Sitting of 12 November 1996

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

  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 First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Debate to be resumed on Tuesday 19 November.

Oral Answers to Questions
  SOCIAL SECURITY

    Jobseeker's Allowance
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the introduction of the jobseeker's allowance. [1697]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Roger Evans): The jobseeker's allowance is now in operation and will achieve its objectives by helping people back to work and securing better value for money for the taxpayer.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does my hon. Friend agree that the introduction of the JSA is absolute proof that the Government are determined to devote the necessary resources to getting people back to work and preventing fraudulent claims? Is that not in total contrast to the Opposition, who are pledged to repeal the JSA?
    Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend makes two powerful points. The hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney)
    138
    is on the record as saying that it is Labour party policy to repeal the JSA. That would cost £240 million in 1997–98. Let us hear what the Opposition now say.
    Mr. McNamara: The Under-Secretary will be aware that the experiment took place in Hull. Will he be kind enough to tell the House how many people are now in full-time employment as a result of the experiment, and of those who had placements, how many had placements in private industry, as distinct from community employment?
    Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman is referring to the current project work pilots which have been tried out in several areas, including Kingston upon Hull, as he mentioned. With respect to the three pilots in Hull, Medway and Maidstone, it is striking that more than 4,000 people joined the pilots, more than 1,200 have been through the first 13 weeks of intensive help, 263 have been placed directly into a job during their first 13 weeks, and 68 during their period of work experience. It is, however, startling that about one third of those referred for work experience failed to turn up for their first day of work experience.
    Sir Donald Thompson: My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that I have spoken about the new scheme to people who work in jobcentres in my constituency. Will he give careful consideration to letters that come from all parts of the House as the new scheme is introduced, and accelerate his response to those letters, as there are likely to be administrative hitches that will need sorting out if this excellent scheme is to gain approbation?
    Mr. Evans: The jobseeker's allowance is an enormous project, involving more than 30,000 officials and a new computer system. We are closely monitoring the project as it comes into operation, and will carefully attend to administrative problems, whether we are alerted to them by hon. Members or others.

    Incapacity Benefit
    Mr. Sutcliffe: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he has taken to monitor the impact of the all-work test for incapacity benefit on the incomes of disabled people. [1698]
    The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Alistair Burt): The all-work test is designed to focus benefit on those who cannot work because of sickness or disability. Its impact on the income of disabled people will depend on individual circumstances. As with all new benefits, we are monitoring the effect of the changes on all groups.
    Mr. Sutcliffe: Will the Minister accept that there is widespread concern that the test is inappropriate and inconsistent? That is borne out by the number of successful appeals against it—there has been a 50 per cent. success rate on appeals. What does his Department intend to do about the 50,000 people who previously could accept invalidity benefit but now cannot get it? What will be done to track those people, to ensure that their circumstances do not worsen?
    Mr. Burt: There are two points to be made. First, the success rate on appeals is about the same as it was for

    139
    the old social security appeals tribunals. Secondly, we are monitoring the way in which the test is being applied. A major study has been done on its consistency and we expect to publish that soon. I hope that that will help the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will my hon. Friend confirm that spending on the disabled has more than trebled in real terms since 1979? Will he accept also that many people find it paradoxical that, although the health of the nation has improved, the number of those receiving disability benefit has gone through the roof?
    Mr. Burt: My hon. Friend is right: spending on benefits for the disabled has almost quadrupled during our time in office. We introduced incapacity benefit to deal with the problem of a doubling in the number of people on invalidity benefit in the past 10 years when, as my hon. Friend said, the "Health of the Nation" shows that people are fitter.

    Benefit Fraud
    Ms Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to tackle organised benefit fraud. [1700]
    Mr. Rathbone: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent review he has made of measures to ensure the reduction of benefit fraud. [1701]
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): The Government have introduced a comprehensive strategy to prevent, deter and detect benefit fraud—especially organised fraud. Nearly 300 officers are employed in tackling organised fraud. I recently introduced the fraud hotline and the fraud Bill will be introduced shortly.
    Ms Eagle: After 17 years of this Government's stewardship of the social security system, is it not a disgrace that £2 billion is lost yearly through housing benefit fraud? Why do the Government not give local authorities more power to check that landlords are bona fide and are entitled to the money that they claim?
    Mr. Lilley: It is extraordinary that the hon. Lady refers to the one type of fraud that local authorities are responsible for pursuing. It will not have escaped her notice that most local authorities are controlled by the Labour party. They took very little, if any, serious interest in the matter until I introduced incentives and penalties to force them to do so—and, even then, the response was not sufficient. That is why I am introducing in this Session the fraud Bill, which will establish an inspectorate of local authorities and give me the powers to galvanise local authorities into action.
    Mr. Rathbone: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on what he has done, and is planning to do, to solve the problems caused by increasing numbers of people working the system, either through sophisticated gangs or systematic individual fraud. Will he consider taking further steps to move from the present unsatisfactory
    140
    method of using the national insurance number as the basis for social security payments to something more sophisticated?
    Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support for our actions. I believe that the national insurance number is a sound basis for the administration of social security. We shall introduce measures in the fraud Bill to make it an offence to seek to secure a national insurance number falsely, even if it has not yet been used to abuse the system.
    Mr. Frank Field: How seriously should the House regard the Government's hotline approach to fraud? Is it not true that 90 per cent. of calls to the hotline cannot be followed up, largely because most of those who answer the telephones are untrained, temporary staff? When will the Government implement a serious programme to tackle fraud and be as serious as the Opposition in seeking to protect taxpayers' money?
    Mr. Lilley: Very unusually for the hon. Gentleman—who is normally well informed—his allegations are not correct. The benefit fraud hotline has so far received more than 100,000 calls, a significant number of which are proving successful.
    Mr. Field: How can the Secretary of State say that?
    Mr. Lilley: It takes time to follow them up. The quality of information is extremely good. In some cases, the calls refer to the same individual as he or she is well known in a locality for committing fraud and abusing the system. The staff use a systematic procedure to extract information from callers which is proving successful not just in extracting good information but in weeding out the small number of malicious calls that may concern some Opposition Members. The hotline has proved a great success and I am astonished that Labour Members should attack and criticise it.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, last year, his Department saved £1.4 billion as a result of anti-fraud measures? Is he aware that fraud against the taxpayer enrages my constituents, which is why they are delighted that he is taking steps to deal with it?
    Mr. Lilley: I can certainly confirm the point that my hon. Friend makes: that the savings last year through fraud detected and stopped amounted to nearly £1.5 billion. He is also right to say that the people who resent fraud most are the vast majority of honest claimants and decent working people, who resent seeing other people ripping off the system and ending up nearly as well off as they are but not doing a full day's work.
    Mr. McLeish: Will the Secretary of State explain why he is unwilling to crack down on the scandal of organised landlord fraud in housing benefit? Is it because private landlords have an opt-out from Tory fraud scrutiny? Is he aware that, in real terms, housing benefit has doubled in a decade from £5.2 billion to £11.1 billion, and that in the private rented sector it has trebled over the same period?
    The real alarm is the fact that the Government have simply ignored the findings of the Social Security Select Committee, which suggested that £1 in every £5 of

    141
    housing benefit was fraudulently claimed. That is a £2 billion burden on British taxpayers. Will the Secretary of State now accept Labour's view that we have to wage a war against organised landlord fraud in housing benefit? This afternoon, in the spirit of co-operation, I invite the Secretary of State to meet Labour Members to discuss our proposals for an assault on landlord cheats.
    Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman's opening suggestion would be monstrous if it were not simply silly. Of course no fraudster has any exemption. We have cracked down harder on all forms of fraud, not least landlord fraud. Until we took action to galvanise local authorities into doing their duty in that respect, they were not taking the matter seriously.
    As for taking seriously the Labour party's proposals, Labour proposes that there should be a programme of visits to landlords and tenants and that there should be eight minutes between each person visited, including travelling time. Is that a serious investigation of those who are fraudulently making claims? Our inquiries of those whom we suspect of that take an hour and a half. Ours is surely a much more thorough system than anything that Labour is proposing.
    Sir David Madel: People being pursued for maintenance by the Child Support Agency often report to the CSA that they believe that their ex-partner is fraudulently claiming benefit. Will my right hon. Friend see that, when such an allegation is made, the Benefits Agency tells that person that his or her allegation is being properly investigated?
    Mr. Lilley: I try to ensure that all allegations, particularly those received via the CSA, are passed on and followed up by the Benefits Agency. However, we cannot, for reasons of confidentiality, report back on the inquiries that are made to those who make the original allegations. It would be wrong to do so. I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise that, although we can give the assurance that those inquiries are followed through, it would be wrong to report back to those who made the original allegation on the guilt or innocence in, or the findings of, every investigation.

    Disability Living Allowance
    Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent representations he has received about changing the regulations relating to disability living allowance for long-stay hospital patients; and if he will make a statement. [1702]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Andrew Mitchell): The Department has received a number of representations. The responses have made it clear that the changes will affect only patients being maintained free of charge by the NHS.
    Mr. Canavan: Can we have a parliamentary debate and vote on the matter, so that the Minister can tell us how on earth he can possibly justify such a miserable policy that will make it very difficult, if not impossible, for many long-stay hospital patients to travel to visit their friends and relatives or to take part in various community activities? The next time the Minister is sitting in the
    142
    comfort of his chauffeur-driven ministerial limousine, will he reflect on the fact that he is depriving thousands of disabled people of their mobility rights and virtually incarcerating them in the institutions where they live?
    Mr. Mitchell: A debate in Parliament on those changes is a matter for the usual channels, and I have no doubt that they will have heard what the hon. Gentleman said. The decision to make those changes was very carefully considered. Previously, disability living allowance mobility was not withdrawn or down-rated when someone went into hospital. The changes that we have made align DLA mobility with both DLA care and attendance allowances.
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Does my hon. Friend agree that we would be more likely to take seriously what the Labour party says on this issue, were it not for the stark fact that more than six times as many people are helped with their care and mobility than were helped under the previous Labour Government? That is how much they cared. Do not the measures that we have discussed target help on people who need it most? Is that not what people who really care do, rather than weep crocodile tears?
    Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: we target disability living allowance on those who most need it. We provide special protection for people who have been in hospital accommodation for 12 months or more. My hon. Friend will be aware of the sheer scale of Government spending on disability living allowance. Last year, we spent £3,700 million; this year we are likely to spend £4,400 million, which is an increase of £700 million; and next year there is likely to be a further increase of £600 million, to a total of £5 billion. That is an eloquent testimony to the Government's absolute commitment to helping disabled people.
    Mr. Eric Clarke: Is the Minister aware of the consequences of that withdrawal? People are signing themselves out of hospital prematurely—before they are signed out by their doctors—and their carers are suffering. Were the Government motivated by greed when they introduced that change, because it was not done to help the carers?
    Mr. Mitchell: I think that the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the effects of the regulations. I will consider any particular case that he wants to raise with me in writing. On his specific point, the change affects payability and not entitlement, so those who are not in hospital accommodation for full days during the week will receive disability living allowance and mobility allowance in respect of those full days.

    Occupational Pensions
    Mr. Dunn: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the number of pensioners currently in receipt of occupational pensions. [1703]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Oliver Heald): The latest estimate is that there are some 6.5 million pensioners in receipt of

    143
    at least one occupational pension. More than 20 million people have rights to a pension from an occupational scheme, including those whose pensions are in payment.
    Mr. Dunn: Given that the sum of £600 billion invested in British private pension funds is more than the figure for the rest of Europe put together, will the Minister assure the House that we will resist all attempts to have our pension funds expropriated by the European Union to pay pensions to foreigners?
    Mr. Heald: My hon. Friend highlights the success of the Government's policy in making our pensions system affordable. That achievement was recently applauded by the Select Committee on Social Security, and was reflected in OECD studies. It is vital that we ensure that our carefully won assets are not combined with other countries' liabilities£we should not end up having to pay the debts of pay-as-you-go schemes in Europe. The Government are committed to ensuring that£is the Labour party?
    Mr. Wigley: Will the Minister resist the claptrap that we heard from the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), which creates unnecessary fears among pensioners that their pensions will be expropriated by people in other countries? There is no foundation whatsoever for that allegation, as the Minister well knows. Will he apply himself to the more serious question of the 45 per cent. of pensioner households in these islands that have no pension other than the state pension? What does he intend to do to restore the link that the Government destroyed in 1980?
    Mr. Heald: The hon. Gentleman should know that, under the Government, pensioners' incomes have increased on average by 51 per cent. in real terms. With his new-found Euro-enthusiasm—which no doubt has something to do with his party's views and interests—he should bear in mind the fact that debt is an important factor in the convergence criteria under the Maastricht treaty. It is extremely important that this country is committed to protecting its interests—and the Government are.

    National Disability Council
    Mr. McFall: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what discussions he has had with the National Disability Council on possible additional functions for the council. [1704]
    Mr. Burt: I am grateful for the opportunity to clarify the National Disability Council's duties, particularly in the light of recent statements by the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) which suggested that the council can give advice only when asked to do so by Ministers. Since its creation in January 1996, the council has had the power to give advice on its own initiative, and it has done so on a number of issues, including the implementation of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. It has also consulted widely and proposed a code of practice on the rights of access to goods, facilities, services and premises, which was published in July this year. The council's annual report identifies its priorities
    144
    for the coming year, and details its ambitious work plan. There has therefore been no need to discuss extending the council's functions.
    Mr. McFall: Does the Minister agree that every organisation for the disabled in Britain realises that the council has weaknesses, that it needs to be strengthened and that employment matters affecting disabled people should not be treated separately from other issues affecting their lives? Non-discrimination and access to work are what disabled people want, and a stronger council is therefore essential.
    Mr. Burt: The question whether the National Advisory Council on Employment of People with Disabilities should retain its duty to advise the Secretary of State for Employment on matters relating to discrimination in employment was considered at the time of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are examining the matter; we expect to reach a conclusion some time next year, and changes may be made.
    There is no doubt that advice and information on discrimination in employment are already being passed to those who need that advice and information, but I nevertheless say to organisations for disabled people that they should wait and see in regard to the council's abilities. It is already doing good work, and I think that it is proving a number of people's expectations wrong.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: If the National Disability Council is as proactive as the Minister would have us believe, may I issue a specific challenge to him? Will he ask the council to investigate the outrageous discrimination that building societies are practising against disabled people. contrary to the spirit and letter of the Government's 1995 Act?
    In particular, will the Minister join me in deploring the actions of the Alliance and Leicester and Halifax building societies, which are refusing bonus shares to disabled people because they are represented by carers or by supervisors in residential homes? Is that not outrageous discrimination? Will the Minister confirm the council's impotence, or inactivity, by telling us whether it will investigate the matter? Yes or no?
    Mr. Burt: If there were prizes for huffing and puffing, the hon. Gentleman would be head and shoulders above the rest of us. I note that, in his opening remarks, he did not deny that my interpretation of the NDC's power was entirely contrary to what he has been saying in recent weeks. I hope that he will now withdraw his observations and apologise, because he got it wrong.
    As the hon. Gentleman will know, the building society issue has been a source of concern for some time, and my officials have made representations to the building societies' organisations. I shall be meeting representatives of the building societies tomorrow. Under existing legislation, it is possible for societies to make changes to their practices and procedures to ensure that disabled people are not subject to discrimination. If the NDC wishes to advise me and to make any representations in relation to building societies, it is free to do so. The hon. Gentleman should at least recognise that now, because he has had it wrong.

    State Pension
    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy to uprate the state pension in line with earnings. [1706]
    Mr. Lilley: No. If the basic state pension had been increased in line with earnings rather than prices since 1980, the extra cost to the taxpayer would be £7.5 billion.
    Mr. Corbyn: Does the Secretary of State recognise that, had the pension been raised in line with earnings rather than prices since that date, millions of pensioners would not have been robbed of a large proportion of their pensions? Many pensioners would not be living in the poverty in which they live, and future generations of pensioners would be able to look forward to some degree of security and reliability in their retirement rather than being prey to heavy selling by private pension organisations that charge up to 25 per cent. of contributions in administration costs, as well as making enormous profits.
    Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the community as a whole would be better off with a state pension on which every pensioner could live, rather than the poverty that many face?
    Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman is honest and open—as is Lady Castle—about his policies and is prepared to admit to their cost. I respect him for it. I respect rather less the leader of the Labour party and the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), the Labour spokeswoman, who rejected Lady Castle's policies at their party conference and simply bought off her supporters by making extremely expensive promises to include them in a review, concealing the likely cost of the exposed policies from the electorate.
    I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's statement about the preferability of state pensions over occupational pensions. I am delighted that two thirds of people retiring have occupational pensions. On average, those pensions are two thirds higher in real terms than when Labour were last in power.
    Mr. Atkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, since it has been in government, the Conservative party has met every pledge that it made to the electorate about keeping pensions in line with inflation and about doing our best to help elderly and senior citizens? Does he also agree that that policy will continue for as long as there is a Conservative Government and that we have a proud record, which we can go to the country with and fight on when the time comes?
    Mr. Lilley: My right hon. Friend is right and makes an important point. I hope that his remarks will be read and noted by all Britain's pensioners. We have fulfilled our pledge to uprate the basic pension at least in line with inflation. We have focused extra help on the least well-off pensioners through more than £1 billion more in pensions premiums for those on income support. We have encouraged the remarkable growth of occupational pensions to the point where we are better placed£not just than any other country in Europe, but than all other countries in Europe put together£to fund future pensions.
    Miss Hoey: Has the Secretary of State had time yet to consider the serious implications arising out of the Social
    146
    Security Select Committee report on unfunded pension liabilities in Europe? Will it be him or the Chancellor of the Exchequer who responds to our report?
    Mr. Lilley: I am considering the Select Committee report, which is important and makes the important point, which I have just made, that we have some £600 billion more to meet the liabilities to present and future pensioners, which is more than all other countries in the European Community. I will respond to that report in the normal way, within the three-month deadline that is allowed for thorough and proper consideration of the important issues that it raises.

