each; for what reasons sites used by United States visiting forces are designated as RAF stations; when and by whom this decision was taken; what parliamentary scrutiny of this decision has taken place; and if he will make a statement. [2155]
  411
  Mr. Soames
  United States visiting forces are present at the following bases. Numbers of personnel at each base are shown in brackets.

  RAF Alconbury/RAF Molesworth/RAF Upwood: (1,365)

  RAF Croughton/RAF Barford St. John: (530)

  RAF Daws Hill/RAF High Wycombe/RAF West Ruislip: (600)

  RAF Digby: (15)

  RAF Edzell: (280)

  RAF Fairford/RAF Welford: (180)

  RAF Fylingdales: (1)

  RAF Hythe: (5)

  RAF Lakenheath/RAF Feltwell: (5,330)

  RAF Menwith Hill: (1,200)

  RAF Mildenhall: (4,450)

  RAF Northwood: (10)

  RAF Oakhanger: (1)

  RAF Spadeadam: (5)

  RAF St. Mawgan: (320)

  RAF Uxbridge: (15)

  The American presence is chiefly Air Force and as the sites are parented by the RAF they are designated as RAF stations. Parliament has the same opportunity to scrutinise this as with any other administrative decision.

  Millennium Date Change
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the cost effects of the millennium date change on the computer systems operated by his Department. [2618]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The capability of MOD's existing computer systems to recognise the millennium date change remains under investigation and has been the subject of recent MOD-wide guidance requiring those responsible for current and planned information systems to assess fully the extent of the problem. Until these assessments have been made it will not be possible to assess the cost effects of the year 2000 date change.

  Operation Seanuts
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the outcome of the waste disposal programme, Operation Seanuts. [2601]

  Mr. Soames
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of the letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

TRANSPORT

  Railway Inspectorate
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many complaints have been received by Her Majesty's railway inspectorate relating to unqualified contractors working on the rail network in the last 12 months. [1445]

  Mr. Watts
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave her on 14 October 1996,Official Report, column 972.
  412

  Clapham Rail Crash (Recommendations)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the recommendations of the 1988 Clapham rail crash report which have not been put into operation. [1871]

  Mr. Watts
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave her on 24 July 1996,Official Report, column 347.

  Watford Rail Crash
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the passenger train involved in the Watford train crash of 8 August was equipped with automatic train protection; and if the protection was operating at the time of the crash. [1873]

  Mr. Watts
  I am advised by the Health and Safety Executive that neither train involved in the accident near Watford on 8 August was fitted with automatic train protection.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will publish the accident report into the Watford rail crash of 8 August. [1868]

  Mr. Watts
  The Health and Safety Executive's railway inspectorate is continuing its independent investigation into the cause of the collision. A report of the findings will be published by HSE when its inquiries are complete.

  Railway Accident Reports
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he has taken to prevent the naming of individual railworkers in advance of the publication of a railway accident report. [1869]

  Mr. Watts
  I deplore the leaking of railway accident reports and the premature and unauthorised release of the names of individual rail workers in advance of the publication of any railway accident report, and especially in advance of decisions being taken on whether any legal proceedings are to be taken as a result of any official investigation.

  Rolling Stock (Safety)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the safe operating life of mark 1 rolling stock. [1875]

  Mr. Watts
  Mark 1 rolling stock was built between 1951 and 1974, although the oldest stock currently in use all year round dates from 1956.

  Mark 1 rolling stock was designed and constructed to have an expected life of between 30 and 40 years and is subjected to regular inspection and maintenance at planned intervals to ensure that it is suitable for service use.

  There is no reduction in the level of operating safety of mark 1 rolling stock during its life provided that it is maintained appropriately.
  413

  Rail Safety
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the cost of installing and operating automatic train protection on all trains on the network. [1872]

  Mr. Watts
  None. The British Railways Board estimated in 1994 that, assessing the project over a 20-year period, the net total cash cost of a network-wide ATP system would be about £759 million. The independent Health and Safety Commission advised that the introduction of ATP, as piloted, on a network-wide basis was not reasonably practicable, and that there were alternative safety investments which would be likely to yield greater effectiveness in terms of lives saved, and better value for money.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what(a) legislation and (b) other rules and regulations cover safety requirements for rail transport after privatisation; and if he will indicate in particular which legislation or regulations apply to the number of standing passengers permitted as a ratio of seated passengers; [1852]

  (2) what (a) legislation and (b) other rules and regulations covered rail transport safety before rail privatisation; and if he will make a statement. [1835]

  Mr. Watts
  The statutory requirements concerning railway safety which pre-date rail privatisation are referred to in annex 11 of HM Chief Inspecting Officer of Railways' annual report for 1994–95, a copy of which has been placed in the Library. These provisions are still in force.

  Since the start of rail privatisation in 1994, the following safety regulations have been made under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974: the Railways (Safety Case) Regulations 1994; the Railways (Safety Critical Work) Regulations 1994; the Railways and Other Transport Systems (Approval of Works, Plant and Equipment) Regulations 1994; the Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Rail Regulations 1996; the Packaging, Labelling and Carriage of Radioactive Materials by Rail Regulations 1996. In addition, the Health and Safety Commission has recently submitted to the Secretary of State draft Level Crossings Regulations and draft Railway Safety (Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations. The latter would repeal and replace most of the pre-1994 provisions.

  There are no statutory provisions which cover the ratio of standing to seated passengers.

  Heathrow Flight Path
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the annual figures for the number of aircraft flying over Lewisham, East to and from Heathrow for each of the past five years. [2129]

  Mr. Bowis
  The information is not held in the form requested. Radar track recordings are not normally retained by National Air Traffic Services Ltd. for longer than 30 days. Heathrow Airport Ltd. holds information on aircraft tracks beyond a radius of 12 miles from the airport for the first 10 months of 1996 only, but analysis of this would incur disproportionate cost.
  414
  Mrs. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what changes there have been recently to the flight path of aircraft flying to and from Heathrow over Lewisham, East. [2202]

  Mr. Bowis
  The main departure route from Heathrow towards Dover used by Heathrow traffic during easterly operations was last adjusted by one degree on 19 August 1993 to compensate for the accumulated movement of magnetic north since the previous such adjustment made in 1986. There are no fixed routes for landing aircraft. Aircraft normally land and take off into the wind. Lewisham, East is overflown by Heathrow departing traffic during easterly operations, which occur about 25 per cent. of the time during an average year, and by Heathrow landing traffic during westerly operations, which occur about 75 per cent. of the time during an average year. Lewisham, East is situated between the holding stack, located since 1971 over the Biggin Hill and Orpington area, and the extended runway centre lines followed by landing traffic on final approach to Heathrow during westerly operations. It is also overflown during easterly operations by traffic landing at London City airport.

  Franchising Director
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the contractual restrictions placed on the retiring director of the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising in respect of professional relations with companies which had applied for a franchise to operate passenger rail services. [2219]

  Mr. Watts
  Under the terms of his original appointment, the former Director of Rail Franchising cannot join any company with railway interests within two years of termination, except with the consent of the Secretary of State.

  Bus Transport
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to prevent the creation of regional monopolies in bus transport. [2281]

  Mr. Watts
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 10 July 1996 by my hon. Friend the then Minister for Local Transport and Road Safety,Official Report, column 204.

  Rail Services
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many of the responses to the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising passenger service requirement consultation draft for Great Eastern Rail services supported the proposals in the draft specification; and if he will place in the Library copies of all responses received. [2218]

  Mr. Watts
  Consultation responses from local authorities and rail users' consultative committees focus on changes sought to draft passenger service requirements rather than explicitly confirming support for those elements of the draft PSR which are considered to be satisfactory. OPRAF made a number of changes from the consultation draft of the Great Eastern PSR as a
  415
  consequence of representations made by consultees. The changes are described in a document which was circulated to consultees when OPRAF published the final PSR.

  OPRAF has no explicit agreement with consultees that enables it to make public their submissions, by placing them in the Library or by other means. The hon. Member may wish to approach consultees direct on this matter. I will write to the hon. Member with details of consultees.

  Railway Stations
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many railway stations have been(a) opened and (b) re-opened over the last 10 years. [2039]

  Mr. Watts
  My Department's records show that since 1986 there have been 144 railway stations opened and 26 stations re-opened.

  M20 (Ashford)
  Sir Keith Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his estimate of the latest vehicle flow on the M20 motorway at Ashford. [1999]

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

  Letter from Mr. Lawrie Haynes to Sir Keith Speed, dated 5 November 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent question about traffic flows on the M20 at Ashford.
  The Highways Agency does not have traffic counters on the M20 between Junction 9 (Ashford East) and Junction 10 (Ashford West). However, the 1995 Annual Average Daily Traffic flow on the adjoining section between Hollingbourne and Ashford (Junctions 8–9) was 18,500 eastbound and 18,400 westbound.

  Highway Clearance
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what powers highway authorities have to charge(a) vehicle owners and (b) property owners for clearing the highway following an accident or obstruction; and what limits are placed on the levels of such charges. [2576]

  Mr. Watts
  Section 149 of the Highways Act 1980 enables highway authorities to require the removal of any thing deposited on the highway so as to constitute a nuisance, or to do it themselves and recoup the costs from the person responsible, but this may not be sufficient to cover all situations in which debris needs to be removed.

  My Department proposes shortly to lay regulations under section 150 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 that will, among other things, explicitly enable local highway authorities to recoup costs incurred in connection with the clearance of accident debris. The charge will be recoverable from the person responsible for the deposit of the debris.

  A38
  Sir Robert Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects(a) design and (b) other preparatory work to commence on the proposed A38 trunk road improvement between Carkeel and Stoketon Cross; and if he will make a statement. [1630]
  416
  Mr. Watts
  The A38 Saltash to Stoketon Cross improvement scheme remains in the main trunk road programme. It will be brought forward when funds allow.

  Millennium Date Change
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the cost effects of the millennium date change on the computer systems operated by his Department. [2613]

  Mr. Bowis
  Main operational systems have been assessed and either replacement projects are being or will be programmed or rectification costs are or will be the subject of commercial negotiation. Where systems are being replaced, the cost effect of the millennium date change is not separately identified. A number of assessment projects are addressing the remainder of the Department's systems and cost estimates will be available only when decision are taken on the treatment of each system.

  Air Traffic Control
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the amount spent in the last three months on(a) lawyers, (b) accountants, (c) consultants and (d) other professionals in consultations relating to privatisation of the national air traffic control service. [12]

  Mr. Bowis
  [pursuant to his answer, 29 October 1996, Official Report, c. 100]: The Department of Transport spent about £4,000 plus VAT on legal fees in connection with this issue, with no expenditure under the other sub-headings. In addition, the Civil Aviation Authority spent approximately £25,000 plus VAT on legal fees and approximately £125,000 plus VAT on other consultants.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Millennium Date Change
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what assessment he has made of the cost effects of the millennium date change on the computer systems operated by his Department. [2607]

  Mr. Newton
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 13 June 1996,Official Report, column 290.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Millennium Date Change
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the cost effects of the millennium date change on the computer systems operated by his Department. [2612]

  Mr. Streeter
  The Department is continuing its assessment of the impact of the millennium date change on its computer systems. Until this work is complete, it will not be possible to estimate the likely costs.
  417

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Millennium Date Change
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Attorney-General what assessment he has made of the cost effects of the millennium date change on the computer systems operated by his Department, with particular reference to those operated by the Crown Prosecution Service. [2619]

  The Attorney-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service has identified all current CPS software systems which need to be checked for the millennium problem. An analysis of the staff effort needed for testing suggests that about one man year of work is involved. Work is also under way to identify other costs, such as replacement of outdated hardware.

  The Serious Fraud Office estimates that a few man months of work will be required to make the necessary changes to its systems, if it becomes apparent that those systems will still be required in the new millennium. A number of those systems may in fact be replaced before the year 2000.

  In the case of the Treasury Solicitor's Department and Government Property Lawyers, no significant cost effects are expected.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  International Criminal Court
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Government preparations for attendance of a UN plenipotentiary diplomatic conference in late 1998 to discuss the establishment of an international criminal court. [1881]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  We are active participants in the preparatory process to consider the establishment of an international criminal court. However, a date has not yet been set for a conference to consider a statute for such a court. We will make preparations for such a conference once a date has been set.

  Torture
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Mexican Government over their use of torture. [1927]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  We have made clear our concerns to the Mexican Government, who acknowledge the problem and are seeking to resolve it. We are supporting a police reform programme being implemented by the Ministry for Public Sector Reform, in order to help raise human rights awareness throughout the various police forces.

  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Turkish Government regarding the implementation of the Council of Europe
  recommendations regarding torture. [1931]
  418
  Mr. David Davis
  We have urged the Turkish authorities to implement the recommendations made following the visits of the European committee for the prevention of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment to Turkey, and to publish three reports. We welcomed the Turkish Government's decision to invite the committee to make a further visit to Turkey in August to look at prison conditions.

  Heads of Government Summit
  Sir Anthony Durant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy regarding the proposals contained in recommendation 1303 (1996) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe relating to a second summit of Heads of State and Government of the Council of Europe; and if he will make a statement. [2205]

  Mr. David Davis
  We accept that a second summit would serve a useful purpose. We expect a decision on whether or not to hold such a summit in the second half of 1997 in Strasbourg to be made at the 99th session of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 7 November. We take full note of the items listed in recommendation 1303 (1996) as potential elements for a draft declaration following a second summit, but we believe that any draft text should evolve after further consideration by member states, in consultation with the Parliamentary Assembly.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what regulations his Department proposes to repeal by the end of 1996; if he proposes to conduct a compliance cost assessment on each regulation repealed; and what is the estimated cost of undertaking a compliance cost assessment to determine the advantages and disadvantages of each repeal. [1396]

  Mr. Hanley
  This Department issues very few rules and regulations. There are no plans to repeal any rules or regulations by the end of 1996.

  Morwenstowe Interception Station, Bude
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what classification and status the Morwenstowe interception station at Bude in Cornwall has been given; at what cost it was built; who paid for it; who owns the radomes and equipment; what flags it flies; how many personnel work there and from what organisations; and if he will identify the name, nationality and employer of its commander. [2154]

  Mr. Rifkind
  The composite signals organisation station at Morwenstowe is directly subordinate to GCHQ. It is Government policy not to provide details about the operations or expenditure of the security and intelligence agencies, or about their staff.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from the Foreign Minister of South Africa in respect of Lockerbie. [2416]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  None.
  419

  Millennium Date Change
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the cost effects of the millennium date change on the computer systems operated by his Department. [2615]

  Mr. Hanley
  In line with central guidance, this Department has completed an initial study which shows that up to 60 per cent. of its software applications may be affected. Further study is taking place to determine the risks and costs. The Overseas Development Administration is taking similar action. We estimate that all problems will be resolved and that systems will be fully 2000-resilient by 31 March 1999.

  Argentina
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which Ministers authorised the reassessment of the military embargo against Argentina which led to the supply of naval engine parts; and which Ministers were informed of the outcome of this reassessment and when. [1065]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  [holding answer 29 October 1996]: I refer the hon. Member to the statement in this House on 24 October by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and to the answer given today by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. The advice given by the Department of Trade and Industry to Rolls-Royce on the licensability of the Tyne engine and components did not constitute either a variation or a relaxation of the embargo, nor did it reflect any reassessment of policy on the embargo.

TREASURY

  National Debt
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what have been the principal factors underlying the changes in the levels of the national debt since November 1990. [899]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Changes in national debt principally reflect the level of Government borrowing, which increased substantially in the recession in the early 1990s. The public sector borrowing requirement has since fallen; the latest forecast for 1996–97 is for a PSBR as a per cent. of gross domestic product of half its peak level in 1993–94.

  Beer
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to restrict the amount of beer for personal consumption which can be imported from the rest of the EU into the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [1165]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Under the provisions of the Excise Duty (Personal Reliefs) Order 1992, based on Council directive 92/12/EEC, travellers may bring into the UK alcohol, purchased for their own use, duty and tax paid in another EU country, without further liability to UK duty and tax. There is no restriction on the quantity of such goods that an individual can purchase. The directive, however, provides indicative levels, agreed by all member 420
  states, which can assist Customs officers in determining whether goods are in fact intended for commercial use—for beer the level is 110 litres. Although there is no fiscal frontier, a person holding such goods may be challenged by a Customs officer anywhere in the UK, and must be able to satisfy the officer that goods in excess of the indicative levels are not for a commercial purpose.

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to equalise the duty on beer with that applying in other European countries; and if he will make a statement. [1166]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The Government would like to see some movement towards the equalisation of duty rates on beer within the EU through the mechanism of the European Commission's biennial review of the minimum rates of excise duty. The next review is due by the end of 1996. Meanwhile, in reaching his Budget decisions, the Chancellor of the Exchequer takes a range of factors into account, including the rates of duty applied by our near neighbours in the European Union.

  Public Sector Debt
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the present size of the net public sector debt; and what was the equivalent figure in(a) November 1990 and (b) May 1979. [809]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 31 October 1996]: Debt figures are not available on a monthly basis; published figures record the stock of debt at the end of each financial year. A provisional estimate of net public sector debt at end March 1996 of £323 billion was published in the "Summer Economic Forecast'''. Equivalent figures for end March 1991 and end March 1979 were £154 billion and £91 billion respectively. Such comparisons are not particularly meaningful since they take no account of the impact of inflation or the size of the economy. As a per cent. of money GDP, net public sector debt in 1996 was somewhat lower than in 1979.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the net public sector debt per income tax payer; and what was the figure in(a) November 1990 and (b) May 1979. [812]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 31 October 1996]: Debt figures are not available on a monthly basis; published figures record the stock of debt at the end of each financial year. Based on the provisional estimate of net public sector debt at end March published in the "Summer Economic Forecast", NPSD per income tax payer at end-March 1996 was £12,700. Equivalent figures for end-March 1991 and end March 1979 were £5,900 and £4,300 respectively. Such comparisons are not particularly meaningful since they take no account of inflation. Real net public sector debt per income tax payer was marginally lower in 1996 than in 1979.

  Transport Fuel Duty
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many representations he has received from road haulage organisations on the current level of transport fuel duty; and if he will make a statement. [1748]
  421
  Mr. Oppenheim
  I and my ministerial colleagues have received numerous representations from individuals and companies involved in road haulage. I saw representatives of the Road Haulage Association as recently as 29 October.

  Inland Revenue
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals his Department is currently evaluating with regard to local exchange trading systems and the Inland Revenue; and if he will make a statement. [2306]

  Mr. Jack
  The Inland Revenue is not aware of any particular problems with local exchange trading systems and has no plans to evaluate these schemes.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is Her Majesty's Government's policy in respect of LETS and the Inland Revenue; and if he will make a statement. [2305]

  Mr. Jack
  Traders who operate within a local exchange trading system are taxable on their trading profits, just like traders who operate outside of such a scheme.

  Ministerial Visit (Switzerland)
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the purpose of his visit to Switzerland between 2 and 4 December 1994. [2208]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  My visit to Switzerland was a private one made at my own expense.

  Unremunerated Work
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how the Government plan to take forward the commitment, given in the global platform for action resulting from the fourth UN world conference on women, to measure unremunerated work which is outside the usual national account conventions. [2923]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The Office for National Statistics is working to construct a satellite account on the household, in line with recommendations in the 1993 UN system of national accounts. Part of this project is theoretical and will be overseen by an interdepartmental working group on satellite accounts. The rest of the project would involve asking people how they use their time, to find out how much unpaid work is done. At present, ONS is designing a pilot survey which would take place in 1997. An article on time use data in the construction of household accounts appeared in the July edition of Economic Trends.

  European Monetary Union
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of recent progress towards European monetary union. [703]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 30 October 1996]: The Florence European Council stated that economic and monetary union will start, in accordance with the EC treaty, on 1 January 1999, but it is too early to make realistic and certain assessment of progress and there are still considerable uncertainties. The decision on which countries are adjudged to meet the conditions to
  422
  join EMU in 1999 will not be made by Heads of Government until early 1998, based on an assessment by the council of Economic and Finance Ministers, ECOFIN, at that time.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the latest date by which the United Kingdom will need to make a decision on whether to participate as a founder member of European monetary union if the existing timetable is adhered to; and if he will make a statement. [811]

  Mr. Clarke
  [holding answer 31 October 1996]: The existing timetable is still based on the assumption that EMU will start on 1 January 1999 although that is open to considerable uncertainty in practice. Protocol No.11 to the EC treaty provides that in the event of EMU starting on 1 January 1999, the United Kingdom may notify its intention to move to the third stage before 1 January 1998.

  Government Financial Deficit
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the ability of the United Kingdom to reduce its general Government financial deficit to below the 3 per cent. level necessary to meet the Maastrict treaty convergence criteria. [810]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 31 October 1996]: The summer economic forecast projected a general Government deficit in the UK of 3 per cent. in 1997–98. Updated forecasts will be published with the Budget, on 26 November 1996.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list(a) UK receipts from CAP as a proportion of UK gross domestic product, and (b) Scottish receipts from CAP as a proportion of Scotland's gross domestic product. [1534]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 31 October 1996]: The following figures refer to 1994 gross domestic product, as that is the last year for which a figure for Scottish gross domestic product is currently available. UK receipts from CAP represented 0.4 per cent. of UK GDP, excluding the UK continental shelf. Scottish receipts from CAP represented 0.6 per cent. of Scottish GDP.

  Venture Capital
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list(a) the size of each company invested in by a venture capital trust, together with the sum invested and (b) the number and size of companies in which more than one venture capital trust has invested, together with the number of venture capital trusts which have invested in each. [1225]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 4 November 1996]: We expect the venture capital trusts to give information of the type requested in their annual reports.
  423

  Public Relations
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much his Department spent on(a) advertising, (b) public relations and (c) entertainment in each of the past five financial years. [1268]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 4 November 1996]: Expenditure on advertising, public relations and official hospitality by HM Treasury in the last five financial years is included in the published running costs.

  Car Parking
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the revenue which would be raised by the treatment of car parking space provided to employees as a taxable benefit; and if he will make a statement. [1622]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 4 November 1996]: Before 1988, the benefit of employer-provided workplace car parking was taxable under the general rules for valuing benefits in kind. This benefit was exempted in 1988, on practical grounds, at a cost then estimated at £5 million a year. The revenues that would now be raised by specific charging rules would depend on those rules—for example, the valuation mechanism and any exclusion for low-value parking or infrequent users.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  EU Maternal and Child Health Budget Line
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) how many and which projects have been funded by the EU maternal and child health budget line for(a) 1994, (b) 1995 and (c) 1996; and what is the total amount of funding allocated for these projects; [2008]

  (2) what is the total amount of commitment appropriation for the EU maternal and child health budget line (B7–5047) for (a) 1994, (b) 1996 and (c) 1997. [2007]

  (3) which agencies and non-governmental organisations are responsible for projects funded by the EU maternal and child health budget line for (a) 1994, (b) 1995 and (c) 1996; in which countries the projects are conducted; and what is their duration. [2009]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  The projects funded are as follows:

  1994

  1. Commonwealth Regional Health Community Secretariat: support for Commonwealth reproductive health programme in east, central and southern Africa, duration 40 months.

  2. Marie Stopes International (UK): testing the effectiveness of a community based network in Bolivia, duration 26 months.

  3. Marie Stopes International (UK): studies on a family life education programme and a family planning education programme in Kenya, duration 20 months.

  4. International Planned Parenthood Federation Resources Development Department: expanding family planning services in the Caribbean—Belize, Guyana, St. Lucia—in the wider context of reproductive health, duration 28 months.

  1995

  This budget line had no appropriations for that fiscal year.

  424

  1996

  1. University of Wales: review of three maternal and child health projects funded by the EC, duration five months.

  2. Walter Kessler: study on the problems of integrating Maternal and Child Health into financial health programmes, duration 14 months.

  3. Commonwealth Regional Health Community Secretariat: operation research to demonstrate the impact of a package of low cost and sustainable intervention to reduce perinatal, neonatal and maternal mortality and morbidity in selected districts in Zimbabwe, duration 28 months.

  The total amount committed for the EU maternal and child health budget line was 2,306,250 ECU for years 1994 to 1996. No funds are committed for 1997.

  Kenya
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what human rights considerations are applied in selecting candidates from the Kenyan military and police for training. [2295]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  Candidates for training are nominated by the Kenyan Government. We examine candidates' professional qualifications.

  Mrs. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of United Kingdom trainers currently training the Kenyan police have been training them since 1991. [2296]

  Dr. Fox
  None.

  Mrs. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in which years the Kenyan police have received training in the United Kingdom since 1991. [2299]

  Dr. Fox
  Since 1991, 26 members of the Kenyan police have received training in the United Kingdom: five in 1991, one in 1992, four in 1995, and 16 in 1996.

  Mrs. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what human rights elements have been included in the training of Kenyan police since 1991. [2284]

  Dr. Fox
  A number of trainees attended the
  international commanders course at the Bramshill police training college in the UK which includes a specific component on human rights. In addition, we are currently helping the Kenyan police force develop two in-country training courses: a senior management training course which concentrates on the responsibility and accountability of the police to the community; and a course on the care and treatment of the public and prisoners. Both courses are concerned with awareness of human rights issues.

  Mrs. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what human rights components were included in the training of Kenyan military personnel during 1995 in the United Kingdom and Kenya. [2283]

  Dr. Fox
  The detail of our bilateral training programmes for military personnel is regarded as confidential between Governments. We have no reason to believe that our training programmes have anything other than a positive impact on human rights practices in other countries.
  425
  Mrs. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many and what grade of Kenyan military personnel trainees were trained during 1995 in the United Kingdom and Kenya. [2282]

  Dr. Fox
  The detail of our bilateral training programmes for military personnel is regarded as confidential between Governments.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Horticultural Training
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what Government training schemes available for(a) school leavers, (b) people unemployed, (c) people unemployed for over six months but under 12 months, (d) people unemployed for over 12 months but under two years and (e) people unemployed for over two years include a significant proportion of training in horticultural skills, stating for each the number of places available and what percentage that is of the total number of places offered on other available schemes; and if she will make a statement. [1680]

  Mr. Paice
  Training and enterprise councils operate three main programmes on behalf of the Department for Education and Employment. The training delivered through each of these is geared to local labour market needs. Youth training offers the opportunity for 16 and 17-year-olds to receive training leading to a recognised vocational qualification of at least NVQ level 2 or equivalent. Modern apprenticeships are a similar scheme with an upper age limit of 25 in which to complete the programme. Training for work is aimed at people between the ages of 18 and 63 who have been unemployed for six months or more, although other disadvantaged groups, for example, people with disabilities and people needing literacy or numeracy training, have immediate eligibility regardless of the length of unemployment. From these programmes, the following figures are given:

  England and Wales

  April to June 1996

  Start a in horticultural trades

  Percentage of all starts

  Youth training

  260

  1

  Training for work

  640

  2

  Modern apprenticeships

  20

  Less than 1

  Source:

  YT, TfW. MA Starts databases.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what research she has(a) evaluated and (b) commissioned regarding the educational value of horticulture; and if she will make a statement; [1593]

  (2) what research she has (a) evaluated and (b) commissioned regarding training schemes for teaching organic methods of horticulture; and if she will make a statement. [1657]

  Mr. Paice
  We have not evaluated or commissioned research in this area.
  426

  Local Education Authorities (Capital Spending)
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what has been the capital spending by each local education authority in each of the last six years for which figures are available; and what have been the Government capital allocations to each local education authority in each of those years and in each subsequent year for which allocations have been made(a) in cash terms and (b) in real terms. [2123]

  Mrs. Gillan
  As the information is contained in a number of tables, I will write to the hon. Member and place copies in the Library.

  Pupils (Behavioural Problems)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list, consequent to the duties laid on local education authorities in clause 26 of the Education Bill requiring them to publish the arrangements they make in relation to pupils with behavioural problems,(a) how such problems shall be defined and by whom, (b) who shall determine the extent and nature of the necessary physical and human arrangements and (c) how such is to be financed. [2326]

  Mr. Forth
  We intend that all of these matters will be determined by local education authorities. But each of them may need to feature in the guidance which my right hon. Friend will issue, and on which we plan to consult widely over coming months.

  Teachers (In-service Training)
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will review the practice of conducting in-service training during school working days; and if she will make a statement. [2006]

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State expects governing bodies and head teachers to organise in-service training for their staff in a way which causes the least possible disruption to their pupils' education. Since 1 September 1995, governing bodies have been able to pay teachers for attending training at weekends and during school holidays using funds which would otherwise be spent on supply cover for courses during school hours.

  Schools Access Initiative
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what provisions have been made for the continued funding of the schools access initiative. [2206]

  Mrs. Gillan
  No decision has been taken yet on whether to repeat the schools access initiative in 1997–98. The decision will be taken in light of the overall resources available for education at the end of the public expenditure survey round.

  Departmental Information
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list in date order the information sent by her Department to(a) primary, (b) special and (d) grant-maintained schools during the academic year 1995–96. [1624]
  427
  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information is given in the following table. It is not possible to give separately the figures for special schools. Since this period, the Department has taken steps to reduce significantly the amount of written material that it sends to schools. Although schools will continue to receive automatically essential information, for example, on the law, it is now for them to decide what other information they want and to order it from a twice-termly list of recent publications.

  Title

  Date

  Primary schools

  Removing the Requirement to Publish

  Statutory Proposals to Establish Nursery

  Classes in the Maintained Sector

  September 1995

  Pupil Achievement in Primary Schools 1995

  March 1996

  Secondary schools

  Approval of qualifications under section 5 of ERA

  April 1995

  Good Practice in Secondary Schools

  May 1995

  New National targets for Education and Training

  May 1995

  Value Added for GCSE A/AS Level

  June 1995

  Schools and Colleges Performance Tables Circular 7/95

  July 1995

  Sportsmark Letter

  July 1995

  The Parent's Charter: Publication of Information Secondary Schools Performance Circular 6/95

  July 1995

  Bovine Eyeball Dissection in Schools

  July 1995

  Top Flight leaflet

  August 1996

  Section 50 Circular

  August 1996

  Section 50 Guidance

  September 199

  School and College Performance Tables

  November 1995

  Performance Tables Consultation

  February 19096

  Pupil Achievement in Secondary Schools 1995

  March 1996

  All schools

  Schools Update

  April 1995

  VJ pack

  April 1995

  School Teachers' Review Body document

  April 1995

  Charter mark guidance

  April 1995

  Governing Bodies and Effective Schools booklet

  April 1995

  Appeal Committee Guidelines

  April 1995

  Teachers' Pay and Conditions Order 1995

  April 1995

  Drugs Circular

  May 1995

  Section 5 Circular

  May 1995

  White Paper on Competitiveness; Forging Ahead

  May 1995

  Teachers' Pay and Condition Booklet and Circular

  June 1995

  Schools Update

  June 1995

  Sports Policy Statement

  July 1995

  Annual GM consideration

  July 1995

  Assisted Places Scheme: A Brief Guide for Parents

  August 1995

  VJ Day 'thank you' letter

  September 1995

  VASA Grant Guide

  September 1995

  Schools Action Plans: Planning for Improvement

  September 1995

  Ethnic Monitoring of School Pupils— Circular Letter

  September 1995

  Aide-Memoire for School Governors

  October 1995

  Child Protection circular 10/95

  October 1995

  Schools Update

  October 1995

  Teachers' Misconduct circular 11/95

  October 1995

  Protecting Children from Abuse: Role of the Education Service

  October 1995

  Our School Your School booklet

  October 1995

  428

  Title

  Date

  Schools Census Form

  November 1995

  Consultation document on National Curriculum Assessment

  January 1996

  Physical Education and Sports in Schools

  January 1996

  NC Assessment for 7, 11 and 14 year olds

  January 1996

  Assessing and Testing

  February 1996

  Commonwealth Day Poster/Message

  February 1996

  School Teachers' Review Body Report 1996

  February 1996

  Bullying Packs

  March 1996

  Charter Mark

  March 1996

  BSE letter

  March 1996

  School girl Rubella Immunisation

  March 1996

  Pupil Achievement in Schools

  March 1996

  Grant-maintained schools

  GM Funding

  April 1995

  Single Regeneration Budget

  April 1995

  Common Funding Formula for GM Schools

  June 1995

  Annual Maintenance Grant for GM and GM Special Schools 1996–1997

  July 1995

  School Premises Regulations—Consultation document and letter on asbestos in educational buildings

  August 1995

  GM Bulletin Edition No. 13

  October 1995

  Common Funding Formula 96–97

  Consultation Paper

  October 1995

  Statutory Instrument 1743

  October 1995

  Going GM Conferences

  November 1995

  AGM Arrangements 1996–97

  December 1995

  GM Admissions Consultation

  January 1996

  GM Conferences

  February 1996

  Secondary School Total—CFF

  February 1996

  Nursery Provision

  February 1996

  GM Bulletin Edition No. 14

  February 1996

  GM Speakers List

  March 1996

  School (Money Reserves)
  Mr. Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much money local education authority schools in Suffolk and Norfolk had in reserve, deposit and holding accounts(a) as a total amount and (b) as a percentage of the total available to be spent on schools in each of the last three years. [2048]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The following table shows in column 1 for Norfolk and column 3 for Suffolk, the total financial balances, net of any deficits, held at the end of each year by the schools covered by each local education authority's scheme for the local management of schools. The figures have been derived from the LMS outturn statements produced by the LEAs for the relevant years. Columns 2 and 4 show, for each LEA respectively, the balances expressed as a percentage of the general schools budget—less capital expenditure and capital finance costs—shown at the beginning of each year in the LMS budget statement.