    Basic Pension
    Mrs. Roe: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what changes he has made in his policy towards the basic pension since the last election; and if he will make a statement. [1707]
    Mr. Heald: We remain committed to maintaining the value of the basic pension, which will continue to be the foundation on which people can build retirement income.
    Mrs. Roe: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, if pensions had been uprated in line with earnings, as advocated by Baroness Castle, taxpayers would now be paying around £8 billion a year more? Does he agree that to buy off support for the proposal by promising an upward review of pensions in the next Parliament is bound to be cripplingly expensive, yet that is exactly what the Labour leader has done?
    Mr. Heald: At its conference, the Labour party bowed to trade unions and to Baroness Castle. It is clearly not ruling out restoring the earnings link or reversing our changes to the state earnings-related pension scheme. That could change the picture£which is so well described in the Social Security Select Committee's report£of the British pensions system as affordable by the year 2030 while others are not. Such a change would be worrying and irresponsible.
    Ms Lynne: Is the Minister aware that pensioners find it difficult to manage on a basic state pension and that £1 billion a year is not claimed in income-related benefit by the poorest pensioners who do not know what they are entitled to? Will the Minister consider introducing a take-up campaign to ensure that pensioners are aware of what they are entitled to because if they do not receive income support, they are not allowed to receive even cold weather payments?
    Mr. Heald: The Government are doing three things. They are maintaining the value of the basic pension, encouraging private provision and targeting help on people most in need—£1.2 billion a year extra since 1988. The hon. Lady is right to say that it is important that pensioners know what their entitlements are. We spend £26 million a year informing the public of the benefits available. We send out information to 80,000 information points—everything from citizens advice bureaux to doctors surgeries. In addition, we send our advisers to explain to pensioners groups what the entitlements are. No other strategy would work better than what we are doing.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: It is right to applaud the two thirds of pensioners who have occupational pensions, but there remains one third who do not have them. Will my hon. Friend confirm that Government policies will ensure that the incomes of those pensioners will be protected through the basic state pension? Will he further confirm that the last time those pensioners had a real devaluation in their spending power was between 1974 and 1979, when inflation let rip and those who had saved money from their wages during their working years found their savings greatly depleted due to the inflationary policies of the Labour Government?
    Mr. Heald: My hon. Friend is right. Under Labour, when inflation was running at 27 per cent., pensioners were robbed of the savings they had accumulated throughout their lives. The rise in state pensions during the whole of the period of the Labour Government was equivalent to the rise in average incomes for pensioners that this Government have produced every year since 1979. The Government's policies protect the interests of pensioners and I am sure that pensioners in my hon. Friend's constituency will appreciate that.
    Ms Harman: Does the Minister recognise that pensioners feel betrayed by the Government? They do not feel that the Government have protected their interests, because they have imposed VAT on gas and electricity, presided over the mis-selling of personal pensions, failed to get help to the 700,000 very poorest pensioners, forced pensioners to sell their homes to pay for nursing care, cut the value of SERPS and cut the value of the basic state pension. Is not that why pensioners will never again trust the Tories?
    Mr. Heald: The Labour party has had 17 years to think of something better than what the Government are doing. It thought through the Social Justice Commission, and the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) described it as the best bit of work since Beveridge£and then dropped it. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) was told to think the unthinkable, but he thought only the unaffordable and was moved on. Now, the policy of the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) is to think about it some more and have a review.
    Ideas such as the flexible decade of retirement—proposed by Labour—which would allow people to retire on a pension at 60 would mean £15 billion a year in additional costs or a reduction in the state pension to £40 a week. The hon. Lady should come clean and say which she is proposing.
    Mr. David Shaw: Will my hon. Friend assure me that Britain has the best balanced pension system in Europe, with a good balance between private and public pensions? Will he further assure me that the assets in our pension funds will not be used to meet the liabilities of pension funds in Europe?
    Mr. Heald: My hon. Friend is right to say that this country has a partnership between the private sector, the public sector and the individual. Over time, it is delivering huge increases in pensioners' incomes£not just for those with average pensions, but for the bottom 20 per cent. whose incomes have risen in real terms by 20 per cent.
    148
    since 1979. I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that we will ensure that we do not end up paying for other countries' pension liabilities.

    Incapacity Benefit
    Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many incapacity benefit claimants have been found to be fit for work by the all-work test since its introduction; how many of these have since claimed benefits as unemployed and seeking work; and how many have obtained employment. [1708]
    Mr. Burt: Up to the end of September 1996, about 178,000 incapacity benefit claimants had been found capable of work following the all-work test. Some 73,000 claimed unemployment benefits. A total of 47,000 have since left the register. About 10,000 were placed in employment or on training schemes by the Employment Service.
    Mr. Michie: Are not thousands of disabled people a great deal worse off now than they were 18 months ago due to the all-work test? Does not the fact that almost 50 per cent. of those who have appealed have been successful show that the test has not targeted those who really need the benefit?
    Mr. Burt: No. As I said, the number of people whose appeals are successful is very similar to the number who were successful using the social security appeal tribunal. As for incomes, perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not hear me earlier when I said that the Government have quadrupled spending on benefits. Those facts answer his charges. The Government have shown no meanness towards disabled people.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my hon. Friend tell us how many claimants succeed in appeal who do not succeed in their first application, and what the main reasons for that success might be?
    Mr. Burt: The reasons for success at appeal vary. People sometimes succeed at appeal because they are able to bring extra evidence to the tribunal; sometimes they succeed simply because the panel reconsiders the decision. The great strength of the system is that it enables an independent review to be conducted. In terms of the number of people who succeed in their appeals, the system is working in a manner that is not dissimilar to how it worked before.
    Mr. Alan Howarth: Does the Minister accept—not least because of the figures he has just given to the House—that there are well-founded apprehensions that people are falling between the two stools of receiving incapacity benefit and jobseeker's allowance, unable to find work and falling into destitution? In the interests of public confidence and the good functioning of the incapacity benefit system—as well as open government and an appropriate accountability of the Executive to Parliament—will he make available for scrutiny by Parliament the draft contract for contracting out the Benefits Agency medical service?
    Mr. Burt: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that we have hardly any evidence of people—as he described

    149
    them—falling between the stools. The answer to a parliamentary question tabled by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) revealed that only a tiny percentage of people who applied for the jobseeker's allowance did not receive it after they had been knocked off incapacity benefit, and that they were unsuccessful only because they had placed restrictions on their employment. A range of measures has been designed to make it easy for disabled people who may have lost incapacity benefit to retain benefit. I think that the hon. Gentleman will be reassured by the fact that we have asked the Policy Studies Institute to conduct a review of those who leave incapacity benefit so that we can ensure that some of the worries that he expressed are not realised.
    More information will be made available about the contractorisation of the Benefits Agency medical service. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will find that his questions will be answered, as they have been up to now.

    State Pension
    Mr. Evennett: To ask the Secretary of Srate for Social Security what work he has commissioned from the Government Actuary to examine the cost of allowing people to claim a full state pension at 60 years. [1709]
    Mr. Lilley: The cost of allowing people to draw their pension at age 60 would be an extra £15 billion per year.
    Mr. Evennett: I thank my right hon. Friend for that very informative reply. Does he agree that such a proposal would require huge increases in taxation, or a reduction in the value of the pension? Furthermore, is he aware that the Labour party is merely trying to lure pensioners with those promises? But pensioners will not be fooled. They know that they have had a very good deal under the Government, and they will stick with us.
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is right: the Opposition's policy is to allow people to draw their pension at age 60. The cost of doing so would be an extra £15 billion, unless the level of the basic pension were reduced. The former Opposition spokesman used to refuse to tell me which option they would choose. Imagine my astonishment, therefore, when the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) wrote to me to say:
    "we anticipate … a lower level of basic state pension."
    She went on to say that she would ask the Government Actuary's Department by how much the basic state pension would have to be cut to eliminate the cost to taxpayers. I have asked the Government Actuary for her. He says that the basic state pension would have to be cut by £20 for a single person for the rest of their life.
    Mr. Denham: Why is the Secretary of State wasting the time of the Government Actuary's Department by asking what the cost of retirement on a full state pension would be at 60, when no political party is making that proposal? Is this not another example of civil servants' time being wasted on party-political propaganda? Instead, why does he not accept the growing case for flexibility in the state retirement age? Why does he insist on a one-size-fits-all welfare state when different people want to live their lives in different ways? Why should not people have some choice in the way in which they take
    150
    the pension benefits that they have paid for? As long as personal choice is not subsidised by others, and no one needs to be worse off, why does he want to stop people having the right to choose when they draw their pension?
    Mr. Lilley: I asked the Government Actuary to cost Labour's proposal of allowing people to retire at 60 because the hon. Member for Peckham wrote to me suggesting that I did. It is wrong to suggest that Labour's policy would give pensioners more flexibility than ours does. At present and in future, anyone who defers retiring by a year can increase their pension by 7 per cent. for the rest of their life; deferring for two years leads to an increase of 14 per cent., and so on. The only difference in Labour's proposals is that pensioners would start with a basic pension £20 lower.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Janner: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 November. [1726]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Janner: Why is the Prime Minister so determined that people who work in this country should have no statutory minimum holiday rights, while also having no statutory maximum working hours, meaning that they can be forced to work more than 48 hours a week contrary to their wishes? Is not that an unjust, unreasonable and typically Tory policy, going against even their own alleged policy of supporting family rights?
    The Prime Minister: I shall tell the hon. and learned Gentleman crisply; Britain wants good jobs, not worthless directives.
    Mr. Hawkins: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 November. [1727]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hawkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a huge contrast between yesterday's excellent news of British Aerospace's success in winning the large Hawk order from Australia, which will guarantee British jobs, and the dismay felt by many British businesses at today's news of the adverse European ruling on the 48-hour week? Will he reassure British business that he will do all that he can to resist that Euro-measure, which will undermine the competitive edge of British business and is an adverse decision by a political court?
    The Prime Minister: Australia's selection of British Aerospace to supply Hawks is the latest illustration of the keen competitiveness of British industry generally and the British aerospace industry in particular.

    151
    I think that not only will today's European Court of Justice ruling damage the prospects of job creation, should it not be reversed; it has disappointed British business men, as they have made clear repeatedly this morning at the Confederation of British Industry. The position is unacceptable. We cannot agree that our competitiveness should be undermined in this way. Were we to do so, it would clearly be the thin end of the wedge—to judge from what the European Commissioner has said this morning. I have made it clear to the President of the Commission that I shall insist on changes at the intergovernmental conference to ensure that the social protocol will never again be undermined by the presentation of social measures, falsely, under the guise of health and safety.
    Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister now answer the question asked by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner)? Quite apart from Europe, why is he so opposed to a law that says that people are perfectly free to work more than 48 hours a week, but cannot be compelled to, and gives them minimum holiday entitlements? Is he going to fight the next election on the basis of, "vote Tory for no right to a holiday"?
    The Prime Minister: Yet again, the right hon. Gentleman is in danger of missing the point. Unemployment is falling as we become more competitive. The directive could reverse that trend and similar directives could push unemployment up, instead of it continuing to fall. I am not prepared to accept that. I want jobs, not directives. I want Britain to continue to create jobs and unemployment to continue to fall. I do not want to place more burdens on business so that unemployment either remains stuck at a very high level or rises from that very high level as it has in other European countries. Competitiveness will create jobs. I want people to be in work. Presumably, the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to keep them out of work.
    Mr. Blair: Perhaps the Prime Minister can tell us of a successful company in Britain that does not give its work force a holiday.
    Hon. Members: Exactly.
    Madam Speaker: Order. Stop shouting and barracking, for goodness' sake. I want to hear the questions and the answers.
    Mr. Blair: If the directive is so dreadful, why did the Minister not vote against it when he had the chance to do so? May we be clear about the Government's position at the intergovernmental conference? Will the Prime Minister confirm that his position is this: all member states must agree at the outset of the conference that no progress will be made on any change proposed by any country in respect of any issue until the directive is reversed? Is that his position?
    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman's first point was correct, why do we need the directive? He made precisely the Government's point. Such directives pile burdens on business and they are bound to undermine our economic success. Their damage to the fruits of our economic success will affect the extra resources that we
    152
    are providing to the health service, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will set out in a White Paper tomorrow. They will damage the provision of opportunity for all four-year-olds to have nursery education, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment will set out tomorrow. I am not prepared to allow the product of years of good, sound economic management to be undermined by regulation from Brussels. I shall tell the right hon. Gentleman precisely what the position is at the intergovernmental conference: it is exactly the same as it was on the social chapter at Maastricht. I shall not accept what has been determined by the court today and, at the end of the intergovernmental conference, I shall demand that change or there will be no end to the intergovernmental conference.
    Mr. Blair: So it will be at the end of the intergovernmental conference—which will, conveniently, be after the election. We can hear escape routes being planned already. Is it not back to beef when, five months on, the Government have not even got the gelatine ban lifted? It is the same old pattern. They seize on an issue, they talk tough, they alienate everybody and then they cave in. May I suggest that the law that gives people the right to a minimum holiday is not the issue upon which to launch beef war mark 2?
    The Prime Minister: Saving British jobs is the issue upon which to draw the line. The right hon. Gentleman may be prepared to live in an area of high unemployment. Unemployment in Britain is falling—I want it to come down much further—but prescriptive directives from Brussels will stop that. We shall seek treaty change, without which there will be no conclusion to the intergovernmental conference. I shall not accept the nonsense that the right hon. Gentleman has been talking about the directive without understanding its impact on British companies. I have written today to the President of the Commission to make clear that we are tabling our proposals for a change in the treaty, and we shall expect that change to be agreed.
    Mr. Luff: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 November. [1728]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Luff: In the light of the demolition by the Confederation of British Industry of the case for a so-called windfall tax on the privatised utilities, will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to reassure the House that he will not make it his policy to impose such a tax? Does he agree that the effect of such a tax on the prices of shares held by trade unions and other pension funds would, in fact, be a tax on pensioners—to say nothing about the disastrous effects on consumers through higher prices?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is of course right. A windfall tax would hit consumers; it would hit shareholders; it would hit employees. It is a tax not on utilities but on jobs, pensions and people's utility bills. The shadow Chancellor either cannot or still will not tell the House which privatised companies would pay,

    153
    how much they would pay and how he would stop investment and customers being hit. If he wants professional advice as to what such a tax might mean, perhaps he might go home and seek it. He ought to tell the House exactly what he proposes. His silence means that the only thing that we know for sure is that Labour would put up taxes and is keeping quiet about just how much the increase would be.
    Sir David Steel: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 November. [1731]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Sir David Steel: May I refer the right hon. Gentleman back to the negotiations that took place over the European directive? If he looks at Hansard, he will find that, on 7 July 1992, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment boasted to the House that
    "the United Kingdom secured all its key objectives, in particular the right for employees to work for more than 48 hours a week if they choose to do so."—[Official Report, 7 July 1992; Vol. 211, c. 175.]
    In a word, she said, "We have won." Was she not right? If they won, why are they going to war over something that they did not even vote against?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend did get significant exclusions—that is true—but the directive is damaging. We made it clear from the outset that we would seek a change in the European Court and that we would then seek to have the directive's impact reversed. The right hon. Gentleman should realise two things. First, this is a damaging directive. Secondly, if we were to accept this directive under that treaty head, it would be but the first of many others, as was implicitly made clear by the European Commissioner this morning. I am concerned to ensure that we protect our jobs and our competitiveness. All over Europe—[Interruption.] Hon. Members do not like it. There are 18 million unemployed people across Europe. Elsewhere in Europe, they are staying unemployed; here, they are getting back into work. That is why we will not accept such legislation.
    Mr. Lamont: Surely the real issue is not whether what the Leader of the Opposition says is right or wrong or whether the working time directive is right or wrong, but whether the matter ought to be decided in Brussels or by the elected Government of this country. What is the point in holding elections if the elected Government cannot carry out the policies on which they were elected?
    The Prime Minister: I have no objection at all to businesses and their employees reaching whatever agreement they wish on working hours. That is entirely right in a properly functioning competitive economy. Like
    154
    my right hon. Friend, what I object to in principle is working conditions being dictated from Brussels when they should be determined here, in this House. Other European countries can accept that if they wish, but they cannot then complain if businesses relocate from the rest of Europe to here as a result—like the 1,200 that Le Figaro reported last week have relocated from France to here. As Le Figaro said:
    "Why stay in France if conditions for entrepreneurs are better in Britain?"
    I do not want that said of Britain. That is why we are determined to keep the right measures to create jobs for our citizens in the future.
    Mr. Rooney: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 November. [1732]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Rooney: Will the Prime Minister tell the House why he favours a free vote on caning but not on gun control?
    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman thinks the question of gun control is appropriate for a free vote, I do not agree with him. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] The Government considered the Cullen report, we made a judgment on the right way to implement it and we propose to stand by that judgment, lay it before the House of Commons and invite it to support us.
    Mr. Alexander: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 November. [1733]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Alexander: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the by-election result on Thursday to Newark and Sherwood district council? The Conservative candidate, Mr. Bryan Richardson, took the seat from Labour with a swing of 5.8 per cent. May 1 put it to my right hon. Friend that results such as that are far more typical of support in the country than the public opinion polls, and that if we continue with sensible policies my right hon. Friend is on course for a record fifth Conservative victory?
    The Prime Minister: I congratulate Mr. Richardson on his win, although I am assured by the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, my hon. Friend, the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell), that we have taken seats with even larger swings elsewhere in Nottinghamshire in the past two or three weeks. What we are seeing, if I may put it this way, is Conservatives coming home.

Working Time Directive
3.31 pm
The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian Lang): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the working time directive.
The Court of Justice of the European Communities has today given its judgment in the proceedings that we brought to have Council directive 93/104/EC—the "working time directive"—annulled. That directive derives its origins and impetus from the 1989 Community charter of the fundamental social rights of workers, to which the United Kingdom did not subscribe then, and does not now.
The directive was adopted by the Council at a meeting on 23 November 1993 and was forced on the United Kingdom through the use of the qualified majority voting procedure, by being adopted by the European Council under article 118A of the treaty establishing the European Community, which relates to the health and safety of workers. It is due to be implemented on 23 November.
A common position on the proposals for the directive had been reached by Social and Labour Affairs Ministers at a meeting on 1 June 1993. At that meeting, the United Kingdom announced its intention to challenge the directive's legal base. Our legal challenge was mounted in March 1994.
The directive's main provisions include limiting the working week to an average of 48 hours; putting various restrictions on the length of night work; and giving employees entitlements to minimum daily and weekly rest periods and to a period of paid annual leave. Our case before the court was essentially that those are matters relating to terms and conditions of employment, which should be settled by employers and employees, and not truly health and safety at work matters.
The court has now delivered its judgment and I am arranging for the text of the judgment to be placed in the Library.
The court has in essence confirmed the Advocate General's earlier opinion that the directive was properly adopted under article 118A of the treaty. That is not what was envisaged when we agreed to article 118A as a health and safety provision. We shall therefore insist that the intergovernmental conference addresses the issues that the European Court of Justice judgment raises. That means both ensuring that the working time directive no longer affects the United Kingdom, and securing measures to prevent any other "social engineering" directives being forced on the United Kingdom by similar manoeuvres.
The use of article 118A in that fashion wholly undermines the spirit of our opt-out from the social chapter, as agreed at Maastricht. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already told the House, he has today written to President Jacques Santer making clear in the most unequivocal terms our proposals to correct the position. A copy of the letter has been placed in the Library.
In his letter, my right hon. Friend makes clear the fact that the broad interpretation of article 118A implied by the judgment goes directly counter to the spirit of what we agreed at Maastricht. It is unacceptable and must be remedied.
156
My right hon. Friend has therefore made it clear that at the IGC the Government will table amendments aimed at ensuring that article 118A cannot in future be used as it has been on this occasion, and at dealing with the specific problem of the working time directive. The Government have affirmed that, as my right hon. Friend also said in his letter, we attach the utmost importance to such amendments, and will insist that they form part of the outcome of the intergovernmental conference.
In the meantime, of course, we have no option but to obey the law until we secure the necessary treaty changes. But we shall legislate to implement the directive only after carrying out proper and necessary public consultation on the issues and options. In doing so, we shall aim to take advantage of the valuable derogations already secured during our negotiations on the directive. We are determined to preserve the flexibility in labour matters which has been such an important element in the revival of our economy over recent years. British industry would expect us to do no less.
Before the Maastricht negotiations, the use of qualified majority voting was agreed by member states for genuine matters concerning health and safety at work. Never for a moment was it envisaged that those arrangements could properly be applied to what we would always regard as social measures, including the general regulation of working time, rest periods and holidays.
We have always been fully committed to protections needed to ensure good health and safety standards for British and other European workers. But employers and employees should also be free to agree terms and conditions—including arrangements for working time, rest breaks and holidays—that meet their particular circumstances and needs. We reject the imposition on industry of unnecessary requirements that cannot but damage competitiveness and jobs. and we consider that the directive would be the thin end of a wedge that would lead to more such burdens.
Because the working time directive is incompatible with those principles, and because of what appeared to be the improper use of procedures to force it through, we had no option but to bring proceedings to have it annulled. Avoiding unnecessary burdens on British businesses remains at the top of the Government's agenda. So we firmly intend to close the loophole that allowed the working time directive through, and to restore the rights of British companies and their employees to reach on such matters agreements that reflect the requirements of their particular circumstances.
The competitiveness of our industry is the key to economic success, employment and prosperity. We are not prepared to have it unnecessarily trammelled, as it would be by the judgment.
Mrs. Margaret Beckett: The Secretary of State said that the directive had been forced on the United Kingdom through the use of the qualified majority voting procedure. First, will he confirm that it was the present Government who accepted the introduction of qualified majority voting and diluted the British veto? So is it not a bit late to complain about that now? Secondly, will he acknowledge that the directive has been under debate since 1990, before the social chapter was even drafted, and that negotiations on it were completed before the Maastricht treaty was signed?

157
If the Government genuinely believe that the directive cuts across their opt-out from the social chapter and raises issues that they thought that they had settled, why did the Prime Minister not raise the matter at the previous intergovernmental conference, where those matters were discussed, before the directive went on to the statute book? Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government failed even to vote against it, that this procedure has been used similarly in respect of the protection of young workers and of maternity leave—legislation that has now been implemented—and that the Government's own negotiator said that the directive was toothless and that, as has been pointed out before, the Government had won in the negotiations?
Why have the Government wasted three years on a court case which, given the background, they were always likely to lose, when member states have a great deal of discretion in the way in which they implement the directive to allow for shift systems and other practical implications, and when the Government could have used that time to work with British industry on the handling of a measure that will now become law next week`' How much taxpayers' money has been spent, as I understand that costs have been awarded against the Government?
Is this not simply another example of the Government's posturing on Europe, whereby—as they did in respect of bovine spongiform encephalopathy—they begin with neglect, proceed to posturing, and end up having to cave in, having lost friends, respect and the argument along the way? Given that what stands out a mile is that, if the Government mean it, they have made a mess of it, will not the President of the Board of Trade admit that what shines clearly through the wording of the Government's previous statements on this subject and their handling of the matter is their dislike of the substance of the directive?
Will the Secretary of State admit that the directive does not outlaw voluntary overtime and that it has a string of exemptions as long as one's arm to allow for any practical problems? Are the Government really saying that there should be no protection at all against being forced to work long hours and no provision for reasonable breaks? Is it not true that the Department of Health admitted last year that it had destroyed copies of a Government-financed study that found that working more than 48 hours a week doubles the risk of heart disease? Is it not true that Professor Harrington's report, which the Government used in their case, shows that this is a health and safety matter and that, contrary to Government claims, the proposed norm is not unreasonable—and that the Government refuse to release that report, too?
Last, but by no means least, are the Government really arguing that British citizens should, alone in Europe, have no legal right whatever to any paid holidays—something that would directly benefit 2.5 million members of the work force? Now that the Prime Minister has pledged that those holiday rights will be taken away if he is re-elected, is that not another powerful reason to vote against this Government at the next election?
Mr. Lang: It is the Government's view that holidays are a matter that should be negotiated between employers and employees. The provisions affecting employment conditions contained in the directive—which cover many matters other than holidays, including the length of the working week, the range of shift patterns, daily and weekly breaks, and other issues—should be resolved at
158
work by employers and employees, not handed down from Brussels and imposed on the United Kingdom in a way that is contrary to our economic interests.
The right hon. Lady referred to qualified majority voting. The point is that article 118A was used precisely to achieve the directive through qualified majority voting, because we had secured an opt-out from the social chapter. Yesterday, the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) proudly proclaimed to the Confederation of British Industry that Labour would not approve any more qualified majority voting, yet the Labour party wants to sign up to the social chapter and wants to accept the working time directive through qualified majority voting.
The right hon. Lady asked about abstention. At the negotiations, part of our purpose was to secure the best possible set of derogations and flexibilities for the benefit of the British people. That was secured, in the context of which an agreement to abstain took place. At the same time, we made it clear that we would challenge this case in the court, and that is what we subsequently did.
The right hon. Lady referred to overtime. Absolutely no effect on overtime arises from the directive—that is another typical Labour scare. The directive is about working hours and working conditions. The right hon. Lady suggests that we do not care about health and safety provisions. Under the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1992, employers are required to take into account hazards such as fatigue when developing employment conditions.
The right hon. Lady also referred to health. Professor Harrington's report, which, as we have always made clear, could be published only after the case had concluded, states that the scientific basis for establishing optimal hours of work is in doubt. It adds that it is impossible to be dogmatic on scientific grounds about the maximum hours to be working each week, and states that there is no firm scientific basis for setting a specific numerical lower limit.
Is it not a fact that the Labour party wants to accept the working time directive and to impose the social chapter, because it welcomes the imposition of those burdens by Brussels on employers and companies in this country? It has no compunction whatever about piling burdens on business. The Labour party is afraid to stand up for an issue of principle in Europe and would compromise the competitiveness of British industry. We have achieved a Britain that is the enterprise centre of Europe and we are determined to ensure that it stays that way.
Mr. John Biffen: May I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and in so doing commend the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) about the importance of developing national institutions for guarding and developing what are essentially national issues? In that context, is it not clear that the price for European partnership cannot be purchased by the danegeld of recurring European bureaucracy, recurring European integration and, above all, long-term aspirations for European uniformity? Will my right hon. Friend convey those homespun comments to his friends at the intergovernmental conference?
Mr. Lang: I shall gladly convey my right hon. Friend's comments; he is right to put his finger on the recurring

159
nature of the problem identified by the working time directive. It is not merely the directive with which we are threatened, damaging though that would be to British industry. There is also the social chapter—two of the directives under that are already in place and many more are under consideration, discussion or negotiation. It is clear that the Labour party would accept all of them. It is what is coming down that pipeline that would be so damaging to us. This directive would be the thin end of the wedge and that is why we are right to stand on principle and to insist that, as was agreed at Maastricht, those are matters that should be decided by us and not by Brussels.
Mr. Nick Harvey: Why are the Government so keen for Britain to compete economically by making employees work longer hours and miss out on the holiday entitlement that our European competitors are prepared to grant? As Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, does not the right hon. Gentleman have the confidence that the British economy is strong enough for us to compete on the quality and innovation of our goods and services? Do we not have higher priorities at the IGC on which to use what is left of Britain's bargaining position and credit in Europe, rather than trying to jettison such a measure, which the majority of the British people will regard as a sensible guarantee against abuse in the workplace?
Mr. Lang: The best way to secure good working conditions for the British work force is to have a successful economy, growing, expanding and creating jobs. If one compares our unemployment rate of 7.4 per cent. with the rate of more than 10 per cent. in Germany, more than 12 per cent. in France and more than 20 per cent. in Spain, one begins to see the contrast between our approach, of a flexible labour force seeking to be competitive, and the burdens imposed on all those countries in Europe, which are so damaging their economic performance.
Sir Michael Neubert: Is not the problem for the rest of Europe the fact that, as Jacques Delors correctly predicted, with our flexible labour laws, Britain has become a paradise for investment? Is not the essential and inescapable point that we are part of a world market? Our competitors overseas must be rubbing their hands with glee to see Europe tying itself in knots over this issue.
Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is right. The very fact that we secure 30 per cent. of all the inward investment coming to Europe, including 40 per cent. of that from the United States of America and Japan, shows the contrast between our approach to competitiveness and that of our European counterparts. More tellingly, the fact that 300 German companies are now manufacturing in Britain underlines the fact that we have the right approach to those matters.
Mr. Peter Shore: I am in favour of the sensible limitation of working hours, but there is no doubt in my mind that legislation affecting social conditions, including working hours, is a matter for
160
this Parliament and not for the European Council of Ministers or the European Court of Justice. However, is the Minister not aware that the great chink in our armour turns out to be acceptance of qualified majority voting over a wide area of European affairs—an agreement reached under the Single European Act and passed by the former Conservative Government? Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the big threat to our competitiveness is not the virtually empty social charter, but the danger that Britain will find itself part of a single currency in Europe?
Mr. Lang: The real danger would come from a Labour Government willing to accept all these social imposts—through the social chapter, the working time directive, and all the other burdens that could be imposed through article 118A under health and safety considerations. We must resist that in order to remain competitive.
Sir Michael Spicer: As the Prime Minister accepted earlier, this is a question not so much of the details of the directive but of whether this country is to be ruled by an unelected court or by Parliament. Will my right hon. Friend say a little more about what the Government intend to do about that?
Mr. Lang: I agree with my hon. Friend. That is why, in the Maastricht treaty negotiations, the Prime Minister secured the opt-out, which was designed to protect us from the kind of social burdens now being sent down through the back door via article 118A. My right hon. Friend has made it clear that, at the IGC, we shall insist that this matter is dealt with and that the spirit of the social opt-out is honoured. He also made it clear that no progress on other issues can be made at that conference until this is agreed.
Mr. Giles Radice: Is it not out of all proportion for the Government to say that they will block the outcome of the IGC and damage relations with our European partners for a measure that the director general of the CBI said today will not substantially change current working patterns, and which the Government did not even vote against in the Council of Ministers?
Mr. Lang: This is an issue of principle: whether the social opt-out agreed at Maastricht should be sustained and honoured, or whether it will be abused and circumvented. It is not just the impact of the working time directive; there are other proposals under the social chapter and under the medium-term social action programme being developed by Commissioner Flynn. We know that the Labour party would accept all those measures; that would be immensely damaging to this country and would remove our capacity, as a country and a Parliament, to be responsible for working conditions.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if a health and safety measure will have a serious impact on reducing casualties at work, it should not be made optional? If it is said to be optional, the case that it concerns health and safety is given away.
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the directive will not apply to most people who are paid salaries, and that it could really apply only to those who are paid hourly? Will he find out whether European

161
Commissioners, senior officials in Brussels and, for that matter, members of the European Court of Justice work more than 48 hours a week—and what their health records are?
Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is clear that the relationship between working hours and health and safety is at best unproven. We defer to no other country in our commitment to having in place sound, relevant health and safety provisions. Indeed, we already have them under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 and the 1992 regulations. The head of the EU's representation in the United Kingdom has already emphasised the progress on flexibilities developed in the negotiations; and it is clear that the final state of the directive bears no relation to health and safety considerations. It is in fact a piece of social engineering.
Mr. Martin O'Neill: On health and safety, do not the Government have a good case in respect of offshore workers, for whom the dangers are twofold? A reduction in working hours would require more helicopter flights and the development of new and high-quality safety habits. So why have the Government been so singularly inept in advancing those two strong arguments? Is it because they are so isolated in Europe that even when they have a good case, they cannot advance it because no one wants to listen to them?
Mr. Lang: There are already exemptions in the directive, one of which includes offshore workers. Commissioner Flynn made it clear today that he intends to bring out a White Paper to reduce the exemptions, to tighten the ratchet and to diminish the derogations and easements available. We are right to stand firm on the principle and to insist on reversing the position and restoring our capacity to control our own employment conditions.
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the importance of this court judgment has nothing to do with how many hours may be worked in Britain; rather, it has to do with who makes the laws, this House or a foreign jurisdiction? As my right hon. Friend has rightly promised to see off the directive by treaty change, and as that treaty change will require the agreement of all other member states, we shall have to invest a huge amount of negotiating capital to achieve that. Why has my right hon. Friend such a narrow objective? Will he not use this opportunity also to see off the innumerable other ways in which the powers of this House have already been lost to the European legal system, and tell us what other directives and measures he will seek to repeal?
Mr. Lang: I agree with the premise to my right hon. Friend's question. With regard to the question, my present responsibility is confined to the directive, but I shall convey his views to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I am sure that the lesson will be learnt by our partners in Europe from our commitment to ensuring that the position is reversed.
Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the Secretary of State agree that the flexibility in working hours that enables employers and employees to deliver projects on
162
time against competition is making our industry successful? Does he further agree that, instead of interfering with what is making Britain prosperous, the European auditors would be far better employed doing something about the billions of pounds' worth of fraud that goes on every year undetected?
Mr. Lang: I am glad to agree with the hon. Gentleman on both points.
Mr. Tim Rathbone: Will my right hon. Friend remind the House that the Government are responsible for the safety, health and well-being of work people in this country? Does he accept that the great worry is not the directive but, following on the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Biffen), the precedent for the future that must be guarded against?
Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is right. That would be the thin end of the wedge. That is why we are determined to close the loophole, as well as reversing the effect of the working time directive.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Why does the President of the Board of Trade consistently give incorrect and misleading statements to the House? Surely there is no social chapter in the Union treaty signed at Maastricht. There is, however, a subsection headed "social policy" in the Single European Act passed in 1986.
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that in the Union treaty of Maastricht there is a social agreement? That agreement contains no list of legislation to be put before the signatory countries or this House. It is a means of promoting social legislation, which is then put to the Commission and goes through the usual channels of the articles of the treaty and the legislative processes already established. Are not all those facts correct? Why do the Government continue to make statements that are inaccurate and misleading?
Mr. Lang: I am sure that I have not deliberately made any inaccurate or misleading statements. The social chapter is, indeed, a conduit through which directives can be introduced. That is what concerned us about it. The vast majority of such directives would be governed by qualified majority voting and would be imposed on this country. That is why we secured the opt-out, why it is so valuable to us and why we so strongly resist the intentions of the Labour party to sign the social chapter.
Sir Ivan Lawrence: Is it not clear that the essence of the court verdict has nothing to do with holiday rights or health and safety, but that once again the British Parliament is being told what to do by a foreign court? That decision was taken following a decision made by the European Commission with the supine support of members of the Council of Ministers who have economic interests in Britain being brought low and not being left in the high economic plane where it is. That decision was made in thoroughly bad faith. Is it not time that we told the European Commission and the Council of Ministers that if we are not to get fair play, and if the rights of nation states are not to be honoured, we are prepared to leave the European Union?
Mr. Lang: I agree with every word of the preamble to my hon. and learned Friend's question. However, as to

163
our negotiating tactics at the intergovernmental conference, we are correct to take the position set out by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in his letter to President Jacques Santer and to insist that no progress will be made until we have secured the opt-out that we require.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Does the President of the Board of Trade recall that he is a vice-president of the European Movement in Scotland and that he did not argue against the Single European Act, which has led to many of the directives that we discuss in this House?
As to the serious issue of the intergovernmental conference, is the right hon. Gentleman saying, as did the Prime Minister earlier today, that the 48-hour directive will become the critical factor in discussions regarding the IGC's progress? Despite its flexibility, the time scale for implementation and the existing derogations, will that issue now take priority over discussions about matters such as the common fisheries policy—which is very important both to my constituents and to those of the right hon. Gentleman? Will the Government delay those important negotiations for something that is not generally opposed throughout the country?
Mr. Lang: First, I should correct the hon. Lady: I ceased to be an honorary vice-president of the European Movement when I ceased to be Secretary of State for Scotland.
On the hon. Lady's question, she may regard it as an unimportant matter, but we believe that it is a fundamental issue that goes to the heart of the Government's economic policy. Because we have achieved flexible labour markets, become more competitive and increased productivity, we have attained the expansion and the growth in our economy that have created falling unemployment for four years, while unemployment has risen in other countries. There are other important issues to be addressed at the intergovernmental conference, but this is the issue that matters to the Government and we intend to insist upon it.
Dr. Michael Clark: What value will my right hon. Friend place on opt-outs and agreements reached with our so-called European partners in future? Does he believe that he is dealing with honourable and trustworthy people?
Mr. Lang: I do not think that the European Parliament comes into the equation, except to the extent that there are many Labour Members of the European Parliament. [HON. MEMBERS: "European partners."] I am sorry, I misheard my hon. Friend—which makes it difficult to answer his question.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is it not nothing short of sheer hypocrisy for the Tory Government to say that it is all right for Members of Parliament to have 11 weeks' holiday in the summer, but it is wrong for British workers to have three weeks' paid holiday in a year? As one who opposed the Common Market long before those Johnny-come-latelys on the Tory Benches, I have an idea: if the President of the Board of Trade does not like the Common Market directive, the Government should bring in a Bill tomorrow allowing British workers to have those holidays, and we on the Labour Benches shall push it
164
through in 24 hours. However, I suspect that this lousy, rotten Tory Government are more concerned about the class war than the Common Market.
Mr. Lang: The best way to secure good holidays for British workers is to ensure that they have good, successful, well-paid jobs. There is nothing more damaging to workers' holiday prospects than the possibility of losing their jobs, and that is what would happen if we were to accept the outcome of the directive.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a very sad and serious day for Britain? Has not this judgment once more undermined the sovereignty of our Parliament and proved that we cannot rely upon the good faith of our European partners? Is it not time to reintroduce the tactic of non-co-operation, which met with the approval of the entire Tory party when it was last used and was recommended by the former Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), who described it as being a "legitimate tactic within Europe"? Let us use it again and show that we are serious.
Mr. Lang: Let me assure my hon. Friend that we are indeed serious. I agree that the breach of good faith is the most telling aspect of the whole matter, and it is the one that most requires us to react to it.
As for non-co-operation, I believe that the proposition that I have put before the House—that we should go to the intergovernmental conference insisting that the matter be addressed and that our requirements be met—is the right approach. It is a robust, strong, focused and measured approach and it will achieve results.
Mr. Robin Corbett: Does not the Secretary of State understand that the twins of long hours and low pay—they almost inevitably go together—become triplets, with excessive rates of accidents and illness, as a result of working excessive hours? How on earth can he stand at the Dispatch Box and say to people who work in Britain that they must put up with fewer rights than people have anywhere in the rest of Europe?
Mr. Lang: We have health and safety regulations and legislation that require account to be taken of the hazards that workers face in their place of business, and we do not need Europe imposing further regulations on us. The best way of preserving jobs, with people working in secure and safe circumstances, is to have successful, profitable companies run by efficient, reliable employers who take account of the needs of their work force.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a very large majority of the people of this country, and companies in this country, are sick to death of the decisions of the European Court of political manipulation, which have nothing to do with justice at all or the strength of the case? Bearing that in mind, I ask my right hon. Friend to ignore the decision of the court and not to implement it, but to bring about a change at the IGC, as the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend promised. Surely the House must be sovereign.
Mr. Lang: I agree with many of the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend, but I hope that he will agree