  Norfolk

  Suffolk

  Financial year

  1 £000

  2 Per cent.

  3 £000

  4 Per cent.

  1993–1994

  9,199

  4.7

  13,500

  7.1

  1994–19951

  9,262

  4.4

  11,487

  5.7

  1995–19961

  7,929

  3.9

  10,916

  5.2

  1 Includes special schools.

  429

  Millennium Date Change
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment she has made of the cost effects of the millennium date change on the computer systems operated by her Department. [2617]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department has made an initial assessment of 5,000 days effort for the 1997–98 financial year. A project has been set up to identify all the Department's computer systems which will be impacted by the millennium date change. This projet will provide detailed costings covering all the work needed up to the millennium and take forward those changes where they are cost justified.

  Youth Unemployment (Cambridgeshire)
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of 18 to 24-year-olds in the constituency of South-East Cambridgeshire are unemployed; and if he will make a statement. [980]

  Mr. Paice
  [holding answer 29 October 1996]: The Office for National Statistics does not provide claimant unemployment rates by age below national level, and considers that sample sizes in an area as small as a parliamentary constituency would be too small for reliable estimates of unemployment to be made from the quarterly labour force survey. However, data from the 1991 census show an unemployment rate of 7.7 per cent. for 18 to 24-year-olds in the constituency of South-East Cambridgeshire.

  I am grateful to the hon. Member for acknowledging his error in stating—Official Report, 22 May 1996, column 274—that one in four 18 to 24-year-olds in South-East Cambridgeshire are unemployed. I am happy to accept that his misleading remark was made accidentally.

  Child Care
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of the(a) women who are mothers and (b) men who are fathers who are employed by her Department have received assistance from the Department with child care. [1288]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 4 November 1996]: 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 Department is, however, able to give information on the number of staff who have received child care assistance.

  Subsidised places are provided at four playschemes and two nurseries at the DFEE head office sites. Two hundred and twenty-one female and 101 male staff have used the play schemes or nurseries in the past 12 months.

  Staff can claim additional child care expenses arising from attendance at a residential training course or from disruption to normal work routine. Thirty-five women and nine men have claimed additional child care expenses from the Department in the past 12 months.
  430
  The Department also offers a range of provisions which can help staff balance home and home and work responsibilities:

  Career breaks enable staff to take up to five years off work to cope with domestic responsibilities.
  Paid and unpaid special leave is available to allow carers to deal with emergency child care cover.
  Staff can apply to have a flexible work pattern such as part time, job sharing and home working.

  Female Staff
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many women are currently employed by her Department; and what proportion this is of the total. [1255]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 4 November 1996]: The DFEE excluding executive agencies currently employs 2,662 women. This is 53 per cent. of the Department's total employees.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prisons (Drugs)
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list(a) the overall cost to the Prison Service of introducing mandatory drug testing including capital investment involved in building appropriate facilities and (b) the cost to the Prison Service per drug test, indicating (a) Prison Service expenditure and (b) costs billed to non-Prison Service contractors, excluding capital investment involved in building appropriate facilities. [1500]

  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 Mr. George Howarth, dated 5 November 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the costs of introducing mandatory drug testing and of the tests themselves.
  The total cost of introducing mandatory drug testing was £940,840. The cost of a mandatory drug test is £45.32. More detail is given in the attached tables.

  Introducing mandatory drug testing

  £

  Building work and equipment1

  266,000

  First phase staffing costs

  36,000

  Staff training

  551,000

  Headquarters project staffing and expenses

  87,840

  Total

  940,840

  1This represents centrally allocated funds. In a few cases where only minor alterations were necessary or the work was done as part of a larger building project, the costs were borne by individual establishments. These costs could only be calculated at disproportionate expense.

  431

  Cost of a mandatory drug test

  £

  Equipment

  1.02

  Courier

  0.99

  Laboratory Analysis1

  2.37

  Staff costs

  40.94

  Total

  45.32

  1This is for the initial screen test which all samples undergo. 8.6 per cent. of samples undergo a further, confirmatory test at a cost of £28.82.

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will respond to the recommendations in the report of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs on "Drug Misusers and the Prison System—An Integrated Approach". [1755]

  Miss Widdecombe
  We expect to do so soon.

  Training Periods
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the specific training period for(a) a probation officer, (b) a fireman and (c) a prison officer. [1953]

  Mr. Sackville
  Under the new arrangements for the recruitment and qualifying training of probation officers, there will not be a specific training period. A flexible training programme is being devised which will allow training to be geared to the needs of individual recruits, taking into account their skills and experience. This will make it easier for a broad range of applicants to apply for appointment as a probation officer as they will not have to undertake the two-year social work diploma course required under the previous arrangements.

  Home Office guidance recommends a minimum of 14 weeks' training for recruit firefighters.

  Newly recruited prison officers undertake 13 weeks' initial training, including a nine-week residential course.

  Immigrants (South African)
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many immigrants and returnees from South Africa entered the United Kingdom in(a) 1970, (b) 1980, (c) 1985 and (d) each year from 1990 to 1995, broken down by ethnic origin where available. [1948]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Information on migrants, including temporary migrants, from South Africa is given in table A, and information on South African citizens who have been accepted for settlement in the United Kingdom is given in table B. Information on their ethnic origin is not available.

  Table A Migrants from South Africa1 entering the United Kingdom

  Thousands of persons

  Country of birth

  Year2

  Total

  United Kingdom

  Rest of the world

  1970

  6.8

  34.5

  32.3

  1980

  3.9

  2.5

  1.4

  1985

  17.8

  10.1

  7.7

  1990

  6.4

  4.4

  2.0

  432

  Table A: Migrants from South Africa1 entering the United Kingdom

  Thousands of persons

  Country of birth

  Year2

  Total

  United Kingdom

  Rest of the world

  1991

  8.0

  6.0

  2.0

  1992

  6.9

  4.8

  2.1

  1993

  9.4

  5.7

  3.7

  1994

  8.1

  2.6

  5.5

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics.

  Notes:

  1 Persons who have resided for a year or longer in South Africa and who state on arrival the intention to stay in the United Kingdom for a year or longer.

  2 Data for 1995 onwards are not yet available.

  3Data relate to nationality not country of birth.

  Table B: Citizens of South Africa accepted for settlement in the United Kingdom

  Year

  Number

  1970

  1—

  1980

  920

  1985

  790

  1990

  850

  1991

  1,050

  1992

  890

  1993

  1,100

  1994

  1,260

  1995

  1,300

  1 Not available.

  Firearms
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the value of the retail trade in handguns of more than .22 calibre. [1480]

  Miss Widdecombe
  We have made no estimate of this.

  Sir Jerry Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what advice he has received concerning the temporary dismantling of self-loading pistols and revolvers proposed in Lord Cullen's report at paragraph 9.106; and if he will place that advice in the Library. [2020]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 4 November 1996]: Advice from firearms experts at the Forensic Science Service is reflected in paragraphs 109 to 115 of the Government's evidence submitted to Lord Cullen's inquiry. A copy is in the Library. A copy of further advice from the Forensic Science Service confirming the view that the design of some self-loading pistols will make the operation to remove the slide assembly substantially more difficult than in others and the difficulties involved in removing the cylinder of a revolver has been placed in the Library.

  Sir Jerry Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those guns which are not capable of dismantling in the manner described in Lord Cullen's report, paragraph 9.106. [2021]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 4 November 1996]: I understand from the Forensic Science Service that varying degrees of difficulty and potential damage apply to all self-loading pistols and revolvers.
  433
  Sir Jerry Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many guns have been surrendered as a result of the prohibitions introduced by the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988; how many claims for compensation remain to be settled; and what was the total cost of compensation paid to date. [2022]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 4 November 1996]: The Department received nearly 3,000 claims relating to around 3,600 firearms under the Government buy-in scheme for weapons which became prohibited by virtue of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988. A total of £620,000 was paid in relation to those claims. The Department has considered all claims made under the scheme and advised claimants of the outcome. Offers have been made to all claimants entitled to receive compensation.

  Children's Certificates
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children's certificates have been issued to licensed premises in each county or metropolitan authority in England and Wales. [1482]

  Notifiable offences recorded by the police in which firearms were reported to have been used and as a percentage of all notifiable offences of that type

  Homicide

  Other violence against the person

  Sexual offences

  Burglary

  Robbery

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  1995

  45

  7.3

  3,005

  2.5

  18

  20.0

  125

  10.0

  2.531

  9.2

  19951

  70

  9.4

  2,614

  1.2

  12

  20.0

  268

  20.0

  3,963

  5.8

  1 Provisional figures.

  2 Less than 0.05 per cent.

  The available information on offences involving the use of knives relates to 1988 and 1989 and is from an ad hoc survey concerning offences of violence against the person, robbery, aggravated burglary and sexual offences recorded by the police in which knives were involved. The results were published in table 2.24 of "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales, 1989". A copy of this publication is in the Library.

  In addition, it is known that in offences currently recorded as homicide, 97 involved the use of a sharp instrument in 1985–35 per cent. of currently recorded homicide offences. The provisional figures for 1995 are 192 and 41 per cent. respectively.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many people were proceeded against for having an article with a blade or point in a public place; and how many were found guilty for the last year for which figures are available; [1653]

  (2) how many people were proceeded against for possession of an offensive weapon; and how many were found guilty for the last year for which figures are available. [1652]

  Mr. Maclean
  Information for 1995, which is provisional, is given in the table.
  434
  Mr. Kirkhope
  The information requested is contained in table 2 of the Home Office statistical bulletin "Liquor Licensing Statistics Children's Certificates: England and Wales, January 1995-June 1996", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many and what percentage of (i) burglaries, (ii) homicides, (iii) robberies, (iv) instances of violence against the person and (v) sexual offences involved the use of(a) a gun and (b) a knife or sharp instrument for (1) 1985, (2) 1995 and (3) the last year for which figures are available; [1655]

  (2) how many offences involving the use of a knife there were in the last year for which figures are available. [1654]

  Mr. Maclean
  The following table shows the number of notifiable offences recorded by the police in England and Wales in which firearms were reported to have been used and as a percentage of all notifiable offences of that type:

  Number of defendants prosecuted at magistrates' courts and convicted at all courts for offences involving carrying weapons

  England and Wales1 1995

  Offence description

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  Carrying article with blade or point in a public place [Criminal Justice Act 1988, Sec 139]

  3,474

  2,559

  Carrying of offensive weapons2 without lawful authority or reasonable excuse in a public place [Prevention of Crime Act 1953, Sec 1]

  5,215

  3,190

  1 Provisional.

  2 May include a small number of offences involving truncheons etc.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many crimes ended in a court conviction in England and Wales in(a) 1993, (b) 1994 and (c) 1995; [2229]

  (2) how many crimes ended in a caution in England and Wales in (a) 1993, (b) 1994 and (c) 1995. [2230]

  Mr. Maclean
  Information readily available centrally on the number of offenders found guilty or cautioned in each of the years 1993, 1994 and 1995 is shown in the table.
  435

  Number of offenders found guilty at all courts or cautioned by type of offence 1993–951

  England and Wales

  Convicted

  Cautioned

  Type of offence

  1993

  1994

  11995

  1993

  1995

  11994

  Indictable

  307,548

  314,148

  302,177

  209,555

  209,769

  202,585

  Summary non-motoring

  453,079

  454,731

  2410,021

  101,759

  98,670

  88,662

  Summary motoring

  664,651

  638,814

  2642,386

  3—

  3—

  3—

  All offences

  1,425,314

  1,407,623

  21,354,584

  311,314

  308,439

  291,247

  1 Provisional.

  2 In 1995 it is estimated that there were shortfalls of 70,300 and 4,800 offenders convicted for certain summary non-motoring and summary motoring offences respectively.

  3 Not applicable. Motoring offences may attract written warnings.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many crimes were cleared up by the police in England and Wales in(a) 1993, (b) 1994 and (c) 1995. [2231]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is given in the following table:

  Number of recorded offences cleared up in England and Wales

  Year

  Number of recorded offences cleared up

  1993

  1,328,155

  1994

  1,326.366

  1995

  1,276,875

  Fire and Rescue Authorities
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has to introduce legislation to protect fire and rescue authorities against legal action of the sort taken in the case of Digital v. Hampshire Fire and Rescue Services; [1939]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the financial and legal consequences for fire and rescue services of the judgment in the case of Digital v. Hampshire Fire and Rescue Services. [1940]

  Mr. Sackville
  Once the outcome of the appeal proceedings is known, the Government will decide whether there are any implications which fire authorities in general ought to consider and, if so, will circulate advice accordingly.

  Tattooing and Skin Piercing
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the operation of the law relating to the tattooing of under-16s, and what are his reasons for deciding against the introduction of an age limit for other forms of skin piercing. [1946]

  Mr. Maclean
  The Tattooing of Minors Act 1969 prohibits the tattooing of anyone under the age of 18. The Government have received no evidence to suggest that the law provides inadequate protection for children in regard to other forms of skin piercing and have no current plans for a statutory age limit in this area. The Law Commission is, however, looking at the general issue of tattooing, piercing and other forms of body decoration, as part of its 436
  study of consent in the criminal law, and the Government will give careful consideration to the recommendations which they make in their final report.

  Recidivism
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many criminals have been convicted of a third or subsequent serious violent or sexual offence following two previous such convictions since 1990; and if he will make a statement. [2448]

  Mr. Maclean
  My right hon. and learned Friend wrote to my hon. Friend on 1 November. A copy of the letter has been placed in the Library.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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. [1395]

  Mr. Howard
  The timetable for the laying of draft deregulation orders is a matter to be agreed between the Government and the Deregulation Committee, but we hope the Committee will receive draft deregulation orders on the following before the end of 1996:Licensing Act 1964: simplifying procedures on liquor licence transfers;
  Gaming Act 1968: allowing payment by debit cards in casinos and bingo halls;
  Gaming Act 1968: allowing advertising for bingo, betting shops and on-site amusement with prizes machines;
  Licensing (Occasional Permissions) Act 1983: simplifying the procedures for, and extending the number of occasional permissions for, non-profit making bodies;
  Licensing Act 1964: allowing off-licences to obtain occasional licences.

  Stray Dogs
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what guidance is issued to police authorities in circumstances where dogs are presented as strays with regard to(a) the identification of the owner and (b) the placing of the animal in suitable care; [1546]

  (2) how many dogs were placed in kennels by the police in the last year for which figures are available; and at what cost; [1547]

  (3) how police authorities select kennels for the purpose of housing stray dogs; and what criteria are applied to the length of time the animals are kept at public expense. [1548]
  437
  Mr. Maclean
  The policing of stray dogs is an operational matter for the police using their powers provided under the Dogs Act 1906, as amended. Guidance was issued to the police following amendments to this Act contained in the Environmental Protection Act 1990. A copy of the joint Department of Environment, Welsh Office and Home Office circular—Home Office circular No. 5/1992—is available from the Library.

  The additional information requested is not available centrally.

  Boot Camp (Thorn Cross)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the cost of setting up the boot camp at Thorn Cross; what is the cost per inmate; and what is the staffing ratio. [1669]

  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 Richard Tilt to Mr. Doug Hoyle, dated 5 November 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the cost of setting up the boot camp at Thorn Cross, the cost per inmate and the staffing ratio.
  The start up costs were about £1.75 million for construction and about £160,000 for other costs, mainly staff recruitment and training. The expected cost per inmate place for the current financial year, calculated by dividing the full year's anticipated running costs by the full inmate population, is £27,600. The personal officer to inmate ratio is 1:3.5.

  Internet Pornography
  Sir Michael Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions have taken place between his Department and the Internet Service Providers Association on the issue of child pornography; what proposals have been made to him for the creation of a mechanism to prevent the transmission of pornographic material; and if he will make a statement. [2050]

  Mr. Sackville
  On 23 September, my hon. Friend the Minister for Science and Technology and I welcomed the setting up of an independent industry body to tackle the problems of illegal material, particularly child pornography, on the Internet. This followed discussions between our two departments, the police and representatives of Internet service providers.

  The new body, the Internet Watch Foundation, will establish a "hotline" so that users can report the presence of child pornography in a newsgroup. The foundation will determine whether particular newsgroups carry child pornography, then forward the information to the relevant service provider, who will trace the originator and request that it is removed. Details will be passed to the police—or to the National Criminal Intelligence Service, if the originator is abroad. It will also encourage Internet service providers to ensure that their users provide new material with a contents rating before placing it on the Internet, and that these ratings are compatible and can be identified by computer software being introduced to the market.

  This is an important step forward, although more work needs to be done by the industry. We shall be closely monitoring developments in this area.
  438

  Criminal Records Database
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what fee was paid to the PCL group for the contract to transfer pre-1981 criminal records to the national computer's Phoenix database; what percentage of the contract was carried out by the PCL group; and how many records were transferred. [2419]

  Mr. Maclean
  PCL was paid £8.8 million, excluding value added tax, under the keying contract.

  The contract specified two main measures, of which one was 55 per cent. complete and the other 80 per cent. complete when it was terminated by mutual consent.

  About 320,000 criminal records have been added to the Phoenix database, and work on back record conversion is continuing.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of pre-1981 criminal records have been transferred to the national computer's Phoenix database. [2423]

  Mr. Maclean
  All criminal record data held on the police national computer were transferred to the Phoenix database on 22 May 1995. These included 2.8 million records originating before 1981 consisting of name and criminal record office number.

  Paedophile Register
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the impact on the date of implementation of a national register of paedophiles of the termination of the contract for transferring pre-1981 criminal records to the national computer's Phoenix database by the PCL group. [2421]

  Mr. Maclean
  The termination of this contract will not affect the implementation of the national register of paedophiles.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the award of a contract to implement a national register of paedophiles. [2422]

  Mr. Maclean
  The register will be held as part of the Phoenix database of the police national computer.

  Millennium Date Change
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the cost of effects of the millennium date change on the computer systems operated by his Department. [2604]

  Mr. Howard
  My Department is aware of the problem. The Department's information technology service provider, Sema group, has produced the report to which I referred in my previous reply on 17 June 1996,Official Report, column 302. The business areas in my Department have been considering the report and are now entering into discussions with suppliers on action plans, taking into account other developments and the likelihood of systems still being in place at the time of the millennium date change. As the plans are developed, costs will be assessed.
  439

  Departmental Actions (Court Rulings)
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions since May 1993 courts have deemed his Department had acted illegally; on what dates the rulings were made and in relation to which cases. [843]

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 29 October 1996]: No central record is kept of the outcome of all the cases against the Home Office since May 1993, which include judicial review applications, writ actions, industrial tribunal cases and county court cases.

  Voting Register
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much is being spent in the current financial year on national advertising campaigns to encourage people to register to vote; and what was the equivalent figure in real terms for each year since 1978–79. [1461]

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 4 November 1996]: In the current financial year, £700,000 is being spent on electoral registration advertising.

  In previous years, the actual spend was as follows, with equivalent figures in brackets, calculated in 1995–96 prices using the gross domestic product deflator.

  Actual spend £

  Equivalent figure £

  1982–83

  87,000

  160,000

  1983–84

  113,000

  199,000

  1984–85

  126,000

  211,000

  1985–86

  150,000

  239,000

  1986–87

  300,000

  463,000

  1987–88

  260,000

  381,000

  1988–89

  306,000

  420,000

  1989–90

  452,000

  580,000

  1990–91

  468,000

  557,000

  1991–92

  614,000

  686,000

  1992–93

  606,000

  650,000

  1993–94

  620,000

  646,000

  1994–95

  650,000

  666,000

  1995–96

  815,000

  815,000

  1996–97

  700,000

  685,000

  My Department's records of advertising expenditure for the years before 1982–83 do not provide a breakdown between individual campaigns. The work involved in identifying costs of electoral registration advertising for those years would incur disproportionate costs.

  The budget for television advertising spots, media spend and agency fees in 1996–97 is nearly the same as that for 1995–96. The difference between the years shown in the table is primarily because of production savings achieved this year through re-use of the 1995–96 commercial. Research showed it to be an effective advertisement capable of continuing to get the message across. After allowing for this, the real terms advertising spend was £685,000 in 1996–97 compared with £700,000 in 1995–96. Last year, general awareness of registration publicity among people surveyed rose from 29 per cent. pre-campaign to 61 per cent., post. This year, it rose from 20 per cent. pre to 70 per cent. post.
  440

  Repatriations
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when documents concerning the application by John Blair to be repatriated to a prison in the Irish Republic were sent to the appropriate authorities in the Republic; when he expects John Blair will be repatriated; and if he will make a statement; [1972]

  (2) when Harry Duggin and Joe O'Connell applied to be repatriated to a prison in the Republic of Ireland; if the necessary documents have been referred to the appropriate authorities of the Republic; when he expects both prisoners will be repatriated; and if he will make a statement. [1973]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 4 November 1996]: The necessary documentation relating to Mr. Blair's repatriation request was referred to the Republic of Ireland on 18 September 1996. Referral of an application does not mean that repatriation will necessarily take place. Repatriation is as well as of the prisoner, following consideration of all the relevant information.

  Mr. Duggin's request was originally made on 18 September 1995 and Mr. O'Connell's on 19 July 1995. However, neither request could be considered until the Republic of Ireland brought the Council of Europe convention on the transfer of sentenced persons into force in the Republic on 1 November 1995. Both these requests remain under consideration and have not been referred to the Republic.

  Prisons
  Mr. Chris Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give an estimate of the number of places for prisoners in Her Majesty's prisons in each of the years 1996 to 2006. [52]

  Miss Widdecombe
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Learco Chindamo
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the immigration status of Learco Chindamo; and what power exists to deport him at the end of his sentence. [1091]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  It is not our normal practice to disclose the immigration status of individuals. In accordance with domestic and international law, the Secretary of State has power to deport a serious offender on completion of his sentence if it would be in the public interest to do so.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Argentina (Naval Engine Spares)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the initial advice he gave to Rolls-Royce following its request of October 1993 for approval of an export licence for naval engine spares to Argentina; and when that advice was given. [1066]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 29 October 1996]: The company made no such request in October 1993. In a letter dated 20 October 1993, the company requested advice on the licensability of the Tyne RM1 engine and

  441
  its components. After carrying out a detailed technical and legal assessment in consultation with MOD experts, my Department advised, in a letter dated 2 June 1995, that, irrespective of the destination, the company would require a licence under the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994 to export components and assemblies specially designed to fulfil the requirements imposed by the combat environment of a warship. A licence would be required to export these military components or entire Tyne engines in which they were included.

  My Department also advised the company that under the terms of the order it would not require a licence to export other Tyne components that were not specially designed or modified for military use, or engine modules and sub-assemblies which did not include the military components, unless they had been modified from components for an aeroengine, in which case a licence would in certain circumstances be required. This assessment did not constitute either a variation or a relaxation of the embargo on sales of military equipment and arms to Argentina announced on 3 April 1982. Before this advice was received, the company submitted two applications, dated 17 December 1993 and 29 August 1994, for a licence to supply the Argentine Navy with engines and components specially designed or modified for military use. These applications were refused in letters from my Department dated 24 June 1994 and 24 January 1995 respectively.

  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the first occasion on which he received a request from Rolls-Royce to consider approving export licences for naval engine spares for Argentina; and what response he gave. [1067]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 29 October 1996]: Computerised records before January 1991 are not readily available. Since then my Department has received two applications from Rolls-Royce for export licences with respect to proposals to supply the Argentine Navy with engines and components specially designed or modified for military use. The first such application was dated 17 December 1993, and both applications were refused. My right hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) announced to the House by written answer on 16 January 1991, Official Report column 521, that the Government had decided to allow a limited supply of essential maintenance spares for vessels deployed as part of the Argentine contribution to the Gulf as an exception to the embargo. On 18 October 1990, Rolls-Royce had applied for a licence to supply an Argentine naval vessel with parts for the Olympus engine and, under the provisions of the export control legislation in force at that time; a licence was issued to the company on 6 March 1991 for the supply of these parts; a limited supply of spares was also provided for the same purpose by the Ministry of Defence.

  Exports
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the change in the value of(a) EU and (b) United Kingdom exports and for other OECD countries since 1987; and how British exports have fared in this context. [1651]
  442
  Mr. Nelson
  The information requested is in the following table:

  Growth in UK, EU15 and other OECD 1 exports of goods since 19872

  US$ billion

  Per cent, change

  1987

  1995

  1987–95

  UK

  131

  239

  82.4

  EU15

  1,049

  1,911

  82.2

  Other OECD

  715

  1,508

  110.8

  Notes:

  1 Comprises Australia, Canada, Iceland, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, Turkey and USA.

  2 Values in US$ at current prices and exchange rates.

  Source:

  IMF Direction of Trade.

  Fireworks
  Mr. Snape
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what response he has received to his discussion paper on firework control issued in August 1996; what plans he has to introduce new statutory measures to control the use and sale of fireworks; and if he will make a statement; [2273]

  (2) what plans he has to review the control and sale of fireworks. [2272]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Stoke on Trent, North (Ms Walley) on 28 October,Official Report, column 112 in which I gave details of the review of fireworks.

  A large number of businesses and organisations responded to the public discussion document. As expected, a wide range of views and suggestions were put forward and I am giving careful consideration to all the points made. If it appears that additional measures would be appropriate I will consult on specific proposals early next year.

  Coal Production
  Mr. Trickett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many tonnes of coal were produced in Britain(a) in the current year, (b) in 1979 and (c) in 1990 utilising (i) opencast and (ii) deep mine production methods. [2212]

  Mr. Page
  The information requested is given as follows:

  Thousand tonnes

  Coal production

  Opencast

  Deep-mined

  (a) 1995/19961

  16,369

  35,150

  10,795

  22,172

  (b) 1979

  12,862

  107,775

  (c) 1990

  18,134

  72,899

  Sources:

  Energy Trends Table 4.

  Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics.

  Note:

  1 To end August.
  443
  Mr. Trickett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many people are currently employed by the opencast mining industry and the deep mining industry; and what were the figures in(a) 1979 and (b) 1990. [2211]

  Mr. Page
  Available information is as follows:

  Employees in Great Britain

  11979

  21991

  21993

  31995

  Deep coal mining

  233,900

  70,200

  26,300

  10,600

  Opencast mining

  7,700

  5,700

  5,900

  1 Source: Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistic,1980.Figures are for employees engaged in production in December 1979.

  2 Source: Census of employment September 1991 and September 1993, Office for National Statistics. The census of employment was conducted every two years, so data are not available for even numbered years.

  3 Source: annual employment survey September 1995, which replaced the biennial census of employment, Office for National Statistics. The figure covers all mining and agglomeration of hard coal; separate figures are not available for deep coal mining and opencast coal working.

  Uranium Tailings
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the total volume of uranium tailings currently created by the processing of uranium for use in the British nuclear energy programme; and in which countries the stocks of uranium mining tailings are(a) stored and (b) disposed of. [2125]

  Mr. Page
  Uranium tailings are a by-product of uranium mining and arise at the site of mining. No uranium mining is carried out in the United Kingdom. The question of tailings and their storage and disposal is a matter for the uranium mining companies concerned.

  Nuclear Industries
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the conclusions reached by the European Commission in its report on nuclear industries in the European Union (COM/96) 339, 25 September 1996, paragraph 6, page 23, in respect of the presence of plutonium in the civilian nuclear fuel cycle. [2126]

  Mr. Page
  The Government agree that there are many considerations which determine fuel choice in the civil nuclear sector. It is a matter for the owners of the plutonium to decide how it is utilised. Mixed oxide fuel incorporating plutonium oxide is one option, subject to meeting the appropriate regulatory requirements including those in respect of safeguards.

  Company Density Statistics
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the company density by sector per 10,000 of the population in each of the last three years, using VAT data in(a) the London borough of Lewisham, (b) the South London training and enterprise council—SOLOTEC, (c) the wider central London area, (d) Greater London and (e) the rest of southern England. [2301]
  444
  Mr. Page
  I will place a copy of the data in the Library of the House.

  Business Start-Ups
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the business start-up rate by sectors and in total, per 10,000 of the population, using VAT data in(a) the London borough of Lewisham, (b) the south London training and enterprise council—SOLOTEC, (c) the wider central London area, (d) Greater London and (e) the rest of southern England for the latest available period for which data are available and the equivalent period in (i) 1995 (ii) 1994 and (iii) 1993; and if he will indicate the number of deregistrations in each period. [2348]

  Mr. Page
  I will place a copy of the data in the Library of the House.

  Compensation (Terrorist Acts)
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to review the rights to claim compensation for loss suffered as a result of damage to property by terrorist acts in Britain. [2309]

  Mr. Nelson
  There is no need to consider any compensation arrangements as insurance is available against losses arising from damage caused to property by acts of terrorism in Great Britain.

  Diesel Engine Emissions
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what reports he has received of problems in obtaining investment in the United Kingdom for industrial research and development in respect of removing particulates from the exhaust emissions of diesel engines; and if he will make a statement. [2043]

  Mr. Greg Knight
  My Department has not received any reports of problems of this kind.

  Regional Assistance
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to the paper, "Regional Policy, Review of the Assisted Areas of Great Britain", if he will place in the Library a statement on the process informing his decision in determining development area and intermediate area status, including the specific weightings attached to the factors considered in the case of the Workington travel-to-work area. [2015]

  Mr. Greg Knight
  The Government published the background document, "Regional Policy, Review of the Assisted Areas of Great Britain", on 23 July 1993. This document set out the basis for the map of the assisted areas introduced on 1 August 1993. The Government have no plans to publish additional information about the decisions taken on individual travel-to-work areas for the purposes of that map.

  Brazilian Mahogany
  Mr. Chris Davies
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many cubic metres of Brazilian mahogany were imported annually from 1990 to 1995. [2465]
  445
  Mr. Nelson
  The UK imported 62,168 cu m of mahogany from Brazil in 1990, and 45,762 cu m in 1991. In 1992 the United Kingdom trade classification no longer identified mahogany separately from other non-coniferous woods.

  On 16 November 1995, Brazilian mahogany was listed in appendix III of the convention of international trade in endangered species of wild flora and fauna. Between then and 25 October 1996 CITES import permits received and verified by HM Customs and Excise indicate that 10,141 cu m were imported into the UK.

  Business Assistance
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many(a) individuals and (b) companies have been assisted by (i) the Isle of Wight business link and (ii) his Department in the last three years. [2567]

  Mr. Page
  Business links are private sector partnerships, not Government bodies. National statistics on businesses 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 chief executive of business link Isle of Wight is aware of my hon. Friend's question.

  Information on the number of individuals and companies assisted by my Department in the last three years can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Non-prescription Drug Pricing
  Dame Jill Knight
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on proposals to change the basis for pricing non-prescription drugs in shops. [622]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Director General of Fair Trading announced on 18 October that he was seeking leave of the restrictive practices court to apply for a discharge of the medicaments order made by the court in 1970 in respect of resale price maintenance on certain medicines. The Secretary of State has no statutory role of discretion in relation to the director general's application or in relation to the court's consideration of the matter.

  Coal Stocks
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what volume of coal was taken from stock for the purposes of electricity generation in 1995–96; and what was the total volume of stocks remaining on 1 April. [2337]

  Mr. Page
  Between the beginning of April 1995 and the end of March 1996, stocks of coal at power stations fell by 3.5 million tonnes to stand at 6.4 million tonnes. Stocks of coal held by coal producers also fell by 3.5 million tonnes over this period to stand at 5.5 million tonnes at the end of March 1996 but it is not possible to state exactly what proportion of these stocks were delivered to the electricity industry. However, it is known that 77 per cent. of supplies from the coal industry—that is, stocks plus newly mined coal—were delivered to power stations during this period.

  Source Table 6 "Energy Trends".
  446

  Research Councils
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the estimated cost of guaranteeing the pension rights of employees on privatisation of research council laboratories; and who bears these costs. [2468]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Privatisation does not increase the costs of the pension entitlements of research council employees, which are the responsibility of the relevant pension scheme. It may however result in the crystallisation of some existing staff pension liabilities, and these considerations will be taken into account in the relevant prior options reviews.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the legal fees incurred so far by(a) Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, (b) Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, (c) Medical Research Council, (d) Natural Environment Research Council and (e) Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council in the course of the prior options review of their laboratories; if these costs are borne out of current budgets; and what assessment he has made of the effect of meeting such charges on the funding of research by the research councils. [2467]

  Mr. Taylor
  BBSRC, EPSRC, MRC, NERC and PPARC have so far incurred no legal fees in the course of the prior options reviews of the research establishments they sponsor.

  Following my announcement in April that the Government accepted the conclusions and recommendations of the prior options review of the Royal Observatories, PPARC has incurred legal fees amounting to £270,000 in taking forward implementation of the recommendations.

  Such charges form part of the normal administrative expenditure of the research councils, and therefore feed into the councils' established planning systems.

  Chernobyl
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his letters of 12 June and 27 September on the European Union funded report on options for dealing with the sarcophagus at Chernobyl, what action is being taken. [1004]

  Mr. Page
  Results of the European Union funded study are expected shortly. Action will be decided in the light of discussions of the study's findings with the Ukrainian Government.

  Nuclear Fuel
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what arrangements have been made to ensure that contracts signed with British Nuclear Fuels plc by foreign customers for the production of mixed oxide—MOX—nuclear fuel at the Sellafield MOX plant include a stipulation that plutonium contaminated wastes arising from the MOX manufacture are returned to the country of origin of the external contract for the fuel. [2140]

  Mr. Page
  [holding answer 4 November 1996]: BNFL has confirmed that there will be no additional quantity of plutonium remaining in the UK as a result of contracts with foreign customers for the production of MOX nuclear fuel at the Sellafield MOX plant.
  447

  "The Social Chapter: British and Continental Approaches"
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many copies of his Department's publication, "The social chapter: British and Continental Approaches", have been printed; what was the cost(a) per copy and (b) in total; and how many requests his Department has received for copies. [1232]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding answer 4 November 1996]A total of 40,000 copies of the booklet have been printed. The printing cost per copy was approximately 32p, and the total printing cost £12,840. The total costs including design, storage and distribution is approximately £17,000. The text was prepared internally and it is not possible to quantify the staff costs involved. In addition to the original distribution of approximately 18,500 booklets, my Department has to date—30 October—received a further 244 requests for more than 6,000 booklets.

  A smaller number of copies are being prepared in French, German, Italian and Spanish for distribution in other EU member states. The estimated cost of these booklets is £6,500.

  Public Relations
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much his Department spent on(a) advertising, (b) public relations and (c) entertainment in each of the last five financial years. [1261]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding answer 4 November 1996]Total departmental spend on advertising is not held centrally and could be produced only at disproportionate cost. The advertising expenditure from centrally managed budgets for the years in question is as follows:

  1991–92: £966,000

  1992–93: £1,139,000

  1993–94: £784,000

  1994–95: £561,000

  1995–96: £1,088.000.

  While DTI has no expenditure on public relations from centrally managed budgets, its information directorate is responsible for providing information about my Department's policies and activities to businesses, the public and the media. It does this through a wide range of communications means including news releases, answering inquiries from the media, publicity campaigns, briefings, exhibitions and publications.

  For the expenditure on official hospitality I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on 16 October 1996, Official Report, columns 955–56.

  Female Staff
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many women are currently employed by his Department; and what proportion this is of the total. [1244]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding answer 4 November 1996]: On 29 October the DTI, excluding its executive agencies, employed 2,665 female staff, which is 44 per cent. of the total of staff employed.
  448
  I have asked the chief executives of the DTI's executive agencies to respond directly to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Joyce to Mrs. Barbara Roche, dated 5 November 1996:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply to your question about the employment of women in The Insolvency Service.

  Number of permanent staff

  Number of permanent female staff

  Proportion of female staff to total staff

  1,336

  649

  48.5 per cent.

  Information source:

  DTI PERMIS Computer Records

  Date: October 1996.

  Letter from J. C. Octon to Mrs. Barbara Roche, dated 5 November 1996:
  In the absence of the Chief Executive I am replying for the Patent Office to your Parliamentary Question about the number of women currently employed by the Department of Trade and Industry. Below are the figures for the Patent Office:-

  Total number of established staff as at 1 October 1996: 725

  Number of women employed: 284

  Women as a percentage of employees: just over 39%

  I hope this information is helpful.

  Letter from Jim Norton to Mrs. Barbara Roche, dated 5 November, 1996:

  I have been asked to answer the question you raised on behalf of the Radiocommunications Agency.

  Currently 116 women are employed in the Agency, representing 22 per cent. of employees.

  Letter from John S. Holden to Mrs. Barbara Roche, dated 5 November 1996:
  You recently tabled a Parliamentary Question for the President of the Board of Trade asking how many women are currently employed by his Department and what proportion this is of the total. I am responding as Chief Executive of Companies House Executive Agency.
  Companies House currently employs a total of 1,056 staff, of which 679 (64.3%) are women.

  Letter from Zelie Armstrong to Mrs. Barbara Roche, dated 5 November 1996:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply on behalf of the National Weights and Measures Laboratory to your question about the number of women employed and the proportion of the total. This agency employs 17 women. This represents 34% of the total number of staff employed.

  Child Care
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade 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. [1278]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding answer 4 November 1996]: 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

  449
  data. The Department provides some assistance with child care, but is unable to monitor what proportion of staff who are parents have received such assistance.

  I have asked the chief executive of the DTI's executive agencies to respond direct to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John S. Holden to Mrs. Barbara Roche, dated 5 November 1996:
  I have been asked to reply as Chief Executive of Companies House Executive Agency to your recently tabled Parliamentary Question for the President of the Board of Trade, asking about the provision of childcare assistance for mothers and fathers within DTI.
  Companies House operates a holiday playscheme in Cardiff during the Easter and summer school holidays. During last Easter and this summer, 12 mothers and 5 fathers, and 27 mothers and 3 fathers, respectively, made use of this facility.
  Companies House does not keep information on which members of staff are parents. It is therefore, not possible to provide you with the proportions of staff the above figures represent.

  Letter from Zèlie Armstrong to Mrs. Barbara Roche, dated 5 November 1996:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply on behalf of the National Weights and Measures Laboratory to your question about the number of women and men who are parents and receive help with childcare from this Agency. NWML contributes towards the management of a joint nursery at Teddington. The facility is available to all staff who wish to use it.

  Letter from Peter Joyce to Mrs. Barbara Roche, dated 5 November 1996:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply to your question about what proportion of women who are mothers and men who are fathers who are employed by The Insolvency Service have received any assistance from the Service with childcare.
  The Insolvency Service does not collect statistics specifically showing the parental status of staff. This is personal information which would be supplied by members of staff on a voluntary basis and it would be difficult to justify the formal collection of such data. I am therefore unable to give an overall accurate assessment as requested.
  The Service provides a facility whereby members of staff may apply for reimbursement of additional childcare costs incurred as a result of a temporary change to their working routine, or if they are attending Insolvency Service training courses. However such claims are not separately recorded. Staff who have domestic responsibilities involving childcare may also apply for periods of special leave without pay or for a career break—although this is not financial assistance.

  Letter from Jim Norton to Mrs. Barbara Roche, dated 5 November 1996:
  I have been asked to answer the question you raised on behalf of the Radiocommunications Agency.
  The Radiocommunications Agency does not keep records of what proportion of the (a) women who are mothers and (b) men who are fathers.
  Two members of staff took advantage of the DTI playscheme.

  Letter from Paul Hartnack to Mrs. Barbara Roche, dated 5 November 1996:
  I am replying for the Patent Office to your Parliamentary Question to the President of the Board of Trade about childcare.
  I am unable to give you information about the proportion of staff who are parents since the Patent Office does not have this information readily available and could generate it only at disproportionate cost. The Patent Office is, however, sensitive to the needs of parents and has obtained access to a number of places in an on site nursery. We also operate a holiday play scheme during the Easter and summer periods. Both the nursery and play schemes
  450
  are subsidised by the Patent Office. The Patent Office is also sympathetic to requests for special leave without pay to allow parents to be with their children during school holidays and to requests for special leave with pay to meet short term domestic needs.

  The figures on usage for the nursery and play schemes are detailed below for the last 3 years:

  Nursery

  Playscheme

  Male Number

  Female Number

  Male Number

  Female Number

  Easter

  Summer

  Easter

  Summer

  1994

  2

  6

  4

  4

  5

  8

  1995

  2

  8

  3

  4

  4

  6

  1996

  2

  7

  1

  3

  4

  4

  I hope this information is useful.

PRIME MINISTER

  Union Flag and Royal Standard
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has for Wales to be represented on(a) the Union flag and (b) the royal standard. [2188]

  The Prime Minister
  The Union flag is representative of all parts of the United Kingdom. Wales, as an integral part of the United Kingdom, is therefore represented by the Union flag. Similarly, the royal standard representing the sovereign of the United Kingdom applies to Wales as much as to every other part of the Union.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 November. [1005]

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 November. [1006]

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

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what guidance is given to doctors by the Benefits Agency medical services regarding the conduct of all work tests for incapacity benefit; what is the time estimated for each test; what medical examinations, tests or procedures are undertaken during the test; what account is taken of(a) general practitioners' and (b) consultants' reports as part of the test; and what monitoring is undertaken of the doctors who carry out the tests. [1350]

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of incapacity benefit is a matter for Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.
  451
  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr George Foulkes, dated 4 November 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what guidance is given to doctors by the Benefits Agency Medical Services regarding the conduct of the All Work Tests for Incapacity Benefit (IB), what is the time estimated for each test; what medical examinations, tests or procedures arc undertaken during the test; what account is taken of (a) general practitioners' and (b) consultants' reports as part of the test; and what monitoring is undertaken of the doctors who carry out the tests.
  All doctors, who are already experienced in this area of work, undergo four days of theoretical training plus one supervised examination session. and have to demonstrate a satisfactory standard before being approved by the Secretary of State to carry out IB assessments. This training covers in detail all aspects of carrying out All Work Test assessments. In addition to the training, all doctors are issued with a copy of the "IB Handbook for Medical Services Doctors", which acts as an aide memoir on the contents of the training course. A copy of this publication is available in the Library of the House of Commons.
  A national study of examination session timings carried out in May 1996 has shown that the average time for an All Work Test assessment by a BAMS doctor is 47 minutes. This includes time spent interviewing and examining the customer and writing the report.
  For an All Work Test assessment, the doctor gathers whatever evidence is appropriate to enable him or her to make an objective and impartial assessment of the customers abilities and a limitations in all the functional areas relevant to their disabling condition. This evidence will usually include interviewing the customer about their perception of the effects of their condition on their ability to carry out everyday activities; observation of the customers behaviour at the examination centre; and formal clinical examination of the relevant system or part of the body.
  The BAMS doctor's role for the All Work Test is to provide an independent impartial assessment of the customer based on their clinical judgement taking into account evidence provided by the customer, their own doctor and their consultant, where available. It is the Adjudication Officer who, in deciding entitlement to benefit, will take into account all available evidence, including any from the client's GP or consultant.
  Following initial training, the first three assessments carried out by the BAMS doctor are monitored, and must reach a satisfactory standard for the doctor to be approved to carry out IB assessments. The work of all doctors is subsequently monitored by BAMS; monitoring is by random or targeted study of completed reports, and also in response to any work returned by Adjudication Officers as being of an unsatisfactory standard.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what written representations he has received from(a) clients, (b) legal representatives, (c) hon. Members and (d) others regarding all work tests and incapacity benefit at the Ayr benefit office for the most recently available 12-month period. [1345]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  One representation has been received from an hon. Member.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many written representations he has received from hon. Members regarding all work tests and incapacity benefit in respect of each Benefit Agency office in Scotland for the most recently available 12-month period. [1344]

  Mr. Mitchell
  Eleven representations have been received from hon. Members between November 1995 and 17 October 1996.
  452

  Benefit Offices
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the number of reports by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration for each of the benefit offices in Scotland for the last five years and this year to the latest available date. [1347]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is in the table.

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Aberdeen

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  Galashiels

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Glasgow Lauriston

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Glasgow Maryhill

  1

  1

  0

  0

  1

  Glasgow Cumbernauld

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Glasgow south west

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Perth

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  Inverness

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  Dumfries

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Edinburgh west

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Dumbarton

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Clydebank

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1. The 12 offices listed have been affected by reports on complaints investigated by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration for the years shown. The remaining 47 offices in Scotland have not been affected.

  2. Records are no longer available for 1991.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Sir Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many cold weather payments were paid in each year since 1993–94. [1879]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is set out in the table:

  Year

  Number of payments (000s)

  1993–94

  2,100

  1994–95

  11

  1995–96

  7,200

  Figures rounded to the nearest thousand.

  Sir Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many cold weather payments would have been paid if cold weather payments had been triggered after(a) three and (b) five consecutive days in a period of seven days in the years 1993–94,1994–95 and 1995–96; [1926]

  (2) how many times cold weather payments would have been made at each weather station used to calculate cold weather payments, if cold weather payments had been triggered after (a) three and (b) five consecutive days in a period of seven days in each year since 1993–94. [1925]

  Mr. Evans
  The information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Sir Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many times cold weather payments were triggered at each weather station used to calculate them in each year since 1993–94. [1880]

  Mr. Evans
  The information is set out in the table.
  453

  Number of cold weather payment triggers from 1993–94 to 1995–96

  Weather station

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Aberdeen

  3

  0

  2

  Aberport

  0

  0

  2

  Aughton

  0

  0

  3

  Aviemore

  6

  3

  6

  Bedford

  1

  0

  4

  Birmingham

  1

  0

  3

  Boscombe Down

  0

  0

  3

  Boulmer

  0

  0

  1

  Bournemouth

  0

  0

  2

  Braemar

  1—

  5

  7

  Brize Norton

  0

  0

  4

  Capel Curig

  1—

  1—

  4

  Carlisle

  1

  0

  2

  Chivenor

  0

  0

  0

  Cilfynydd

  0

  0

  3

  Coltishall

  1

  0

  3

  Culdrose

  0

  0

  0

  Dumfries

  1

  0

  3

  Dunkeswell

  0

  0

  3

  Easthampstead

  1

  0

  4

  Edinburgh

  3

  0

  2

  Eskdalemuir

  5

  1

  5

  Eskmeals

  0

  0

  2

  Finningley

  1

  0

  1—

  Gatwick

  1

  0

  3

  Glasgow

  3

  0

  3

  Heathrow

  0

  0

  1

  Herstmonceaux

  0

  0

  1

  Honington

  1

  1—

  1—

  Kinloss

  3

  0

  3

  Kirkwall

  0

  0

  2

  Leeds

  0

  0

  1

  Leeming

  2

  0

  2

  Lerwick

  0

  1

  2

  Leuchars

  3

  0

  3

  Lyneham

  1

  0

  4

  Machrihanish

  0

  0

  1

  Manchester

  0

  0

  3

  Manston

  0

  0

  2

  Marham

  1

  0

  4

  Mount Batten

  0

  0

  1—

  Mumbles

  0

  0

  0

  Rhoose

  0

  0

  2

  Shawbury

  1

  0

  4

  Southampton

  0

  0

  0

  St. Mawgan

  0

  0

  0

  Stansted

  0

  0

  4

  Stornoway

  0

  0

  1

  Tiree

  0

  0

  0

  Trawsfynyd

  0

  0

  1—

  Tulloch Bridge

  3

  3

  3

  Tynemouth

  0

  0

  1

  Valley

  0

  0

  0

  Waddington

  1

  0

  3

  Watnall

  1

  0

  1—

  Wattisham

  0

  0

  4

  Whitby

  0

  0

  2

  Whithorn

  0

  0

  1—

  Wick

  1

  0

  2

  Wilsden

  3

  0

  6

  Wyton

  0

  0

  1—

  Yeovilton

  0

  0

  3

  Total

  49

  13

  138

  1 Not used in the scheme in that year.

  454

  Industrial Deafness
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he next plans to review criteria for industrial deafness disablement benefit. [1936]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The Industrial Injuries Advisory Council advises the Government on the prescription of diseases for the purposes of industrial disablement benefit. The council continually monitors the scientific literature with regard to all occupational diseases, including those already on the prescribed list such as occupational deafness.

  Benefits Agency Helpline
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the annual cost, for the last year in which figures are available, for the operation of the Benefits Agency freephone helpline; and what are the projected costs in the current year. [187]

  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. David Hinchliffe, dated 4 November 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what was the annual cost, for the last year in which figures are available, for the operation of the Benefits Agency freephone helpline; and what are the projected costs in the current year.
  The Benefits Agency freephone helpline closed on 12 July 1996. The budget allocation for 1995/96 was £6.3 million and the projected expenditure for this current year. taking account of the closure, is £2 million. These figures have been rounded.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Benefits Agency (South Yorkshire)
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the Benefits Agency offices which are scheduled for closure in South Yorkshire under the change programme.[2138]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mrs. Helen Jackson, dated 4 November 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking if he will list the Benefits Agency offices which are scheduled for closure in South Yorkshire under the change programme.
  Yorkshire Area Directorate (AD), along with the rest of the BA and the Department of Social Security, is currently undertaking a radical reappraisal of its services and the way they are delivered. The Change Programme aims to restructure the way we deliver our business, producing administrative efficiencies whilst maintaining our quality of service. We are directing our resources to where they needed most. However, Yorkshire AD remains committed to providing a high level of service to its customers and equal access to the benefit system for all members of the public.
  The Benefits Agency offices in South Yorkshire which are currently under consideration for closure are Wath, Maltby, Dinnington and Stocksbridge. Closure of the first three offices is awaiting Ministerial decision, the proposals for Stocksbridge are still in the consultation stage.

  455
  With the advent of Job Seekers Allowance, unemployed customers have access to enquiry facilities throughout South Yorkshire, including six Employment Services Job Centres in the Sheffield area, as well as in Wath, Maltby and Dinnington.
  Should you require any additional information please contact Mr Vince Gaskell, Benefit Agency Yorkshire Directorate, 19th Floor, Royal Exchange House, Boar Lane. Leeds, LS1 5NS.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Benefits Agency (Emergency Services)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if the review of out of office hours emergency services provided by the Benefits Agency is now complete; what consultations with outside bodies he has conducted during the review; and what instructions he has issued concerning the future operation of such services; [1974]

  (2) how many people requested help from the out of office hours service operated by the Benefits Agency this year, to date, and in each of the last five years; what was the total cost of operating the service during that period; and what was the total number of staff designated to the service in each year; [1976]

  (3) what discussions he (i) has had and (ii) plans to have with (a) the Association of County Councils,(b) the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and(c) the Association of Directors of Social Services concerning the future operation of the out of office hours service by the Benefits Agency;[1977]

  (4) what estimates he has made of the impact on local authorities of ending the out of office hours service operated by the Benefits Agency; and what financial assistance he will offer to local authorities to provide additional services for the public seeking emergency help. [1975]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Max Madden, dated 4 November 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking:
  "if the review of out of office hours emergency services provided by the Benefits Agency is now complete; what consultations with outside bodies he has conducted during the review; and what instructions he has issued concerning the future operation of such services".
  "what discussions he has (i) had, and (ii) plans to have, with (a) the Association of County Councils, (b) the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and (c) the Association of Directors of Social Services concerning the future operation of the out of office hours service by the Benefits Agency."
  "what estimates he has made of the impact on local authorities of ending the out of office hours service operated by the Benefits Agency; and what financial assistance he will offer to local authorities to provide additional services for the public seeking emergency help."
  "how many people requested help from the out of office hours service operated by the Benefits Agency this year, to date, and in each of the last five years; what was the total cost of operating the service during that period; and what was the total number of staff designated to the service in each year."
  The review of the Out-of-Hours Service (OOHS) is not complete. A consultation exercise to assess the impact of a reduction or withdrawal of the OOHS was conducted during August and early
  456
  September. This involved consultations with representatives from Department of Health, Local Authorities, the Scottish Office and welfare agencies. The results of the exercise are now being evaluated.
  In the course of the review meetings were held with the Department of Health, on 21 August and with representatives from the Association of County Councils and the Association of Directors of Social Services, on 22 August. Although invited, there is no record that the Association of Metropolitan Authorities were represented at the later meeting.
  Until the review is complete the impact on the local authorities cannot be assessed. Further meetings to assess the financial implications have been arranged with Department of Health, Department of the Environment and the Scottish Office.
  I have provided the available information on the number of OOHS referrals and the administration costs for the last five years. It should be noted that a referral means a contact by the customer or a third party. Approximately 50% of the referrals require a visit. Figures about the success or otherwise of these visits are not maintained.
  The information on the number of staff designated to the service can only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Period

  Number of referrals

  1 October 1991 to 30 September 1992

  21,709

  1 October 1992 to 30 September 1993

  42,722

  1 August 1993 to 31 July 1994

  47,958

  1 August 1994 to 31 July 1995

  48,744

  1 April 1995 to 31 March 1996

  54,868

  Financial year

  Administration costs £ million

  1992–93

  0.561

  1993–94

  0.987

  1994–95

  1.720

  1995–96

  1.754

  1996–97

  1.834

  These figures are provisional and subject to amendment.

  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Benefit Payment Cards
  Sir David Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has for the extension of benefit payment by plastic card. [2741]

  Mr. Lilley
  The first benefit payments under the new payment card scheme have been successfully made to a small number of child benefit customers in the Stroud area. Payments are being made using both the new payment card and new benefit encashment systems. Co-operation with our private sector supplier, ICL-Pathway, has enabled us to deliver these in less than six months from the award of contract.

  Ten post offices have so far been automated to enable card payments to be made. From this we will progress to live trials at a further 190 post offices from April next year. When all aspects of the new systems have been fully tested we will push ahead quickly, automating an average of 300 post offices per week from next summer.

  The payments in Stroud represent the first step in a huge programme which will affect about 20 million people who collect DSS benefits through post offices in the UK. In view of the scale and importance of the

  457
  changes we intend to trial the systems thoroughly with child benefit before paying further benefits by card. We will be taking account of our experience of child benefit before implementing these changes and I shall be making a further announcement in due course.

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the change in the number of single parents dependent on state benefits since 1979. [1243]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The information is in the table.

  Number of lone parent recipients1

  Benefit2

  1979

  1995

  Supplementary benefit—income support3

  306,000

  1,061,000

  Family income supplement—family credit4

  42,000

  290,000

  Rent allowance—housing benefit5

  n/a6

  894,000

  Rate rebate—council tax benefit5

  n/a6

  959,000

  Notes

  1 All figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  2There may be a small overlap between income support and family credit, but this would not be significant. There are considerable overlaps between housing benefit and council tax benefit and between these benefits and both income support and family credit.

  3 Supplementary benefit was replaced by income support in April 1988.

  4 Family income supplement was replaced by family credit in April 1988.

  5 For the purposes of income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit, lone parents have been identified as those awarded the lone parent premium in the assessment of benefit.
  458
  6 Housing benefit and council tax benefit were not in payment in 1979. There is no information on the number receiving help through income-related rent allowances and rates rebates.

  It should be noted that the figures for each year cannot be totalled because more than one benefit may be in payment at the same time.

  Sources

  1. Supplementary benefit annual statistical inquiry—November 1979.

  2. Income support quarterly statistical inquiry—November 1995.

  3. Social security statistics 1980.

  4. Family credit 5 per cent. sample of all awards.

  5. Housing benefit management information system, annual I per cent. sample inquiries, with and without income support, taken at the end of May 1995.

  The growth in the number of lone parents dependent on state benefits largely reflects the increase in the lone parent population. The Government's strategy has been to improve systematically work incentives, and the success of this strategy has been confirmed by independent research. The growth in the number of lone parents on income support has slowed since 1992, while the number in work and on family credit continues to grow steadily. Latest figures show that there are now around three lone parents working and receiving family credit for every 10 on income support, compared with just over one for every 10 in 1979. This is despite continuing growth in the number with young children.

  We have also recently announced that a major new scheme-parent plus-will be piloted from April 1997. This scheme will offer advice and help to up to 100,000 lone parents on income support who wish to get back into work. Different approaches will be tested to establish which is most cost effective.
  459

ENVIRONMENT

  Aquifers
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the principal cause of the pollution of aquifers in the United Kingdom; and how many have been sterilised since 1990. [900]

  Mr. Clappison
  A recent Environment Agency study suggested that landfills are the most numerous point sources of pollutants affecting aquifers and that chlorinated solvents from a variety of sources may cause the most serious contamination. No aquifers have been wholly taken out of service or sterilised since 11990. Remedial action has been taken in some cases.

  Landfill Tax
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to increase the penalties for fly-tipping following the introduction of the landfill tax. [1147]

  Mr. Clappison
  We have already taken steps to ensure that the penalties for fly-tipping are severe. The maximum penalties for waste-related offences are set out in the table:

  Offence

  Magistrates' court

  Crown court

  Sections 33(1)(a), (b) or (c) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 Unlawful deposit, recovery or disposal of non-special waste

  Imprisonment for six months and/or a fine of £20,000

  Imprisonment for two years and/or an unlimited fine

  Sections 33(1)(a), (b) or (c) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 Unlawful deposit, recovery or disposal of special waste

  Imprisonment for six months and/or a fine of £20,000

  Imprisonment for five years and/or an unlimited fine

  Special Waste Regulations 1996 Regulation 18 Unlawful movement of handling of special waste

  A fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale

  Imprisonment for two years and/or an unlimited fine

  Section 34(6) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 Breach of the duty of care or Regulations on retention etc. of documents

  A fine of £5,000

  An unlimited fine

  Section 1(1) Control of Pollution (Amendment) Act 1989 Unlawful transportation of waste

  A fine of £5,000

  n/a

  460

  Offence

  Magistrates' court

  Crown court

  Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994: Regulation 20(5)

  A fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale

  n/a

  Failure to register as a waste broker

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what extra help he is proposing to make available to local authorities to counter the problem of fly-tipping following the introduction of the landfill tax. [1148]

  Mr. Clappison
  The main security against fly-tipping is an adequate regulatory framework. Regulations implemented on 1 May 1994 introduced a new waste management licensing system. These controls, along with section 34 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the associated duty of care for waste which came into force on 1 April 1992, provide a strong regulatory framework to support the tax.

  The Environment Agency is the competent authority for the purposes of waste management licensing. The agency has both resources and expertise to advise on the legal and sound management of waste, to investigate offences and to carry out enforcement action. The Government's guidance to the agency on its objectives and contribution to sustainable development clarifies its role in this area. Ministers expect the agency to review procedures for preventing and handling cases of fly-tipping and to use its enforcement powers.

  The duty of care, which is a self-regulating system, is an important weapon in the fight against fly-tipping since it requires that waste is passed only to a person authorised to accept it. This helps to identify the person who commits an offence, as consignments of waste can be tracked through the system of transfer notes completed by all parties involved in any waste transfer. Powers to enforce the duty are not specific to the Environment Agency, and it is open to any organisation or individual to bring a prosecution where they consider that the duty has been breached. The penalties which can be imposed for offences relating to waste are severe.

  To help minimise the impact of fly-tipping, section 59 of the 1990 Act provides local authorities with the means to effect the removal of illegally deposited waste and to eliminate or reduce the consequences of the deposit. Section 59(6) and (8) provides for the reimbursement in part or in full of the costs incurred.

  Basking Sharks
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will include basking sharks in the next tranche of species for the biodiversity action plans. [1156]

  Mr. Clappison
  No. Basking sharks were not among the 286 species which the UK biodiversity steering group recommended should be included in the second tranche of species action plans to be produced within the next three years. The Government endorsed the steering group's recommendations in the response published in May 1996.
  461
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will submit a proposal for an appendix 11 listing under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species for the protection of basking sharks, in time for the next CITES conference in June 1997; and if he will make a statement. [1157]

  Mr. Clappison
  We have no plans to include such a proposal among the United Kingdom's initiatives for the next CITES conference.

  Conservation
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how he plans to consult the public about the third tranche of candidate special areas of conservation in accordance with the EC habitats and species directive; [1195]

  (2) if the third tranche of sites will include candidate special areas of conservation for the great crested newt, triturus cristatus. [1196]

  Mr. Clappison
  A third tranche of candidate special areas of conservation was forwarded to the European Commission on 14 October 1996. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on Wednesday 16 October 1996,Official Report, columns 1073–74. A second public consultation on possible special areas of conservation is planned to commence shortly—this will include possible sites for the great crested newt. The House will be informed and details will be placed in the Library in due course.

  Biodiversity Convention
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the Government's objective at the conference of the parties to the biodiversity convention in November. [1209]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Government attach much importance to achieving progress under the convention on biological diversity, and the UK will be participating fully in the forthcoming conference of parties. My right hon. Friend hopes to attend the ministerial segment of the meeting, when he intends to encourage the setting of national objectives and the monitoring of progress under the convention. Other UK priorities include securing progress on the assessment and monitoring of biodiversity, including promoting taxonomy; the conservation and sustainable use of agricultural and forest biodiversity; and the need to improve the operation of the convention, for example by prioritising activity under it and moving to a less concentrated cycle of meetings.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what environmental impact assessments have been conducted(a) on the storage of separated plutonium at (i) Sellafield and (ii) Dounreay and (b) on the transport of plutonium by air in (x) metal, (y) oxide and (z) nitrate solution forms from and to (1) Carlisle, (2) Wick, (3) Herne and (4) other airports licensed to handle plutonium cargoes. [1817]
  462
  Mr. Clappison
  The plutonium stores at Sellafield and Dounreay were constructed prior to the introduction of the 1985 Council directive on the Assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (85/337/EEC)—the environmental impact assessment directive. Questions on the transport of radioactive materials are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations he has had with(a) his Japanese counterpart, and (b) Japanese officials about the environmental appraisal of the interim storage of plutonium separated from reprocessed Japanese spent fuel at Sellafield; and what contribution (i) the Environment Directorate of the European Commission, (ii) the Health and Safety Directorate of the European Commission and (iii) the Health and Safety Department of EURATON made to the environmental assessment of plutonium storage at (1) Sellafield and (2) Dounreay. [1832]

  Mr. Clappison
  [holding answer 4 November 1996]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has had no consultations with Japanese Ministers or officials about the interim storage of plutonium separated from reprocessed Japanese spent fuel at Sellafield. All nuclear sites, including Sellafield and Dounreay, are subject to regulations governing health and safety, the protection of the environment and the safeguarding of nuclear materials. Questions about the contribution made by the European Commission should be referred to the Commission itself.

  Nuclear Fuel
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what plans the United Kingdom has to put onto the agenda of(a) the United Nations General Assembly and (b) the United Nations Environment Programme the issue of the environmental implications of the planned extended use of mixed oxide plutonium-based nuclear fuel in reactors; [1819]

  (2) what plans he has to raise at the next European Environment Council meeting the environmental implications for (a) European Union member states and (b) non-European Union member states trading with the United Kingdom in nuclear fuels of the extension of the use of mixed oxide nuclear fuel in the European Union. [1820]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Government have no plans to place the environmental implications of the extended use of mixed oxide nuclear fuel on the agenda for the United Nations General Assembly or the United Nations Environment Programme, or to raise the issue at the next European Environment Council meeting.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which reports have been placed before the EU Environmental Council on the implications for environmental protection of the decision of the Transport Council in October to accept a new code of control covering irradiated nuclear fuel. [1818]
  463
  Mr. Clappison
  No reports have been placed before the EU Environment Council on this matter.