165
that the House should not seek to disobey the law. We obey the law until we can secure a change in it, and we are determined to secure that change in the law through lawful means.
Mr. Michael Clapham: If the Government are so genuine in their opposition to the working time directive, can the Secretary of State tell us why the Coal Industry Act 1992, introduced by his Department, provided for the repeal of the Coal Mines Regulation Act 1908, which limited hours in the mining industry, to be replaced by the working time directive? Can he say how much other legislation his Department has passed which embraces the working time directive?
Mr. Lang: I am not aware of the details to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but as the working time directive has not yet come into force—it does not come into force until 23 November—I am somewhat sceptical about the point that he makes.
Mr. John Sykes: The President of the Board of Trade will know that I speak as a northern manufacturer. Why does he think that workers in my factory should be obliged to suffer the agonies of European-style unemployment because the 48-hour week has made products in my company uncompetitive? Surely companies have to work when the work is there, not when some unelected Commissioner says that it is there. Is not the darkest irony the fact that yesterday we all paid tribute to those who gave their lives in two world wars so that we might govern ourselves, yet today we find ourselves at the mercy and diktat of foreign courts?
Mr. Lang: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that it is quite unacceptable that the Commission should decide in Brussels what the working conditions should be in this country, which are properly the preserve of this country and should be negotiated at the workplace by employers and employees.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Does not the President of the Board of Trade accept that people will be astounded that the Government's key priority in the IGC at the moment is not to sort out the BSE problem or to help the fishermen; it is based on preventing people from having an entitlement to holidays, or on unscrupulous employers being able to insist on people working more than 48 hours a week? Is not the argument about competitiveness with the countries of south-east Asia totally spurious? Are we now basing the social policy of the United Kingdom on the child labour regimes of those countries? Is not that totally unacceptable?
Mr. Lang: There are many important issues to be discussed at the IGC, but this one is fundamental. We believe that there has been a breach of good faith, which has destroyed the impact of the opt-out that we achieved on the social chapter. We accepted in good faith the undertakings given by the other members of the European Union.
We regard this matter as extremely important. For the hon. Gentleman to suggest that competitiveness with the countries of south-east Asia is irrelevant shows how out of touch he is. because it is extremely important for us to
166
be competitive on a global basis. The global competitiveness that this country has achieved has been the secret of rising employment, falling unemployment and economic success.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many large companies in west Norfolk already offer excellent pay and conditions, which are far better than those envisaged by the directive? They regard it as a gross insult to be lectured to by the European Court. Is he also aware that a number of small firms in the tourist and leisure industry in west Norfolk will lose out because of the directive, and will probably have to make people redundant? What message does he have for those small firms?
Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is right. Organisations that represent small businesses have made it clear that they believe that the directive will damage their members' interests. Burdens will undoubtedly be imposed—not least the bureaucratic burdens of compiling and maintaining records—which will add substantially to the costs of small businesses, and will cost jobs.
Mr. Ken Purchase: Does not the Minister use the techniques of cant and hypocrisy when he says that employers and employees should be free to reach agreements? In the past 17 years, the Government have emasculated the trade unions, and created an imbalance of power in companies. The agreements—purely as they are—would have been met years ago if properly prepared and constructed trade unions had enjoyed the confidence of the Government. Instead of that, the Government take a 19th-century view of working conditions. It is appropriate to meet that with a 19th-century quotation: "The Conservatives will do everything possible to help the workers, except get off their backs."
Mr. Lang: There speaks the voice of old Labour. The Government's industrial relations legislation has created a rule of law that did not previously exist, and has introduced democracy into the trade union movement. As a consequence, members of trade unions have had better-paid jobs and better working conditions than they had before.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the contortions through which our so-called partners have gone to produce this result show how shabby they have been, even by their standards? Does that not also show that, after 25 years of membership, the terms on which we are in Europe are unacceptable as a basis of our membership for the next 25 years? Is not the lesson to be learnt from this dreadful business today that we should renegotiate an arrangement with Europe that fits in with the way in which we do things and with the way in which they do things, and that to go on like this is frankly unacceptable?
Mr. Lang: What is particularly unacceptable is that, after we had renegotiated the basis on which our social legislation relationship with Europe is secured, that was undermined by the devious ploy of using article 118A of

167
the treaty, for which the directive was never intended, thereby circumventing the deal that had already been reached with us.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Although in the past I have voiced serious reservations about decisions taken by the European supreme court, as a former shipyard worker, I welcome the judgment. Unlike my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), I do not trust the House or the Government to protect the interests of the millions of underpaid and overworked employees. Will the Secretary of State confirm that an individual employee or group of employees will have the right to seek a redress of grievance against unscrupulous employers in our national courts?
Mr. Lang: Our existing health and safety regulations protect the interests of shipyard employees. Employees already have recourse to the courts if those regulations are breached. Our objection to the directive and to the outcome of the judgment is that Europe is seeking to override our national arrangements, and to impose arrangements of its own that we consider to be unsuitable for this country.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: My right hon. Friend will be aware that Conservative Members are wholly united behind the Prime Minister in his determination to reverse the judgment. Given that, does my right hon. Friend agree that the real problem with the social chapter opt-out lies in the fact that the other provisions—some eight in number—already exist in the main body of the treaty? Future provisions—which my right hon. Friend knows are coming—will be driven through that route.
Does my right hon. Friend agree, therefore, that at the intergovernmental conference, rather than simply trying to reverse the judgment, we should say that a marketplace cannot possibly work if we try to centralise social provision as well? It is time for us to extend the opt-out to the provisions in the treaty that are covered, including health and safety provisions. Let us go ahead and do that now.
Mr. Lang: I agree with my hon. Friend's assessment, and I think that the social opt-out secured by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at Maastricht would have gained his objective, had it been honoured. It is because it has not been honoured as a result of this action that we are having to readdress the issue, in the most forthright terms.
Mr. Eddie Loyden: Does not the right hon. Gentleman accept that what he has said this afternoon will be seen as cant and hypocrisy by many people? Over the past 17 years, this Government have waged war against organised labour. If the right hon. Gentleman is indeed suggesting that all employers are acting humanely, he should revisit the Liverpool docks, and many other industries in which there has been a return to casual labour. He should consider the ending of the mining industry. The Government should enter the world
168
of realities, and face up to the fact that they have given us a load of cant and hypocrisy and are continuing the fight against organised labour.
Mr. Lang: The best way in which we can help labour, organised or disorganised, is to create more jobs. In the past three years, more than 150,000 new manufacturing jobs have been created in this country. I commend to the hon. Gentleman the view of the president of the BDI, the German industry federation, who said:
"We have too rigid labour laws"—
he was talking about Germany—
"We have too high social costs and taxes. We work the shortest week in Europe. The German Government spends 50 per cent. of GDP, as opposed to 42 per cent. in Britain. No wonder we have a problem."
Germany does have a problem, and we are keen not to have that problem here.
Mr. Tony Marlow: My right hon. Friend has said that we must obey the law, but the law is quite clear. It is in article 18 of the Single European Act, which states that
"the rights and interests of employed persons"
should be decided by unanimity. The law has been fraudulently applied by institutions with a defined agenda—an agenda against the United Kingdom. Where is the consent for this law? If there is no consent, why should we obey it?
Mr. Lang: Because the European Court of Justice has delivered a judgment that we are treaty bound to accept. Therefore, we must seek to have that judgment reversed by negotiation with the other partners of the European Union. That is our firm intention.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Given that, for the Government, this is a matter of firm principle, what concessions were made by other nations to persuade us to abstain?
Mr. Lang: We are not in the territory of talking about concessions; we are in the territory of insisting on the principle of what was agreed in the social chapter opt-out being met in practice, and that is the message that we shall take to the IGC.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Is not this episode all the more tragic for having been predicted for so long—during Maastricht debates, and for many months, even years, thereafter? Can my right hon. Friend give the House any assurance whatever that we are not just going to talk tough and then have the directive imposed on us? In the public sector, will it not be applicable from 23 November?
Can my right hon. Friend list any sanctions that could bring about the unanimity that is required to change the treaty? Will we be, for example, exercising the right of the empty chair, like de Gaulle? Will we be cutting off contributions? What positive measures will be taken to concentrate these people's minds, and to bring about the changes that we require?
Mr. Lang: I contemplate neither of the measures that my hon. Friend has suggested. Let me make it clear to

169
him, however, that many matters are being discussed at the IGC, on which our European partners are extremely keen to make progress. They will not make progress on any of them unless and until we have this matter dealt with.
Mr. Terry Lewis: Does not the President of the Board of Trade recognise the Government's responsibility in regard to employees who are in a weak bargaining position and who work for bad employers? How can he justify his position against that background?
Mr. Lang: I believe that the best interest of employers and employees in this country is served by maintaining light burdens on companies and their work forces, and by ensuring that we retain the advantage of the competitive, flexible labour market that we have achieved. That is the best prospect for our national economic prosperiry, and for the interests of employees.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Will my right hon. Friend clarify what he means by the law? If Parliament chose to pass an Act that empowered Ministers to defy the directive, would he seek to defy the will of Parliament? Does not that exemplify how the Government have the option to come to Parliament to seek powers to defy the directive, in the event of a stalemate at the intergovernmental conference in which case the directive would stand?
Mr. Lang: It is this Parliament that has accepted the European Court's jurisdiction in the matter. The court's judgment has gone against us and we must now seek to reverse it by persuading our European partners to agree that the spirit of our social chapter opt-out should be honoured.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: May I ask the Secretary of State a technical question? From the date when the directive is triggered, will not people have recourse to industrial tribunals in the United Kingdom, which will find in their favour in terms of entitlement to annual leave, for example? Whatever our views in the House, therefore, is not there an immediate problem that requires legislation, otherwise not only will legislation be handed down to us by European judges, but our own judges will have to interpret and make decisions in the absence of a decision by the House? Will not industrial tribunals have to find in favour of workers—and I welcome that—with almost immediate effect?
Mr. Lang: As from 23 November this year, public sector employees will be covered by the directive's terms. We shall be consulting the private sector on the implementation of the directive, until we are able to have the law changed. Once we have completed that consultation, we shall present legislation to Parliament.
Mr. Nigel Evans: This is about not the demerits or merits of the 48-hour directive, but the principle that we had an opt-out from that directive and
170
that, by double dealing, cheating and twisting, faceless bureaucrats and their friends in the courts are now foisting the directive on Britain. What faith can we have, therefore, in future and current negotiations with the European Community? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that his consultations will be detailed and sufficiently lengthy to enable him to visit every business in my constituency? Thus he could ensure that, before the directive is imposed on Britain, he could listen to what my business people have to say about its imposition and the effect on their businesses.
Mr. Lang: I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall have to ensure that the basis on which the position is dealt with is completely watertight and will ensure that our interests are fully protected for the future. I intend that the consultation should be long enough to ensure that we take on board all the concerns of industry, large and small, and react to it.
Mr. Kevin Barron: Given that today's judgment was entirely predictable, will the President of the Board of Trade answer the question that was asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) and tell us how much the judgment and the case have cost the British taxpayer?
Mr. Lang: The cost of the legal case at the court was, I believe, about £50,000.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: Does it not ill behove European economies—which are loser economies, where unemployment is going up—to dictate to us how we should run our own affairs? Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in the United States of America, where unemployment is falling, as it is in the UK, on average, holidays are fewer and people work longer hours than in the UK? At the end of the very long day, is not the UK's future exemplified by the White Paper that he published yesterday, which talks about a global vision?
Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He recognises that we must compete with countries not just in Europe, but worldwide. There is clear evidence from the unemployment trend and from the growth of respective economies that the UK's solution of having flexible labour markets and of lightening the burden on employers is the best way to provide secure, lasting and prosperous jobs.
Mrs. Beckett: The Secretary of State quoted from Professor Harrington's report and said that it justified the Government's claim that this is not a health and safety matter. As Professor Harrington seems not to be aware of that, and as the report has not been published, will the Secretary of State undertake to publish it so that the House can come to its own conclusions?
Mr. Lang: I have no doubt that the report, which was submitted as part of the case to the court, will now be available and I shall give careful consideration to the right hon. Lady's request.

Point of Order
4.24 pm
Mr. Hugh Bayley: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On 7 November, I put to the Deputy Prime Minister a point concerning the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris). It has been drawn to my attention that what I said implied that the hon. Gentleman had behaved in an improper manner in his relationship with Capital City Bus—in particular, that he had accepted a seat on the board of a company that he had been responsible for privatising. Unfortunately, I had been misinformed about the matter—[Interruption.] I now accept—[Interruption.] I now accept —[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. Listen to the hon. Gentleman when he is speaking to the House.
Mr. Bayley: I now accept that the company had never been in the public sector and I therefore wish to apologise to the hon. Member for Epping Forest and the House.
Madam Speaker: Statements such as that should be listened to in silence, not heckled. I deprecate very much what took place during that statement.

Working Time Directive
4.26 pm
Mr. Nigel Spearing: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, to debate an important matter that requires specific and urgent consideration, namely,
"the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities concerning the application of the United Kingdom in respect of the working time directive."
One of the factors in the Standing Order is urgency. The directive will become law in this country next week. Unless we have a debate under the Standing Order procedure, it is unlikely that any debate will be held, yet at the same time the subject will no doubt be extensively covered in the media, with comment on radio and television and discussion and debate outside the Chamber.
We must clarify the issues because, as the Secretary of State half agreed, there is no chapter in the Maastricht treaty; nor is the opt-out relevant because article 118A applies. This case shows that its scope has been increased, so the increased qualified majority vote influence will be greater in future.
Unless we debate this matter—which has not been debated at all in this Chamber, merely in Standing Committee some three years ago—the merits of the law will not be considered, its effects will not be debated and the effects on tribunals, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), will not be properly explored. The rights of employers and employees will be, at least, uncertain.
It is not a question of replacing tomorrow's business with an Adjournment debate. As I understand it, such a debate would be given precedence over the bovine spongiform encephalopathy debate, which perhaps should have been more thoroughly discussed previously.
The public expect us to debate the working time directive—and to sit for an additional three hours—as it concerns vital matters relating to their employment and to the rights of employees. There is no likelihood of the matter being debated, even on the Adjournment for three hours, unless you, Madam Speaker, accept my application.
Madam Speaker: I have listened very carefully to what the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) has said and I must give my decision without giving my reasons. I am afraid that I do not consider that the matter that he raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20 and I cannot therefore submit his application to the House.

Orders of the Day

  Firearms (Amendment) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.28 pm
  Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Biffen). With the exception of speeches by Front Benchers, I am afraid that speeches wil be limited to 10 minutes.
  Mr. Michael Jopling: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Could you help the House with regard to motion No. 2 on the Order Paper? It is not exactly a wholly new precedent, but I believe that it is the first time that such procedure has been challenged in the House.
  I read motion No. 2 under the heading "Business of the House" and like, I suspect, many of my colleagues I said to myself, "That's a guillotine motion." I made inquiries and was told that it was not a guillotine motion in the form that we have come to know and use over the 32 years that I have been in the House.
  Apparently, the motion—I do not know how many hon. Members can read it and argue that it is not a guillotine motion—is not debatable, and a decision will be taken forthwith. In contrast, a normal guillotine motion can be debated for three hours, or—if my memory serves correctly—an hour and a half if it is a supplementary motion.
  There are two issues, the first of which is whether the motion is suitable for dealing with clauses 1 to 5 of the Firearms (Amendment) Bill, although I shall not attempt to deal with it now.
  My second concern is about the procedure, which has been used once before, in the summer, when no one spotted it and the motion went through on the nod. The matter has been drawn to my attention principally by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J.Wiggin), who asked me what I thought the second item on the Order Paper meant. I said, "It's a guillotine motion."
  You, Madam Speaker, will know that many decades ago, and with great reluctance, the House had to adopt the guillotine procedure. By its very nature, the procedure removes the rights of the Opposition and of minorities by truncating debate. The safeguard, as I have always understood it, was a three-hour debate on guillotine motions or a one-and-a-half-hour debate on amendments to those motions. We are now being presented with the first new procedure, in my memory, allowing a guillotine motion to be moved and passed without debate. It is a deplorable and thoroughly retrograde step for the House to be landed with this procedure, without any warning, discussion or decision being made by it.
  I am appalled that the Government should have decided to introduce a guillotine in such a back-door manner. I hope that Ministers will tell us that they will not move motion No. 2, that we will have no more of the new
  174
  procedure and that we shall proceed with the established guillotine procedure to which we have become so accustomed.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
  Madam Speaker: I think that I require no further instruction on this matter. I am sure that the House is quite aware of the sentiments—[Interruption.] No; there will be no further points of order on this matter. I can see that hon. Members are concerned about the matter, but they do not have to continue expressing their concern. The Government have placed the motion on the Order Paper, and hon. Members can interpret it as they wish.
  A precedent was set during the passage of the Family Law Act 1996. I wonder whether the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) realises that, today, the motion will fall if the voice of only one hon. Member is raised in objection. At the appropriate time, hon. Members will merely have to say "object", unless the Government withdraw the motion. When the time comes, I am sure that at least one hon. Member will say "object", which will meet the right hon. Gentleman's concern. Perhaps we can now proceed.
  4.32 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Nine months ago, Thomas Hamilton walked into Dunblane primary school carrying four high-calibre handguns and 743 rounds of ammunition. Within minutes, he had killed 16 young children and their teacher. The dreadful crimes committed that day were committed with weapons that were legally bought and legally held. Those facts placed an onerous duty on the Government to consider what controls there should be on the ownership and possession of guns.
  Lord Cullen was asked to conduct an inquiry. His report, and the Government's response to it, were published last month. The Government intend to implement all 23 of the recommendations on firearms made by Lord Cullen. The nine recommendations that require legislation are taken forward in the Firearms (Amendment) Bill, and the remainder will be taken forward administratively.
  Lord Cullen made no recommendations on the central question of access to handguns, but he considered that access to handguns should be strictly controlled because of the special dangers that they pose. He made two alternative suggestions to achieve that objective. The Government agree with Lord Cullen's objective, but propose to achieve it in a somewhat different manner. Let me explain why.
  Mr. John Carlisle: When dealing with what Lord Cullen said—or, rather, what he did not say—I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will add that Lord Cullen did not consider that the banning of handguns for target shooting or the banning of shooting