  Polluted Mines
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of(a) the range of toxic contaminants, (b) the quantities of polluted water and (c) the methods of remedy available at closed coal mines; and which bodies are responsible for funding the clean-up of polluted mine water. [1816]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Environment Agency monitors discharges from abandoned coal mines and their impact on receiving waters. Such discharges can contain a range of substances, of which the most common is iron. The quantity of water discharged is highly variable, according to location, geology and season. A typical range is 200 to 15,000 cu m per day. The selection of methods used to treat mine water discharges depends on site-specific factors such as the nature of the mine water and the amount of land available near the discharge.

  Liability for water pollution from abandoned coal mines varies according to the local circumstances, but we have said that we expect the Coal Authority to go beyond its strict legal duties and seek to achieve the best environmental results within its available resources. On this basis, the Coal Authority is currently pumping and treating mine water in several locations. In addition, the authority, in consultation with the Environment Agency, is assessing the best options for the remediation of a number of other sites where the environmental impact is most serious. I understand that the information resulting from this assessment will be used to identify a programme of specific projects for which finance will be sought from the Government.

  Building Research Establishment
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what conditions designed to guarantee the(a) quality, (b) impartiality, (c) independence and (d) integrity of the work of the Building Research Establishment will be imposed on organisations submitting a bid to purchase the Building Research Establishment. [2250]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  We will require prospective purchasers to demonstrate that BRE would under their ownership remain capable of providing the Government with high-quality, independent and impartial research and development and advice across a broad range of building and construction disciplines. BRE's reputation for integrity derives in large part from its staff, who will transfer with the business.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) on what criteria he reached his conclusion that the construction industry's proposals for a national centre for construction did not provide a satisfactory basis for the future of the Building Research Establishment; [2252]

  (2) in what respects the proposal from the construction industry for the establishment of a national centre for construction failed to meet the criteria he laid down. [2253]
  464
  Mr. Jones
  The decision we had to take was whether the proposals put forward on behalf of the construction industry—the package of proposals, including the national centre for construction, the arrangements for BRE within the national centre and the Construction Industry Council's indicative offer—offered a basis on which to take forward single tender sale negotiations that would demonstrably result in the best arrangements for the taxpayer. We did not feel that the package as a whole did that.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what factors led him to select February 1997 as the target date for the privatisation of the Building Research Establishment.[2251]

  Mr. Jones
  It is important for both its staff and its customers that the uncertainty about future ownership of BRE should be ended as soon as practicable. February 1997 is the earliest practicable date for completing the transfer of BRE to the private sector.

  Harmful Substances (Smuggling)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent studies his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated in respect of the smuggling into and out of the United Kingdom substances harmful to the environment or contrary to protocols protecting the natural environment; and if he will place copies of these studies in the Library. [2278]

  Mr. Clappison
  Her Majesty's Customs and Excise are currently carrying out an assessment of the extent to which UK imports and exports of chlorofluorocarbons and other ozone-depleting substances may be in breach of UK and EC restrictions.

  Rock Characterisation Facility
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) when he expects to make a decision on the planning appeal for the construction of a rock characterisation facility at Longlands farm, Gosforth, Cumbria; [2386]

  (2) when he expects to receive the planning inspector's report relating to the inquiry into the construction of a rock characterisation facility at Longlands farm, Gosforth, Cumbria. [2385]

  Mr. Jones
  The Planning Inspectorate has advised that it expects to send the report to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in mid-December. Until we have received and considered the report, I cannot say when the decision on the appeal might be made.

  Disablement Facilities Grant
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the future of the disabled facilities grant. [2464]

  Mr. Clappison
  Mandatory disabled facilities grants are retained under part I of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. which is due to
  465
  come into force during December. The new provisions will extend the availability of disabled facilities grants, and new means test regulations will ensure that only the resources of disabled persons and their spouses—or parents in the case of disabled children—will be taken into account.

  Sewers
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many critical sewers were(a) renovated and (b) replaced in each area in England and Wales in each of the 10 years immediately before the privatisation of the water industry; and how many critical sewers have been (i) renovated and (ii) replaced in each year since privatisation. [1888]

  Mr. Clappison
  The information was not collected centrally prior to privatisation or in 1989–90, and figures for 1990–91 are not available on a consistent basis. Figures for 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94 are still subject to verification on a company-by-company basis and will be made available in December this year by the Director General of Water Services when the July returns are placed in the public domain. The figures for the last two years, which have been published by the Director General of Water Services, are contained in the tables:

  Company

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Critical sewers renovated (km)

  Anglian

  13

  14

  Dwr Cymru

  13

  7

  North West

  82

  26

  Northumbrian

  102

  16

  Severn Trent

  79

  5

  South West

  29

  2

  Southern

  19

  0

  Thames

  113

  24

  Wessex

  37

  14

  Yorkshire

  17

  2

  Critical sewers replaced (km)

  Anglian

  31

  3

  Dwr Cymru

  46

  18

  North West

  85

  16

  Northumbrian

  15

  1

  Severn Trent

  225

  9

  South West

  12

  4

  Southern

  14

  1

  Thames

  47

  20

  Wessex

  14

  2

  Yorkshire

  0

  2

  Water Mains
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many kilometres of water mains were(a) renewed and (b) relined in each area of England and Wales in each of the 10 years immediately before the privatisation of the water industry; and how much has been (i) renewed and (ii) relined in each year since privatisation. [1887]

  Mr. Clappison
  The information was not collected centrally prior to privatisation or in 1989–90, and figures for 1990–91 are not available on a consistent basis. Figures for 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94 are still subject to verification on a company-by-company basis and will be made available in December this year by the 466
  Director General of Water Services when the July returns are placed in the public domain. The figures for the past two years, which have been published by the Director General of Water Services, are contained in the tables:

  Company

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Water mains relined (km)

  Anglian

  147

  0

  Dwr Cymru

  487

  64

  North West

  186

  0

  Northumbrian

  623

  741

  Severn Trent

  5,202

  407

  South West

  905

  156

  Southern

  162

  30

  Thames

  316

  129

  Wessex

  197

  78

  Yorkshire

  785

  167

  Bournemouth and West Hampshire

  0

  0

  Bristol

  31

  9

  Cambridge

  12

  0

  Chester

  0

  0

  East Surrey

  23

  0

  Essex and Suffolk

  79

  55

  Folkestone and Dover

  131

  13

  Hartlepool

  8

  8

  Mid Kent

  6

  0

  Mid Southern

  13

  50

  North East

  596

  0

  North Surrey

  0

  0

  Portsmouth

  1

  7

  South East

  561

  81

  South Staffordshire

  2

  2

  Sutton and East Surrey

  1

  23

  Tendring Hundred

  49

  17

  Three Valleys

  16

  22

  Wrexham

  100

  4

  York

  0

  0

  Water mains renewed (km)

  Anglian

  1,889

  518

  Dwr Cymru

  907

  429

  North West

  2,470

  612

  Northumbrian

  481

  280

  Severn Trent

  2,236

  499

  South West

  179

  10

  Southern

  123

  27

  Thames

  144

  15

  Wessex

  280

  184

  Yorkshire

  699

  114

  Bournemouth and West Hampshire

  29

  23

  Bristol

  83

  3

  Cambridge

  91

  17

  Chester

  15

  2

  East Surrey

  157

  0

  Essex and Suffolk

  42

  117

  Folkestone and Dover

  3

  1

  Hartlepool

  14

  3

  Mid Kent

  178

  4

  Mid Southern

  104

  20

  North East

  131

  0

  North Surrey

  25

  8

  Portsmouth

  179

  36

  South East

  113

  38

  South Staffordshire

  220

  102

  Sutton and East Surrey

  13

  179

  Tendring Hundred

  34

  8

  Three Valleys

  151

  49

  Wrexham

  43

  5

  York

  16

  2

  467

  Cyclotetramethylenetetra-nitramine
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what environmental impact assessment has been(a) undertaken and (b) commissioned by his Department into cyclotetramethylenetetra-nitramine.[1834]

  Mr. Clappison
  As far as I am aware, an environmental impact assessment into cyclotetramethylenetetra-nitramine has neither been undertaken nor commissioned by this Department.

  Water Efficiency Plans
  Mr. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will make arrangements for the water efficiency plans to be(a) made publicly available to hon. Members and (b) placed in the Library; [2287]

  (2) what consultation has taken place with consumer, industry and environmental bodies during the compilation of the water efficiency plans; [2289]

  (3) if he will list the water undertakers which have submitted their water efficiency plans to the Director General of Water Services; and if they are publicly available;[2286]
  (4) when he plans to report on the water efficiency plans. [2288]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Director General of Water Services has received water efficiency plans from the companies and will be reporting on them in due course. It is for each water company to publish its plan and disseminate it to its customers.

  The director general asked the companies to prepare their plans in consultation with the Environment Agency and the Office of Water Services customer service committees. They are also assisting the director general in his assessment of the plans.

  The companies will report on their plans in their July returns to the director general. The first reports will be included in the 1997 returns.

  British Coal (Land Transfers)
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what recent discussions he has held about the transfer of land to English Partnerships for British Coal; when such a transfer will be completed; and if he will make a statement; [2334]

  (2) when he expects the transfer of land from British Coal to English Partnerships to be completed; and if he will make a statement. [2335]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  An announcement will be made shortly.

  Millennium Date Change
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the cost effects of the millennium date change on the computer systems operated by his Department. [2616]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My Department is aware of the potential problems to departmental computer systems that may be caused by the millennium date change. As previously stated when answering the same question in 468
  June of this year, our replacement programme for older systems should ensure a high level of 2000 compliance. Notwithstanding this we are undertaking a study taking guidance from colleagues in CCTA-CITU which will produce a year 2000 compliance audited inventory of systems to form the basis of a costed departmental year 2000 programme. The Department is also working with others as a participant of the year 2000 public sector group.

  Global Warming
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the impact of global warming on the sea level in Hampshire in each of the last five years. [1971]

  Mr. Clappison
  [holding answer 4 November 1996]: My Department published an independent "Review of the Potential Effects of Climate Change on the UK" in July 1996 which provides an assessment of how climate change could affect the UK. The review suggests a global sea level rise of up to 19 cm by 2020 and a range of 26–50 cm by 2050 against a 1961–1990 baseline, with more rapid sea level rise along the East Anglian and south coasts taking into account projected vertical land movements. Only global assessments of the effects of climate change on sea level rise are available.

  Air Pollution
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the contracts which his Department has placed with consultants to investigate air pollution since 1979. [2285]

  Mr. Clappison
  [holding answer 4 November 1996]: Detailed summary documents of the research undertaken to investigate air pollution between the years 1990 and 1995 have been placed in the Library of the House. For the years 1979 to 1990, a list of contracts has been collated and a copy also placed in the Library of the House. This list may not be complete, as this information can be collected only at disproportionate costs.

SCOTLAND

  Farmers' Income
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the changes in farmers' income in real terms for each month since January 1990; and if he will make a statement. [1590]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The Scottish Office operates the farm accounts surveys, which collects information on farm incomes in Scotland on an annual basis. This information is published each year in "An Economic Report on Scottish Agriculture", "Agriculture in the United Kingdom", "Farm Incomes in the United Kingdom" and "Farm Incomes in Scotland", all of which are available in the House of Commons Library.

  Algrade Trust
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the progress of the
  469
  investigations by (a) the police and (b) the Scottish Charities Office into the affairs of the Algrade trust and the application of public and other funds by that trust. [2135]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The police inquiries are continuing. The case against Robert Herriott has been reported by the procurator fiscal and is being considered by Crown counsel. The accounts of the Algrade trust have been completed by the accountants. Some further minor inquiries require to be done by the investigators at the Crown office, after which a decision will be made on whether any action is appropriate under the supervision of charities legislation.

  A1
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the progress of plans for dualling the Al road between Haddington and Dunbar; and when he intends the construction work to start. [2136]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Department published revised draft orders on 28 June this year following changes to the original scheme design and a second draft compulsory purchase order was published on 25 October.

  A number of objections to the proposals have been received, which Scottish Office officials are seeking to resolve. It is difficult to forecast at this stage the time needed for the completion of the statutory procedures.

  Millennium Date Change
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the cost effects of the millennium date change on the computer systems operated by his Department. [2606]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Office does not expect to incur substantial additional costs as a result of the effect of the millennium date change on computer systems which it operates.

  Oil and Gas
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of oil and gas landed from the UK continental shelf comes under the jurisdiction of Scottish legal administration. [1531]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 31 October 1996]: Contracts for the disposal of oil and gas once landed are generally subject to whatever civil law and jurisdiction procedures and purchasers choose to apply. The Government have no record of the choices made.

  Health Care International Hospital
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much public sector funding was spent on the Health Care International hospital in current prices. [1530]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 31 October 1996]: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) on 21 May, Official Report, columns 152–54 which set out all support from public
  470
  funds given to Health Care International (Scotland) Ltd. in actual and in March 1996 prices. There has been no additional support to HCI from public funds since then.

  Housing
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each district and islands council the number of council houses sold through(a) right to buy and (b) rent to mortgage in 1995–96. [1617]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 1 November 1996]: The available information is set out in the table which follows. These are provisional figures as a number of returns are still outstanding.

  Number of sales of council houses to sitting tenants in Scotland by district/islands council for the financial year 1995–96 (provisional)

  Right to buy

  Rent to mortgage

  Scotland

  11,836

  80

  Berwickshire1

  0

  0

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  60

  0

  Roxburgh

  116

  20

  Tweeddale

  230

  20

  Clackmannan

  148

  1

  Falkirk

  395

  0

  Stirling

  198

  0

  Annandale and Eskdale

  103

  0

  Nithsdale

  163

  0

  Stewartry

  56

  0

  Wigtown

  130

  3—

  Dunfermline

  395

  0

  Kirkcaldy

  380

  21

  North east Fife

  3—

  3—

  Aberdeen

  575

  146

  Banff and Buchan

  221

  1

  Gordon

  125

  8

  Kincardine and Deeside

  255

  8

  Moray

  229

  2

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  30

  3—

  Caithness

  273

  20

  Inverness

  118

  20

  Lochaber

  57

  0

  Nairn

  28

  0

  Ross and Cromarty

  128

  1

  Skye and Lochalsh

  23

  3—

  Sutherland

  218

  0

  East Lothian

  2141

  7

  Edinburgh

  705

  1

  Midlothian

  150

  2

  West Lothian

  363

  1

  Argyll and Bute

  166

  1

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  23

  0

  Clydebank

  98

  0

  Clydesdale

  2107

  3—

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  92

  0

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  196

  0

  Cunninghame

  336

  0

  Dumbarton

  290

  0

  East Kilbride

  29

  20

  Eastwood

  3—

  3—

  Glasgow

  1,688

  0

  Hamilton

  468

  0

  Inverclyde

  336

  0

  471

  Number of sales of council houses to sitting tenants in Scotland by district/islands council for the financial year 1995–96 (provisional)

  Right to buy

  Rent to mortgage

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  2188

  0

  Kyle and Carrick

  431

  0

  Monklands

  547

  0

  Motherwell

  647

  3—

  Renfrew

  386

  0

  Strathkelvin

  139

  3—

  Angus

  230

  0

  Dundee

  401

  0

  Perth and Kinross

  2223

  20

  Orkney Islands

  35

  0

  Shetland Islands

  57

  20

  Western Isles

  30

  0

  1 All local authority housing stock has now been disposed of.

  2 Data incomplete: figures for part-year only.

  3 No information has been received for this period.

  Fishing Industry
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he estimates the Scottish fishing industry will reach the targets laid down in the current multi-annual guidance programme; what additional(a) grants and (b) other public funds will be made available to the fishing industry when this target is reached; and if he will make a statement. [1543]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 4 November 1996]: We estimate that the UK fishing industry will be close to the targets laid down in the current multi-annual guidance programme when that programme ends on 31 December 1996. Details of the next multi-annual guidance programme remain under discussion. It is too early to say what changes in public expenditure may result.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the loss to the Scottish fishing industry in terms of decommissioning grants and other assistance due to the fact that the United Kingdom has not reached the targets laid down in multi-annual guidance programme 3yind if he will make a statement. [1544]

  Mr. Robertson
  [holding answer 4 November 1996]: Decommissioning grants are provided in order to help meet the targets laid down in MAGP 3. The Scottish fishing industry has benefited from substantial UK public sector assistance for that purpose, with support from the European Union.

  The fact that the UK Government may not provide certain other types of grant assistance does not affect the overall volume of resources available for EU structural spending, which has been fixed for the period 1994 to 1999. There is thus no quantifiable loss to the Scottish fishing industry.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what conditions must be met by a fisherman seeking to access grants towards the building of a new fishing vessel; and if he will make a statement. [1462]

  Mr. Robertson
  [holding answer 4 November 1996]: In view of the overcapacity of the fishing fleet, fishermen in
  472
  Scotland do not have access to grants towards the building of new fishing vessels.

  East Ayrshire Community Hospital
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he received the alternative proposals for funding the East Ayrshire community hospital from the Ayrshire and Arran community health trust; when he expects to announce his decision; and if he will make a statement. [1488]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 4 November 1996]: I received the full business case from the Ayrshire and Arran community health trust on 2 September. However, the preferred bidder sought time to revise the bid and was given until 1 November to submit final figures in support of his bid. I expect to be able to announce my decision shortly.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the impact of the Government's proposed changes to the rules for the reclaim of VAT on local authorities in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [2045]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 4 November 1996]: None. The matter has not been raised with the Department by any Scottish local authority.

  Dounreay Nuclear Plant
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from The Scotsman newspaper about the public supply of published health and safety reports covering activities at the Dounreay nuclear plant since 1975; and if he will make a statement. [2363]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 4 November 1996]: My right hon. Friend has received no such representations.

  Environmental Radioactivity
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what instructions he gave in respect of the release of data contained in the report on "Environmental Radioactivity in Caithness and Sutherland" part 4 to the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment relating to the investigation into the incidence of childhood leukaemia in the Thurso area in 1988; and if he will make a statement. [2365]

  Lord James Douglas Hamilton
  [holding answer 4 November 1996]: My right hon. Friend gave no instructions on this matter. The data contained in the report were available to COMARE at the time of its deliberations about the Dounreay site.
  473

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Schools
  Mr. Worthington:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will provide a breakdown of schools in Northern Ireland by the percentages which they attract from each of the major traditions in Northern Ireland. [971]

  Mr. Ancram
  The breakdown of schools in Northern Ireland by the percentages which they attract from each of the major traditions is given in the tables.

  Table 1a: Controlled nursery school (attended mainly by protestant pupils)

  Percentage catholic

  Number of schools

  0

  13

  .01–1

  0

  1.1–5

  11

  5.1–10

  7

  10.1–20

  4

  20.1–50

  12

  50.1+

  18

  Table 1b: Maintained nursery schools (attended mainly by catholic pupils)

  Percentage catholic

  Number of schools

  0

  22

  .01–1

  0

  1.1–5

  2

  5.1–10

  0

  10.1–20

  1

  20.1–50

  1

  50.1+

  0

  Table 2a: Maintained primary school (attended mainly by catholic pupils

  Percentage protestant

  Number of schools

  0

  384

  .01–1

  26

  1.1–5

  17

  5.1–10

  1

  10.1–20

  3

  20.1–50

  3

  50.1+

  0

  Table 2b: Controlled/other maintained primary schools (attended mainly by protestant pupils)

  Percentage catholic

  Number of schools

  0

  278

  .01–1

  52

  1.1–5

  88

  5.1–10

  25

  10.1–20

  14

  20.1–50

  14

  50.1+

  11

  474

  Table 3a: Controlled secondary/non-denominational voluntary grammar schools (attended mainly by protestant pupils)

  Percentage catholic

  Number of schools

  0

  28

  .01–1

  25

  1.1–5

  36

  5.1–10

  7

  10.1–20

  8

  20.1–50

  6

  50.1+

  1

  Table 3b: Maintained secondary/voluntary grammar under Roman Catholic management (attended mainly by catholic pupils)

  Percentage protestant

  Number of schools

  0

  83

  .01–1

  22

  1.1–5

  2

  5.1–10

  0

  10.1–20

  1

  20.1–50

  1

  50.1 +

  0

  Class Sizes
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of(a) five, (b)six and catholic pupils) (c) seven-year-olds in Northern Ireland are currently educated in classes of more than 30 pupils. [1170]

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

  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many children in Northern Ireland in(a) primary education and (b) secondary education are in a class of more than 30 pupils. [1175]

  Mr. Ancram
  The number of children in primary education in a class of more than 30 pupils is 21,595. This information is not collected for secondary education.

  School Computers
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of(a) primary and (b) secondary school pupils have access to the Internet through a computer in their school. [1172]

  Mr. Ancram
  This information is not currently available, but a forthcoming survey of information technology provision in schools in Northern Ireland will provide the information in April 1997. I will write to the hon. Member at that time.

  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of(a) primary and (b) secondary school pupils have access to a computer. [1171]

  Mr. Ancram
  All primary and secondary pupils in Northern Ireland schools have access to a computer.

  Nursery Education
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) three-year-olds and (b) four-year-olds are currently in nursery education in Northern Ireland. [1174]
  475
  Mr. Ancram
  In 1995–96 there were(a) 8,170 three-year-olds; and (b) 12 four-year-olds in nursery education in Northern Ireland.

  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many nursery places are currently available in Northern Ireland. [1173]

  Mr. Ancram
  A total of 6,750 full-time equivalent places are available at grant-aided nursery schools and nursery units attached to grant-aided primary schools.

  Pupil Exclusions
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many pupils have been excluded from schools in Northern Ireland in each of the last five years. [1177]

  Mr. Ancram
  Information on the number of pupils expelled from Northern Ireland schools in recent years is not available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. A monitoring system is, however, in the process of being established to provide such information in future years.

  Pupil Numbers
  Mr. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many pupils are currently in full-time education in Northern Ireland in(a) nursery, (b) primary and (c) secondary education. [1179]

  Mr. Ancram
  In 1995–96 there were 4,752 nursery, 187,872 primary and 151,576 secondary pupils in full-time education in Northern Ireland.

  Criminal Records (Access)
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in what ways the Northern Ireland criminal records computer system can be accessed by police in Great Britain; and what plans he has to assist in bringing about a single United Kingdom system. [1201]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Police forces in Great Britain currently access the Northern Ireland criminal records system by direct contact with the RUC criminal records office.

  The RUC can access criminal records in Great Britain via police national computer—Phoenix—terminals located in Northern Ireland.

  There are no plans to bring a single United Kingdom system, although methods of improving access to Northern Ireland criminal records by forces in Great Britain are currently under consideration.

  Education Spending
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much money has been spent per pupil in Northern Ireland in each of the last five years. [1167]
  476
  Mr. Ancram
  Expenditure per pupil figures are as follows:

  Expenditure per pupil (1994–95 prices) £

  1992–93

  1,699

  1993–94

  1,802

  1994–95

  1,913

  Information is not available for 1990–91 or 1991–92 on a comparable basis.

  Hotels and Guest Houses
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list by heading and amount the grant aid given to hotels and guest houses for(a) new build and (b) renovation since 1 January 1989 in the North Down constituency indicating the current room size criteria; and if he will make a statement. [1200]

  Mr. Ancram
  The table shows the amount of grant aid given to hotels and guest houses in the North Down constituency for both new build and renovation work since January 1989. It also indicates the Northern Ireland tourist board's current room size criterion for new hotels and guest houses.

  Financial assistance to accommodation developments in North Down constituency since 1989

  A: New build £

  B: Renovation £

  C: Minimum room size (including en-suite facilities)

  Hotels

  1,400,000.00

  344,622.60

  25 sq. metres

  Guesthouses

  —

  37,970.68

  20 sq. metres

  Total

  1,400,000.00

  382,593.28

  —

  Nursery Vouchers
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the estimated cost will be for each of the next five years for administration of nursery vouchers for Northern Ireland. [1180]

  Mr. Ancram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) on 1 November 1996,Official Report, column 282.

  GCSE Passes
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of pupils in Northern Ireland achieved passes in GCSE mathematics in each of the last five years. [1178]

  Mr. Ancram
  Information is not available in the form requested. The percentage of pupils entered for the GCSE mathematics examinations of the Northern Ireland Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and
  477
  Assessment and its predecessor bodies, and achieving grades A* to G (A to G in 1992 and 1993), in each of the last five years, are:

  1992: 93.8

  1993: 92.7

  1994: 94.5

  1995: 98.21; 96.4

  1996: 98.12; 95.12

  1Syllabus A

  2Syllabus B

  Belfast Airport (Sale)
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on whose advice and by what criteria the price of Belfast international airport at Aldergrove was set when originally sold; and by what actual and percentage amount that price was bettered when the airport was subsequently sold. [1202]

  Mr. Moss
  The Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland engaged the services of consultants for the privatisation process. Details of the appointment remain commercial in confidence. The valuation exercise formed part of that process. The criteria used to value the airport were those applicable to a transaction of this type.

  The airport was sold by means of a trade sale in a competitive bidding situation which generated a considerable degree of price tension. The purchase price was £32.75 million and the Government withdrew a further £15.51 million in cash from the former company, giving a total return on the transaction of £47.9 million.

  We understand that in August 1996 TBI plc acquired the shares in Belfast International Airport Holdings Ltd.—BIAHL—for £72.4 million. In addition, BIAHL paid a dividend of £4.5 million to shareholders. As part of the deal, TBI repaid £28 million of BIAHL's bank borrowings and transaction costs of £2 million. This resulted in a total purchase consideration of £106.9 million.

  This figure represents an increase of £59 million on the amount received by Government from the sale of Northern Ireland Airports Ltd. In percentage terms, the increase is equivalent to 123 per cent.

  Area Plans
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if the reviews of the area plans in respect of the Down and Newry and Mourne district council areas will be included in the Planning Agency's business case for the financial year 1997£98; [2384]

  (2) what is the time scale for the commencement and execution of the work required in respect of the Down and Newry and Mourne area plans; [2402]

  (3) what factors led to the exclusion of the area plans for the Down and Newry and Mourne district council areas form the Planning Agency's business case for the financial year 1996–97; [2383]

  (4) when he expects the reviews of the area plans in respect of Down and Newry and Mourne district councils to take place; [2417]
  478
  (5) if he will make a statement on the adequacy of resources for the (a) review and (b) preparation of the area plans for the Down and Newry and Mourne districts. [2418]

  Mr. Moss
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to a Planning Service under its chief executive, Mr. T. Stewart. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from T. W. Stewart to Mr. Eddie McGrady, dated 5 November 1996:
  Mr. Moss has asked me to reply to your questions about the Down and Newry and Mourne Area Plans.
  Only Development Plans which were to be adopted in 1996/97 were included in the Agency's Business Plan for that year. The position will be the same for the 1997/98 Business Plan. When drawing up the development plan programme for 1997/98 and future years, the programming of work on both plans will be taken into account. The work programme will be established in accordance with competing priorities and the available resources.
  Although the notional end date for the Down Area Plan is late 1997 and for the Newry and Mourne Area Plan late 1999, they will remain material planning considerations in the determination of any planning applications submitted after those dates.

  Tuberculosis Vaccination
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of school leavers in Northern Ireland have been vaccinated against tuberculosis; and if he will make a statement. [1627]

  Mr. Moss
  The information is not available in the form requested; however, I would refer the hon. Member to the statistical information contained in the publication "Health and Personal Social Services Statistics 1 April 199–31 March 1994" issued by the Department of Health and Social Services which is available in the Library. The Government recommend that BCG vaccine to protect against tuberculosis should be routinely offered to all school children between the ages of 10 and 14 years.

  Prisoners (Terrorist Offences)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what is his policy in relation to the(a) release, (b) transfer, and (c) repatriation of prisoners detained in Northern Ireland and convicted of terrorist offences; and if he will make a statement; [2051]

  (2) how many prisoners detained in Northern Ireland and convicted of terrorist offences have been (a) released, (b) transferred, (c) notified of their release by the end of 1996 and (d) repatriated to prisons in the Republic of Ireland since August 1994; [2143]

  (3) in what way the criteria for approving applications by prisoners convicted of terrorist offences and detained in Northern Ireland for (a) release, (b) transfer and (c) repatriation to the Republic of Ireland differ from those applied in other parts of the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [2144]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Responsibility for the subject of these questions has been delegated to the Northern Ireland Prison Service under its chief executive, Mr. Alan Shannon. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
  479
  Letter from Alan Shannon to Mr. Max Madden, dated 5 November 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to respond to the 3 Parliamentary Questions you tabled about policies with regard to the release, transfer and repatriation of prisoners detained in Northern Ireland, who have been convicted of terrorist offences.
  Determinate sentence prisoners in Northern Ireland are released automatically once their full sentences, with the appropriate period of remission, have been served. A prisoner may only be released earlier in exceptional circumstances where the Royal Prerogative of Mercy is exercised. The statistical information you are seeking on releases since I August 1994 and prospective releases by 31 December 1996 is not readily available in the format requested and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. However I can confirm that since 17 November 1995, 160 scheduled offenders have been released on licence, between the half way and two thirds part of sentence, as a result of the changes in remission rules brought in by the Northern Ireland (Remission of Sentence) Act 1995.
  The release on licence of life sentence prisoners is at the discretion of the Secretary of State who is advised by the Life Sentence Review Board. Since 1 August 1994 58 life sentence prisoners convicted of terrorist related offences have been released on licence and a further 4 prisoners with provisional release dates are expected to be released by 31 December 1996.
  The transfer of prisoners between the 3 UK jurisdictions on either a permanent or temporary basis is governed by the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1961 and administered according to criteria announced in Parliament in 1992. Since I August 1994 2 prisoners convicted of terrorist offences in Northern Ireland have transferred to England & Wales; one permanently and the other on a temporary basis.
  The repatriation of prisoners from or to Northern Ireland is governed by the Repatriation of Prisoners Act 1984. Repatriation may be considered where the country to which application is being made is a signatory to the Council of Europe Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons or to the Commonwealth Scheme for the Transfer of Convicted Offenders or has a separate bilateral agreement with the United Kingdom. No prisoners convicted in Northern Ireland have been repatriated to the Republic of Ireland and the Northern Ireland Prison Service is not in receipt of any applications from prisoners seeking repatriation. However one prisoner who was convicted in England, but detained temporarily in Northern Ireland on an intra-UK transfer, was subsequently repatriated to the Republic of Ireland on the authority of the Home Secretary.
  You have asked in what way the criteria for approving applications for release, transfer and repatriation differs from those applied in other parts of the United Kingdom. Intra-UK transfers and repatriations are governed by the same legislation and criteria in all 3 UK jurisdictions.
  On the question of release each jurisdiction has separate legislation and powers. In Northern Ireland there is no system of parole or discretionary release for determinate sentence prisoners who are released automatically at the completion of their sentences with remission. The procedure for reviewing the sentences of life

  Income and expenditure 1973–74 to 1995–96 Northern Ireland Housing Executive NIHE)

  Capital expenditure

  Capital receipts

  Revenue expenditure

  Rental income

  Net capital and revenue expenditure

  1973–74

  65.1

  0.2

  34.2

  21.7

  77.4

  1974–75

  46.5

  0.7

  48.3

  23.2

  70.9

  1975–76

  73.5

  1.8

  62.1

  31.3

  102.5

  1976–77

  108.2

  4.7

  81.7

  39

  146.2

  1977–78

  109.6

  5.1

  100.5

  50.5

  154.5

  1978–79

  102.7

  7.1

  130.3

  58.5

  167.4

  1979–80

  97.5

  9.3

  171.3

  53

  206.5

  1980–81

  110.7

  16.7

  199.2

  72.6

  220.6

  1981–82

  119.9

  54

  241

  100

  206.9

  1982–83

  177.4

  55.2

  248.4

  119.5

  251.1

  1983–84

  177.2

  55.6

  269.4

  126.7

  264.3

  480
  sentence prisoners also differs from that in other jurisdictions and I attach an explanatory memorandum which illustrates in detail the life sentence review process in Northern Ireland.

  Northern Ireland Housing Executive
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list for each year since 1971 the number of(a) new houses built, (b) improvements made to the housing stock and (c) existing houses purchased by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. [2370]

  Mr. Moss
  The information is provided in the table. The data requested at part(c) are available only at disproportionate cost.

  New build completions and improvements by Northern Ireland housing executive 1971 to 1995

  New build completions

  Improvements

  1971

  1,710

  305

  1972

  5,589

  244

  1973

  5,808

  296

  1974

  5,012

  249

  1975

  5,022

  152

  1976

  7,224

  325

  1977

  6,724

  746

  1978

  5,132

  1,277

  1979

  2,952

  1,207

  1980

  2,701

  319

  1981

  2,342

  4,791

  1982

  3,628

  3,763

  1983

  3,874

  1,439

  1984

  3,384

  6,250

  1985

  3,160

  3,860

  1986

  2,222

  852

  1987

  1,805

  2,484

  1988

  1,653

  3,049

  1989

  1,577

  2,943

  1990

  1,324

  3,178

  1991

  961

  2,656

  1992

  958

  2,498

  1993

  888

  2,823

  1994

  878

  2,239

  1995

  1,362

  2,464

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the income and expenditure of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive for each year of its existence expressed as an actual figure and as a percentage of the Northern Ireland budget. [2371]

  Mr. Moss
  The information is provided in the table. Although the Northern Ireland Housing Executive was formed in 1971, expenditure and income figures are available only from 1973–74.
  481

  Income and expenditure 1973–74 to 1995–96 Northern Ireland Housing Executive NIHE)

  Capital expenditure

  Capital receipts

  Revenue expenditure

  Rental income

  Net capital and revenue expenditure

  1984–85

  174.2

  48.6

  308.6

  131.6

  302.6

  1985–86

  171.9

  41.9

  328

  135.5

  322.45

  1986–87

  151.3

  34.1

  341.2

  141.6

  316.8

  1987–88

  150.2

  30.2

  350.1

  147.6

  322.5

  1988–89

  151.3

  36

  358.8

  160.3

  313.8

  1989–90

  141.5

  46.4

  334.6

  174.6

  255.1

  1990–91

  124.5

  42.3

  347.9

  189

  241.1

  1991–92

  123.3

  34.6

  370.2

  198.3

  260.6

  1992–93

  122.3

  36.7

  369.3

  213.1

  241.8

  1993–94

  129.1

  45

  378.4

  225.3

  237.2

  1994–95

  132.9

  55.6

  393.6

  235.7

  235.2

  1995–96

  136.4

  56.3

  414.1

  247.5

  246.7

  Public expenditure 1973–74 to 1995–96 Northern Ireland block

  Expenditure

  1973–74

  803

  1974–75

  1,116

  1975–76

  1,414

  1976–77

  1,620

  1977–78

  1,808

  1978–79

  2,132

  1979–80

  2,446

  1980–81

  2,889

  1981–82

  3,215

  1982–83

  3,500

  1983–84

  3,816

  1984–85

  4,121

  1985–86

  4,275

  1986–87

  4,499

  1987–88

  4,828

  1988–89

  5,111

  1989–90

  5,395

  1990–91

  5,525

  1991–92

  6,018

  1992–93

  6,580

  1993–94

  7,085

  1994–95

  7,407

  1995–96

  7,823

  NIHE net expenditure expressed as percentage of total NI public expenditure

  Percentage

  1973–74

  9.6

  1974–75

  6.4

  1975–76

  7.2

  1976–77

  9

  1977–78

  8.5

  1978–79

  7.9

  1979–80

  8.4

  1980–81

  7.6

  1981–82

  6.4

  1982–83

  7.2

  1983–84

  6.9

  1984–85

  7.3

  1985–86

  7.5

  1986–87

  7

  1987–88

  6.7

  1988–89

  6.1

  1989–90

  4.7

  1990–91

  4.4

  1991–92

  4.3

  1992–93

  3.7

  1993–94

  3.3

  1994–95

  3.2

  1995–96

  3.2

  482

  Millennium Date Change
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the cost effects of the millennium date change on the computer systems operated by his Department. [2608]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Northern Ireland Departments are progressing the audits of their computer systems to determine which systems will continue to be in operation as year 2000 approaches and the amount of work that will be necessary to make them compliant. The audits will include an assessment of costs, priorities and time scales.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many civil servants are employed in the drafting and production of statutory instruments. [1683]

  Mr. Freeman
  Civil servants in many areas of government are involved from time to time in preparing and drafting statutory instruments relating to their areas of work. The staff time spent on this is not recorded separately and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Rendering Facilities
    Mr. Martyn Jones
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many inspectors are currently appointed by the Government to ensure existing(a) legislation and (b) guidelines are met with regard to rendering facilities; and if he will make a statement. [432]

    Mrs. Browning
    All veterinary staff employed by the Department are appointed as veterinary inspectors under the Animal Health Act 1981 and are empowered to carry out inspections at rendering facilities. A total of 356 veterinary inspectors are employed at present. In addition, 152 technical staff are currently appointed by the Department and they, too, are able to carry out inspections.
    483
    Mr. Jones
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the procedure for registering as a rendering facility. [424]

    Mrs. Browning
    Owners of premises wishing to operate a rendering facility must submit an application to the appropriate MAFF animal health divisional office. The premises are then inspected by State Veterinary Service staff to ensure that the hygiene, structural and processing requirements set out in EC directive 90/667, as amended, and implemented in Great Britain by the Animal By-Products Order 1992, as amended, are met before approval to operate a rendering plant is granted.

    Operators wishing to process specified bovine material must be similarly approved but under the Specified Bovine Material (No. 3) Order 1996.

    Mr. Jones
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the dates on which those rendering plants which deal exclusively with cattle culled in the 30—month scheme began dealing solely with such cattle; if he will indicate for each the products they were previously rendering; and if he will make a statement. [434]

    Mr. Baldry
    Details of when those rendering plants processing solely over-30-month scheme—OTMSmaterial, and in some cases specified bovine material from cattle under 30 months also, began to take OTMS carcases and the material that they processed immediately before that date are listed below:

    Name of company

    Dale started rendering OTMS carcases

    Material previously rendered

    Canterbury Mills Ltd.

    May 1996

    SBM and other animal waste

    Granox Ltd.

    May 1996

    SBM and other animal waste

    J. G. Pears (Newark) Ltd.

    October 1996

    animal waste other than SBM

    J. L. Thomas Ltd.

    May 1996

    animal waste other than SBM

    Peninsular Proteins Ltd.

    May 1996

    animal waste other than SBM

    Prosper de Mulder and Sons Ltd.(Hartshill)

    October 1996

    animal waste other than SBM

    Mr. Jones
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list all rendering facilities that render mammals without producing mammalian meat and bonemeal; and if he will make a statement. [430]

    Mrs. Browning
    In Great Britain, the following premises are approved under the Animal By-Products Order 1992, as amended, to part render mammalian by-products, the proteinaceous end product from which must be sent to an approved full renderer for further processing.

    ABP Ltd., Shrewsbury

    Croda Colloids Ltd., Market Harborough

    D. S. Cooper Ltd., Huddersfield

    Mitchell By-Products Ltd., Bradford

    Mr. Jones
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list all rendering facilities, indicating for each whether they render(a) exclusively cattle culled under the 30-month scheme, (b) exclusively cattle not included in the 30-month scheme and (c) both cattle within the 30-month scheme and cattle not within the scheme; and if he will make a statement. [433]
    484
    Mr. Baldry
    Of the plants rendering cattle by-products in Great Britain the following are processing:

    (a) Over-30—month scheme cattle, and in some cases specified bovine material from under-30-month cattle, on an exclusive basis:

    Canterbury Mills Ltd., Canterbury

    Granox Ltd., Widnes

    J. G. Pears (Newark) Ltd.

    J. L. Thomas Ltd., Exeter.

    Peninsular Proteins Ltd.

    Prosper de Mulder and Sons Ltd., Hartshill.

    On (b), no rendering plant in Great Britain is exclusively processing cattle which are under 30 months of age. Generally plants processing non-SBM from cattle under 30 months of age also process other clean offals— for example, from pigs, sheep, and so on. The plants falling into this category—that is, plants which operate without processing OTMS cattle carcases or SBM are as follows:

    ABP Ltd., Shrewsbury

    Chambers Ltd., Huddersfield

    D. S. Cooper Ltd., Huddersfield

    Croda Colloids Ltd., Market Harborough

    A. Hughes (Skellingthorpe) Ltd., Skellingthorpe

    J. Knights Ltd., Silvertown

    Mitchell By-Products Ltd., Bradford

    Pimlotts Ltd., Norwich

    Smith Brothers, Manchester

    Sykes, Castleford

    Waddington, Bradford

    Dundas Chemicals Ltd., Dumfries

    McIntosh Donald Ltd., Aberdeen

    On (c), the following Great Britain rendering plants are processing OTMS carcases and SBM from cattle under 30 months of age in dedicated rendering lines and, separately, non-SBM in dedicated clean rendering lines:

    Fats and Proteins (UK) Ltd., Lancaster

    Gilberts Animal By-Products Ltd., Stafford

    Dundas Bros Ltd., Aberdeen

    William Forrest and Son (Paisley) Ltd.

    Mr. Jones
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the conditions required to be met prior to approval being granted to a rendering facility; and if he will make a statement. [425]

    Mrs. Browning
    Prior to approval being granted under the Animal By-Products Order 1992, rendering plants must meet the range of hygiene, constructional and processing requirements set out in schedule 4 to the order.

    Prior to approval being granted under the Specified Bovine Material (No.3) Order 1996, rendering plants must meet the range of hygiene, constructional and processing requirements set out in schedule 1 and article 18 of the order.

    Mr. Jones
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the names and locations of rendering plants that(a) produce and (b) do not produce mammalian meat and bonemeal in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [423]
    485
    Mrs. Browning
    In Great Britain, the following premises are approved under the Animal By-Products Order 1992, as amended, to render fully mammalian by-products and could therefore produce mammalian meat and bonemeal:

    Canterbury Mills Ltd., Canterbury,

    Chambers Ltd., Huddersfield

    Fats and Proteins (UK) Ltd., Lancaster

    Gilberts Animal By-Products Ltd., Stafford

    Granox Ltd., Widnes

    Hughes (Skellingthorpe) Ltd., Skellingthorpe

    J. G. Pears, (Newark) Ltd.

    J. Knights Ltd., Slivertown

    J. L. Thomas Ltd., Exeter

    Lloyd Maunder Ltd., Cullompton

    Peninsular Proteins Ltd., Exeter

    Pimlotts, Norwich

    Prosper de Mulder and Sons, Hartshill

    Smith Brothers, Manchester

    Sykes, Castleford

    Waddington, Bradford

    Dundas Brothers Ltd., Aberdeen

    Dundas Chemicals Ltd., Dumfries

    McIntosh Donald Ltd., Aberdeen

    William Forrest and Son (Paisley) Ltd.

    In Great Britain, the following premises are approved under the Animal By-Products Order 1992, as amended, to part render animal by-products or render materials other than mammalian by-products—for example fish, poultry—and do not, therefore, produce mammalian meat and bone meal:

    ABP Ltd., Shrewsbury

    Alba Proteins Ltd., Penrith

    Chaettles Ltd., Nottingham

    Croda Colloids, Market Harborough

    D. S. Cooper Ltd., Huddersfield

    F. Howard Jones and Sons Ltd., Gwent

    January

    February

    March

    April

    May

    June

    July

    August

    September

    October

    November

    December

    1990

    1

    1

    2

    1

    1

    2

    1

    0

    2

    4

    0

    1

    1991

    0

    0

    1

    0

    1

    2

    0

    3

    1

    0

    1

    2

    1992

    0

    1

    1

    3

    1

    0

    0

    2

    1

    3

    0

    1

    1993

    0

    0

    0

    0

    2

    0

    0

    2

    1

    3

    1

    1

    1994

    1

    2

    2

    1

    0

    0

    2

    0

    2

    2

    2

    0

    1995

    1

    1

    1

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    19961

    1

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    1 Data incomplete

    Note:

    1. The data do not include five cases confirmed in 1996 for which detailed information is not yet available.

    2. Previous figures supplied for numbers of FSE cases have been on the basis of year of administrative confirmation and not on the basis of date of clinical onset of disease as is the case with those in the table. It would not be appropriate to provide monthly figures by the month of confirmation because of the time lag between suspicion and confirmation. The above figures will therefore not necessarily reflect previous figures given.

    Organophosphate Dips
    Mr. Llwyd
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what liaison there is between his Department, the Department of Health and the Ministry of Defence on the subject of organophosphate dips and their use; and if he will make a statement. [1857]
    486

    Grampian Ltd., Aberdeen

    Grimsby Fish Products Ltd.,Grimsby

    Interfish Ltd., Plymouth

    Marshall Foods Ltd., Perthshire

    Mitchell By-Products, Bradford

    Shetland Fish Ltd., Shetland

    Sun Valley Ltd., Hereford

    United Fish Ltd., Aberdeen.

    Mr. Jones
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many Government inspections during(a) 12 June to 12 July, (b) 12 July to 12 August and (c) 12 August to 12 September 1996, were carried out to ensure existing (i) legislation and (ii) guidelines have been met with regard to rendering facilities; and if he will make a statement. [431]

    Mrs. Browning
    The number of inspection visits made by State Veterinary Service staff to rendering plants during the periods concerned are:

    12 June 1996 to 11 July 1996: 87

    12 July 1996 and 11 August 1996: 72

    12 August 1996 to 11 September 1996: 91

    Casualty Animals
    Mr. Martyn Jones
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received relating to the reluctance of contractors to pick up bulls as casualty animals; and if he will make a statement.[468]

    Mrs. Browning
    No such written representations appear to have been made.

    Feline Spongiform Encephalopathy
    Mr. Martyn Jones
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the incidence of reported feline spongiform encephalopathy for each month since 1990; and if he will make a statement. [454]

    Mrs. Browning
    The number of feline spongiform encephalopathy cases confirmed by date of clinical onset for each month since 1990 at 29 October 1996 is:

    Mrs. Browning
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) on 28 October 1996,Official Report, column 52. In addition, I have held a series of meetings with Baroness Cumberlege, Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Health.
    487

    Millennium Date Change
    Mr. Ingram
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the cost effects of the millennium date change on the computer systems operated by his Department. [2605]

    Mr. Boswell
    We are currently in the process of assessing the resources required to address the problems faced by computer systems when handling the millennium date change.

    Live Animal Exports
    Mr. Morley
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the current requirements on local veterinary inspectors to conduct an examination of all sheep and goats being exported; and if he will make a statement. [1981]

    Mrs. Browning
    [holding answer 4 November 1996]: The local veterinary inspector responsible for completing an export health certificate for sheep and goats is required to certify that, within 48 hours of loading, they were inspected and showed no clinical sign of disease. For the purposes of export certification, the terms inspection and examination are considered to be synonymous. The instructions to local veterinary inspectors specify that the pre-export examination or inspection of animals should consist of visual appraisal and, if deemed appropriate, physical examination.

    Mr. Morley
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many copies of certificate EC 618 have been issued by his divisional veterinary managers during(a) July, (b) August and (c) September in the county of Kent to local veterinary inspectors certifying live sheep for export destined for further fattening. [1983]

    Mrs. Browning
    [holding answer 4 November 1996]: The information requested is as follows:

    (a) July: 251

    (b) August: 204

    (c) September: 233

    Mr. Morley
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the working procedures of the export health certificate, Council directive 91/68/EEC, for the export of sheep

    Arable area payments scheme 1995 (Number of holdings and area claimed by county)

    Simplified scheme

    Main scheme

    County

    Number of holdings

    Area claimed (ha)

    Number of holdings

    Area claimed (ha)

    Total number of holdings

    Total area claimed (ha)

    Clwyd

    334

    3,350.90

    52

    3,689.22

    386

    7,040.12

    Dyfed

    884

    7,925.23

    137

    8,411.32

    1,021

    16,336.55

    Gwent

    184

    2,080.45

    81

    5,115.92

    265

    7,196.37

    Gwynedd

    158

    1,468.04

    19

    1,089.70

    177

    2,557.74

    Mid Glamorgan

    33

    367.14

    14

    1,392.20

    47

    1,759.34

    Powys

    309

    3,043.57

    60

    4,115.76

    369

    7,159.33

    South Glamorgan

    61

    761.77

    33

    3,322.79

    94

    4,084.56

    West Glamorgan

    66

    549.88

    10

    483.52

    76

    1,033.40

    Total

    2,029

    19,546.98

    406

    27,620.43

    2,435

    47,167.41

    488
    for further fattening and the current certificate issued by his Department for the export of sheep for further fattening. [1982]

    Mrs. Browning
    [holding answer 4 November 1996]: The official health certificate issued by my Department for sheep and goats for further fattening consigned to other European Union member states is known as EC2747. The certificate fully reflects the conditions in the model health certificate laid down in Council directive 91/68/EEC. Specific notes for guidance and checklists are provided to local veterinary inspectors to enable them to complete certificate EC2747.

    Quarantine
    Mr. Morley
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will take steps to set up a trial scheme with a view to replacing current quarantine regulations with a passport for pets system; [2366]

    (2) if he will make guide, hearing and appropriate police and customs dogs exempt from current quarantine regulation subject to the microchip identification, vaccination, and blood testing in a passport for pets system. [2367]

    Mrs. Browning
    [holding answer 4 November 1996]Last year, in reply to the Agriculture Committee, the Government said that they would continue to monitor our current quarantine regulations with a view to replacing them if alternatives offering the same degree of protection became available.

    We are now looking at the matter, taking account of the most recent information. If new moves are decided upon an announcement will be made.

  WALES

    Arable Area Payments Scheme
    Mr. Tipping
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many agricultural holdings and what area of agricultural land in hectares came within the arable area payments scheme in each county in Wales in (1) 1995 and (ii) 1996. [773]

    Mr. Jonathan Evans
    [holding answer 28 October 1996]: The information for 1995 is given in the table. The equivalent figures for 1996 are not yet available.
    489
    Mr. Tipping
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will set out by county a breakdown of the(a) 1994 and the (b) 1995 arable area payments scheme.

    Arable area payments scheme, by county, 1994

    Main scheme

    County

    Simplified scheme Area claimed (ha)

    Cereals area claimed (ha)

    Oilseeds area claimed (ha)

    Protein area claimed (ha)

    Linseed area claimed (ha)

    Set-aside area claimed (ha)

    Total

    Clwyd

    3,450.22

    2,489.48

    237.33

    184.70

    47.82

    562.91

    3,522.24

    Dyfed

    8,231.86

    4,492.30

    543.66

    249.33

    160.53

    1,346.99

    6,792.81

    Gwent

    2,189.71

    3,032.24

    392.13

    169.96

    118.88

    843.8

    4,557.01

    Gwynedd

    1,486.72

    813.84

    23.62

    14.80

    24.15

    218.52

    1,094.93

    Mid Glamorgan

    349.48

    1,030.08

    161.74

    0.00

    0.00

    226.72

    1,418.54

    Powys

    3,323.99

    2,610.82

    271.71

    62.26

    6.98

    602.63

    3,554.40

    South Glamorgan

    870.89

    2,016.49

    337.89

    49.23

    14.06

    509.22

    2,926.89

    West Glamorgan

    597.14

    233.94

    66.41

    0.00

    15.33

    41.40

    357.08

    Total

    20,500.01

    16,719.19

    2,034.49

    730.28

    387.75

    4,352.19

    24,223.90

    Arable area payments scheme, by county, 1995

    Main scheme

    County

    Simplified scheme Area claimed (ha)

    Cereals area claimed (ha)

    Oilseeds area claimed (ha)

    Protein area claimed(ha)

    Linseed area claimed (ha)

    Set-aside area claimed (ha)

    Total

    Clywd

    3,350.90

    2,844.03

    162.65

    143.62

    6.47

    532.45

    3,689.22

    Dyfed

    7,925.23

    5,994.84

    557.72

    157.22

    145.91

    1,555.63

    8,411.32

    Gwent

    2,080.45

    3,646.54

    310.69

    178.13

    178.13

    801.99

    5,115.92

    Gwynedd

    1,468.04

    827.38

    19.95

    18.43

    0.00

    223.94

    1,089.70

    Mid Glamorgan

    367.14

    1,017.43

    119.76

    33.04

    28.14

    193.83

    1,392.20

    Powys

    3,043.57

    3,254.64

    222.46

    54.6

    9.14

    574.92

    4,115.76

    South Glamorgan

    761.77

    2,483.01

    257.42

    21.84

    91.2

    469.32

    3,322.79

    West Glamorgan

    549.88

    331.59

    24.83

    0.00

    0.00

    127.10

    483.52

    Total

    19,546.98

    20,339.46

    1,675.48

    607.32

    458.99

    4,479.18

    27,620.43

    Brain Injuries
    Mr. Llwyd
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what additional provision of rehabilitation services for brain injured patients in Wales he has made in the current year; what variations in provision there have been since 1994; and if he will make a statement. [1746]

    Mr. Gwilym Jones
    Provision of rehabilitation for brain injured patients is a matter for health authorities. In response to the Welsh Affairs Committee report on severe head injuries, the chairmen and chief executives of health authorities in Wales have established a steering group to consider the main recommendations. My Department is currently awaiting a full report.

    Nursery Vouchers
    Mr. Hanson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his latest estimate of the total costs of implementing the nursery voucher scheme in Wales. [1492]

    Mr. Jonathan Evans
    I refer the hon. Member to my answer to the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) on 16 October 1996,Official Report, column 984.
    490
    Mr. Evans
    [holding answer 28 October 1996]The information is given in the table.

    Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances
    Mr. Llwyd
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received on the proposed levels of hill livestock compensatory allowances for 1996–97; and if he will make a statement. [1856]

    Mr. Jonathan Evans
    My right hon. Friend and I have received representations from individual farmers, industry bodies and Members of Parliament. The farming unions in particular have made detailed representations, including expressing appreciation of the early announcement that across the UK there would be an additional £60 million for cattle payments in 1997. We are now considering, with Ministers from all the agriculture departments, the representations that we have received before making final decisions on rate levels for 1997.

    Farmers' Incomes
    Mr. Martyn Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales 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. [1585]
    491
    Mr. Jonathan Evans
    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 edition, a copy of which is held in the Library of the House.

    Grant-maintained Schools
    Mr. Llwyd
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many grant-maintained schools there were in Wales in(a) 1993, (b) 1994, and (c) 1995; and if he will make a statement. [1742]

    Mr. Jonathan Evans
    The information requested is presented in the following table.

    Number of grant-maintained schools in Wales1

    Year

    Primary

    Secondary

    All schools

    1993

    4

    7

    11

    1994

    5

    11

    16

    1995

    5

    11

    16

    1 At 1 September each year. On 1 September 1996 St. Brigid's school in Denbighshire became the first independent school in Wales to opt into the grant-maintained system.

    Bala to Dolgellau Road
    Mr. Llwyd
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when the road improvement works on the main Bala to Dolgellau road at Drws Y Nant are going to be put in hand; and if he will make a statement. [1854]

    Mr. Gwilym Jones
    I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 24 January 1996,Official Report, column 297.

    Elderly People
    Mr. Hanson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the current service provision for elderly people with long-term continuing health care needs. [1934]

    Mr. Gwilym Jones
    Assessment of provision for all persons with long-term continuing health care needs is a matter for determination by health authorities.

    Health Trust Funding
    Mr. Llwyd
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many health trusts in Wales have reported their dissatisfaction with their levels of funding; and if he will make a statement. [1864]

    Mr. Gwilym Jones
    NHS trusts are operationally independent and receive no direct revenue funding from the Welsh Office. All trust income is earned through contracts with commissioners of health care including health authorities and GP fundholders. It is for trusts to determine, together with their health commissioners, what is the appropriate level of funding.

    Millennium Date Change
    Mr. Ingram
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the cost effects of the millennium date change on the computer systems operated by his Department. [2609]
    492
    Mr. Hague
    An assessment of the effect of the millennium date change has been undertaken. I do not expect there to be any major costs involved in ensuring that my Department's computer systems can cater for the year 2000.

  HEALTH

    Dental Services
    Mr. Bellingham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for improving dental care in Norfolk and Cambridgeshire; and if he will make a statement. [619]

    Mr. Malone
    The general dental service reforms that I announced on 12 June will bring improvements in dental care generally. Funding to improve the availability of national health service dentistry has recently been approved for Cambridge and Huntingdon health authority.

    Mr. Clifton-Brown
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the proposed new local contracting arrangements for NHS dentistry. [634]

    Mr. Malone
    The White Paper, "Choice and Opportunity", set out the Government's proposal to introduce local flexibility in the delivery of national health service primary care dental services. We intend to introduce a Bill this Session. It will enable health authorities and providers to propose local arrangements for securing services targeted at local needs. These arrangements will be piloted and evaluated. Participation will be by volunteers and the existing system will remain for dentists who wish to work under it.

    Mr. Bendel
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists are practising in Berkshire; and how many of them are taking on new adult national health service patients. [636]

    Mr. Malone
    The information is contained in the table.

    General dental service: number of dentists1 2 practising in Berkshire health authority and number of dentists1 2 who had additions to their register

    Number of dentists practising at 30 June 1996

    Number of dentists with an addition to their register in the year to 31 December 1995 3

    284

    269

    1 Includes principals, assistants and vocational trainees.

    2 Some dentists have a contract with more than one health authority. The number of dentists practising includes all dentists who practise in Berkshire as well as in other authorities.

    3 The additions to the register include instances of patients registering with a dentist after a break in attendance and reinstatement of registrations which had been cancelled in error.

    The count relates to registrations for which payments were authorised during the year. Payments are made one month in arrears.

    Zinc-based Dental Amalgams
    Mr. Llwyd
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has initiated into the safety of the use of zinc-based dental amalgams; and if he will make a statement. [1859]
    493
    Mr. Malone
    None. While some dental amalgams contain a small proportion of zinc, we are not aware of any in which zinc is a main constituent.

    NHS Waiting Lists
    Mr. Ian Bruce
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on national health service waiting lists in Dorset in relation to those in the rest of England. [620]

    Mr. Horam
    I am pleased to say that the national health service in Dorset has continued to maintain an excellent position on hospital waiting times. The latest figures show that only 1 per cent. of Dorset health authority residents on a waiting list are waiting longer than six months, the lowest proportion for any health authority in England. No Dorset resident was waiting more than 12 months for treatment.

    Small Community Pharmacies
    Mr. Pope
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to provide assistance to small community pharmacies. [621]

    Mr. Malone
    The essential small pharmacy scheme already provides financial support to pharmacies located more than 1km from the next nearest pharmacy and which dispense fewer than 18,432 national health service prescriptions in a year.

    Health Care Facilities (Yorkshire)
    Mr. Riddick
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to improve health care facilities in Yorkshire hospitals. [623]

    Mr. Horam
    We are improving health care facilities in a number of hospitals in Yorkshire. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State saw some excellent examples of this recently when he visited Huddersfield Health Care National Health Service Trust.

    Victoria Hospital, Lichfield
    Mr. Fabricant
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will visit the Victoria hospital, Lichfield; and if he will make a statement. [624]

    Mr. Horam
    I have no plans to visit the Victoria hospital in the foreseeable future. However, my hon. Friend the Minister for Health visited the Victoria hospital, Lichfield on 2 June 1995, where he was most impressed with the improved and new facilities.

    Fireworks Injuries
    Mr. Skinner
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the cost to the NHS of injuries by fireworks in the last year for which figures are available. [625]

    Mr. Horam
    This information is not available. However, information requirements are kept under continuous review.
    494

    Asthma
    Mr. Tredinnick
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent research his Department has carried out into possible links between diesel exhaust emissions and asthma; and if he will make a statement. [626]

    Mr. Horam
    The Government have evaluated a range of research related to possible health effects of air pollution, including diesel emissions. The reports of the expert advisory committee on the medical effects of air pollutants, "Asthma and Outdoor Air Pollution" and "Non-biological Particles and Health", were published in autumn 1995. Copies are available in the Library.

    Health Care (Manchester)
    Mr. Tony Lloyd
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with the Manchester health authority and family practitioners committee about health care in Manchester. [629]

    Mr. Horam
    I met representatives of the former Manchester Health Commission and community health councils in January to discuss the difficult challenges that Manchester faces.

    Breast Cancer
    Mr. Austin-Walker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action his Department is taking to reduce the mortality rate from breast cancer. [630]

    Mr. Horam
    The Government are fully committed to reducing deaths from breast cancer, which is why we have made the reduction in breast cancer mortality a "Health of the Nation" target. We have a national breast screening programme and continue to fund research in this area. In 1995 we published the "Policy Framework for Commissioning Cancer Services" to help improve the quality of cancer services and issued further guidance to purchasers in July 1996 with the specific aim of making further progress on breast cancer outcomes.

    Mr. Jim Cunningham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to increase breast cancer services; [1234]

    (2) what plans he has to increase the provision of mobile breast cancer services. [1239]

    Mr. Horam
    The provision of breast cancer services is a matter for individual health authorities in the light of local priorities and available resources.

    Mr. Cunningham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how much was spent by his Department on breast cancer services in each of the last six years; and how much is planned to be spent in(a) 1996 and (b) 1997; [1235]

    (2) what was the average expenditure, in the last financial year, on detecting and treating each case of breast cancer. [1242]

    Mr. Horam
    This information is not held centrally.

    Mr. Cunningham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to improve awareness of breast cancer among young people at school. [1236]
    495
    Mr. Horam
    We have no plans at present. Higher priority is given to health messages more relevant to young people at school, since there are no appropriate behavioural changes for young people that would reduce their risk.

    Mr. Cunningham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to provide assistance to general practitioners to deal with the medical, emotional and practical problems caused by breast cancer. [1237]

    Mr. Horam
    "Guidelines for referral of patients with breast problems", produced jointly by the national health service breast screening programme and the Cancer Research Campaign on behalf of the Department of Health's advisory committee on breast cancer screening was issued to general practitioners in January 1996. A summary of "Improving Outcomes in Breast Cancer: Guidance for Purchasers", published by the NHS executive in July 1996, was sent to all general practitioners in October. Both these publications will be placed in the Library.

    Mr. Cunningham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated regarding the detection and treatment of breast cancer. [1238]

    Mr. Horam
    The United Kingdom Health Departments, along with the Medical Research Council and the two major cancer research charities—the Cancer Research Campaign and the Imperial Cancer Research Fund—are currently funding four studies into breast cancer screening costing at least £5 million over five years. The trials are being co-ordinated by the United Kingdom Co-ordinating Committee on Cancer Research, UKCCCR. The Department of Health's contribution is expected to be some £2.4 million.

    The Department's policy research programme also funds the cancer screening evaluation unit—CSEU—at the Institute of Cancer Research by some £420,000 per year. The CSEU is undertaking work into two of the above UKCCCR trials. These are a trial of breast screening of women from age 40 and a trial of the early detection of breast cancer. The CSEU is also undertaking work on the national breast cancer screening record, and is evaluating the results of two pilot studies into breast screening for women aged 65 to 69. When the current CSEU contract comes to an end in December 2000, the Department will have invested some £7.3 million in the unit.

    In addition, the NHS research and development programme is currently undertaking 12 studies into breast cancer at a cost of some £1.2 million.

    Mr. Cunningham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was spent on breast cancer services by (i) France, (ii) Germany and (iii) the Netherlands in the most recent year for which figures are available. [1240]

    Mr. Horam
    This information is not collected routinely.

    Health Authority Deficits
    Mr. Spearing
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he has taken to ascertain the likely financial deficits of district health authorities for each financial year until 1999–2000. [631]
    496
    Mr. Horam
    The current year forecast outturn positions of health authorities are the subject of regular monitoring by the national health service executive. The forecast positions for each health authority, as at quarter one 1996–97, were recently placed in the Library. Future year projections are not routinely collected.

    Ms Lynne
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of current health authority deficits in the present financial year. [637]

    Mr. Horam
    I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) on 17 October 1996,Official Report, columns 1104–105.