  175
  clubs would be justified. As my right hon. and learned Friend has said, that is the crux of the Bill. Why, then, has he gone beyond what Lord Cullen recommended?
  Mr. Howard: My last words before giving way to my hon. Friend were "Let me explain why." I am about to explain why the Government have chosen the course of action that we are putting before the House.
  Lord Cullen would have allowed single-shot handguns to continue to be kept at home. The Government do not believe that handguns, whatever their calibre, should be kept at home. Handguns are not used to shoot game and, as Lord Cullen observed and Thomas Hamilton demonstrated, they are extremely easy to carry and to conceal. Of course it is true that most gun-related crimes are committed with illegally held weapons. That is why we have increased the maximum penalties for illegal possession of a firearm and for going to a crime equipped with a gun. It would be difficult to argue that the public would get no extra protection from a ban on handguns in the home.
  Lord Cullen suggested that multi-shot handguns, too, should—
  Mr. Marlow: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
  Mr. Howard: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I should like to complete my explanation.
  Lord Cullen suggested that multi-shot handguns, too, should be kept at home if—and only if—they could be safely disabled. He suggested that that could be done by removing the slide assembly or the cylinder, which would then be left in a gun club, or by fitting a locked barrel block to the gun. He suggested that the individual ownership of multi-shot handguns should be banned if that option proved unworkable. Instead, licensed gun clubs would own and keep them for use by their members.
  The Government took advice from the Forensic Science Service on the practicability of disabling multi-shot handguns. It concluded that that way forward was unworkable. Existing barrel blocks are currently commercially available only for certain types of shotgun; they are not suitable for handguns. Even if such blocks became more widely available, it would be impossible to guarantee that they could not be removed by someone with enough determination.
  As to removing parts from handguns to disable them, it would be impossible to ensure that someone did not keep illicit spares at home. While it is true that the slide or cylinder can be removed from many handguns easily, it is not universally the case. As Lord Cullen conceded in the case of many high-precision .22 handguns:
  "Repeated disassembly involved disruption of carefully tuned components and would very quickly impair the accuracy for which they were designed".
  Mr. Robert Banks: Does not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the forensic evidence that he has been given is in total contrast to that which Lord Cullen accepted? The report says:
  "In the light of the evidence of Mr. Paton and Mr. Penn I am satisfied that the dismantling of self-loading pistols and revolvers would in general be practicable."
  176
  Referring later to fitting barrel blocks, Lord Cullen said:
  "There was little doubt that it would be possible for them to be manufactured. Such blocks were already available for shot guns to prevent third parties using the gun."
  Mr. Paton was in no doubt that it would be simple for them to be made. Why did not my right hon. and learned Friend accept that evidence rather than that of the Forensic Science Service?
  Mr. Howard: The fact remains that those blocks have not been manufactured for handguns. Lord Cullen reached his conclusion on the basis of the evidence of two experts at his inquiry. We have consulted the Forensic Science Service and have reached a different conclusion on the practicability of the way forward.
  Mr. Marlow: My right hon. and learned Friend has said that the vast majority of crimes carried out with weapons involve those that are not to be banned or illegally held weapons. He will be aware that the people whom we are seeking to protect the public from will continue to get their weapons illegally. Politics is about priorities. Will my right hon. and learned Friend say how many lives he thinks that his measures will save, what they will cost and how many lives could be saved if that money were spent on the health service?
  Mr. Howard: I do not suppose that my hon. Friend seriously expected me to give a quantified estimate along those lines. However, the Government cannot abdicate their responsibility or shirk the duty that the dreadful events of Dunblane placed upon them. Therefore, it is right that the Government should face up to that duty, examine the issues involved and reach their conclusions on how the objectives that Lord Cullen set out can best be achieved. That is the basis of the proposals in the Bill.
  Sir Cranley Onslow: Is my right hon. and learned Friend prepared to put in the Library of the House a copy of the response that he received from the Forensic Science Service on the important issue of dismantling?
  Mr. Howard: I am certainly prepared to do that.
  Mr. Paul Marland: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there is considerable concern about the Bill in my constituency? First, will he confirm for clarification that, as a result of the Bill, the 57,000 law-abiding full-bore pistol shots will be denied their sport for ever? Secondly, if .22 handguns can be kept safely in gun clubs, why is it impossible to keep full-bore pistols in the same manner?
  Mr. Howard: I shall return to that point later. It is an important point that merits a reply, and I shall certainly provide one in due course.
  I now turn to Lord Cullen's alternative suggestion. Despite the evidence that was placed before him, he recognised that his preferred way forward might not prove practicable. His alternative suggestion was that the individual ownership of all multi-shot handguns should be banned. If we accept the case for allowing some handguns to be kept in licensed clubs, as Lord Cullen did, individual target shooters should be free to continue to own them. Indeed, competitive target shooting would not be viable unless those taking part could use their own guns.

  177
  The Government therefore decided to adopt a different approach that draws a distinction between low-calibre and high-calibre handguns.
  Mr. Martin O'Neill: Does the Home Secretary accept that the serious elements within the gun lobby—those competing at the highest level—insist that it will be impossible to achieve the level of accomplishment necessary to compete in the Olympics if they can no longer take their guns back to their homes? Therefore, the argument that the Home Secretary chooses to advance, which suggests that, somehow, the Bill will accommodate the highest standards of gunshooting, is fallacious He is offering an empty gesture to serious shooters. I oppose the possession of handguns, but my constituents who have reached the highest levels of accomplishment and have participated in Olympic tournaments tell me that they will be unable to continue to compete if they cannot carry their guns home with them to calibrate them, cosset them and do whatever else they do with them. If the Home Secretary cannot provide for that, the Bill is sheer hypocrisy as it does not protect serious shooters.
  Mr. Howard: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's argument. The Bill may make it more difficult for the competitive shooters to whom the hon. Gentleman refers to continue their activities in precisely the way in which they have until now. There will be differences. The ban on handguns in the home means that, inevitably, there will be differences, but I believe that competitive shooters will adapt to the regime for which the Bill provides and will continue to practise their sporting activity.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: The Home Secretary realises that the issue raises strong feelings. Therefore, will he answer the question that the Prime Minister failed to answer this afternoon and say why the Government adopt contrasting attitudes to corporal punishment in English schools and the possession of handguns? How can they consider corporal punishment in schools to be a matter of individual conscience, but adopt a different approach to the possession of handguns?
  Mr. Howard: Contrary to the hon. Gentleman's assertion, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister replied to that question this afternoon. He made it quite clear that the Government have reached a considered view on the matter. As is normal practice, and as occurred in 1988 after the massacre at Hungerford, the Government present their considered conclusions to the House and expect members of the Conservative parliamentary party to support those conclusions.
  As Lord Cullen said, higher-calibre handguns are not target guns in the true and original sense. Many have been developed by the police and the military for self-defence. Their wider use has encouraged some shooters to don the trappings of combat, such as camouflage clothing. In Lord Cullen's words, that has
  "caused others to feel uneasy about what appears to be the use of guns as symbols of personal power".
  Indeed, target shooting with high-calibre handguns has been removed as a sport from the Olympic games precisely because, as I understand it, those guns are recognised to be more dangerous.
  178
  In addition, the power of a .22 rimfire cartridge is limited by a special design. It is constructed of thin metal to enable the rim to be crushed when hit by the firing pin. A .22 rimfire handgun is between four and six times less powerful than a typical full-calibre handgun.
  Clause 1 will therefore outlaw all higher-calibre handguns of the sort used by Thomas Hamilton. The ownership and use of lower-calibre handguns will be allowed provided that they are kept under safe lock and key in secure gun clubs at all times.
  I know that some hon. Members believe that the Bill should go further and ban all handguns completely. However, I believe that we can give the public the protection that they deserve and allow target shooting with lower-calibre handguns—which has always been an Olympic sport—to continue. Indeed, I believe that banning all handguns could drive some target shooters underground. That might mean that the public would have less protection than would be available under the Bill.
  Mr. George Robertson indicated dissent.
  Mr. Howard: The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) shakes his head, but only last week the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) acknowledged the importance of that argument.
  Sir Michael Shersby: Has my right hon. and learned Friend considered the fact that .32 centrefire handguns are used for competitions in the Commonwealth games? Will guns of that calibre continue to be used in the Commonwealth games under his proposal?
  Mr. Howard: It is true that .32 calibre guns are used in competitions in the Commonwealth games, but not in the Olympic games. It will be for the Government and the city of Manchester, which decides which events will be part of the Commonwealth games in 2002, to discuss whether that higher-calibre event should be permitted. Should that event be permitted, it will be possible under the Bill to allow the event to take place.
  Sir Anthony Grant: Will my right hon. and learned Friend say a word about vintage arms? He will be aware that there is a highly respectable vintage arms society, of which I am a member. It caters for muzzle-loading weapons, which could not conceivably be used to commit an appalling crime but which do not appear to be exempted from the Bill.
  Mr. Howard: I understand the concerns of my hon. Friend and many others. I shall turn to that point in a moment and I may have some modestly encouraging news for him.
  Mr. Jack Straw: A moment ago, the Home Secretary said that I had acknowledged the argument that a complete ban on handguns would drive underground an activity that could then be conducted without safeguards for security. I did indeed acknowledge that argument, but he should also accept that I said that
  "the more I consider the case for allowing .22 pistols to continue to be licensed, the flimsier I find it."—[Official Report, 28 October 1996; Vol. 284, c. 348.]

  179
  I understand the argument about which he is concerned, but is not the point that there will still be every opportunity for shooting enthusiasts to take part in lawful, licensed shooting activities, either with rifles or shotguns? There is no question of driving such people underground.
  Mr. Howard: I was not claiming the hon. Gentleman as a convert to my cause. Indeed, I am not certain how much good it would have done my cause had I done so. I was merely making the strictly limited point that, in a radio broadcast with me last week, he acknowledged the importance of the point that I have been making: that a total ban on the use of handguns might drive some target shooters underground, which might mean that the public had less protection than would be available under the Bill. That is an important point and the hon. Gentleman shared that view last week.
  The Bill will take out of circulation entirely the most dangerous high-calibre weapons that were lawfully held by Thomas Hamilton. As a result, 160,000 high-calibre handguns will be destroyed—80 per cent. of those legally held in England and Wales. The Association of Chief Police Officers has welcomed the proposals. It said:
  "The proposed ban on high calibre handguns and the tightening up on firearms controls generally will provide significant improvement … in public protection. ACPO's measured view suggested retaining a strictly controlled ability for handgun competition, limited to .22 weapons, and we very much support both that proposal and the proposed requirements for comprehensive security measures over weapons stored at gun clubs".
  Mr. Rupert Allason: Is it not a fact that Thomas Hamilton should never have been allowed access to handguns? Is it not a fact that the police failed in their job? Is it not a fact that, far from supporting a total ban, Lord Cullen suggests that the police should regularise their own arrangements for scrutiny of applicants and that the law should have been looked at to ensure that the weight of evidence lay in favour of police objections to Hamilton's case rather than in favour of the applicant? Would not that be simpler?
  Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend will be aware that many of the 23 recommendations made by Lord Cullen in his report—all of which we accept—go to precisely the point that he has just made. Of course it is true that there is room for reform of the procedures. The Bill proposes the implementation of the recommendations that will achieve that objective. Lord Cullen went on to say, however, that that in itself was not enough and that consideration had to be given to controlling access to handguns, which has given rise to the proposals in the Bill in addition to those dealing with certification.
  Mr. Robin Corbett: Did it not become apparent in the Cullen inquiry that part of the problem over Hamilton's possession of weapons was that police forces throughout England, Wales and Scotland were not using a common inquiry form? The law was not being equally applied in separate parts of the United Kingdom by various police forces. Is the Home Secretary able to assure the House that as a result of the Bill the police will use a common inquiry form that will range
  180
  wider and uniformly collect all the information that they require to make a sensible judgment on applications for licences?
  Mr. Howard: I agree that consistency of approach along the lines that the hon. Gentleman has suggested would be desirable. That will indeed occur in future.
  Mr. William Ross rose—
  Mr. Howard: I have not yet given way to anyone from the hon. Gentleman's party, so it is right that I should do so before I make further progress.
  Mr. Ross: Did I understand the Home Secretary correctly a few minutes ago when he was quoting from advice that he was given by the chief constables to the effect that, if the number of legal firearms were reduced, there would be a considerable reduction in armed crime? Surely that implies that chief constables believe that licensed guns are used in armed crime. That is manifestly untrue. Only illegal weapons are used in armed crime.
  Mr. Howard: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is right. ACPO is, perhaps, in a better position than—dare I say it?—either the hon. Gentleman or I to know what weapons are used in the commission of armed crime. I am certainly prepared to accept that the vast majority of armed crimes are committed with illegally held weapons, but in the face of such opinions I for one would not exclude the possibility—perhaps the probability—that some legally held weapons are also so used.
  Mr. Winston Churchill: What evidence does my right hon. and learned Friend have in respect of his reply to the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross)? What figures does he have at his disposal to show that legally held weapons have been used in the commission of armed crime? What are the statistics? Furthermore, bearing in mind the fact that the overwhelming majority of people who own firearms legally are upright, respected members of the community, by what right are the Government and the House about to dispossess them of their property without full compensation not only for the firearm but for all the equipment that goes with it? Many such firearm owners will be severely out of pocket.
  Mr. Howard: I shall come to compensation in a moment. I cannot give my hon. Friend precise figures along the lines that he requests, but I remind the House—it is important that we do not lose sight of this—that the genesis of this legislation was one appalling incident in which 17 murders were committed with lawfully held weapons. When we consider the use of legally held weapons in the commission of crime, it is not possible to overlook that dreadful event.
  Clauses 2 to 5 provide for a number of essential but strictly limited exemptions. Certain professionals, such as vets, hunt servants and those working in slaughterhouses, need high-calibre handguns to destroy animals humanely, and they will be exempt. Equally, some types of pistol need to be exempt. They will include starting pistols, flare pistols and trophies of war acquired before 1946.
  As I made clear to the House in my statement on Lord Cullen's report, the Government want to put these measures on the statute book at the earliest possible

  181
  opportunity. I propose, therefore, that clauses 1 to 5 be taken on the Floor of the House next week in order to make immediate progress. The remaining clauses will be taken in Standing Committee in the usual way.
  Clauses 6 and 7 will require the owners of low-calibre handguns to be members of a licensed pistol club. They will have to keep their pistol at that club and will be able to use it only for target shooting. It will be an offence to possess a low-calibre handgun outside a licensed pistol club. The maximum penalty will be 10 years in prison, an unlimited fine, or both. Transitional arrangements will require those who have a low-calibre handgun to surrender it until they are able to find a licensed handgun club in which to store it.
  I accept that there will be circumstances in which low-calibre handguns have to be moved from licensed pistol clubs—for example. when a gun needs mending or its owner is competing in a national target shooting competition at a different club. Clause 8 contains the provisions governing such moves. Before a gun can be removed, a permit will be required from the police and the gun will need to be carried by a third party whom the police are satisfied is a fit and proper person to discharge that responsibility.
  Since the Bill was published on 1 November, the Government have been reflecting on the question of compensation that should be paid to those who are affected adversely by its provisions. I have met parliamentary colleagues on a number of occasions. have also met representatives of various organisations and received letters from individuals who will be affected by the legislation.
  It has always been the Government's position that they must pay compensation to those to whom they have a legal obligation. Since the Bill was published, the Government have received further legal advice from the Law Officers, which makes it clear that not only do we have an obligation to those whose guns will be made unlawful by the Bill but that our obligations also extend to those who own accessories that can be used only in connection with those guns. In those circumstances, I intend to enter into discussions with the British Shooting Sports Council to identify the accessories that fall within the terms of the further legal advice that we have received. The Government will introduce proposals to implement that legal advice. That clearly means that a revised money resolution will be necessary and the Government intend to table one shortly. In considering the precise scope of that resolution, we shall take into account the points that will no doubt be made in today's debate.
  Sir Terence Higgins: Obviously, the change will be some improvement, although the fact that it is necessary to make a change reflects the rush with which the legislation has been introduced. Whatever view one may take about complete or revised bans, is it not clear that it would be grossly unjust if the money resolution did not cover people who have businesses—for example, shooting ranges with long leases—that will no longer receive any revenue? They are likely to go bankrupt, as are many other businesses associated with the sport. Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure us
  182
  that the money resolution will cover such people so that the House can debate the point? Otherwise the amended resolution will also be, in common justice, unacceptable.
  Mr. Howard: My right hon. Friend is unaware of the precise terms of the revised resolution. I cannot give him the total assurance that he requests, but I have said—I hope that he will take comfort from it—that in deciding the precise scope of the revised money resolution we shall take full account of points made in the debate today, including the point that he has just made.
  Mr. William Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Are we to understand from the Home Secretary's statement that the money resolution currently before the House is being withdrawn? Otherwise we could be in a state of some confusion.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Decisions on that are not a matter for the Chair, but I imagine that the Home Secretary will clarify that point.
  Mr. Howard: The money resolution before the House will not be moved and I have indicated that a revised money resolution will be introduced shortly.
  Mr. David Harris: When my right hon. and learned Friend considers businesses of the sort mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins), will he also pay special attention to businesses that are legitimately involved in selling arms—for example, Helston Gunsmiths in my constituency, which has written to almost every hon. Member? Will he take fully into account compensation for the stock of weapons and accessories that such businesses hold and for loss of trade?
  Mr. Howard: There is a distinction between the two categories that my hon. Friend has identified and it is important that that distinction is clarified. Stocks of weapons that will become unlawful as a result of the legislation will be the subject of valid compensation. The position of a dealer in firearms or a manufacturer of firearms will be no different from that of an individual holder of firearms. Holders of firearms that will be made unlawful by this legislation will all be entitled to compensation for the weapons they own, but that is different—I would be wrong not to draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) to the distinction—from claims for compensation for loss of trade and business. So far as I am aware, there is no precedent for such claims and I would arouse false hopes and expectations if I were to give my right hon. and hon. Friends any comfort on that point. There is a clear distinction between the two.
  Mr. Michael Colvin: When my right hon. and learned Friend reconsiders the money resolution, I hope that he will consult clubs. He must acknowledge that the banning of large-calibre pistols will result in many clubs folding. They will not be viable if large-calibre guns cannot be used. Therefore, will he consider carefully the possibility of compensation for clubs? I am told that 90 per cent. of clubs are likely to