    HS Trusts (North Thames Region)
    Mr. Gapes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with the chairman of North Thames region and with the Redbridge and Waltham Forest health authority and Redbridge and Forest NHS trusts about their performance as published in league tables [632]

    Mr. Horam
    The Secretary of State regularly meets regional chairman to discuss the performance of the national health service in their region. Redbridge: Healthcare NHS Trust and Forest Healthcare NHS Trust are working with Redbridge and Waltham Forest health authority to improve their performance.

    Incontinence Products
    Mr. O'Hara
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what will be the full cost to the NHS in the current financial year of the removal of zero rating from incontinence products. [633]

    Mr. Burns
    Under the Value Added Tax Act 1994, schedule 8, group 12, item 2(g), incontinence products are zero rated only when supplied directly to a disabled person or to a charity which makes them available to disabled persons. As the national health service falls into neither of these categories, supplies of these products are, and always have been, standard rated. Since there is no change, there will be no associated increased cost for the NHS. It is only through a temporary relaxation in the interpretation of the VAT regulations by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise that the NHS has been able temporarily to claim a VAT reimbursement on these products.

    Prescription Charges
    Mr. Robert Hughes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the level of the prescription charge in 1979 at current prices. [635]

    Mr. Malone
    At 1996–97 prices, the prescription charge at 1 January 1979 would have been £0.52, actual charge £0.20, until 16 July, when it increased to £1.18, actual charge £0.45.

    Mixed Wards
    Mr. David Martin
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his policy on mixed wards in NHS hospitals. [627]
    497
    Mr. Horam
    It is for health authorities and trusts to decide whether and, if so, how to use mixed sex accommodation, but they must respect the dignity and privacy of patients.

    Private Finance Initiative
    Ms Jowell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospitals in England processing PH bids have reached the preferred bidder stage; and what proportion of the total number of bids this figure represents. [1123]

    Mr. Horam
    Information is collected centrally on the first wave of major private finance initiative schemes with a capital value of £10 million or more. There are 33 in total and, of these, 22 schemes have reached preferred bidder stage.

    Specialist Registrars
    Ms Jowell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many specialist registrar posts there are in England and Wales for(a) oncology, (b) palliative care and (c) pathology; and how many of these posts are currently vacant. [1122]

    Mr. Malone
    The phased introduction of the new specialist registrar grade commenced on 1 April 1996 in six specialties. Transition on oncology, palliative care and pathology commenced on 1 October 1996. Transition to the new grade in all specialties will be completed on 1 April 1997. The most recent census data-30 September 1995—do not include any information about the specialist registrar grade. The only available information relates to the previous grades for registrar.

    Surgeons and Anaesthetists
    Ms Jowell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) surgeon and (b) anaesthetist vacancies there are at each grade in England [1110]

    Mr. Malone
    The annual medical work force census gathers data, as at 30 September each year, on vacancies by grade and specialty. These refer to posts which were vacant for whatever reason on the actual day of collection. Figures for England, as at 30 September 1995, are shown in the table.

    Whole-lime equivalent

    Consultant

    Staff grade

    Senior registrar

    Registrar

    Senior house officer

    All surgical specialties

    140

    20

    40

    70

    60

    Anaesthetics

    110

    10

    10

    10

    20

    Source:

    The Medical and Dental Workforce Census 30 September 1995.

    Notes:

    1. Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

    2. Many vacant posts are wholly or partly occupied by locums.

    3. Surgical group includes general surgery, cardio-thoracic surgery, otolaryngology, neurosurgery, ophthalmology, paediatric surgery, plastic surgery, orthopaedic surgery, urology.
    498

    Head Lice
    Mrs. Ann Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children suffered from head lice in the United Kingdom in each of the last three years for which figures are available. [1944]

    Mr. Horam
    This information is not collected centrally.

    Long-term Care
    Mr. Thurnham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish a summary of the responses to his consultation paper on long-term care; if he will list the organisations and individuals who responded; and if he will put a copy of the responses in the Library. [1821]

    Mr. Burns
    The Department of Health received 598 responses to the consultation exercise launched by the publication of "A New Partnership for Care in Old Age".

    Of these, 319 responses commented on the consultation paper itself. Copies of these will be placed in the Library, except where respondents asked for them to be treated as confidential. The other responses commented on media reports or the Department's own summary of the consultation paper. The table shows the source of the different comments.

    Comments on:

    Source of comments

    Consultation paper

    Summary/comments on media reports

    Total

    Financial services industry

    83

    3

    86

    Local authority/social services

    73

    2

    75

    NHS

    44

    9

    53

    Other care providers

    33

    1

    34

    Voluntary organisations

    53

    5

    58

    Individuals

    33

    259

    292

    Total

    319

    279

    598

    We are grateful to all those who commented and will take their comments into account in taking our proposals forward.

    Tuberculosis
    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what percentage of school leavers in England have been vaccinated against tuberculosis; and if he will make a statement; [1579]

    (2) at what age children are offered vaccination against tuberculosis in schools; [1563]

    (3) if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on vaccination against tuberculosis. [1564]

    Mr. Horam
    The Government recommend that BCG vaccine to protect against tuberculosis should be routinely offered to all school children between the ages of 10 and 14 years. This policy is based on the recommendation of the joint committee on vaccination and immunisation, which advises the UK health departments on immunisation. The committee has reviewed this recommendation and advised that the schools
    499
    immunisation programme should continue. Ministers have endorsed this and a statement to this effect was made in the House, on 4 July 1996, Official Report, column 493; health authorities were advised of this recommendation in July 1996. In addition, immunisation continues to be offered to certain high-risk groups outside the routine school programme, including babies born to parents from countries with a high prevalence of tuberculosis. It is estimated that over the two years 1994–95 and 1995–96 around 73 per cent. of school leavers had been given a BCG vaccination.

    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many registered homeless people have died from tuberculosis in the United Kingdom in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement;[1565]

    (2) how many cases of tuberculosis among the registered homeless have been diagnosed in England in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement; [1577]

    (3) how many people have died from tuberculosis in the United Kingdom in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement; [1558]

    (4) how many cases of tuberculosis have been diagnosed in England in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make statement. [1578]

    Mr. Horam
    The figures are in the following table.

    Year

    Notifications of number of cases of all tuberculosis (excluding chemoprophylaxis) in England1

    Number of deaths due to tuberculosis2 in the United Kingdom1

    1986

    5,743

    538

    1987

    4,853

    487

    1988

    4,960

    535

    1989

    5,223

    512

    1990

    5,010

    441

    1991

    5,270

    485

    1992

    5,597

    475

    19933

    5,721

    494

    19943

    5,409

    475

    1995

    5,426

    4501

    Source:

    1Office of National Statistics.

    2International Classification of Diseases (9th Revision), codes 010–018

    3England and Wales figures for 1993 and 1994 represent the number of deaths occurring in each year. All the other figures are the number of deaths registered in the year. Also, new procedures for coding cause of death in England and Wales from 1993 mean that figures for 1993 onwards may not he exactly comparable with earlier years.

    4Provisional.

    ONS statistics on infectious diseases do not identify registered homeless people separately. National data on rates of tuberculosis infection amongst homeless people are not available.

    The United Kingdom has an excellent record of tuberculosis control. The Government are strengthening policies to protect the health of the nation against this disease.

    Ministers established an interdepartmental working group on tuberculosis with the remit to consider policies for tuberculosis control in the UK and to recommend best
    500
    practice. The first two reports of the group, one of which deals with tuberculosis and homeless people, have been published and generally welcomed as important steps towards improvements in the control of tuberculosis in the UK.

    The Government have also taken several initiatives to improve the access of homeless people to health care, including funding of primary health care projects.

    Childbirth
    Mrs. Wise
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what estimate he has made of the percentages of women delivering in England and in each former NHS region in 1994–95(a) by category of person conducting the delivery, (b) by duration of post-natal stay and (c) by place of delivery; [1840]

    (2) if he will list for each of the 14 former NHS regions and for special health authorities for the financial year 1994–95 (a) the total number of maternities, (b) the total number of birth episodes in the maternity hospital episode system and (c) the total number of birth episodes in the maternity hospital episode system which had a maternity tail; and if he will make a statement about progress with improving the quality and completeness of the data; [1842]

    (3) what estimate he has made of the percentages of women delivering in England and in each former NHS region in 1994–95 (a) whose labours were induced surgically, (b) whose labours were induced by oxytocic drugs, (c) whose labours were induced by a combination of these, (d) whose labours were of spontaneous onset and (e) who had elective caesarean sections; [1841]

    (4) what estimate he has made of the percentages of women delivering in England and in each former NHS region in 1994–95 whose deliveries were (a) spontaneous, (b) instrumental, ((c) by caesarean section and (d) by other and unspecified means. [1839]

    Mr. Horam
    The information requested, together with a statement, were published on 14 October in the Health Commission report on public expenditure on health and personal social services memorandum received from the Department of Health containing replies to a written questionnaire from the Committee, HC 698, pages 101 to 105, copies of which are available in the Library.

    Mrs. Wise
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what notification his Department receives of obstetric interventions carried out by court order(a) without the consent of and (b) against the express wish of the patient; and how many such notifications he has received in the last five years. [1848]

    Mr. Horam
    There are no requirements to provide notifications of obstetric interventions provided under a court order.

    Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
    Mr. Martyn Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has commissioned into methods of treatment for CJD. [1592]

    Mr. Horam
    The development of treatment for patients suffering from Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease will be a high priority in our centrally directed research strategy, details of which will be published shortly.

    Child Minders
    Dr. Lynne Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what conclusion he has reached since 29 March 1994 as to corporal punishment of children by child minders; and what assessment he has made of the need for further clarification of his Department's guidance on behaviour and sanctions by child minders, if minded children misbehave, is required; and if he will make a statement. [1954]

    Mr. Burns
    Physical punishment is a matter for parents and for negotiation between them and their child minders. Government guidelines on the use of physical punishment by child minders are set out in a circular to local authorities "The Children Act 1989: Registration of Childminders", which was issued in December 1994. Copies will he placed in the Library.

    Medical Staff (Recruitment)
    Dr. Lynne Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) doctors and (b) nurses were recruited from abroad into the NHS in each of the past 10 years, broken down by country of origin. [1949]

    Mr. Malone
    The information requested is not available centrally.

    Hospitals (Single Rooms)
    Mr. Harry Greenway
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many single rooms are currently used for national health service patients; at what cost; and if he will make a statement. [1007]

    Mr. Horam
    This information is not available centrally.

    Riluzole
    Mr. Tipping
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance has been given to health authorities about the prescribing of Riluzole. [1623]

    Mr. Malone
    No guidance has been issued.

    Mr. Tipping
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evaluation he has made of the value of Riluzole in the treatment of motor neurone disease. [1646]

    Mr. Malone
    A marketing authorisation for Riluzole was submitted to the European Medicines Evaluation Agency through the new centralised procedure set out in regulation 93/2309 EC. The United Kingdom was appointed as the rapporteur with France as the co-rapporteur for the assessment of this product. The initial assessment was therefore made by the Medicines Control Agency and advice obtained from the Committee on Safety of Medicines.

    The final assessment and opinion were given by the Committee on Proprietary Medicinal Products and the authorisation to market Riluzole was given by the European Commission according to the procedure set out in regulation 93/2309 EC. This marketing authorisation is binding across all 15 member states of the European Union.

    The summary of product characteristics defines the indications and use of the product and a European public assessment report describes the evaluation of the product
    502
    and is available from the European Medicines Evaluation Agency at 7 Westferry Circus, Canary Wharf, London E14 4HB.

    Cancelled Operations (South Thames Region)
    Mr. Cox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the annual increase in the number of patients who have had operations cancelled on the day they were due to go into hospital or after admission since 1994–95 in the South Thames region. [608]

    Mr. Horam
    The latest information has been placed in the Library.

    Minor Accident Units
    Sir John Gorst
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many minor accident treatment service units there are in the NHS; where they are located; and when they were established. [2151]

    Mr. Horam
    This information is not available centrally.

    Sir John Gorst
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average budget of(a) a minor accident treatment service unit, (b) a medical receiving room and (c) an accident and emergency department. [2150]

    Mr. Horam
    This information is not available
    centrally.

    Sir John Gorst
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of Barnet health authority's proposal for a minor accident treatment service unit at Edgware general hospital; and if he will make a statement; [2152]

    (2) when the minor accident treatment service unit at Edgware general hospital is expected to be open; and if he will make a statement. [2149]

    Mr. Malone
    The minor accident treatment service at Edgware opened in November 1995. Barnet health authority has asked the Wellhouse NHS Trust to develop proposals for an enhanced service, to be open 24 hours a day with medical cover, to operate from April 1997.

    Sir John Gorst
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the minimum level of service necessary to run(a) a minor accident treatment service unit and (b) a medical receiving room. [2145]

    Mr. Horam
    It is for health authorities and national health service trusts to decide what levels of service are necessary locally.

    Sir John Gorst
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many acute beds per head of population there are in an average(a) minor accident treatment service unit, (b) medical receiving room and (c) accident and emergency department. [2147]

    Mr. Horam
    Information on acute beds is not collected centrally at this level of detail. Information on the average daily number of available beds by broad ward type is published annually in "Bed Availability for England", copies of which are available in the Library.

    Sir John Gorst
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) consultants, (b) registrars, (c) junior

    503
    doctors and (d) nurses are standard to (a) a minor accident treatment service unit, (b) a medical receiving room and (c) an accident and emergency department. [2148]

    Mr. Horam
    It is for health authorities and national health service trusts to decide what levels of staffing are necessary locally.

    Hospital Development
    Sir John Gorst
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health when(a) the planned redevelopment of the Barnet general hospital and (b) the expansion of services at (i) Northwick Park and (ii) the Royal Free hospital will be completed.[2228]

    Mr. Malone
    Phase 1A of the redevelopment of Barnet general hospital, including an enhanced accident and emergency department, is expected to become operational in spring 1997. Plans are well advanced for phase 1B of the redevelopment, under which construction work is expected to commence in summer 1997, subject to approval.

    Extra capacity is also planned to be available at Northwick Park and the Royal Free hospital from April 1997.

    Acute Care
    Sir George Gardiner
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 30 October,Official Report, column 135, what information he has to indicate
    504
    the number of acute beds in NHS hospitals blocked by patients awaiting discharge into retirement or nursing homes in different parts of the country. [2336]

    Mr. Horam
    Since April 1996, the national health service executive has started to collect information twice yearly from health authorities about patients aged 75 and over whose discharge from hospital has been delayed.

    Sir John Gorst
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his Department's definition of acute care. [2146]

    Mr. Horam
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave on 4 November.

    Insulin Pen Needles
    Sir Keith Speed
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the inquiry into providing insulin pen needles on the NHS. [2028]

    Mr. Malone
    We are currently considering whether insulin injection pen needles should be made available on general practitioner prescription.

    Millennium Date Change
    Mr. Ingram
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the cost effects of the millennium date change on the computer systems operated by her Department. [2614]

    Mr. Horam
    Further analysis, including an audit of all the Department of Health's computer systems, is being carried out. A full assessment of the impact, including the likely costs, will be completed by 1 April 1997.

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.

Lord Alderdice
John Thomas Alderdice, Esquire, having been created Baron Alderdice, of Knock in the City of Belfast, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Redesdale and the Lord Holme of Cheltenham.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns
Dame Joyce Anne Anelay, DBE, having been created Baroness Anelay of St. Johns, of St. Johns in the County of Surrey, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Baroness Seccombe and the Baroness Miller of Hendon.

Stonehenge Millennium Scheme
2.57 p.m.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have to mark the millennium with the enhancement of Stonehenge and its environs, and what steps the Department of National Heritage has taken to co-ordinate and energise the participation of the Millennium Commission, the Highways Agency, English Heritage and the National Trust to this end.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, English Heritage is preparing a bid to the Millennium Commission for a grant towards the cost of its Stonehenge millennium scheme. This will include the removal of the existing visitor facilities and car park, the closure of the A.344 road, and a new visitor complex to the east of the world heritage site. The National Trust is actively involved in the project. The Millennium Commission is an independent body and it would not of course be proper for the Government to seek to influence its decisions on particular bids.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that mildly encouraging reply. Can she confirm that Stonehenge is a monument in the guardianship of the Secretary of State for National Heritage although looked after, of course, by English Heritage? Does she agree with me that the present state of Stonehenge and its environs is a national disgrace? May I express the hope that the Government will do all in their appropriate power to facilitate this scheme which perhaps does offer hope of a resolution to some of the problems of Stonehenge?
Baroness Trumpington: Quite a lot of questions, my Lords. I confirm that Stonehenge and the 13 acres
594
around it are the property of the Secretary of State for National Heritage but will remain completely under the management of English Heritage. The closure of the A.344 is an essential part of English Heritage's proposal. However, if there are any objections leading to an inquiry on the closure of the road, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport will be required to make the final decision. I am sure that my noble friend will appreciate that it would not therefore be appropriate for me to comment on the merits of-the proposal in advance as that could prejudice any subsequent decision. I agree entirely that the current visitor facilities and car park are a national disgrace. The new plan is to remove all those items and other 20th century clutter, including the A.344. The new visitor centre will be outside the world heritage site.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, my question is really to ask why the Question from the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, needs to be asked at all. Is the noble Baroness aware—I am sure she is—that her noble friend is among Britain's greatest archaeologists, in touch with everyone, knowledgeable about all aspects of the subject and that if he does not know what the DNH is doing about Stonehenge, there is something seriously wrong inside that department? Will the noble Baroness investigate why information is not getting out?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I think that that is being perfectly beastly to my noble friend who is acknowledged as a great expert and who, in this case, has bowed to my knowledge.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the protection of Stonehenge, which is druidic, has nothing whatever to do with the 2,000th anniversary of the birth of Christ?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I can only agree.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, is there any legal bar to the millennium heritage fund contributing to the cost of the long road tunnel which is the only sensible solution to this tangle?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the Millennium Commission is not allowed to pay for road schemes.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, in view of the suggestion that there should be a tunnel, may I ask my noble friend whether she has any idea of how much such tunnelling would cost?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, yes, the inescapable fact is that it would cost £300 million.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, speaking as someone who lives 10 miles to the west of Stonehenge on the A.303, may I ask my noble friend whether she agrees that the only solution to the problems of that road

595
is to construct a tunnel and that everything must wait until such funds are available as are necessary to perform that task?
Baroness Trumpington: Yes, my Lords.
Lord Chorley: My Lords, in connection with the A.303, would the noble Baroness accept that any suggestion that the National Trust should allow any of its land to be used for widening the present A.303 as a so-called "temporary" so-called "measure" would be opposed by the trust with the utmost vigour? Does she further agree that if there ever was a case for the National Trust invoking its statutory power to take its objections to Parliament this must surely be the most important to have cropped up in the past 100 years?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Trumpington: I do know the answer, so don't start laughing. Improvements to the A.303 remain in the Government's longer term road programme. In the meantime, we understand that English Heritage and the National Trust are continuing to look for alternative ways of funding the long tunnel solution.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, am I right in gathering from my noble friend's earlier answer that the Government recognise that although they may not be able to afford the right answer to the key problems of that road at the moment, the one thing they could afford even less would be to imperil their well deserved reputation for cherishing this country's environment over the past 17 years by allowing the wrong solution to go forward?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, we have to face the fact that a £300 million tunnel is currently unaffordable, but that does not stop our pursuing other options for improving the site and its facilities. The scheme put forward by English Heritage for a visitor centre is very exciting. I wish English Heritage every success in finding a suitable partner under the private finance initiative and in making a bid to the Millennium Commission.
The Marquess of Bath: My Lords, to mark the millennium, would the noble Baroness be prepared to designate Stonehenge as the tourist hub of Wessex, with funds to promote the presentation of the West Country, so that we may increase our contribution to the tourist revenue of the United Kingdom as a whole and emerge on a par with London and Scotland?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I do not see that that is necessary. Stonehenge is already a world heritage
596
site. There are 14 such sites in the United Kingdom, including the Palace of Westminster, a fact I did not know until I had my briefing.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, as Stonehenge was built by Welshmen with Welsh stone, is the noble Baroness aware that we fully support English Heritage and the action it is taking?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I congratulate the Welshmen of the day who transported the stone.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, given that the Millennium Commission is, as my noble friend reminded us, an entirely independent body and acknowledging that it does much excellent work, would it not be better if there were not two Cabinet Ministers on its board? That puzzles people.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, they are only two among nine.

MEPs: Expenses
3.6 p.m.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the expenses liable to be claimed by Members of the European Parliament.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, Members of the European Parliament may claim expenses that they incur in performance of their parliamentary duties as follows: general office costs; travel within their member state and to official meetings or conferences; subsistence costs while attending official meetings; and costs of employing secretaries or assistants.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer, but, in view of recent allegations made both on television and in the newspapers about the level of expenses paid to Members of the European Parliament, would the Government make the facts widely known in order to protect the reputations of representatives of the European Parliament and to clear up any misunderstanding?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, we do not favour trial by television or by any other form of media. However, if there is a problem, it should be investigated. I do not think that one should make any judgment until such an investigation has been carried out.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of the definitive report in The Sunday Times which stated that one lady Member of the European Parliament had admitted that she had "made a profit"—that was the term used—of £45,000 per year out of travel on top of all the other money that she was allowed to draw? Bearing in mind that a large slice of that will

597
be paid for by the taxpayers of this country, does that not contrast with the tardy increase which has just been forced on your Lordships?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I feel absolutely certain that the majority of Members of your Lordships' House would love to have the allowances given to Members of the European Parliament. I am aware of that article in The Sunday Times and, although we all know that one should not always believe what is written in the press, the President of the European Parliament has recognised that there is a problem with the allowance system. He announced on 24th October that he was launching a full review of that system. Today's Daily Telegraph notes that the Parliament's leaders will meet tomorrow to consider reforms. We welcome those steps to put the house in order.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the research which shows that each active Member of your Lordships' House costs the taxpayer about £50,000 per year; that each Member of the House of Commons costs the taxpayer about £450,000 per year; and that each Member of the European Parliament—for 60 days of rather doubtful work per annum—costs the taxpayer more than £1 million per year? Does my noble friend agree that that might be less unjustifiable if the European Parliament ever did anything useful?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I refrain from commenting on the last point. However, when making these comparisons noble Lords should bear in mind that the costs of the European Parliament reflect rented buildings in Brussels, Luxembourg and Strasbourg and the costs of travel, translation and interpretation. By contrast, the Palace of Westminster is rent free. I believe that the costs of the French and German parliaments are on a par with those of the European Parliament.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that on 17th October last at precisely 7.30 p.m. ITV broadcast a programme entitled "Fat Cats" which incorporated a full examination, with the aid of cameras, of how various expenses were claimed and gave a broad indication of the result? Does the noble Lord agree that it would be helpful if a video tape were placed in the Library so that noble Lords could gather the contentions put forward? Is the noble Lord further aware that on 17th October, entirely by coincidence, the Treasury sent to Sub-Committee A of the Select Committee of your Lordships' House an indication that there was a gentleman's agreement between the European Parliament and the Council that they should not examine or amend each other's claims on European funds for administration? Does the noble Lord agree that we ought to know a little more about this matter before we proceed much further?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, a copy of the big story on 17th October, which was an ITV programme, has been placed in the Library. As far as concerns the allegations made in that programme, we take seriously
598
any suggestion of the improper use of public funds. We have been at the forefront of efforts to combat waste and fraud within the European Community.
To deal with the agreement between the European Parliament and the Council, a Council resolution in 1970, prior to the accession of the United Kingdom, provided that the European Parliament and the Council would not examine each other's budgets, although noble Lords will be aware that overall limits are set.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, in view of the inordinate costs of European Members, does the Minister agree that it would be logical for the Government to press the Commission to end the farce of having three locations for the European Parliament instead of one?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, the situation is far from ideal. However, the establishment in three different countries pre-dates the UK's accession. I believe that there is little prospect of securing the unanimous agreement of member states for a single site.
Lord Richard: My Lords, for the sake of accuracy, can the noble Lord confirm that the agreement as to where the European Parliament sits is nothing at all to do with the Commission, and that it is the Commission's view that it would be much better if it sat in one place?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, yes.

Student Loans Act: Cost
3.14 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the estimated cost of putting the Education (Student Loans) Act 1996 on the statute book.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, it is not possible to isolate the different components which relate directly to enacting the Education (Student Loans) Act 1996. This would involve disaggregating the time spent by officials and Parliament from other work they were doing at the same time both in my department and elsewhere. There are no detailed records which would enable estimates to be produced with any degree of accuracy.
Baroness David: My Lords, I am not entirely surprised by the answer, although I am disappointed. It is a great pity that costs cannot be calculated a little more accurately. Is the Minister aware that this Act, which he described at Second Reading as giving students a better, quicker, convenient, more varied and comprehensive service, had its Third Reading in this House on 1st April 1996, which is perhaps a rather appropriate date in view of what happened later? Is he further aware that in September of this year, less than six months later, the Secretary of State announced that she was dropping the twin-track scheme in favour of privatisation of the Student Loans Company which will

599
be a private monopoly? How can the Government possibly justify the waste of money and parliamentary time that the passing of this Act involved?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not believe that it was a waste of parliamentary time or the time and cost of my officials. I believe that to have attempted to give the accurate reply which the noble Baroness sought would have been a disproportionate use of taxpayers' money and would not have been recommended. As we made clear earlier, lending to private individuals is not a natural or desirable function of the public sector. Our policy was to transfer provision from the public to the private sector. That will result in significant improvement in both effectiveness and customer service. The noble Baroness will be aware that we had discussions with a number of financial institutions. We concluded, in the light of the assurances that I gave to this House and that colleagues gave in another place, that our long-term goal to bring the private sector into the student loans scheme could best be achieved through the sale of part of the existing student debt and the contracting out of the administrative work of the Student Loans Company. We would not have been able to come to that conclusion had we not been able to carry out the market test that we did earlier this year. The 1996 Act enabled us to do just that market test.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, will Her Majesty's Government learn from what was certainly an unnecessary and expensive fiasco that it is foolish to rush privatisation legislation through Parliament before it has been accepted by the private sector? Can the Minister give this House an assurance that they will never do such a silly thing again?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we will continue to pursue privatisation wherever it is suitable. No doubt the party opposite will continue to oppose every single small act of privatisation, as it has done over the years; and it has been wrong on every single occasion.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, will my noble friend accept from one noble Lord on these Back Benches that his explanation is wholly unacceptable?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am sorry that my noble friend does not find my explanation as helpful as it might have been. I shall not repeat the explanation that I have given, but I may have further discussions outside the Chamber and possibly convince my noble friend of the correctness of our approach.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, would the noble Lord expand a little on the reply that he gave a few moments ago? Does he agree that the market testing occurred prior to the Bill becoming law and that there was no necessity for it in order to carry out that market testing?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Baroness is wrong. We could not conduct that market testing without the legislation. That was why we had to have discussions with the financial institutions after the passing of that Act.
Baroness David: My Lords, surely consultation before publishing a Bill or passing an Act is sensible. Does the Minister agree that only two banks and I believe one building society showed any interest whatsoever in that legislation and a great many others were strongly against it?
Lord Henley: My Lords, obviously consultation is possible before the passage of legislation, but detailed negotiation was not possible until we had concluded that legislation. The noble Baroness is right. There were only two banks and a number of other financial institutions which were interested at the later stages, but at the earlier stages a considerable number expressed interest.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, can the Minister give the dates when the discussions and consultation with the private sector began?
Lord Henley: My Lords, not without notice, but the detailed negotiations which relied upon the passage of that Act took place after its passage. As I made clear to the noble Baroness, the 1996 Act enabled us to conduct that market test which was so important in terms of coming to the conclusions that we did.

War Memorials and Vandalism
3.20 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are able to provide help and advice on protecting public war memorials from vandalism, theft and neglect.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, there is no simple solution. We all wish to see our public war memorials respected and cared for as befits their role in commemorating those who gave their lives in the service of their country. War memorials range from large national ones like the Cenotaph in Whitehall—for which the Government are responsible—to a simple cross on the village green. In most cases, responsibility rightly lies with the local community which erected the memorial, often through public subscription.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply just before remembrance weekend. Has he considered the suggestion made in a leading article in The Times that local schools might

601
voluntarily look after these memorials? Does he agree that British war memorials and graves abroad are well looked after, thanks to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, often assisted by local people? For example, the memorial in Normandy for the Scottish division in which I served, not inside a war cemetery, is diligently looked after by the local villages.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that example. He is right. There are many occasions when the local community can help to look after memorials which are often dedicated to those from the community who died. The suggestion in The Times that schoolchildren might look after them is interesting, but the Government could not direct schools to do that. I see no reason, though, why a particular school might not be encouraged to clean and tend them, or even for a CCTV to be donated.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, is the Minister aware—his noble friend Lord Chesham is—that a number of us visited Malaysia recently? We found the Commonwealth war graves cemetery, as one would expect, to have been looked after marvellously. All of them are. The following week, when my wife and I visited Georgetown in Penang, we came across a scaled down version of the Cenotaph which was not well looked after. A plaque had been removed and a small tree was growing up the side of the memorial. Does the Foreign Office have any responsibility for keeping an eye on such matters, because it would be better removed rather than allowing it to stand as it is.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, most of the war graves abroad are the responsibility of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission to which we give a substantial sum of money—some £24.5 million a year. I am not familiar with the memorial in Penang to which the noble Lord refers. I assume that it would come under the responsibility of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, but if it does not, I shall look into the matter.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I am sure that were my noble friend Lady Strange here, as current president of the War Widows Association—I was an earlier president—she would say how distressing it is for widows if they find that these memorials, which are of such significance to them, are damaged or destroyed in any way. Does my noble friend agree that there is a general problem with vandalism, some of which is not directed specifically at these memorials? It would be directed at any memorial.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend is entirely correct. When these memorials are damaged it causes enormous distress not just to people in the locality but to the relatives of those whom the memorial commemorates. I agree with my noble
602
friend that it is not just memorials that are vandalised; many other things are too. It is that which causes great distress throughout the whole country.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am sure that the House will agree with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, that, coming up to Remembrance Day, we should cherish the memorials of those who gave their lives for our country. I hope very much that the Minister will agree with that. Is he aware that the Question on the Order Paper asks the Government to give advice? It may well be that schools, communities or local authorities should be responsible for these matters. Will the Government step forward and give some advice? It is up to government to lead.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, in my Answer I tried to explain where I thought the responsibility lies. It does in fact lie with the communities whose dead are recorded on the memorials. It is for local communities to respect those memorials. Of course the noble Lord is correct when he says that approaching Remembrance Day we should particularly remember those who have fallen and whose memorials are referred to in the Question. It is essentially a matter for the local community. I have suggested ways in which that should be done. There are a few national memorials such as the Cenotaph, the Merchant Navy Memorial at Tower Hill and the Royal Air Force Memorial at Runnymede which are the responsibility of the Government. They are looked after properly and well.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, as the wickedest form of vandalism is stealing metal, as valuable scrap, and carved stone for sale to garden centres, would that be less likely if the memorials and their surroundings were kept in good condition?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend makes a good point. The answer is yes. When places are in a derelict condition—it does not matter whether it is a memorial, a house or building—that, in itself, encourages vandalism. If it is kept in proper and good order, the chances of vandalism occurring are less. I hope therefore that people in the localities will be able to look after their own memorials. If that were to be done by local people, schoolchildren or well wishers, it would be a good thing.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, is it possible to protect war memorials from vandalism or theft without a 24-hours-a-day guard being placed on them or locating them in places where such supervision can be provided?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, of course one cannot guarantee anything against theft or vandalism. If we start protecting them with fences that would remove the purpose of memorials. One could possibly have CCTV. It would be for people in the locality to decide whether they think that is the right thing to do. The real problem is caused by those people in the community who commit vandalism of whatever nature.