  183
  close and that they will lose, on average, about £8,000 or £9,000 each. If he reconsiders the money resolution, he should bear those facts in mind.
  Mr. Howard: I am afraid that the same points apply to that category as to the category that I was just describing, but—as I said earlier—all the points made in today's debate will be taken into account in framing the revised money resolution and deciding on its precise scale.
  Mr. Peter Viggers: I understand that compensation of about £150 per handgun was contemplated by the Government. I visited my local gun club last Friday and the first estimate, with documentation, that was produced by one of my constituents was for compensation of £2,000. Will my right hon. and learned Friend give his best estimate now of the amount of compensation that will be required, and is that the best use of public money?
  Mr. Howard: The financial memorandum deals with that point. On the basis of the present money resolution, the best estimate that we could make of the compensation bill was between £25 million and £50 million. Clearly, if we revise the money resolution and extend the categories of compensation, the bill will be greater.
  Mr. Edward Leigh rose—
  Mr. Michael Lord rose—
  Mr. Howard: I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), who was on his feet first, after which I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk (Mr. Lord). I must then make progress.
  Mr. Leigh: My right hon. and learned Friend quotes precedent, which I accept, for a Government not compensating businesses that fold as a result of Government decisions. He has set his mind against that, but did I understand him rightly when he said, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin), that he has not ruled out compensating the members of gun clubs? As I understand it, there is no precedent that requires the Government to ignore the plight of ordinary members of the public who come together, with limited means, to create clubs—most of which will now have to close. The cost to the public purse, unlike that of compensating businesses, would be limited and may be about £8,000 or £9,000, as we have heard. Will my right hon. and learned Friend at least consider that point and not rule it out today?
  Mr. Howard: I am afraid that that point comes into the same category as those to which I have previously responded. Depending on the scope of the money resolution—I know that my hon. Friend will have taken careful note of what I said on that—those matters may be able to be considered in greater detail at a later stage in the consideration of the Bill.
  Mr. Lord: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend is taking note of the feeling of the House on the
  184
  question of compensation. If people undertake a legal activity, it is wrong to take away their legally held property without adequately compensating them. Like many other hon. Members, I discussed the subject with constituents at the weekend. One gentleman showed me documented evidence that his handguns and accessories were worth just under £4,000. I asked him how many members of his club had similar handguns and he said that there were 100, so there are handguns worth nearly £500,000 in one club in Suffolk. I trust that when my right hon. and learned Friend is doing his sums on compensation, he will ensure that he allows enough to compensate everybody adequately.
  Mr. Howard: I have repeatedly made it clear that the owners of weapons rendered unlawful by the Bill will be compensated at market value for their guns.
  Mr. James Wallace rose—
  Mr. Howard: I am sorry, but I must make a little more progress.
  Part II of the Bill deals with the arrangements for the new pistol clubs that must be licensed by the Secretary of State before target handgun shooting may be allowed. Before being granted a licence, clubs will need to demonstrate that they meet detailed criteria, especially in relation to security. We shall publish those criteria. The police and other interested parties are currently being consulted on the details.
  The new clubs will have to conform to the published criteria during the term of their licences. They will need to keep registers of the guns that are stored there, and to record when the guns are removed from and returned to the club on a permit. Police officers and police civilian staff will have the power to enter and inspect a club's premises to ensure that the provisions of the legislation, and conditions on the licence, are being met. If the conditions are not met, or if there are other concerns about public safety, I, or the Secretary of State for Scotland, will have the power to revoke a club's licence.
  Part III introduces new regulatory requirements and prohibits both mail order sales and expanding ammunition, except for the purposes of lawfully shooting deer and of vermin control.
  Certificate holders will be required to notify the police about the destruction of firearms listed on their certificates, or of transactions involving those firearms. Those arrangements will apply equally to rifles and shotguns, and will enable the police to keep a closer watch on the destination of legally held firearms.
  The Bill implements Lord Cullen's recommendation that applications for firearm certificates should be accompanied by the names and addresses of two referees. The referees may be required to provide details of the applicant in a structured questionnaire, as prescribed in rules.
  For an applicant seeking to renew his firearm certificate, one referee must be from an official of a licensed gun club. Firearm certificates granted for rifles for target shooting will be subject to a condition that the holder must belong to at least one approved club. That implements another of Lord Cullen's recommendations. Those steps will provide the police with more background evidence about the applicant than is currently available from the present single counter-signatory.

  185
  The procedures for obtaining and granting firearm certificates will be strengthened. Lord Cullen drew attention to an apparent mismatch in the present legislation between the granting of firearms certificates and their revocation. The emphasis of the present legislation will be altered, so that the police will need to be satisfied about the fitness of applicants before granting or renewing firearm certificates. The chief officer will be able to revoke certificates, or partially to revoke them, if the holder no longer has a good reason for possessing the firearm. In line with Lord Cullen's recommendations the Bill seeks to amend the current legislation to make that clearer.
  Police constables' powers of entry, search and inspection, with warrants, will be extended to police civilian officers. That will apply to the premises of registered dealers and licensed clubs, and will cover firearms, ammunition and certificates.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the granting and revocation of firearm and shotgun certificates is arbitrary at the moment, and depends on the views of the chief of police in the area in which one is applying for a certificate? That is unfair to the average citizen, because in some areas it is almost impossible to get a firearm certificate. Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider national guidelines, so that a national standard will apply to such matters?
  Mr. Howard: I shall consider my hon. Friend's request, although I am not sure that I share the premise on which his question was based. He has asked whether we would consider national guidelines on such matters, and although I cannot give him any kind of assurance, I shall certainly consider his point.
  Mr. Phil Gallie rose—
  Mr. Howard: I shall give way to my hon. Friend, and then I must get on.
  Mr. Gallie: May I take my right hon. and learned Friend back to clause 8? Ammunition is not mentioned in connection with the transfer of pistols between one location and another. Is there a case for building in a separation factor, so that ammunition and pistols are never on the streets together?
  Mr. Howard: I take my hon. Friend's point—an important one, which we shall consider. I am not entirely certain that what he suggests is necessary, but we shall certainly consider the idea.
  There will be some changes to the present way in which target rifle shooting clubs are run. The approval criteria will be given a statutory basis and will be revised to include other recommendations made by Lord Cullen, including keeping a register of members' attendance, appointing a club officer to liaise with the police, and requiring clubs to notify the police when someone leaves the club.
  Those are the main provisions of the Bill that I published two weeks ago. The Government recognise that there are real concerns about the historical tradition of firearms in this country. I can give a categorical assurance
  186
  that the proposals in the Bill will not change the present arrangements exempting antique pistols from firearms legislation.
  In addition, I intend to exempt certain other narrowly defined categories of historic weapons. I intend to exempt from the controls in the Bill muzzle-loading firearms that are fired. Such firearms—both historic weapons and modern replicas—are used by historic enactment societies. The Government believe that they can safely be kept at home so long as their owners obtain certificates for them.
  Secondly, there is a category of handguns that I shall describe as historic handguns, but not antiques. The Government have received proposals from owners of such weapons for a scheme that would apply to any pistol manufactured before 1919, except for those of 9 mm calibre, for which ammunition is commonly available. In addition, rare handguns, and those with strong historic associations manufactured before 1939, could be brought within the scheme provided that they were authorised by the relevant chief constable.
  Under those proposals, pistols in the relevant categories would be subject to stringent restrictions. Their owners would have a choice. They could keep their guns securely at home on the condition that they were never fired, or they could keep and fire them at the national shooting centre at Bisley. The Government see merit in that approach, and will give it careful consideration in discussion with the authorities at Bisley.
  Thirdly, we will table an amendment to the existing legislation to allow museums registered with the Museums and Galleries Commission to apply for a museum firearms license. That will exempt from the general ban regimental museums and other similar institutions that are not publicly funded.
  The dreadful tragedy of Dunblane placed on the Government an inescapable duty to consider what controls there should be on the ownership and possession of guns. We have not shirked that duty. We have derived great assistance from Lord Cullen's report. We shall implement all 23 of his recommendations. The Bill sets out the way in which the Government believe that his objective of strict control on access to handguns can mostly effectively be achieved.
  The Bill will provide the public with the protection that they need and deserve, while allowing a limited amount of pistol shooting to continue in secure conditions. It puts the safety of the public first. I commend it to the House.
  5.17 pm
  Mr. Jack Straw: As the House knows, the Labour party believes that there should be a complete ban on the general civilian ownership and possession of all handguns of any calibre. We also want other parts of the Bill to be strengthened. None the less, the Bill as it comes before the House represents a considerable advance on the current arrangements for gun control. We therefore support it.
  Members of the parliamentary Labour party will have a free vote on the Bill. If there is a Division, my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and 1 will vote for the Bill, and we invite our right hon. and hon. Friends to join us in the Aye Lobby.

  187
  The Government have done the strength of their case no good by imposing a Whip on all Conservative Members. Such a matter should not be an issue for party politics.
  Mr. Howard: Has the hon. Gentleman entirely forgotten his party conference?
  Mr. Straw: Mrs. Ann Pearston is a Conservative, and if the Conservative party had any sense it would have invited her to speak to its conference too.
  Mr. Howard: I was referring not to Mrs. Pearston's contribution but to that of the Leader of the Opposition who, having repeatedly said that he would wait for Lord Cullen's report before coming to a conclusion on the issue, declared at his party conference that he favoured a total ban on handguns. Moreover, that declaration was made after the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), had specifically asked the Government to postpone publication of the report so that the matter would not be dragged through the party conferences.
  Mr. Straw: If the Secretary of State has any complaints about Members of Parliament who sought to make party political capital out of the tragedy, he should look behind him and admonish the six members of the Home Affairs Committee—Conservative Members—who refused to accept motions from my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and other Labour Members stating that the issue should not be one of partisan concern until Lord Cullen had produced his report. Nothing that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) said differed from the evidence that my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton and I gave to Lord Cullen in May.
  Dr. John Reid: Does my hon. Friend agree that this sort of argument will be received with some dismay outside the House? The crucial question is how is it that a debate and decision on the administration of a smack on the hand or another part of the body can be a matter of individual conscience for Members of Parliament, but the possibility of the shooting of a gun taking a young life is not? That is what the people of this country will not and cannot understand.
  Mr. Straw: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. When trying to distinguish between the Government's positions on firearms and on caning, the Secretary of State said that the former was the Government's considered position. I can only assume that that confirms that their position on caning is their unconsidered position—in fact, they appear to have no position at all on that matter. As my hon. Friend said, if caning is to be the subject of a free vote, I fail to understand why the same logic does not apply to gun control—a matter of far greater importance and one that touches the conscience of hon. Members far more. The Secretary of State must recognise that he will have resolved very little if he wins next week's vote as the result of having dragooned his colleagues into the Lobbies against their better judgment and their consciences.
  188
  It is the essence of a democratic society that people should have the right to undertake activities of which a majority might disapprove. Indeed, the test of a democracy is not the freedom that we allow those with whom we agree, but the freedom that we allow those with whom we profoundly disagree. As the trustees of people's democratic rights, Members of Parliament must always be careful about removing or restricting the freedoms of others.
  I have never used a firearm in my life, but many decent, responsible citizens do. Some people, such as veterinary surgeons, casualty slaughterers and farmers who have to keep down vermin, need guns for their jobs. Hundreds of thousands of people take part in field and country sports and certain individuals, who between them hold around 200,000 handguns, are involved in various target sports. Although I do not share his conclusions, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) was right to say, in the debate on the Loyal Address on 28 October:
  "We are assembled here to weigh carefully the rights and liberties of every section of the community, and gun club members have as much right as anybody else to have their views carefully considered when they are unpopular."—[Official Report, 28 October 1996; Vol. 284, c. 385.]
  Everyone's freedom to do anything must, however, be balanced against the consequences that exercising that freedom poses to others. On any scale, the right to life—especially the right of a child to life—must come higher than the right to practise a sport. Where two sets of rights appear to collide, it is for Parliament to establish a new balance; that is what the Bill and this debate are about.
  Following the establishment of the inquiry chaired by Lord Cullen, my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton and I drafted evidence on behalf of the Labour party, which was submitted after considerable discussion in both the home affairs and the Scottish groups of the parliamentary Labour party. In that evidence, we sought to distinguish—as the law presently does—between shotguns and other firearms. We recognise that shotguns can kill human beings, but they are not designed for that purpose. Their size and the time it takes to reload them mean that they are far less likely to be used to effect a massacre than a pistol or other handgun. However, we said that there should a tightening of the licensing procedures, to which point I shall return later in my speech.
  Handguns are different from, and inherently more dangerous than, shotguns. I know that that view is not recognised by the British Shooting Sports Council. In its "Public Relations Guide for Shooters", it made the astonishing statement that "guns are not dangerous". That assertion received short shrift from Lord Cullen, who said:
  "No doubt a gun cannot kill if someone does not pull the trigger, but it is right to regard a gun as dangerous and to treat some guns as more dangerous than others."
  Handguns can be fired with greater speed and accuracy than shotguns, and can be far more easily concealed. Unlike shotguns, handguns have been developed for the purpose of killing other human beings. That puts them in a category by themselves.
  Much of the sport of handgun shooting developed from that principal purpose.
  Mr. Tim Devlin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Straw: In a moment.
  In many gun clubs, there is a constant reminder of the main killing purpose of handguns. The target shot at is not some abstract design of concentric coloured circles, but the representation of a human being—the so-called humanoid target.
  Mr. Devlin: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the weapon most often used in armed crime is the sawn-off shotgun, yet he proposes to ban other weapons such as matchlock and flintlock pistols, which were last used in armed crime during the time of Dick Turpin?
  Mr. Straw: The Secretary of State gave a powerful answer to that sort of intervention when he pointed out that the reason why Lord Cullen's inquiry was established and the reason for this debate is that 17 people were murdered by the use of a lawfully held handgun. That is the issue before the House.
  Mr. Walter Sweeney: If a person were to lose control of the coach he was driving and 17 passengers were killed, would the hon. Gentleman advocate a limit on the size of coach engines to two litres or a complete ban on coaches?
  Mr. Straw: That almost comes into the same category as the views that the hon. Gentleman expressed in the South Wales Echo on 30 October—I doubt they will be echoed in the House. The article stated:
  "Now he wants people to be allowed to use guns to defend themselves and their property against intruders."
  Far from wanting restrictions on guns—a feeling that is widely shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House—the hon. Member wants there to be a vast extension of the use of guns.
  To answer the hon. Gentleman's point about coaches, when crashes have occurred and people have been killed, the House has been greatly concerned to ensure that effective safety measures are introduced with the aim of preventing such accidents from happening again.
  Mr. Frank Cook: When referring to the weapons used by Thomas Hamilton as being legally held, my hon. Friend has repeated on at least three occasions this afternoon the form of words used by the Home Secretary. Indeed, the same was said in respect of Michael Ryan at Hungerford. Will my hon. Friend explain how, when the applications for certificates for the weapons were falsified, and when the police failed to exercise due diligence in checking the details on those applications, those weapons can be classified as legally held or lawful? How can that be?
  Mr. Straw: I understand that my hon. Friend's views on the need for gun control differ from mine, but he must accept that there was no evidence in the Cullen report that due diligence was not exercised in respect of the granting of that licence. There was an argument about the judgment of individual police officers, but the issue most forcefully raised by the granting of the certificate to Thomas Hamilton is the defect in current procedures—in
  190
  particular, the appeal mechanism that places the onus on the police to show why an applicant should not have a certificate, instead of the onus being on the applicant to show why he should have one. I am sorry to have to tell my hon. Friend that we cannot avoid the fact that Thomas Hamilton and Michael Ryan were lawfully licensed holders of the weapons they used to effect a massacre.
  Taking all those considerations into account, my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton and I said in our evidence to Cullen:
  "in general, given the lethal nature of handguns, we see a strong case for banning them altogether".
  We held out the possibility that an exception could be made for .22 single-shot weapons. We went on to say:
  "the shooting fraternity must make a case for possession and if they can, they must suggest and accept restrictions and costs necessary to prevent such guns from being used for anything other than target practice".
  At the conclusion of our evidence, we said that we should await the recommendations of Lord Cullen
  "before coming to final conclusions".
  Lord Cullen rightly recognised the inevitable limitations on his inquiry. He confined himself, he said, to
  "what I recommend should be considered".
  The question of banning certain types of firearms was, he said,
  "peculiarly within the province of the Government and Parliament to decide."
  So, we have come to our own conclusions. Yes, they are based on Lord Cullen's expert considerations, but we do not substitute his judgment for our own.
  First, we considered proportionality. Ever since the atrocity in Dunblane, those opposed to any serious extension of gun control have urged that what happened there should be put into perspective and that we should not get the matter out of proportion. I agree. In Scotland, in the whole of 1993, eight people were killed by the use of a firearm; in 1994, the figure was nine—17 people in Scotland were killed with a firearm in a two-year period. On 13 March this year, 17 people were murdered in just three minutes. In the whole of Scotland in the same two-year period, 15 children were murdered by any means—one fewer than were murdered in just three minutes at Dunblane. Those figures provide the perspective that the gun lobby seeks.
  Then there is the argument that, in seeking much tighter control, we are simply being wise after the event. Indeed, it is a dismal commentary that, too often, it takes a single, terrible event to bring into sharp focus the need for action that, if taken before, might have averted the event or greatly reduced its risk. Much—perhaps most—of our safety legislation has been born of disaster.
  The history of railway safety in the last century is essentially a history of fatal railway accidents. In this century, Aberfan, Piper Alpha, Zeebrugge, Hillsborough and many other fatal disasters might have been avoided if improved safety had been put in place in advance. In every case, the problem has been not a lack of proposals for improved safety, but the huge pressure in favour of the status quo unless and until disaster strikes or some terrible atrocity occurs.
  Mr. Henry Bellingham: I am slightly confused about the development of Labour party

  191
  policy. The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) wrote a letter to his constituents in September saying that he had no intention of banning innocent members of the public from owning guns. He went on to say:
  "It is Labour party policy that people such as yourself will be able to go on owning handguns, but they must be kept safely under lock and key."
  I am well aware that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) says that there will be a free vote on the Opposition side, but at what point in time did Labour party policy change on the matter, given the supreme importance to the hon. Member for Hartlepool of the fact that he is obviously senior to the hon. Gentleman?
  Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman should pay more attention to debates in the House. I answered that question on 28 October.
  I claim no special foresight on gun control, but there are hon. Members on both sides of the House who can. In March 1987, four months before Hungerford, my hon. Friends the Members for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) and for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) pressed the case on the then Home Secretary for tighter gun control. My hon. Friend the Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) has consistently campaigned for tighter gun control. In May 1995, 10 months before Dunblane, he said:
  "As legally held weapons easily fall into criminal hands, new gun controls are necessary."—[Official Report, 3 May 1995; Vol. 259, c. 281.]
  The right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) has long believed in tighter control—a lot longer than since the day in March when Dunblane occurred—and so have many people outside the House. The week before Dunblane, the Moss Side, Manchester, community association called for further restrictions on the availability of guns.
  Mr. Robert Banks: The hon. Gentleman quoted some statistics about fatalities in Scotland. Can he make it clear whether those fatalities were the result of weapons that were held legally and whether those weapons were handguns, shotguns or a mixture of both? What exactly are the figures related to?
  Mr. Straw: I will happily send the hon. Gentleman the full table that I was sent by the Library. Even if they were all held illegally, however, it would not help the hon. Gentleman's case because more people were murdered in three minutes by legally held weapons on 13 March than were murdered with firearms in Scotland throughout 1993 and 1994.
  Mr. Chris Mullin: Is my hon. Friend aware that a large number of people have been killed with legally held guns? Mr. Tony Hall, the father of one of the victims at Hungerford, has provided me with a list of 178 cases which he has picked at random from newspapers since the Hungerford tragedy.
  Mr. Straw: I am aware of that, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing it to the public's attention. There is no doubt that legally held weapons are used by
  192
  their licensed owners to commit crimes of murder and violence and that such weapons leap across into the criminal underworld.
  Mr. David Wilshire: Before the hon. Gentleman moves on from the subject of safety legislation having resulted from disaster and of what some of his colleagues suggested would happen if we did not have more controls, will he say whether he sees a distinction between improving the safety of an aircraft, ferry or some other such thing and banning the aircraft or ferry? Can he see the difference between doing more by way of control and banning handguns?
  Mr. Straw: That is a pretty far-fetched analogy, but I can certainly see the case for banning a particularly dangerous aircraft. Neither side of the House is proposing to ban all firearms. Shotguns and rifles will still be readily available for licensed use. We are discussing whether we should ban particularly dangerous firearms—handguns.
  Mr. Allason: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Straw: Yes, for the last time.
  Mr. Allason: To return to the intervention of the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook), is it not the case that if the police had been doing their job properly, Hamilton would never have obtained the licence? Does not Lord Cullen's report make it clear that at one point there was a conflict between two police officers, and he had to decide which of the two was lying in their evidence?
  Mr. Straw: Of course the hon. Gentleman is right to say that there was conflict between the advice of a junior officer and the judgment made by a senior officer—it is well known. With the benefit of hindsight, we can all see that the advice of the junior officer should have been followed. Before the hon. Gentleman continues his odious attacks on the way in which the police try to operate a difficult procedure, he should bear in mind the wholly unsatisfactory state of the law. Hamilton had no convictions and had not been to see a general practitioner for 20 years. There was no medical evidence to show that he was in the mental state that he patently was in, so the judgments were difficult. We also ought to recognise that police officers have to make such judgments every day and sometimes to stand by them five, 10 or 20 years later. That is difficult, and there is no suggestion in Cullen that the due process that is required by the unsatisfactory state of the law was not followed.
  In 1970, the Home Office established a review of firearms control under the chief inspector of constabulary.
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Before my hon. Friend moves on, will he agree that it is pointless to argue about the failure of the police in this case because public safety and the safety of children must not rely on every policeman for ever more always getting it right? That is nonsensical.
  Mr. Straw: I entirely agree. That is why we have to change the way in which the system operates.

  193
  I was saying that, back in 1970, the Home Office established a review of firearms controls under the chief inspector of constabulary, but the fate of that review starkly illustrates the huge obstacles placed in the way of action to improve public safety where there has been no atrocity to focus public opinion. The findings of that review, contained in a Green Paper on firearms control, were published by the then Government in May 1973. It recommended highly restrictive controls on firearms, a ban on all semi-automatic rifles, a considerable tightening of the licensing procedure, and higher age limits.
  Had that Green Paper's recommendations been implemented, Michael Ryan could not have lawfully possessed the AK47 rifle with which he killed eight of his 17 victims in Hungerford; and the police in Scotland would have found it much easier to refuse Thomas Hamilton his licence for the 9 mm Browning with which he killed his 17 victims. But such was the opposition to the Green Paper that the then Government abandoned it, and no proposals for action were forthcoming until after Ryan had committed his murders in 1987, and even then the proposals did not go far enough.
  We must recognise that we failed after Hungetford to put in place the controls necessary significantly to reduce the risk of such an event ever happening again. The then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), said that the arrangements put in place must be robust enough to last, perhaps, another 20 years. Unfortunately, they were not, because they were watered down by pressure from the shooting interests.
  We cannot afford to make the same mistake again. The 1973 Green Paper put forward cogent arguments for tighter controls. It made the point—we all acknowledge it—that no system of legal controls, however stringent, is likely to be wholly successful in preventing criminals from obtaining firearms, but it demolished the argument that there is no connection between the extent of lawful controls and the criminal use of firearms:
  "If dangerous firearms and their ammunition had been easier to obtain within the law, if the requirements on legal holders to keep their firearms in safe custody had been less strict, is it plausible to suggest that the extent of criminal and irresponsible uses of firearms would have been less? … In its present form the law in some circumstances allows unsuitable persons to possess firearms, or persons to possess firearms without having a legitimate use for them, or to possess more firearms than are required for such uses, or to take inadequate precautions against theft or misuse."
  Although controls were tightened somewhat in the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988, Lord Cullen reflected that view in his report. He endorsed research showing that there is a relationship between firearm ownership and firearm use. He explicitly rejected
  "the contention that legally held firearms are of no significance to the commission of crime".
  Lord Cullen also reported that, during the past 20 years, there has been a considerable expansion of the use of larger-calibre and high-calibre handguns. That has led to the growth of combat shooting. It has also led some shooters to don the trappings of combat, such as holsters and camouflage clothing. It has also caused others to feel uneasy about what appears to be the use of guns as symbols of personal power.
  194
  I am one of the millions who feel uneasy about that, and who believe that we must now take effective measures to deal with the growth of an unpleasant gun culture. I know that the Bill, as well as the additional measures that we propose, will inconvenience many innocent and responsible people who happen to have gained enjoyment from the pursuit of target shooting sports, but I would address three points to them. First, as between participation in a sport and the preservation of life, the balance must fall firmly in favour of the right to life, not the right to a sport.
  Secondly, even under our proposals, there will still be plenty of opportunities for enthusiasts to engage in shooting sports with rifles or shotguns.
  Mr. Gallic: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman must excuse me. Many hon. Members want to speak and I have already given way a dozen times.
  Thirdly, the quality of representations that we have all received from the shooting lobby shows, I think, that responsible shooters have been ill served by their representatives, whose arguments have often been tendentious and highly personalised. Those arguments reached their nadir when Mr. Marcus Harrison, of the Sportsman's Association, recommended that shooters in pursuit of their case should
  "distort information and manipulate facts".
  Mr. Harrison went on, disgracefully, to suggest:
  "It is important for us to dig up any facts that can be used to question the integrity of those who run, organise, front and contribute"
  to the Snowdrop campaign.
  Mr. John Carlisle rose—
  Mr. Straw: No, I shall not give way.
  It is of course the parents of Dunblane who are in the forefront of that campaign—bereaved parents described by Mr. Harrison, astonishingly, as "our enemies". Ever since Dunblane, the lobbyists for shooting organisations have adopted a complacent but in the end wholly self-defeating approach—one which clearly exasperated Lord Cullen, who said:
  "Throughout the Inquiry the British Shooting Sports Council… were opposed in principle to any restriction on the availability of handguns; and objected not merely to the suggestion of one kind of ban or another but also … to various measures which stopped short of a ban. This entrenched attitude meant that as each measure was supposedly discredited what was at stake became the greater."
  I said in the House on 16 October that we welcomed almost everything in the Secretary of State's statement and hence, by implication, in this Bill. The Secretary of State has made the case for going further than Lord Cullen recommended, so there is no need for me to detain the House by repeating what he said. The disagreement between us concerns whether there should be a complete ban on handguns in general civilian use. We believe that there should be.
  The Secretary of State quoted the Association of Chief Police Officers in his support, but we strongly support the view of the Police Federation, which represents more than 100,000 police officers on the ground who argue for a complete ban on the compelling ground that the

  195
  .22 calibre handgun is just as capable of killing as a larger calibre weapon. Indeed, if anything, the Police Federation understates the case. Some multi-shot .22s are quicker firing than larger calibre weapons, and easier to conceal. The August edition of the magazine Target Gun contained an article extolling the virtues of the .22 Black Mamba multi-shot pistol which, the article said, is virtually concealed in the firer's clenched fist.
  Of the 40,000 .22 weapons already in circulation, at least 20,000—perhaps more—are of the multi-shot variety. There must be considerable anxiety that this number will grow as those who receive compensation for higher calibre weapons purchase .22 weapons.
  The Home Secretary says that weapons will be kept in secure clubs, but the Bill provides for them to be transported under permit to and from competitions, of which many hundreds are held each year. Ironically, it was the British Shooting Sports Council which demolished the argument that such transportation outside clubs would be inherently safe, for it said in evidence to Lord Cullen:
  "no matter what system of checks and paperwork is maintained in such circumstances, it would be a simple matter indeed for a shooter intent on recovering his guns to enter a competition, provide evidence to his club secretary that he had done so, recover possession of the complete gun together with the ammunition for it, and perpetrate an outrage."
  The BSSC itself thus predicted that, under such arrangements, its members may end up perpetrating an outrage.
  Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman has completely misunderstood our proposal. The Bill will enable third parties, authorised by the police, to transport firearms from one club to another for the purpose of use in a competition—not the owner of the firearm but an authorised third party. The criticism that the hon. Gentleman has just read out is wide of the mark.
  Mr. Straw: I do not think I have misunderstood the proposal at all. The Bill's proposals are not as tight as those in the Republic of Ireland, where I am advised there has been a complete ban on handguns since 1972, and the transportation of any such weapon must be undertaken by the Garda. The Bill does not allow for that. We take the evidence given by the shooters' council to Cullen very seriously.
  Mr. William Ross: Surely the hon. Gentleman is aware that the Republic of Ireland is, to put it mildly, widely believed to be the repository of the largest collection of illegal weapons in Europe?
  Mr. Straw: Of course I am aware of that, but it does not alter the fact that, to try to control the supply of weapons, there is a complete ban on lawfully held weapons in the Republic.
  The other argument advanced by the Secretary of State was that a complete ban would
  "drive underground an activity that could then be conducted without any safeguards for security."—[Official Report, 16 October 1996; Vol. 282, c. 835.]
  196
  As I told the Secretary of State, I take that argument seriously, but I do not believe that that would happen. By definition, all the weapons under consideration are clearly identified, with the owner known to the police. Severe penalties would apply for any evasion. In any event, rather than going underground, there would be plenty of lawful opportunities for people to engage in shooting shotguns or rifles.
  Mr. Gallie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Straw: No, I am sorry.
  When the issue of compensation first arose—during consideration of the 1988 Firearms (Amendment) Bill—the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witney, resisted the idea, saying that there were serious objections to compensation. Indeed, the White Paper published by him stated that the Government had concluded that, as a matter of principle, it was undesirable and unjust to require the taxpayer to pay for the removal from the public domain of weapons that were an acknowledged threat to life.
  In the end, compensation was conceded, but the Minister of State at the time, the right hon. and learned Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), went out of his way to say that the compensation scheme agreed
  "cannot be regarded as any sort of precedent".—[Official Report, 17 May 1988; Vol. 133, c. 376.]
  Parliament has long accepted that where a particular private interest is affected by legislation or by Government decision, proper compensation should be paid. The most usual cases are those in which homes or businesses are adversely affected—for example by road schemes. Different considerations surely apply where a general class of people is adversely affected by legislation—for example to improve public safety. The manufacturers of asbestos, flammable furniture foam and certain drugs have all found that their businesses have been undermined by changes in public safety regulations. As far as I am aware, no compensation has ever been paid to them. They have had to accept the risk.
  When industries have been directly and seriously damaged by changes in tariffs, no compensation has generally been paid. Even in cases where compensation arises—for example in road schemes—the rules are tight. Many home owners in my constituency are to receive no compensation whatever for the serious loss of value to their homes caused by the construction of a motorway nearby.
  In the present case we think it appropriate that compensation should be paid, not least to ease the process of compliance. However, like the right hon. Member for Witney and the right hon. and learned Member for Grantham, I do not believe that that should be seen as a wider precedent.
  Mr. Leigh rose—
  Mr. Toby Jessel rose—
  Mr. Straw: Those of us who follow the debate on Europe inside the Tory party have been greatly entertained by the sudden faith in European judicial institutions shown by former sceptics such as the hon. Member for

  197
  Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen). Last Thursday, he asked the Secretary of State whether there was
  "a serious possibility that the judges of the European Court of Human Rights may oblige the British taxpayer to provide compensation on a much wider basis"—[Official Report, 7 November 1996; Vol. 284, c. 1350.]
  Mr. Gallie rose—
  Mr. Straw: We welcome with open arms hon. Members who, like the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, have suddenly shown such faith in the European convention on human rights, and we look forward to his support for our plans to incorporate the European convention into British law.
  I must tell the hon. Gentleman and others who are tempted down that path that it will take about seven years and tens of thousands of pounds to get a case to judgment, and that our best advice is that such a case has no chance of success. After all, article 1 of the European convention on human rights provides that
  "everyone's right to life shall be protected by law".
  That seems to argue for total gun control. The convention is silent on compensation for gun owners.
  I will take three interventions, then I must make progress.
  Mr. Leigh: The hon. Gentleman has made clear his view, as have the Government, that there is no precedent for compensating businesses. He has also made it clear that he supports compensation for individuals. Will he comment on compensation for groups of individuals who join to form a rifle club or, in this case, a pistol club, which will necessarily be closed by the Bill?
  Mr. Straw: These are complicated matters. If the hon. Gentleman has detailed proposals, I should be happy to consider them, as I know the Secretary of State would be.
  Mr. Jessel: Does not the hon. Gentleman know that the European Court of Human Rights is an organ of the 27-nation Council of Europe, which is a voluntary body, and has nothing whatever to do with the European Union?
  Mr. Straw: I know that. If only other Conservative Members knew it, it would greatly assist the debate.
  Mr. Gallie: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. For a while I had the feeling that he had something against Scots. He has repeatedly said that shooters will still be able to use rifles in pursuit of their sport. He is usually a great champion of the disabled. The disabled can use handguns, but cannot use rifles, especially from wheelchairs. Has the hon. Gentleman thought of that?
  Mr. Straw: As I said, I accept that many innocent people who are responsible shooters will suffer as a result of the changes. I regret that, but it is a matter of balance between the right of people to participate in a sport and the dreadful atrocities that have occurred and could occur in the future if handguns remain available. The hon. Gentleman and I come to different conclusions.
  198
  There are other issues that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I will pursue in more detail in Committee. I shall mention two now. The first is the issue of age limits. Young people may not marry until they are 16; they may not hold a driving licence until they are 17; they may not drink in a public house or watch a violent film until they are 18; but they may possess a firearm, including a handgun or pistol, from the age of 14. I find that extraordinary. The minimum age of 14 is only a matter of police practice. As the Home Office evidence to Lord Cullen put it,
  "the law does not set a minimum age for the issue of a firearm certificate".
  We believe that the law must be changed. There must be a minimum age of 18 on the civilian possession or ownership of rifles and any remaining licensed handguns, and tighter restrictions on the use of shotguns by minors.
  Mr. John Carlisle rose—
  Mr. Devlin rose—
  Mr. Straw: I apologise to the hon. Gentlemen. I have given way a great deal and I must conclude my speech.
  The second issue concerns airguns, which are not lethal in the way that shotguns or firearms are, but which can cause severe injury. They remain outside any licensing system. Only yesterday, the Press Association reported that someone had been blinded in one eye by an air rifle. I know from my hon. Friends that thousands of our constituents are harassed and intimidated by the use of air rifles. Because they are wholly outside regulations, no one knows how many there are in circulation. Lord Cullen raised concerns about the dangers posed by air weapons and drew them to the attention of the Home Office in his report. We believe that the time has come for a serious review to establish whether more effective regulation of airguns should be introduced.
  My final point concerns the licensing system. Neither Ryan nor Hamilton should have received a licence, but both did. So, if newspaper reports are accurate, do many other unsavoury characters. The Times reported on 5 October that a
  "disturbed gun enthusiast who drew up plans for a Hungerford style massacre… [had] succeeded in becoming the armourer at his local gun club".
  The Daily Express reported on 11 September how a man who shot his wife dead had been licensed to keep 18 weapons
  "despite being in the grip of depression for six years".
  Some say, as we have heard this afternoon, that that is all the fault of the police—that the regulations are satisfactory, but that the police have failed to do their job. Many of the most odious comments by members of the gun lobby have been their attacks on the police. In one of their published documents, they have accused the police of having an anti-gun agenda. That is bad enough, but I was astonished to learn that the shooting lobby has been encouraged in its attacks on the police by some hon. Members who should know better. The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) launched an extraordinary attack on the police last week, saying:
  "We have got to make absolutely sure that the police get a good kick in the pants for this"—

  199
  their failure to implement proper firearms controls—
  "and take their jobs more seriously where weapons are concerned".
  I believe that such intemperate assaults on the professionalism of the police are utterly irresponsible.
  Sir Dudley Smith: The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that I stand by my remarks. He does not have to rely simply on my opinion. A recent edition of The Scotsman newspaper contained an exposé of Hamilton and described how he deluded the police time and again. It concluded that the police were lax and negligent in their actions and it drew disturbing parallels with Ryan and Hungerford. It was an in-depth newspaper article that demonstrated great veracity.
  Mr. Straw: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads the Cullen report rather than The Scotsman. The newspaper article was completely wrong and at variance with Lord Cullen's conclusions. I am interested to hear that the hon. Gentleman—I gave him notice of my intention to raise the matter—does not resile from his attack on the police. In time, we shall remind him and some of his colleagues of their irresponsible behaviour in that regard.
  Such attacks on the police demonstrate a significant ignorance of how the present controls work. The police do an excellent job controlling firearms, but they are severely hampered by a licensing system that, in practice, is stacked in favour of the applicant. The hon. Gentleman must consider that point. The changes in the Bill are welcome, but they do not go far enough and we shall seek to strengthen them in Committee.
  No system of controls, however tough, can guarantee that there will never again be a Dunblane or a Hungerford. However, we know now that more effective controls would almost certainly have saved the lives of 34 innocent children and adults who were massacred in those two peaceful towns—and perhaps the lives of many others also. We owe it to those who were killed at the hands of those lawfully licensed gunmen to put effective controls in place. We must stop the creeping gun culture that is scarring our society.
  This Bill is a welcome beginning, but I fervently hope that it will be greatly strengthened before it emerges from Committee and, above all, that the House will decide that handguns for general civilian use have no place in our society.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: All Back-Bench speeches are now restricted to 10 minutes, with the exception of the contribution by the Liberal Democrat spokesman.
  6.2 pm
  Sir Jerry Wiggin: 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 a Bill which includes provisions outlawing the possession of handguns which, without evidence, go beyond the recommendations of the public inquiry conducted by Lord Cullen into the shootings at the Dunblane primary school on 13th March 1996."
  200
  I am pleased to move the amendment standing in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Biffen). He apologises for his absence this afternoon, which I attribute to the rapid progress of the legislation and an important previous engagement.
  I am vice chairman of the British Shooting Sports Council and member of the council of the National Rifle Association—sadly, neither post is paid. I assure the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), who quoted the views of the Sportsman's Association, that we dissociate ourselves from that statement and those of other organisations which lie outside our curtilage. We have sought to behave entirely responsibly and have employed professional advisers of the highest standard. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's accusations will not be levelled at the British Shooting Sports Council, which does not relish the description "gun lobby". We represent shooting rights in the same way as other legal and above-board organisations represent their members' rights.
  I recognise the difficulties facing my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary in many areas, not least as a result of the difficult events that have transpired since Dunblane. I believe that an acceptable solution would have been to adopt Lord Cullen's recommendations. Therefore, I have no difficulty with the amendment which states that that is how the Government should proceed. The Government appointed Lord Cullen to do more than simply investigate the events at Dunblane school: they spread wide his remit to include advice on firearms and firearms regulation and licensing. Those who are interested in the sport of shooting took a great deal of trouble to place our evidence before Lord Cullen. He was receptive to our views and asked us to return to clarify detailed points. I believe that it is an error not to adopt his recommendations, as he considered the matter so very carefully.
  My right hon. and learned Friend referred to the report of the Forensic Science Service. Although I was assured that the report would be put in the Library last Thursday, owing to some confusion within the Department it arrived only this morning. When I have studied it, I may raise further points about that advice.
  It is clear that in rejecting Lord Cullen's main recommendations the Government have their own agenda. I share the view that the Bill's objective should be to prevent an incident such as that at Dunblane from occurring again. I am sorry to inform the House, however, that I am far from convinced that the Bill will have that effect. Those of us who witnessed the passage of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 said at the time that it would not prevent another disaster. It is almost impossible to legislate against lunatics. That problem is not confined to this country—someone tried to gas people on the Japanese underground recently and there was a flamethrower attack on a school in Northern Ireland. There are an endless number of maniacs who seek to kill people by one means or another.
  In our case, the press—as is their wont—decided that someone or something must be to blame. A concerted campaign was organised in several national newspapers the day after the Dunblane incident. It grew in depth and intensity and stirred up emotions, not just in Scotland but across the length and breadth of the land, in a manner which did not reflect the views in my postbag. I have talked to many colleagues who do not see evidence of the