Hybrid Instruments: Select Committee
3.27 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 a Select Committee be appointed to consider hybrid instruments and that as proposed by the Committee of Selection the following Lords together with the Chairman of Committees be named of the Committee:

L. Brougham and Vaux,

L. Burnham,

V. Craigavon,

L. Gallacher,

V. Oxfuird.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Personal Bills: 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 be appointed to consider personal Bills and that as proposed by the Committee of Selection the following Lords together with the Chairman of Committees be named of the Committee:

L. Meston,

B. Seccombe,

L. Strabolgi,

L. Templeman,

L. Wilberforce.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Standing Orders (Private Bills): Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the third Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
As this is the final Motion in the annual series of committee Motions placed before your Lordships' House, and without wishing to divert your Lordships from the usual way in which your Lordships prefer to deal with these Motions—that is to say, largely but not entirely formally—I should like to take the opportunity to thank noble Lords in all parts of your Lordships' House for participating in the work of these committees, which is so vital, and, in particular, I should like to thank the usual channels and the Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers for the very extensive work which they do in preparation for the placing of these Motions before your Lordships.
The work that they do is time consuming. They do it in a painstaking way. I am the happy recipient of the outcome of the consultations which they undertake. I say that because that work contributes also to the formation of these committees which, through their reports in particular, play such an important part in establishing and enhancing the reputation of your Lordships' House. I think particularly of your Lordships' investigative
604
committees which are among those which I do not chair. That work is valued not just as a unique contribution to the work of Parliament itself, it is valued outside because it makes a contribution to the well-being of the nation as a whole. I beg to move.
Moved, That a Select Committee on the Standing Orders relating to private Bills be appointed and that as proposed by the Committee of Selection the following Lords together with the Chairman of Committees be named of the Committee:

V. Falkland,

L. Gallacher,

V. Hood,

E. Lloyd-George of Dwyfor,

L. Monkswell,

L. Renton,

L. Wade of Chorlton.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Civil Procedure Bill [H.L.]
3.30 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
When in 1994 I asked the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, to inquire into the rules and procedures of the civil courts, my principle purpose was to take forward the recommendation of the civil justice review that there should be a single set of rules. Little did I realise quite how effectively he would capture the public imagination and the willingness and the desire on all sides for reform of our civil justice system. In just two years, he carried the debate to all parts of England and Wales. Rarely has the topic of civil justice and its relevance to the economic and social well-being of this country attracted such widespread interest.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, was assisted throughout his inquiry by a small group of assessors. These were Senior Master Turner; District Judge Greenslade, now President of the Association of District Judges; Rupert Jackson, QC; John Bolton and Phillip Sycamore; Professor Ross Cranston, the academic consultant; and Dr. Richard Susskind, the consultant on information technology. They, and the supporting secretariat, contributed greatly to the production of what the noble and learned Lord calls, in the introduction to his final report,
"a programme for change which could radically improve access to civil justice".
An even wider group were also drawn into the process of developing proposals in working groups. Contributions to the public debate came forward not only from the profession and the judiciary, but also from individual litigants, business and consumers and representative groups. Those of your Lordships who wish to see in greater detail the issues and problems and the proposed reforms made by the noble and learned Lord will find these set out in the interim report, which was published in June 1995, and the final report, which was published in July this year.

605
The connection between litigation involving disproportionately complex procedures and litigation which generates disproportionate costs is all too obvious. It is clearly wrong that people should be deterred from taking legal action due to the prospect of being financially mined if they do so. This fear brings our system of civil justice into disrepute. By the same token, it is also disreputable to exploit the fear of legal costs so as to deter persons from defending frivolous and unmeritorious claims. Our procedures, both in the judicial oversight of cases and the sanctions available, must guard against oppressive exploitation of the system.
A thriving society needs an effective justice system. Citizens and businesses must be able to conduct their affairs within a legal framework which is both fair and certain. When legal rights and obligations are breached, the law needs to be clear not only as to the remedies available but also as to the mechanisms which will provide access to justice. Civil litigation must become more affordable and cases must move forward more swiftly once they have entered the court system.
In the field of criminal justice, the importance of ensuring that cases come on for trial in a timely manner is well-recognised. So, too, in cases involving children, where there is also a clear recognition of the need for expedition. However, in other areas of civil litigation there has been less appreciation of the need for timeliness in finally resolving disputes. The Government believe that cases should not be allowed to linger on just for the tactical advantage of the parties or for the convenience of the courts or the professional advisers.
The Government welcome the expansion of the role of judicial case management. Courts will take greater responsibility for determining how cases progress, the level at which they should be tried, the early definition of the issues, the encouragement to settle and the deterrence of time-wasting or costly manoeuvres. I am pleased by the support which the principle of case management has attracted from the judiciary and the profession.
I also welcome the emphasis given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, to the benefits of alternative dispute resolution. I would regard it as self evident that before launching litigation the disputed issues and evidence should have been foreshadowed in communications between the parties. It is only with the knowledge of the information relevant to the particular situation that the parties can begin to address on a fair basis the scope for settlement of the dispute. I believe that it is right to give new emphasis to the proper role which the court itself can play in promoting settlement and the use of other avenues of resolving disputes. Even if litigation is necessarily adversarial, the courts should be alert to deter tactical antagonism. That is an abuse of the system.
Following receipt of the noble and learned Lord's final report to me in July, I took a little time to reflect on the recommendations and to consider how best to take matters forward. Last week I informed Parliament of my proposed strategy for implementation. Copies of my implementation strategy
606
have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The target which I have set for implementation of the key aspects of the reforms, most particularly the fast track proposals, is Autumn 1998.
The strategy which I have announced does not represent my final word on how things will progress. The recommendations cover a wide field and there is a great deal of further work to be done to secure successful implementation. I am particularly keen to ensure that this further work goes forward in the spirit of partnership between my department, the court service, the judiciary at all levels and users of the courts, in particular the legal profession.
I am very grateful to the Vice-Chancellor, Sir Richard Scott, who has risen to the challenge of promoting the needs of the civil justice system so that it in turn remains responsive to the needs of litigants. I am also very grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, for agreeing, despite his new responsibilities as Master of the Rolls, to continue supervising the drafting of the remainder of the draft new rules. Given his position at the head of the civil appellate system, he clearly has a continuing interest in the planned reforms.
The Bill which I commend to your Lordships today is just a first step, though an important one, paving the way for the implementation of the procedural reforms. I consulted on my proposals for this measure earlier this year and was pleased by the degree of support which they attracted. The Bill's provisions are primarily aimed at providing the power and strengthening the structure on which reform of the rules and practices of the courts will depend.
I now turn to the particular provisions contained in the Bill. If we are to succeed in simplifying procedures, we need to have a unified set of rules of court applying in the Supreme Court and county courts alike. I should perhaps emphasise to your Lordships that the Bill applies only to England and Wales. And the rule-making powers to which it relates are those which apply to civil, non-family, litigation.
Clause 1 provides the power to provide for a unified set of rules of court applying in the Supreme Court and county courts alike. A draft of the general parts of the new rules of court was published alongside the noble and learned Lord's final report and has been placed in the Libraries. Consultation on the general shape of those rules is under way. Consultation on the detail of particular elements will follow.
Clause 1 is supplemented by Schedule 1 which preserves and in some respects enlarges the broad scope of the existing rule-making powers. Of the matters contained in that schedule, I might mention in particular paragraph 4. The proposal that the rule-making powers should extend to the power to make civil procedure rules which impact on the rules of evidence attracted a large measure of support on consultation. I believe that the rules of evidence should facilitate and not hamper the early identification of the issues in the case and the evidence relevant to them. Recent developments in the field of civil justice have promoted relaxation of the strict rules of evidence in order to ensure that parties put their cards on the table at an early stage. This can be

607
seen, for example, both in the provisions regarding the requirements for admissibility of witness statements, contained in Section 5 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 and the further reform of the hearsay rule in the Civil Evidence Act 1995.
Relaxation of the strict rules and formalities of proof would be likely to be of assistance, for example, in simplifying procedures and enabling more pro-active case management in courts dealing with pre-trial applications and summary judgment.
Clause 2 makes provision for the composition of the rule committee. I regard it as important to retain clear lines of responsibility regarding the making of rules. The responsibility for making rules of court will lie with a rule committee, and responsibility for approving the rules will remain to the Lord Chancellor. The composition of the committee needs to allow for participation by the judiciary, the legal profession and others, but it must be sufficiently small and workmanlike to deal expeditiously and authoritatively with rule changes. For the first time, a rule committee will contain lay members. I believe this to be a significant development in making the process more responsive to the needs of litigants themselves, not just those of the lawyers. Subsection (5) of this clause places an onus on the committee to make rules which are simple and simply expressed.
Clause 3 provides for the negative resolution procedure to apply to the civil procedure rules. I believe it is right that rules of court should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. This is currently the position governing the rules of the Supreme Court. County court rules have not hitherto been subject to scrutiny.
Clause 4 deals with the need for power to make consequential amendments. This partly reflects the current rule-making provisions contained in the Supreme Court Act and the County Courts Act 1984. Your Lordships will understand that the powers conferred by this Bill will not be exercised until some time after it is enacted and it is important that there should be power to make alignments in other enactments reflecting the terms in which the rule committee's rules of procedure are made.
Clause 5 clarifies the scope of county court practice directions. Practice directions are already used to a certain extent, both in the High Court and local county courts for procedural purposes, including case management. The use of practice directions to promote effective and flexible case management will become all the more important in future. So too will the need for consistency of practice which can be properly supported by information technology. This clause will also put on a statutory basis the Lord Chancellor's powers to make county court practice directions. And in future it will be the case that county court practice directions will require my approval, or the approval of a person whom I authorise—here I have in mind, the Vice-Chancellor. When I consulted on this matter, the depth of feeling among practitioners in particular as to the need for consistency of practice between county courts was very marked.
608
Clause 6 deals with a point which while not central to the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, would fall to be covered in the new code of rules. The law and practice relating to Anton Piller orders (which are court orders aimed at preserving evidence needed for civil proceedings) was considered by a committee appointed by the Judges' Council and consulted on in 1992. At that time I supported the view that this was a matter which it would be beneficial to put on a statutory footing. The Government believe, for reasons of principle, that powers which, in effect, amount to a right to require entry to premises should have the overt approval of Parliament, and should not solely rest on the footing of a court ordered requirement of consent. This Bill provides the first opportunity since then to address the point.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, has advocated the need for parties to adopt a sensible and co-operative approach from the earliest stages at which a potential claim begins to materialise. The primary tool for fostering this approach will be the development of pre-action protocols which identify the information which ought to be exchanged to put the parties in a position to consider settlement on a fair and well informed basis. The Government would wish to support that initiative. Clause 7, therefore, takes power to widen the statutory powers regarding the disclosure of documents before proceedings commence. We shall have to wait and see how the pre-action protocols progress before activating this power, but it is clearly important to encourage this development.
This Bill fits very well with current developments in the conduct of civil litigation, of legal aid and legal services which the Government have been pursuing and supporting. I shall continue with the programme of work outlined in my implementation strategy to secure successful implementation of the proposed reforms of the civil justice system. This Bill is a vitally important step in the process of reform which has been widely welcomed and is of vital importance to all our citizens.
I am particularly glad that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, has decided to make his maiden speech in this debate. We all look forward to learning from him in the light of his great experience of matters relevant to the subject matter of this debate. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
3.43 p.m.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, from these Benches I too say with what keen anticipation we await the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and not merely because he is a distinguished Queen's Counsel who hails from the Principality.
I have said before, and I say again, that the reports of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf—both the interim and final report—are a creative attempt to address the twin evils of civil litigation; namely, excessive cost and delay. His judgment is that those twin evils arise basically from a single cause but one which has many manifestations; that our adversarial system has

609
led to cases being run by the lawyers, not by the courts, and implicitly to the disadvantage of the litigants but not to the disadvantage of the lawyers.
The noble and learned Lord's proposed solution is:
"A fundamental transfer in responsibility for the management of civil litigation from litigants and their legal advisers to the judges".
What the noble and learned Lord proposes, if not a revolution in how civil litigation has been traditionally conducted, is a transformation in the culture of civil litigation. His objective is one which I share and my party shares—a cheaper, faster, simpler civil justice system in an environment which promotes co-operation and early resolution of disputes, preferably outside the courts. Litigation should be the port of last resort.
Any layman studying this Bill to which we are invited to give a Second Reading today would be forgiven for thinking that it is anodyne in the extreme; that it is concerned merely with lawyers' law; that to redraft two cumbersome sets of rules into a single simplified set must be no more than ordinary common sense. However, that conceals the transformation in the culture of civil litigation which the proposed rule changes are intended to effect.
I want to make it plain that, subject to one or two qualifications, with which I believe the noble and learned Lord himself would agree, I support that cultural change. I think it vital that the existing good and co-operative relationship between Bench and Bar does not become a casualty of the implementation of the reports. If those relationships were to be damaged, I believe that that would be the opposite of what the noble and learned Lord intends.
Judicial case management is already substantially in place in many courts—the commercial court, the High Court and the Chancery Division. Generally it is working well but it is capable of going adrift. Perhaps I may give two hypothetical examples, neither entirely divorced from reality.
On day one of the trial the judge has counsel and solicitors before him. They discuss the forward progress of the trial on the basis of the needs of the particular case. The judge goes off for two days to read the documents which the lawyers agree are the critical documents. The judge and counsel agree on a timetable for the cross-examination of witnesses, specifying the anticipated length of each cross-examination. The trial resumes two days later. The timetable is not just adhered to but is improved upon. The trial is concluded earlier than anticipated. That is a triumph of judicial case management—a co-operative endeavour between the judge and the lawyers.
Now let us take this hypothetical example. On day one the judge says that he will allow counsel on each side no more than half a day each to open the case. Counsel protest. They both say that there are difficult technical issues in which the judge must be sufficiently educated by a longer oral opening and explanation so that thereafter the trial can proceed expeditiously. The judge overrules their protests. The trial proceeds after the abbreviated openings. The judge gradually comes to an appreciation that he does not understand the issues and permits very long cross-examination of experts, the object of which is
610
to educate the judge through cross-examination both in the issues and in the documents. The trial is a shambles and ludicrously long.
When power is transferred, it is important not to inhale too deeply. The moral is that judicial case management must be a co-operative endeavour between the judge and the lawyers and, when at all possible, should proceed on the basis of agreement after full discussion of the needs of every individual case; and every case is an individual case.
I should like to see the new rules reflect an obligation on the court when setting a timetable to discuss with the parties' representatives the needs of the particular case in relation to openings, the duration of cross-examinations and final speeches and to have regard to their representations.
I am an enemy of the extensive, uncontrolled orality which used to be the hallmark of civil litigation. I am also an enemy of undisciplined and irrelevant cross-examination. I am a friend of concision. But the judges must carry the profession with them in timetabling trials. These observations go particularly to draft Rules 1.3, 39.5 and 39.6 of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. I shall not go into the detail of them now, but I think that draft Rule 39.6 is probably too rigid.
I turn now to the resource implications for the implementation of the reports of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. Effective case management by the judges will require resources to provide training, technology, back-up and perhaps greater judge power. Lord Justice Henry, the Chairman of the Judicial Studies Board, was only being realistic when he said recently that training in case management would,
"need a substantial increase in the Board's Annual Budget",
which is now £3.2 million. Rightly he said it would "not be a cheap fix". But, leaving further training aside, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, himself recognises that case management would,
"mean making realistic provision for reading time for judges … more clerical assistance … [and perhaps] the use of Law Clerks in heavy cases".
And there are other resource implications: the impact on legal advice and assistance. The noble and learned Lord says that one feature of his "new landscape" will be that,
"litigants who are not legally represented will be able to get more help from advice centres and from the courts".
Another is that,
"court staff will provide information and help to litigants on how to progress their case".
The noble and learned Lord acknowledges that his reforms would be more efficient if,
"legal aid funding is available for pre-litigation resolution and alternative dispute resolution".
So these are serious resource implications which cannot be wished away.
The noble and learned Lord has raised great expectations of what the judges can deliver. His ground thesis is a major shift in the balance of power from the lawyers to the judges as the managers of civil litigation. But the judges cannot deliver without the resources,

611
realistically assessed. To impose great extra burdens on the judges throughout the whole system, without giving them the means to deliver, would oblige them to win a war without the weaponry. It will end not only in failure but also in damaging mutual recrimination between the judiciary and government.
That said, I want the reports of the noble and learned Lord to be implemented with the consent of the professions and with public approval. I think that there may well be major benefits to the Legal Aid Fund from the implementation of the reports. Limited costs, without taxation, of fast track cases would mean that the board would know from the beginning what these cases would cost. Similarly with the multi-track cases, since estimated costs are to be published pre-trial, agreed by the parties and approved by the judge.
The noble and learned Lord's recommendations for multi-party actions are potentially highly beneficial to the Legal Aid Fund. Most multi-party actions are funded by legal aid. Greater judicial control over these highly complex and expensive cases is welcome. The proposal that privately paying litigants may join group actions could bring great benefits to them and to the fund.
Equally important are the recommendations for medical negligence cases. These are almost wholly funded out of the public purse, with the National Health Service on the one side and, on the other, 90 per cent. of the plaintiffs funded by legal aid.
In my keynote address to the Annual Bar Conference on 28th September of this year I said that an incoming government would immediately undertake a wide-ranging review both of the reform of the civil justice system and of civil legal aid. That review would include the noble and learned Lord's reports. That remains the position of the Opposition. A rigorous cost-benefit analysis there must be.
I emphasise that major improvements in the civil justice system must not be made at the expense of the rest of the system, particularly the criminal justice system. I have studied the strategy document which has been placed in the Library of the House by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. I address in particular the paragraphs dealing with resources—that is, paragraph 28 and those following it. There is a realistic acknowledgement that,
"there will be transitional costs in implementing these reforms".
That must particularly be so in relation to the budget of the Judicial Studies Board and the cost of information technology. But I ask: are they correctly described as "transitional"? Surely they are ongoing. I also ask: in what sense are they "transitional"?
The strategy document says that,
"the resources needed will be made available from within my Budget",
that is, the budget for the Lord Chancellor's Department. I confess that I am unsure as to the precise meaning of the sentence in paragraph 29 of the document which reads:
"I shall consider in consultation with the Court Service what redistribution of resources and other adjustments would assist this transitional stage".
612
In life, and in the law, there is no such thing as a free lunch. I read paragraphs 28 and 29 of the document as code language for unspecified economies elsewhere. I invite the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack when replying to say where these economies are to be made. I do not read those paragraphs as pledging new moneys on top of existing budgets. I will assume that that is so, unless the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack corrects me when he comes to reply.
I understand it to be the wish of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that the Committee stage take place, not in the Chamber, but in the Moses Room. That would mean that amendments would be discussed but not taken to a Division in Committee. If any amendments had to be taken to a Division, that would happen on Report in the Chamber. I am ready to accept that procedure, but I hope that the noble and learned Lord will have an open mind about amendments and be ready to accept them if they will result in a better system. That would reflect the co-operative basis, to which the noble and learned Lord referred, on which these reforms should go forward.
No one can complain of any want of consultation in the preparation by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, of both his reports. He included in his consultations all the key groups involved in civil litigation. His draft rules are an excellent first stab. They are themselves the subject of consultation, as we have learnt; but in my view that does not excuse the new rule committee itself from an obligation to consult at a formative stage in its deliberations. The existence of a rule committee does not remove the need for consultations with all the professional bodies and with the consumer organisations both about the substance and the policy of the proposed rule changes.
There are a number of other issues which we will have to address in Committee: first, whether the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack is right to say no to a civil justice council, as contemplated in the reports of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf; secondly, whether the new office of Head of Civil Justice should be expressly sanctioned by statute, with the authority of the office enhanced as a result. Thirdly, whether the procedures and composition of the new rule committee should be strengthened by expressly legislating for the inclusion of consumer representatives as such, as distinct from two persons,
"with knowledge of the working of the courts";
by increasing the number of litigation representatives on the committee from two to four in recognition of the increasing specialisation within distinct areas of legal practice; by imposing a statutory obligation on the committee actually to meet as a committee; by providing that four members of the committee are insufficient for signing new rules and that two-thirds of the membership, or eight members, are required; and by requiring the rule committee to consult interested persons and groups prior to settling the new rules, with a similar procedure for consultation on proposed and draft practice directions.

613
Also, and perhaps most importantly, I venture to doubt whether Parliament is sufficiently involved in considering the implementation of the reports of the noble and learned Lord. They represent—as he recognises—a transformation in the culture of civil litigation. In one sense this is an anodyne Bill, proposing only that a new united rule committee make new rules of court for all civil, non-family disputes. I do not think that the provision of the Bill that new rules should be made by statutory instrument, approved by Parliament by the negative resolution procedure, necessarily provides sufficient parliamentary scrutiny. It must be for consideration that approval to the new rules should be by way of the affirmative resolution procedure, so that both Houses of Parliament have a proper opportunity to debate the historic reports of the noble and learned Lord and the transformation of civil litigation which their implementation through new rules will effect.
Finally, we welcome Clause 6, which puts the Anton Piller jurisdiction on a statutory basis. I give notice that we are minded to put down amendments to this clause with the following objectives. First, we wish to ensure that all facets of the jurisdiction are covered; for example, the right of a party, to have delivered up to him his own property: mere preservation orders are not sufficient. Secondly, we wish to make it clear that defendants as well as plaintiffs are entitled to the remedy; and, thirdly, to ensure that compliance with the order is required of employees of those subject to it. Fourthly, we wish to clarify the ambit of the steps that may be taken by those executing the order, in particular so that the party subject to the order can be required to operate his computer system so as to reveal any material stored on his database. Fifthly, we wish to deal with what we perceive to be a problem arising under Clause 6(5) in relation to the privilege against self-incrimination. Sixthly, we wish to make it clear that other forms of injunction may be included in an Anton Piller order. These are matters of detail to which we shall return in Committee.
4.2 p.m.
Lord Meston: My Lords, it is almost impossible to imagine the intensive hard work which must have been required for the production of the interim and final reports by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. Other reports in the past have stated the problems of civil justice and the civil justice system, but nowhere else have those problems been more clearly stated or analysed than in the two reports of the noble and learned Lord. Nowhere else has a comprehensive range of solutions been devised in the way proposed by the rules which are to be enabled by this Bill with its particularly wide Long Title. Above all, both his reports started from, and never lost sight of, a series of vital first principles. This leads me to suggest that if ever there was a Bill which should contain a purpose clause, this is it.
The reports have addressed the fundamental problem of delay in litigation, and its causes. Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights entitles
614
everyone to the determination of his or her civil rights and obligations within a reasonable time by a tribunal established by law. As is stated on page 12 of the interim report, tolerance of delay allows litigators to carry excessive caseloads in which the minimum possible action occurs over the maximum possible timescale. Over the past 20 years delay has been far less tolerated, not just by the courts but also by the professional disciplinary bodies. This has also been formally recognised in the county courts by the system of automatic directions and in the High Court with case management directions which have turned the procedural screw much harder for the average practitioner. There are times when for the barrister on the cab rank and, no doubt also, for the solicitor with office targets to meet, life becomes a series of unrelenting deadlines. Yet despite these valuable initiatives, litigation still tends to involve preparation by way of last minute sprints to get a case ready for trial.
The two reports consider the structural and cultural causes of delay. One of the problems identified is the extent of the requirement in English law to give and seek disclosure of documents. As the interim report suggests, some of this process has a tactical purpose and is part of the adversarial culture in which winning battles and winning skirmishes becomes almost as important as resolving the real dispute between the parties. But it is also part of the defensive culture which requires us to protect our backs from professional negligence claims for failure to pursue particular lines of inquiry. It is not always easy to decide whether a particular line of inquiry will be cost effective or whether it will reveal an undisclosed chink in the other side's case. For most practitioners it is easier to ask for documents which may be relevant than to try to justify to oneself and to explain to the client why not to ask for them. The possibility that there may be some other documents to be extracted from the other party prevents the careful lawyer from advising a compromise settlement until that particular evidential avenue has been explored.
On the other side the lawyer may, or may not, advise that it is better to disclose a document than to create an impression that there is something to hide. The theoretical object is to get everyone's cards on the table, face up. The practical result is far too many cards. These are all then photocopied and packed into numerous files, which then have to be organised and read, but often only a few of them are referred to at trial. Even then we all have stories of cases in which the only document which really mattered did not appear until the last minute. It is not easy, even for the experienced practitioner, to know where to draw the line in disclosure of documents under the existing rules. It should prove a considerable benefit to have the lines formally redrawn, as is proposed in the reports and draft rules, coupled with procedures and protocols for early disclosure.
The proposals for more efficient and less partisan use of expert evidence are also to be welcomed. All too often in the past one senses that solicitors have consulted and then discarded several expert witnesses

615
until someone is found to say what the client's case requires. This tends to result in the same old war-horses lining up to disagree with one another in court about anything from the time of day to the colour of grass. Greater insistence on jointly instructed experts and the use of court appointed experts, certainly in more straightforward cases, is clearly necessary and will facilitate settlement and will undoubtedly be cost-efficient.
However, the status of experts appointed by the court or by professional bodies at the request of the court, may need clarification, particularly if they are to develop into something like a court welfare officer in family cases. If the primary role and duties of such experts are to be as advisers to the court, there is a case, currently sub judice, which prompts me to ask—without wanting an answer now—whether such experts should normally have some measure of immunity from suit as a form of witness immunity or that which is given to so-called quasi arbitrators.
The reports also propose ways of facilitating settlement of cases. Already the great majority of cases settle before trial. Quite often they settle late because insurers are unwilling to pay out a realistic amount any earlier. The great majority of litigation lawyers spend much of their time trying to achieve settlement, warning clients of the costs, hazards and delay involved in fighting on. But again we are then vulnerable to complaints from individual clients that too much pressure was applied to settle. It is quite often easier to fight on and to let a judge decide the issue than to settle. Some clients are said to need their day in court, although I doubt that the courts are really there to provide such a form of therapy. In my experience the client who needs a day in court is often the client who stamps off afterwards muttering unrepeatable things about British justice.
Alternative dispute resolution is still not widely available. Out of court mediation requires skill and training if it is to command respect and to protect the weaker party. I therefore suggest that there should be more development of in-court mediation, judge-driven, just as litigation itself is to be more judge-driven under these reforms. The recently initiated pilot scheme for matrimonial ancillary relief cases has already adapted many features of the system which other civil cases will have when the Bill becomes operational. The pilot scheme has a requirement for repeated production of costs statements so, in the words of Lord Justice Thorpe, the litigants see what is being spent as clearly as if they were travelling in a London taxi. It also requires a dispute resolution appointment to take place after an initial structured exchange of necessary information before a judge who thereafter has no involvement in the case if it does not settle. An important feature is that every offer and every proposal of any sort and the responses to them, whether or not privileged, can and will normally be put before the court at that appointment. There must he cases outside the area of family law which would benefit from such treatment even if it involves a
616
degree of gentle headbanging and arm twisting. Twisting the arm of some litigants in the direction of their pockets at that stage may well be beneficial.
The proposals for easier commencement of proceedings and for simplified combined rules of procedure can only assist litigants and lawyers. At present, transfer of cases from court to court is not simple and the dichotomy of rules involves paper-chasing and cross-referencing. I have recently represented a couple against whom proceedings were started in the wrong court by someone who probably ought to have known better. The result has been expensive procedural gymnastics for two years which have caused great strain to the couple concerned and deprived everyone of finality and certainty.
The regularising of local practice directions is also welcome. All too often one can go to county courts to be told rather complacently that they have their own way of doing things there, and that the authority for their way of doing things is a rather scruffy piece of paper half hidden on a noticeboard. One instance I recall was of a local direction which was almost certainly ultra vires. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor did not exaggerate the depth of feeling of practitioners about that feature of the system at present.
At Committee stage I hope that we shall have the opportunity to consider, among other things, the working, the actual meeting, and the composition of the rule committee which includes those intriguing characters in Clause 2 of the Bill,
"two persons with knowledge of … the courts."
We can all think of a considerable number of entirely unsuitable candidates.
I would also support the proposition of the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, that the first set of rules to be made should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. It also seems necessary to look with a little more detail at the Anton Piller order which, quite properly, is now to have a statutory basis. As has been stated, it is a form of order which pushes the powers of the law to their extreme.
It is now 150 years since the County Courts Act 1846 was passed to give a cheap, simple and accessible forum for debt recovery. This Bill should provide another such great landmark if its provisions are properly resourced, piloted and implemented. The worst that could happen to it is that it becomes a victim of its own success, rather like the M.25—the tracks do not prove to be sufficient and there is only limited space for expansion. However, the Bill is welcome and on these Benches we are content with the procedure proposed for the Committee stage.
4.14 p.m.
Lord Bingham of Cornhill: My Lords, I join with those who have already spoken in welcoming the Bill. I join also with them in looking forward to the speech to be given by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. I have perhaps had the pleasure of listening to him more often than some of your Lordships in recent months and I look forward to listening to him

617
again. I have no doubt that his knowledge and experience will greatly enrich the deliberations of this House in the months and years ahead.
I welcome the Bill as a new and hopeful step in the battle to counter the endemic problems of cost, delay and excessive complexity which dog the conduct of civil litigation not only in this country, but not least in this country. As the noble Lord, Lord Meston, has just observed, we have celebrated the 150th anniversary of the county court. The county court was created to counter that intractable problem. It was bitterly opposed by the legal establishment of the day but has proved to be a wise and benign measure which alleviated the problem even if it did not cure it for all time.
The proposals of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, have this enormous advantage: that far from being opposed by the legal establishment of the day, they have won its strong support. By his willingness to listen, his wide consultation and his skill in persuasion, his proposals command a high measure of support. Much of course remains to be done in refining the detail, working out the cost, and ensuring, as various noble Lords have already emphasised, that sufficient resources are devoted to financing this transition, and that judges and court staff are educated and trained to perform a role which will be new to them.
Nonetheless, the Bill is an important first step towards the formulation of a common body of rules of court which will be intelligible and uniform. The work will be done by a committee which is big enough to be representative and small enough to be effective. This is the right place to start and I am sure that the Bill will earn your Lordships' wholehearted support.
I simply say this with reference to one of the points which the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, mentioned. I refer to the need for co-operation between Bench and Bar to make these reforms effective. We are all very conscious of that need. I can only say that on every occasion when I have asked for the co-operation of the Bar and legal advisers representing parties in order to seek to achieve a hearing of an appeal in a case much shorter than the parties had planned for, I have never failed to achieve total co-operation; and I have never afterwards heard any complaint that the parties felt they had had an inadequate hearing. I join with those who have already spoken in welcoming the Bill.
4.18 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, Gresford is a name which will resonate with some of your Lordships as the scene of a terrible mine disaster in 1934. My father, as an ordinary policeman, was on duty at the pithead that day, assisting the rescue teams to do what they could. But, as your Lordships may recall, the particular horror of that disaster was that 254 bodies remained buried in the Dennis seam, only seven were recovered, and fewer than 10 people escaped from the night shift at that time. It is a matter of great humility and pride that I have been permitted to add the name of Gresford to my own.
On 23rd February 1937, about a fortnight before I was born not more than a mile from the pithead at Gresford, there was a debate in the other place on the
618
Gresford disaster inquiry. The Secretary for Mines, Captain Crookshank, was interrupted by the voice of an honourable Member who said, "We shall never forget them". I hope that noble Lords will permit me at this moment, when first addressing your Lordships with the privilege of that name added to mine, to remember them as well.
I was an articled clerk in the firm of the coroner for east Denbighshire who carried out the inquest into the Gresford disaster. I learnt my civil procedure from the roots up. I shall not weary the House with my expertise in writs of fi. fa. and garnishee orders nisi. It was in personal injury litigation in an area of coal and steel and heavy industry that we made our living. We were concerned with broken limbs and broken spirits. We were concerned with the lives of ordinary people who were fighting nationalised industries and large institutions. I remember a man who lost eight fingers in a press. I remember another who damaged himself holding up a steel arch underground at Ifton colliery, a case which eventually went to the divisional court and to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge, who was on the other side. I am pleased to say that we won.
I recall with great amusement the case where I spent a fortnight working at a brief. I examined the cases and analysed the evidence in a way that would surprise some noble Lords who sit on the Cross-Benches. We were instructing Elwyn Jones QC, leading the tiger of the Chester Bar, Emlyn Hooson. I arrived in the antechamber at Chester Assizes as an articled clerk, to wait for a fortnight where I could listen to the masters at work, whereupon Elwyn Jones came breezing in saying, "Emlyn, Parliament sits tomorrow. We must settle this case". And settle it they did. I am sure that noble Lords remember the former Lord Chancellor with great affection, as I do. He invented fast track litigation. He had a keen sense of his priorities.
I need no persuading that the procedures of civil litigation need reform. I recall the case of a housing estate built on top of a hill above a Welsh town where the sewage works was overflowing, and every time it rained the sewage bubbled up from the manhole covers and landed in the living-room of my client. I came into the case shortly before the trial, 14 years after the proceedings had been commenced. In that time the house had been declared unfit for human habitation; his marriage had broken up; and he had had a nervous breakdown. It so happened that on the Saturday before the hearing I saw my opponent in the local rugby club and said to him: "You've no defence". He said, "I know. How much do you want?". That was the end of the case after some 14 years.
So far as the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, is concerned, I was very pleased to receive a letter in July from the noble and learned Lord which contained the statement, "I hope that the report and the rules will contribute to the enjoyment of any holiday you are about to have". Let me assure the noble and learned Lord that it most certainly did. As I sat in the current with the sun warming my back and listened to the wind in the Scots pines above, I thought and mused idly on his Lordship's colour consciousness. I thought how fitting it was that we should have a "forest green" volume one, with a

619
"pine bark" volume two to follow, and what a shame it would be for me to open it and frighten the fish with the white interior.
The noble and learned Lord's report is monumental. It marks the end of lengthy and happy co-operation between members of the legal profession on all sides. I hope to see in the legislation that is passed support for the idea of a civil justice council, which would maintain that co-operation and make sure that the ongoing rules that are provided are acceptable to all sides.
The Bill itself is decidedly slim. It is a little disappointing, after seeing the report, to come upon this slim document. I was reminded, since it is election day in America today, of the slogan from some elections ago, which I offer freely to noble Lords on the Benches opposite to use against New Labour: "Where's the beef?". This Bill is perhaps a very small start to what will be a very considerable venture in reform.
The fast track procedure must not substitute discipline for justice. I know that that is not the intention of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. I was myself subject to his case management some three or four years ago. I did not realise that I was the pilot. As with all experiments, we stretched him to the limit and his patience and good humour survived that test—well, almost, anyway. The objectives of his report are admirable: to deal with cases justly and to have parties on an equal footing—to have equality of arms. To pay the noble and learned Lord the highest compliment, those objectives assort well with Liberal values.
My worry relates to matters lower down the scale: namely, that procedural rules could become instruments of bullying tactics. A country solicitor, such as I once was, can be faced with a distressed person who has no idea what the particular problem is. It is for the solicitor to identify the problem and put it into legal form. He has no control over the time it takes for expert reports to be received, for medical reports, for disclosure, for counsel to return the papers, for legal aid committees and so on. I am concerned that the disciplines that are laid down in the fast track procedure towards which the rules promulgated in the Bill will point will be used fairly, liberally and justly, as I know the noble and learned Lord has in mind.
The final matter I wish to raise is that of fixed costs. There is no change in the burden of proof. A solicitor will be as liable for negligence with the fast track procedure as he is at the present time. I am concerned that cost may reduce damages. I welcome the statement by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in relation to this matter and on the way in which he proposes to implement the report. I regret that there will be no debate on the Floor of this House on some of the principles that lie behind the report.
Large institutions can look after themselves; I am not concerned about them. They only fight about who pays, which is the issue between insurance companies and large companies. Courts, however, deal with people. Courts cannot always repair the damage to people's health and to their lives; nor can they right every perceived wrong. Even the litigant who fails must feel that he or she has been treated fairly and that the case has been heard and
620
has not been rushed. I am sure that that is the thrust of the noble and learned Lord's reforms. I welcome them, and I welcome the plain English in which they will be expressed. I thank noble Lords who have spoken for the welcome they gave to me.
4.28 p.m.
Lord Woolf: My Lords, it is a privilege that falls upon me to have the opportunity of conveying your Lordships' congratulations on an outstanding maiden speech. It covered the emotional beginnings of the noble Lord's life. It dealt wittily with his experiences on the Wales and Chester circuit and made a real contribution to the question that lies behind the Bill before the House; namely, the question of access to justice.
I hope that this will certainly not be the last opportunity that I shall have of hearing the views of the noble Lord on that subject. I know that the House will wish to hear him express the same oratory in relation to many other issues as well.
The contributions to the debate which have already been made today mean that my remarks can be brief. In making them, I am conscious that when I delivered another report, I exercised a self-denying ordinance and did not speak on the subject of prisons for over a year. I am conscious that some thought that even that period was too short. I am also conscious that your Lordships may feel that I would be wise to follow that example. However, I want to speak to your Lordships, first, because I wish to express the debt which I believe is owed to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor by all those who are concerned with the reputation of civil justice in this country. It was his vision that recognised the need for the system of civil justice to be fundamentally reformed. During the two-year period of my inquiry he gave me all the support and encouragement that I needed to produce my report.
The other reason I am glad to have this opportunity of making a few remarks is that I wish to commend the Bill very firmly to your Lordships. As was pointed out, it is admirably brief. It may lack beef, but it contrasts favourably with the 360 pages of my report which some took on holiday. Within its seven pages, it provides the means of achieving the reforms which I have recommended. It does so because it provides for a single new rule committee which can establish the simplified and streamlined procedures which are an essential part and which are at the heart of the reforms I recommend.
The production of the rules may seem a heavy responsibility for the new rule committee, but it has been the traditional responsibility of rules committees in the past. There is to be one rule committee in place of the two rule committees that now exist. That is hardly a radical proposal, as it was first recommended by the Judicature Commission of 1872. It is time that that recommendation was enshrined in the Bill.
The new rules are expressed in simple English so that they can be readily understood by a layman. That is a radical departure which is not easily achieved and I wholly approve of the requirement in Clause 2(5) that the rule committee should do its best to draft rules which are,
"both simple and simply expressed".

621
Under my proposals, instead of the existing bewildering choice of procedures for commencing proceedings, there will be but one. So far as possible, all procedures will be the same and in consequence the technical in-fighting over whether the right procedure has been selected, to which the noble Lord, Lord Meston, referred, should become a thing of the past. Both the judiciary and the litigant will have for the first time a responsibility to conduct proceedings expeditiously and economically and in a way which will achieve equality between the parties. I emphasise that, because the draft rules place the responsibility both on the courts and on the parties.
In that respect, I welcome what the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, said with regard to the need for co-operation. It is at the heart of my proposals that there should be co-operation. It was as a result of the co-operation which I received from both sides of the profession and from many others involved in the civil justice system that I was able to make my recommendations. They recommend protocols which are ways of dealing with cases appropriately which are drawn up with the agreement and consensus of those who are involved. The whole basis of the reforms requires consensus. Therefore, I hope that the noble and learned Lord has little to fear from the kind of confrontation to which he referred.
The reforms are a distinct package for change, but similar reforms have been or are being introduced in New Zealand, Australia and Canada, and they have also been introduced in parts of the United States. I appreciate that there may be differences of opinion as to detail, but in general there is consensus throughout the common law world that the direction which I recommended is the way in which we must all go.
Of course, additional resources are needed to introduce the reforms, but in due course they will more than pay for themselves. What we need to ask is whether we can afford to do without them. As a country with what is meant to be an enterprise economy, we cannot afford to have a justice system that does not work. An efficient justice system is important to the individual member of the public. Such people do not obtain justice if the system is one that they cannot afford.
The quality of the system is also important to the City, industry and commerce. It is important to the Legal Aid Fund which is paying out more and more in order to benefit an ever-reducing percentage of the population. It is important to the hospitals and local authorities which find that they are spending more and more of the resources which should be spent on treating patients or repairing houses to pay for excessively expensive litigation.
There are two concerns, however, which have been expressed to me as to the Bill. The first is one which has already been mentioned to your Lordships, as has the second. The first is whether the Bill enables representatives of the consumer bodies to be members of the proposed new rule committee. Clause 2(2)(g) refers to,
"two persons with knowledge of the working of the courts".
As a result of my inquiry I can say, I hope without fear of contradiction from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, that consumer bodies today have among their
622
staff many representatives who would be so qualified. I hope that, as appropriate, they would be represented on the new rule committee.
The second concern is the absence of any reference to a civil justice council, the creation of which I recommended. I see the council as a central plank to my recommendations. It will be the means of ensuring that a reformed civil justice system remains responsive to the needs of the public. It is also the necessary companion to a compact small rules committee. However, the creation of the council does not need statutory backing and I hope that I can persuade the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor of the importance of and the need for the council.
I therefore, for the reasons which I have outlined, give the Bill my unqualified support. It is a Bill which, while modest in size, could be a powerful engine for the reform which our civil justice system needs.
4.39 p.m.
Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I join with those who have already spoken in welcoming the Bill. I believe that I speak as the only layman here today and assuredly the most nervous, certainly more nervous than the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. He made a splendid maiden speech and now I find that I follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, whose masterly report brought us here today.
The Bill is the instrument that will breathe life into the new rules and thus into the proposals of the noble and learned Lord. It takes forward not only the letter of the 1996 review but also the spirit as embodied in the statement on page 12. I shall not read it because in Clause 2(2)(g) of the Bill lay members are defined as,
"two persons with knowledge of the working of the courts".
That is a point which has already been picked up and noted today by the noble Lords, Lord Irvine and Lord Meston, and by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, himself. It is a broad term and I am unclear whether it means individuals from consumer and advice organisations, as the noble and learned Lord recommended. I would like clarification that "lay members", as defined in Clause 2 of the Bill, means what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, intended.
I welcome the requirement in Clause 2 that the rules should be both "simple and simply expressed". The charm of the mystery and history of the process of the law and its language, so beloved of many of its most celebrated practitioners, is often lost on those whose cases they are in practice to resolve. I believe it is important that all users of the courts should be able to comprehend the rules by which they are expected to abide.
There is to be a rule committee. There is to be one set of rules which will govern both the High Court and county court and, rather than a hugely detailed and complicated body of procedure, there will at last be a procedural code to further the overriding objective. The rule committee will be setting and amending rules. Some of those rules will be fairly routine but others could result in a considerable change of policy. Once those rules reach Parliament, there will be little chance of changing them. I

623
recommend that the rule committee consults with outside organisations about any significant changes to the rules which result in a significant change in policy.
The provision in relation to pre-action disclosure in Clause 7 gives courts power to require the parties in the dispute to make relevant documents available to one another before a legal action is started. That should encourage earlier settlements and a less adversarial approach to resolving disputes. I welcome that; in fact, there is much to welcome for the consumer.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, tells us that the legal profession also welcomes the Bill. Perhaps some noble and learned Lords—and no doubt my son, if I had asked him, and his fellow barristers—have concerns about case management by the courts. Will judges be given time to read papers beforehand? Will there be sufficient training? Will improving the process still maintain the quality of the outcome? And the great worry for a barrister like my son and his young colleagues is whether work will be lost.
Those are genuine concerns with which we—especially me—sympathise. Those worries stem from a genuine concern. Court procedures must not change just to save money or for fashionable change's sake. I believe we all agree that the civil justice system needs to change. It often fails ordinary people because it is slow, expensive and incomprehensible. Ordinary people turn to it to sort out family matters, personal injuries, debt problems, housing problems—often things that deeply affect their lives.
The proposals of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, represent to the consumer a real hope of change. Of course, case management by the courts will not spring full blown from the head of Zeus. It will be an evolutionary process, with all of the key players having to contribute to that evolution. I am told that in some courts the first cautious steps are already being taken.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor made plain to us his enthusiasm for the reforms and his plans to continue the momentum to implement them in careful stages, with monitoring and evaluation of their impact. On the consumer side the proposals were warmly welcomed by the National Consumer Council and many other consumer bodies which were consulted along the way. From their viewpoint it is not only the letter but also the spirit of the proposals which must be retained. That is why I urge that one key element of the Bill is particularly carefully implemented. In his final report, at page 273, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, wrote:
"To help carry forward the work … I set up a small working group … To my knowledge, this is the first time on which representatives of consumer and advice organisations have been directly involved in the preparation of rules of court. I recommend that they should have a permanent role as a counterbalance to the professional legal viewpoint in the new rule-making committee which will be needed to enact the combined rules".
I urge the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to be visionary: to follow up the successful experiment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, with an Act which gives permanent places on the committee to a representative from the lay advice sector and a
624
representative from consumer groups. We all have much to gain from the change. Let us not be afraid to make it. I commend the Bill to the House.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I am deeply conscious from my place in the speakers' list that my position is that of a long stop—and I do not propose that your Lordships should stop very long!
I should like to add my congratulations to those already indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. Indirectly he has already made a considerable contribution to the work of this House. It was his letter of resignation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, explaining that he was resigning in relation to the proposed tariff scheme which the Home Secretary—as was subsequently found—intended unlawfully to impose that gave rise to the debates in this House and subsequently led to the whole of that proposal being quashed.
I want to take up one point essentially which relates to resources. The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum says:
"The Bill paves the way for implementation of the recommendations contained in the Report by Lord Woolf to the Lord Chancellor on the civil justice system in England and Wales".
It goes on to say, under the heading "Financial Effects of the Bill",
"The Bill is not expected to have any significant financial implications".
That is right. But the proposals of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, will have "significant financial implications".
There has been reference to the fact that judicial case management is already in existence. But that is largely on a quite different level to that being contemplated. The commercial judge is a specialist in his field. In all likelihood he has been a successful commercial silk at the Bar and his ability to case manage is in-built as a result of his own special circumstances. That applies to other fields in the High Court.
However, what is proposed is that the judicial case management shall be carried out by the lowest rung of the professional judge; that is, the district judge. He does an immense amount of good work in the county court and sits there as an arbitrator doing valuable work on small claims recovery. But he is not experienced in the cut and thrust of litigation. He is rarely a member of the Bar—I do not say that in any critical sense but as an indication that to a large extent his experience is the office experience of an experienced solicitor. Therefore, considerable resources will have to be provided for his training.
The point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, as to whether there would be any need for an increase in judicial power. I believe that it is inevitable that there will have to be a sizeable one. First, the district judge will need time to read up the papers, to understand them. He cannot manage a case unless he fully understands the implications. If he arrives at a directions meeting not having fully considered the material in the case, the odds are that he will be merely accepting what the parties propose and we shall be back to square one. Secondly,

625
among the district judges there will inevitably be those who say, "This is not a field of work with which I find I can happily cope"; so that will involve an increase in judicial appointments. There is also the point that has been raised in the more complex cases of the "law clerks" system being imported from America. That will provide the judge with the assistance of an outstanding law graduate of his year and will again be an expensive matter.
I urge the Lord Chancellor to give us the assurance that the admirable work done by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, will not run the risk of failing to produce expectations which everyone has by reason of being deprived of resources.
I wish to raise one other matter on education. It relates to the legal profession. In the three or fours years since I retired I have been involved in arbitrations. Arbitrations are the type of alternative dispute resolution where one would expect settlement to be utmost in the minds of those involved. In my experience, settlement is usually the result of a halfway interim award or maybe the result of the parties hearing the conclusion of cross-examination and submissions. Yet because of the adversarial culture, it takes a quite unnecessary length of time for the idea of settlement to become the focus of the advisers to the parties and the parties themselves.
One does not have the benefit of seeing the pre-trial correspondence in any great detail as the trial judge or even the appellate judge. The strength of feeling to be found in pre-trial correspondence between experienced, sensible solicitors in charge of the dispute on both sides is quite startling. They churn out letters which are offensive to each other; in many cases they build up their practices on competing aggressiveness; copies are sent to the lay clients, who apparently enjoy it; and as a result the expectation among the lay clients is that there will be one hell of a battle and their representative will be the champion who wins. All of this has to be de-escalated down without grossly disappointing the lay client in order to obtain his agreement to settlement. The burden usually falls on the arbitrator or the trial judge to try to bring reality onto the scenes.
All that is quite wrong. If the culture changed so that the advisers basically said to the litigants on each side, "Look, usually the best solution to disputes is to achieve a sensible settlement. The best way of achieving a sensible settlement is for me to write a sensible letter to the other side, not full of aggressiveness but full of reason, and to encourage the other side so to respond. So don't be disappointed if you see a letter of sweet reason. It does not mean that I am not ready to fight with enthusiasm if we come to court. But until that event occurs, let me make the best possible attempts to settle your case". We are far from reaching that situation. That is where the education of future judges in case management should be supplemented by education by the professional bodies of their own members with a view to seeing whether disputes cannot be dealt with very much more quickly by achieving the settlement which is usually appropriate in 95 per cent. of cases.
4.55 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, it has been a relatively short debate of characteristically high quality. I am delighted to have been present to hear the moving, personal, modest, thoughtful and charming maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford. Apart from his prominent political life, he has had a distinguished career at the Criminal Bar and as a part-time judge. This afternoon he has ventured into the tangled thickets of our antiquated and outmoded civil procedures, whether coloured forest green or pine yellow. He will, I am sure, make an important contribution to the work of the House.
It is also a particular pleasure and privilege to speak in the same debate as the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls. If I may say so as a practising member of the English Bar, I believe that future legal historians will agree that one of the Lord Chancellor's greatest contributions has been the excellence of his judicial appointments. Another, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, indicated, has been the Lord Chancellor's measures to modernise our system of civil justice and to reform the antiquated and unnecessarily restrictive practices of the legal profession—in the early stages, in the teeth of some not altogether pleasant opposition from some quarters of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, has described as the Legal Establishment.
The Bill has been welcomed on all sides of the House in providing the framework to give effect to the enlightened and radical proposals of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, to improve access to justice. Every noble Lord who has spoken supports the proposal for a simplified set of procedural rules for all procedures in all courts and for the creation of one rule committee to replace the present two. A single set of simplified rules should help to reduce the cost of litigation, facilitate amicable settlements and encourage the use of alternative methods of dispute resolution. It should also avoid undue legalism, technicality and the kind of abusive tactical misuse of procedure described by my noble friend Lord Meston.
I was glad to note that the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, supports the cultural change sought by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, though I am a little less optimistic than he is about persuading some of our fellow advocates not to be prolix or verbose in the absence of firm and effective judicial management, if that is not a euphemism, of the kind given by the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls. Would that all judges could give that kind of leadership. But of course they cannot.
I am not troubled by the parliamentary delegation of rulemaking to a broad-based rule committee, provided that there is, as the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, indicated, extensive consultation about the draft rules, as there has undoubtedly been in the course of the review of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and provided that both Houses of Parliament have a proper chance to debate the important issues at stake. That is why, like the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, I believe that the new set of rules should require parliamentary approval by affirmative resolution rather than by negative resolution.

627
Recently, a senior and distinguished fellow member of the Bar with vast experience of civil litigation, Mr. Anthony Grabiner QC, rightly observed in a lecture on this subject that the White Book, as we call it, is badly in need of abandonment and that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and his team are to be congratulated on producing a set of draft rules written in plain English. Great efforts will, as he says, no doubt be made to turn simplicity into unnecessary complication. We have to hope and expect that the judiciary will develop a tough stand against efforts of that kind.
The suggested membership of the new rule committee will need to be carefully considered at Committee stage. As several noble Lords have pointed out, the only lay members at present envisaged are two persons,
"with knowledge of the workings of the courts".
It is important to include those with knowledge of the interests of the consumers of the civil justice system, such as those working in citizens' advice bureaux and law centres. Civil rules of procedure are not like the rules of a private social club. They have a direct and profound impact upon the ability of ordinary men and women to enjoy effective access to justice. One objective clearly spelled out in the Woolf Report is for the civil justice system to be responsive to the needs of litigants. As the noble and learned Lord and the noble Baroness Lady Wilcox have both said, consumer interest groups make a vital contribution and need to be effectively represented on the rule committee. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, is the only speaker who is neither a judge nor a lawyer. Her voice of justice and common sense is particularly welcome, for she speaks for the consumer that the system is meant to serve.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, I am disappointed that the Bill does not provide for the establishment of a civil justice council. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, has given cogent and compelling reasons in both of his reports for creating a continuing body with responsibility for overseeing and co-ordinating the implementation of his proposals. In his words, it is "the central plank". The council would be an important engine of reform, encouraging the momentum to continue and representing the many and varied participants in the system. It would provide a vital channel of communication both ways between the centre and the regions and local areas.
In his written response, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor accepted that consultation and collaboration are vital to the success of the project, and the need to ensure that all interested parties are given a voice in the implementation process. But he observed that he was "not yet satisfied" that a civil justice council is the most effective way of securing these objectives. I take comfort from the words "not yet" and very much hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will become satisfied during the debates on the Bill that a civil justice council would not be an unwieldy or ineffectual forum.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, observed in his interim report, a co--ordinating body for civil justice would greatly assist the Lord Chancellor's Department. In
628
the absence of such a body, previous initiatives, such as the Civil Justice Review, have not been fully implemented or have not been implemented in the most effective way. He points out that the civil justice council could also take on a broader role in establishing a higher profile for civil justice by helping to secure the necessary resources and keeping the wider issues in the public mind. I would hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor would want to bequeath to his successor such a useful body, which would, among other things, be able to help his department to squeeze much-needed resources for civil justice out of the Treasury.
I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, my noble friend Lord Meston and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, that adequate resources are quite indispensable to the success of the proposals of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and not only to finance the transition. In his written response the Lord Chancellor referred to the new procedures as being,
"intended to result in a more efficient management of the civil justice system, reducing costs to the litigant and to the public purse".
That is true, of course, but it is also true that more resources will need to be paid for out of the public purse if there is to be genuinely effective access to a speedy and efficient system of civil justice.
There will need to be more judges, assisted, I would hope, at least at the appellate level, by law clerks in their out-of-court preparation. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, has emphasised, the judges will need to be trained in their new role in case management. They will need more time for preparation. Existing costs obstacles in the way of equal access for the poor and not-so-rich will have to be removed. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, recommended that as part of the review of court fees the position of a litigant of modest means should be protected from the undue impact of increased court fees. I respectfully agree. He also made the important recommendation that in judicial review proceedings the court should have a discretion to order costs to be paid out of public funds where the proceedings have been brought in the public interest. Something similar was recommended more than 40 years' ago by Lord Evershed's committee. It is of great importance that an applicant for judicial review, not legally aided but too poor to be able to risk paying the costs of the respondent public body, should know at the outset that his or her costs will be publicly funded or at least that he or she will not be ordered to pay the respondent's costs. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor accepts these recommendations to avoid what he has rightly described as the deterrent effect of the present costs position.
I also hope that the Lord Chancellor will extend the no-win, no-fee scheme under the conditional fees rules to cover cases where litigants are exhausting domestic legal remedies before having recourse under the European Convention on Human Rights; indeed, I would add in judicial review and civil proceedings generally. That will involve no charge upon the public purse. As in Scotland, under the speculative fee arrangements, it will enable public-spirited lawyers to act without fee in public interest litigation. It will also make it much easier to obtain insurance against liability for the other side's legal costs.

629
That brings me finally to the Government's plans to shake up legal aid, condemned by leading national organisations representing advice agencies and groups helping victims of injustice as unworkable and unjust. I believe it to be short-sighted, even in terms of savings in public expenditure, to cut back so severely on eligibility for legal aid in civil cases. It leads inevitably to litigants having to represent themselves in person, clogging the system and wasting scarce resources with inexpertly prepared and verbosely argued cases. The withdrawal of civil legal aid from so many needy claimants also infringes the basic civil right to effective access to justice.
I read with interest the article by Mr. Phillip Sycamore, Vice-President of the Law Society, in The Times today arguing on the basis of two recent independent research studies that there is overwhelming public support for legal aid and highlighting public opposition to the proposals in the Government's White Paper. I do not favour a demand-led system of indiscriminate legal aid; but neither do I favour its undue restriction.
Some 28 years ago, as a member of the Society of Labour Lawyers, I was one of a group that helped the late and much-missed Morris Finer QC, as he was, to write a report entitled Justice for All. We identified a substantial unmet need for professional legal services. We found that:
"Poverty, ignorance, fatalism and fear, in combination with the present structure of the legal profession, result in the denial of legal services to many people, and especially to those living on low incomes in parts of our largest cities".
We recommended a new institution, capable of bringing high quality legal services to those parts of our cities where the need for them is greatest and attracting men and women of ability to the service of the community. Such an institution, we thought, would function as a public service, staffed by salaried lawyers, co-existing with the private legal profession.
Under Labour Governments in the late 1960s and mid-1970s, there was an expansion, with government encouragement, of the network of voluntary local law centres. Unfortunately, however, the proposal for a publicly-funded network of centres employing a salaried professional staff has not been implemented.
I believe that the need for such a service is greater today than it was in 1968. I remain convinced that it will provide a cost-effective, well targeted way of promoting greater access to civil justice for the underprivileged and of securing greater justice for all. I hope that the present Bill will be implemented not only by better rules and better managed cases but also by better use of public funding to achieve greater equality of access. Otherwise, it will be only a half-measure for reform.
5.9 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I begin by adding my warm appreciation of the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. He brought us back to very sad matters in the mining industry. He brought us forward to the very fast track when Lord Elwyn-Jones arrived at Chester in company with his learned junior to settle the case immediately. He then brought us on to a 14-year litigation which the noble Lord settled on a social
630
occasion on a Saturday afternoon. That shows the variety of experiences that one can have under our present system.
I am grateful for the degree of support that has been given to the Bill. I am not at all apologetic for the fact that it is rather short because I think that if my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale were to participate in the debate, he would be in favour of the shortest possible legislation. This legislation incorporates all that is required to bring forward the scheme of reform which my noble and learned friend Lord Woolf and those who have devotedly supported him have produced in the two reports to which I referred earlier.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, and to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, for agreeing that it would be appropriate to deal with this Bill in a Moses Room Committee of the Whole House off the Floor. That in no way inhibits discussion. Indeed, if anything, I think that it makes it possible to have perhaps more time for discussion than would otherwise be the case.
The noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, asked me to preserve an open mind on amendments. I think that I always have an open mind on amendments because I am anxious to secure agreement where possible on this and on every other topic that I try to bring forward. Sometimes I secure that agreement with more success than at others.
On the civil justice council, I appreciate what my noble and learned friend has proposed, but I do not think that we can get into that just yet. One of the functions of the council would be to ensure that affairs of civil justice remained prominent into the future. The profile of civil justice has been raised considerably and will continue to be raised while the new rules are being prepared and consulted on. I entirely agree that it is right to have the widest possible consultation on these rules. My noble and learned friend has carried out a lot of consultation already and I expect that many of the views that have been expressed will be taken into account by the rule committee when formulating the rules.
I think that that is highly desirable, although I doubt whether it is wise to include such particular conditions in the Bill. I have some experience—your Lordships may have more—of cases where quite small changes in the rules are required urgently in the light of experience in a particular case. We need flexible arrangements and I would be prepared—I hope that your Lordships would be similarly prepared—to trust to the judgment of the rule committee on the nature of the consultation that it would require in any particular case.
That brings me to a point of some importance which we shall have to discuss in Committee. I think that the ordinary rule should be, as the Bill proposes, that rules of court can be set aside as a result of prayer under the negative procedure. I agree, of course, that the main change is a big one. We shall have to see whether there is some way of dealing with that. I would be perfectly prepared to undertake that, once the rules are formulated, it would be appropriate to have a debate on their detail in this House—obviously I am not clear about the other place—before the instrument that would bring them into effect could be laid. In any event, we can discuss such matters in Committee.

631
I strongly agree with the view that co-operation is at the heart of this whole procedure, including co-operation between judge and counsel in particular cases. I agree that it is difficult to make progress if the judge is so sure of what he thinks that he is not prepared to listen to advice from a well directed quarter. On the other hand, such obstinacy is not confined to the Bench. The need for co-operation is general. I am sure that such co-operation oils the wheels of any procedural system. I hope and believe that a keynote of the rules will be that such co-operation is sought.
The question of resources has also been raised. There is no doubt that resources will be required to put the system in place. Training and information technology are the most important and most easily identified areas that will need resourcing. Whether or not more judges are required is still an open question. It may well be that a different type of judge is required and that to accommodate that we may have to vary the way in which judges are recruited. I am considering that matter. On information technology, we have already placed an important contract for the computerisation of the civil courts. That is an important part of our preparation.
That reminds me that the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, suggested that the recommendations of previous inquiries have not been implemented. The implementation of the civil justice review is not yet finished. I am trying to take it forward as rapidly as I can. One of the results of that review was the inquiry by my noble and learned friend Lord Woolf. It was recognised that a single set of rules for all the civil courts was necessary. Until we get that, we cannot have full implementation. Of course, we have done a great deal already, but some of the recommendations (on administration orders, for example) require information technology which we are only just getting. I have certainly done what I can to bring forward as rapidly as possible the implementation of the proposals of the civil justice review.
The second area in which resources will be needed is judicial training. I intend that the budget of the Judicial Studies Board will contain the necessary money for that purpose. The noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, asked what I was going to squeeze to get that money and whether there would be any "new money". I do not understand the phrase "new money" in connection with another year. If you want something extra during any one year, that requires new money in addition to the budget for that year. However, the budgets for the next year, for the following year and for the year after that are determined as we go along. The resources that will be necessary properly to implement the proposals will be part of the budget of the Lord Chancellor. If it turns out that more judges are required, that will have to be accommodated, but one of the objectives of the system is to make the new system rather cheaper than the present one. Therefore, I do not see it as established at the moment that a higher judicial complement will be required. The resources necessary for
632
implementation will be made available out of the Lord Chancellor's budget and we shall become clearer about what exactly is required from year to year as we go along.
A number of other matters have been mentioned which will be taken up in Committee. It is said that I focused particularly on transitional costs. I would expect additional costs to arise in the transitional period because running the old system while preparing for the new is bound to give rise to some additional costs. We shall have to deal with such costs in the way I have suggested. The IT costs are part of the costs of the system that we seek to put in place.
I am glad that we now have systems for discussing these matters in considerable detail with the senior judiciary. I believe that that will be helpful in discovering how best to use the resources that are made available to help in this matter. One illustration of that possibility is that the Judicial Studies Board works through various programmes and sometimes a particular programme is no longer necessary. There has been a substantial programme dealing with ethnic minority issues. It may be that now the full effect of that is in place resources can be used on other matters. Judicial studies vary from year to year.
I fully agree with all that has been said about training. Training is absolutely essential for this to work. I agree with my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner that that is also true in connection with the legal profession. I am interested in what he has discovered in correspondence in arbitrations since retirement which throws light on the way in which some of these matters are handled.
One of the matters proposed by my noble and learned friend Lord Woolf is the adoption of protocols as to how disputes should be treated. That may well help to deal with the problems indicated by my noble and learned friend. Obviously, if it is to work the idea must be to try to reduce the area of dispute as far as possible, whereas the kind of correspondence to which my noble and learned friend has referred so eloquently is calculated to exacerbate, enlarge and make a dispute more terrible than when it first began. That is quite counter to the objectives of my noble and learned friend.
In accordance with the agreement that I believe has been signified, the Committee stage will be taken in the Moses Room, with no votes at that stage. Of course, any outstanding matters that cannot be settled by agreement will be subject to votes at Report stage in the ordinary way. My noble friend gives me a signal which I am not absolutely certain I understand. I am anxious that the amount of debate at Committee stage is reduced by agreement to the absolute maximum. I am sure that that can only be good for the resulting Bill.
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate, and I renew my Motion with reasonable confidence.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes past five o'clock.

  Government Decision-Making
  Government Decision-Making
  Seat Belt Offences
  Seat Belt Offences
  Seat Belt Regulations: Enforcement
  Seat Belt Regulations: Enforcement
  Monks and Nuns: Social Security Benefits
  Monks and Nuns: Social Security Benefits
  Slaughtered Cattle: Disposal of Carcases
  Slaughtered Cattle: Disposal of Carcases
  Prayers for the Parliament
  Prayers for the Parliament
  Equal Opportunities: NI Health and Education Tendering
  Equal Opportunities: NI Health and Education Tendering
  ADAS: Privatisation
  ADAS: Privatisation
  Zambian Elections
  Zambian Elections
  France Télécom: Partial Privatisation
  France Télécom: Partial Privatisation
  Turkey: Treatment of Prisoners
  Turkey: Treatment of Prisoners
  Turkey: Human Rights
  Turkey: Human Rights
  UK Diplomats: Working Spouses
  UK Diplomats: Working Spouses
  Education and Health: Overseas Aid
  Education and Health: Overseas Aid
  EU Events: November 1996—April 1997
  EU Events: November 1996—April 1997