  201
  supposed wave of public opinion: it is a case of the press feeding off the press, and of the media constantly giving interviews to one side of the argument.
  It was not long before Labour Members pricked up their ears. It is extraordinary that the hon. Member for Blackburn should urge us not to play party politics with such emotional matters when he produced lengthy evidence for the Cullen inquiry completely out of the blue. How is the Labour party expert on any aspect of the events at Dunblane?
  Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman may not be aware of it, but the Home Secretary invited me and Labour representatives to submit evidence to the Cullen inquiry.
  Sir Jerry Wiggin: That does not make such evidence any more relevant. I do not agree that there was consultation on the issue within the Labour party, as I know that those Labour Members who are sympathetic to shooting interests were not invited to give their views. Events progressed to the point where, as my right hon. and learned Friend pointed out, the Leader of the Opposition announced—long before Lord Cullen reported—that it was Labour policy to ban all handguns.
  Unfortunately, the Government followed suit. There was no consultation with the Firearms Consultative Committee, which is now a marginalised organisation. It has been told that other recommendations which might have assisted in improving gun safety will not be included in the Bill.
  I had hoped that the Opposition would adopt a sensible view regarding compensation. There is no precedent for legislation of this sort, which wipes out a section of a sporting community, affecting equipment, ranges and manufacturers. It is a new concept, so it is no wonder that there is no precedent for compensation. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will listen with a sympathetic ear. Although the small improvement in compensation that he announced today is very welcome, it does not go far enough in compensating the hundreds of people who will lose their jobs, for the many thousands of pounds in personal investments that will be lost, or for the misery that will be caused to law-abiding, innocent people who today operate a sensible business which will be outlawed tomorrow. I should add that there is no apparent appeals procedure, where the quantum or nature of compensation could be taken to a higher authority. I hope that that, too, will be part of my right hon. and learned Friend's consideration.
  I agree with the comments made about the way in which 50-plus police forces all have a different method of administration. Of course they cannot work together, and for that reason, several years ago we suggested that there should be a national firearms administrative board, staffed by firearms experts, on a national basis, which would produce a national standard and a national register. Those were sensible, commonsense suggestions, but they were turned down by the Home Office.
  There are many Committee points that I would like to make, but there is little time today. We were very pleased to learn that muzzle-loaders are to be exempt. I cannot understand why it was even considered that they should be included. The concession on heritage firearms is welcome. There are many other matters: for example, how long will it take to alter club security? What standards will be required?
  202
  The hon. Member for Blackburn mentioned a gun culture. I do not recall having seen sporting shooting on television, nor have I heard it reported. Only one newspaper even puts the Bisley results in. The gun culture in this country comes from television, video, the media—day after day, night after night. It should come as no surprise then that, if a madman gets loose, he should look to guns as his way of operating.
  I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will remember very strongly that, since the 1988 Act, the number of legally held firearms has gone down and the number of illegally held firearms has gone up. It is the role of the House to protect minorities against oppressive legislation. I believe the Bill to be ill thought-out, illogical and unfair. I am happy to move the amendment, and I shall certainly not support the Bill's Second Reading.
  6.11 pm
  Mr. Sam Galbraith: I have a particular interest in the Bill in that Thomas Hamilton ran a boys club in my constituency, which met on the Monday night before the massacre on the Wednesday. As a result, I was one of only two Members of Parliament who gave evidence to the Cullen inquiry. In addition, I have a professional interest in airguns which, if there is time, I shall mention briefly at the end.
  Lord Cullen's inquiry was an analysis of what happened. He teased out events and then accepted various bits of evidence, from which he came to opinions and conclusions. They are just that. They are not absolute truths. There is nothing inherent in the report that the House must accept absolutely. The final judgment on the matter must be made by the House after assessing all the information. We are helped by Lord Cullen's inquiry, but we are not bound by it.
  The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) said that it is impossible to legislate against lunatics. I accept that. We can never absolutely rule out a recurrence of such an event, but we can try to reduce the possibility and potential of such events recurring. That is the basis of the matter.
  The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare also suggested that somehow or other this is all a press campaign. That is not my impression. I come from Scotland and perhaps the mood there is very different, but I do not believe that. The slaughter of innocents is not a matter which stops at national boundaries. There is an aghast perception against it throughout the country. It is certainly my belief that this matter touches all of us throughout the country, no matter where we come from.
  When discussing firearms, we have to realise that the evidence one way or another is not absolute. We should be careful how we handle the information. I think that the argument has been made that it is all about legally and illegally held handguns and that most crime is related to illegally held handguns. There are two separate issues here. There is the normal day-to-day crime, which is committed with or without illegally held handguns, but we are concerned with the one-off, occasional massacres, the mass murders, which are a different issue. The relationship of legal handguns to illegal handguns is therefore not necessarily relevant. I should point out, however, that there is no evidence whatever that crime is committed solely, or even in the majority of cases, with illegally held handguns. The Select Committee examined that matter, and the glaring fact is that there is no statistical basis for that.

  203
  Another argument is the comparison between various countries and the relationship between guns and crime: more guns in the United States, more crime; fewer guns in this country, less crime. I caution everyone against such comparisons. We all know that various countries do not fit into this picture. The factors involved in different countries can vary in terms of density of population. climate, or whatever, so it is difficult to draw conclusions. We have to conclude that, so far as the evidence and statistical facts are concerned, positive proof one way or another is not within our grasp and never will be. We simply have to make a judgment on what we have before us.
  Another point that is regularly made is that if the regulations were tightened and new ones applied we could prevent a recurrence of these events. There is some force and judgment in that. The regulations could be improved. I should like to see the Select Committee's recommendation implemented—that a person applying for a licence for a firearm should have the medical information that he or she supplies verified by his or her general practitioner. That does not mean that the GP should say whether the person is suitable for a firearms certificate, just that the evidence given is correct. That would be a step forward. I also support the proposal that the onus should be on the individual to give good reason why he or she should continue.
  Even if all those regulations were in place, at the end of the day we still could not guarantee that it would prevent a recurrence of these events. The regulations are implemented by individuals, who are fallible. No matter how tight we make them, these are individual judgments, and mistakes will always be made. I have therefore reached the conclusion that the only way to deal with the issue is to reduce the number of handguns and weapons in our society.
  I think that it was the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) who asked the Home Secretary how many lives would be saved. That information will never be available to us. The numbers are small, but we could never reach a conclusion on that. All that we can say is that, by reducing the number of guns, it is likely that the number of such events in future will be reduced. I accept that going the whole hog and even removing .22 calibre rifles is an infringement of the civil liberties and rights of some individuals. The House should not remove those liberties lightly. It is important to remember that, as was expressed by the Home Secretary and by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), from time to time the House has to make a balanced judgment and decision. That is our job. Finally, we shall have to do it. That is one of the duties of the House. Sometimes, in the national interest and in the interests of the majority of people, we have to remove rights from others. I make the judgment, which I stand by, that in this case it is necessary to do that.
  I am disappointed that airguns are not mentioned in the Bill. I hope that we shall be able to discuss airguns in Committee. I have professional experience of looking after patients who have been injured by airguns: two of them died as a result of their injuries. I have seen the devastation that an airgun pellet causes when fired through the eye socket into the brain. We have no information about the number of airguns held, and the police take the view that airguns would be difficult to
  204
  regulate, but they must be regulated. We should use this opportunity to consider that problem and bring airguns within the Firearms Act 1968.
  Events in Dunblane are seared on the memories of all hon. Members on both sides of the House, without exception. We owe it to those who died at Dunblane and to their parents to ensure that the legislation is right. I and others have been accused of being too emotional. I do not know how a person can be too emotional on this matter. Emotions play a part in our relationships with others. The well accepted philosophical view is that moral relationships are, in part, bound by emotions, and our emotions decide what is right and what is wrong. My view is that it is right for us to ban all handguns and I ask the House to accept that view.
  Mr. Jopling rose—
  Mr. Robert Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will be aware that the crucial argument in the debate is whether handguns should be banned or whether, as an alternative, they should be dismantled. The Cullen report came down heavily in favour of their being dismantled: one part going to the owner, the other part to a gun club. The Forensic Science Service, to which the Home Secretary referred—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member is going to ask me to rule on this matter in my role as Deputy Speaker and not from my knowledge of firearms.
  Mr. Banks: When the Home Secretary gave his reasons for making his decision, he undertook to ensure that the evidence was available in the Library. I have just been to the Library and the evidence is not there. We are therefore undertaking a debate without the evidence relating to the core of the Bill.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is a matter for debate. I imagine that the Government Front Bench heard the hon. Member.
  Mr. Howard: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I agreed to a suggestion made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Sir C. Onslow) that the document should be placed in the Library. I was given to understand that it was now in the Library. If that is not an accurate understanding, I shall ensure that it is placed there without further delay.
  6.22 pm
  Mr. Michael Jopling: I hope that those interventions will not come out of my 10 minutes.
  I shall begin by making two points. First, I have been the holder of a firearms certificate for many years. I have two handguns: they are first world war trophies which belonged to my father. They were dismantled at the police's request, and the parts are kept in separate places. I have never fired them: I cannot remember firing a pistol in my life. I am not a member of a gun club, and I cannot remember visiting one. Secondly, I yield to no one in my absolute horror at the tragedy in Dunblane. There will not be anyone in the House who does not share that view.

  205
  1 am always concerned when a media-led campaign produces yet again an over-hasty, knee-jerk reaction from the Government. We have seen that too often over the years on both sides of the House. I thought that the Government had learnt their lesson. I hope that the Home Secretary has seriously taken on board Conservative Members' less than supportive reaction to the proposals.
  It is right to have strict gun controls. The House knows about my interest in the United States. I have publicly criticised its gun laws, which are hopelessly lax. If anyone wants an argument against having a written constitution, that is one of the strong cases to use. I would not argue for a moment that we must not call in many of the handguns in circulation.
  I welcome the relaxation proposals for heritage weapons which my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary announced earlier. We shall hear more details later. I hope that the Minister will be kind enough to explain the position of museums of historic weaponry. I spent Saturday afternoon in the Royal Armouries museum in Leeds, which is one of the world' s great exhibitions of armoury. I hope that there is nothing in the Bill that will reduce that wonderful museum.
  My main concern is about the effect of the Bill on gun clubs. I have great sympathy with early-day motion 136 in the name of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), which is very much on the lines that I want to pursue. I am especially concerned about the effect of the Bill on the perfectly legitimate sport of pistol shooting.
  The Government have resisted pressure to ban all gun club sports—I commend them for that. I could not disagree more with the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), who spoke in favour of a total ban. No adequate reasons have been given for an upper .22 limit on handguns that are properly controlled, and that are used by responsible people in shooting clubs.
  The message that comes from the Conservative Benches is that shooting sport is not disreputable. It is pursued almost entirely by thoroughly admirable people. Many people learn to use pistols during their professional lives in the armed services or in the police. When people retire from those services, there is no good reason why they should not be allowed to continue to improve their skills and to pursue a sport that, after all, as many hon. Members have said, is an Olympic sport. I cannot understand why those people should be treated as pariahs under this legislation.
  It is hard to imagine a more sensible and responsible group of people than those of my constituents who approached me on this matter. They are thoroughly decent people. I guess that all hon. Members would find it difficult to argue with that view, because almost everyone in the House has been approached by members of gun clubs. I do not believe that they should be deprived of their sport of firing higher-calibre handguns just because of an isolated, appalling incident.
  The police force was grossly negligent. I heard what the hon. Member for Blackburn said, but he cannot let the police off the hook. A senior police officer had to resign as a consequence of their failure to prevent the dreadful man Hamilton from obtaining a licence. I should have thought that that resignation was sufficient condemnation of the police in Scotland who were involved in this case.
  206
  I am especially concerned about people who run gun clubs. I want to read a letter that I did not expect to receive from people whom I cannot remember meeting—I shall not give their names. They live in Sedbergh in my constituency, and their case is probably typical of others up and down the country.
  "My husband and myself are hard working, law abiding citizens who have never been a drain on the NHS or DSS or out of work. Although not well paid we are self sufficient—do not cause a nuisance to anyone and respect other people's rights.
  Several years ago the opportunity arose to convert a remote quarry to a shooting range for full bore pistol. After several years of physical and financial labour the range met all required specifications laid down and a club was formed and since that date the membership has grown steadily with a wide range of people harmlessly enjoying their sport. Members include police, professional, business, working class—with a fair proportion of family memberships—parents and juniors who have learned to respect the gun and use it safely.
  Now all our hard work and years of pleasure are to cease. Tens of thousands of innocent, law abiding citizens are being persecuted although they have committed no crime."
  I believe that that sums up what is in the minds of many hon. Members. I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary's announcement of an extension to cover equipment in the money motion, but it does not go far enough. If we are determined to clobber the shooting fraternity—I hope that we are not—we really must compensate them properly.
  I strongly support what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins), who is now here with us. I do not care about the precedents, of which there are a good many. I am thinking particularly of compensation for those involved in the fishing industry: for many years, decommissioning grants have been awarded to people whose businesses have been clobbered by other policies. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will think again, and compensate people who, through no fault of their own, are being deprived of their livelihood and a large part of their assets.
  6.31 pm
  Mr. James Wallace: The right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) has expressed a view that is echoed by many Conservative Back Benchers. It is important for many views to be expressed in a debate such as this, but I think that we shall remember that, referring to the banning of guns, Lord Cullen said in paragraph 9.111 of his report:
  "proposals such as a ban on the possession of a certain type of firearm raise questions which are peculiarly within the province of the Government and Parliament to decide."
  Ultimately, the buck stops with us: it is for us to make that decision—a decision that I think Parliament will want to address very seriously.
  As we are too painfully aware, the origins of the Bill lie in the tragic events that took place at Dunblane primary school on 13 March this year, when Thomas Hamilton—with what can only be described as evil intent—opened fire on a class of innocent children. We should not pretend that passing the Bill will somehow draw a line under the tragedy of Dunblane, but I hope that, by producing legislation, the Government have acknowledged what the vast majority of our fellow citizens believe to be true:

  207
  that, despite the reforms prompted by the Hungerford killings, our firearms legislation requires further strengthening. We hope that, at the very least, Parliament will try to make our country a safer place for our citizens.
  My right hon. and hon. Friends start from the position that the protection of the public is a paramount duty of Parliament. It must be admitted that, in an imperfect world, we do not always get it right; but, after the tragedy of Dunblane, we recognise the need to address the issue again. In this context, we do not believe that the ownership or use of a gun can be considered a right. It is a privilege, and a privilege that can be granted only within a framework of regulation that provides the highest degree of public safety. An important part of that regulatory framework must be control over who is issued with a firearms certificate. I doubt that we shall ever be able to construct a foolproof system, but any system that licenses people like Michael Ryan or Thomas Hamilton requires significant review and amendment.
  My colleagues and I feel that perhaps too often the existing regime has been tilted towards the applicant. In today's debate, Central Scotland police have already been the object of some criticism, but, having talked to senior police officers in Scotland—not members of Central Scotland police—I have been left with the clear impression that they have been dealing with firearms certificate applications in a climate in which refusal has been regularly and readily appealed against, often with financial backing from the shooting lobby. Unless the case for refusal was watertight, the police hesitated before refusing. Whereas the law does not stipulate or express presumption in favour of a certificate being granted, it appears that practice was very much to that effect.
  We welcome the provisions in part III of the Bill which tighten up on the granting of firearms certificates. The provision to extend the powers for revocation of firearms and shotgun certificates is particularly welcome. In their submission to Lord Cullen's inquiry, the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland noted:
  "Unless a certificate holder sustains a criminal conviction during the currency of his certificate, the conditions for revocation may not apply in practice."
  Indeed, in his report, Lord Cullen draws attention to the fact that section 30 of the current Act makes no provision for the revocation of a firearms certificate owing to the loss of a good reason. It is right that the Bill rectifies that anomaly.
  Another clause in part III relates to ammunition. I note the prohibition on expanding ammunition, and the appropriate exemptions for the lawful shooting of deer or control of vermin. Let me draw to the Minister's attention a letter passed on to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster). It is from a constituent who is a firearms expert, and raises doubts about what is intended—or not intended—by the clauses on ammunition. I do not wish to make what would essentially be a Committee point; I shall pass the closely argued text of the letter to the Minister. It makes the following point, however:
  "Sporting bullets are designed to expand and if possible dissipate energy within the body of the animal. Is the Home Secretary suggesting that sportsmen use solid, full patch bullets? These are specifically designed not to expand and intended for human
  208
  targets … they would pass through the body of an animal with little loss of velocity, hit the ground and ricochet in all directions. not good for public safety one might think."
  I simply ask for such arguments to be considered in detail, so that we can ensure that we pass sensible legislation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Read the Bill."] I think that the Minister takes my point. I said that the vermin exemption was in the Bill.
  As a general rule, we should be particularly careful in passing any legislation when there is a degree of bipartisanship in the approach. We must make sure that we get it right. As is obvious, however, this Bill does not command support across the Floor of the House in every respect. That is particularly the case in regard to how far the ban on handguns should go. I agree with hon. Members who have said today that the House should think hard and deeply before banning an activity that has hitherto been legitimate. As Lord Cullen rightly pointed out, this is ultimately a matter for Parliament.
  The Bill proposes some exemptions. I imagine that those who are drafting amendments in favour of a complete ban would allow exemptions for veterinary surgeons, for instance. I welcome the Home Secretary's announcement today that some heritage and antique weapons are also to be included. We look forward to seeing the detail of those proposals. As far as I am aware, there is no history of misuse of such weapons.
  Clearly, the key issue is whether we should go beyond what the Government propose, limiting legally held handguns to those of .22 calibre. By banning some handguns—by going further down the road than Lord Cullen recommended—the Home Secretary has made clear his belief that fewer handguns will lead to safer communities and a reduced chance of another Hungerford or Dunblane. I believe that the majority of Members of Parliament, the public and the police would support that. Why, then, should smaller guns be exempt from that logical conclusion? As the Police Federation of England and Wales has concluded,
  "handguns are particularly lethal. A person skilled in their use can murder a large number of victims in an incredibly short time."
  If we fail to extend the ban to all handguns, we leave open the possibility of development of smaller handguns. By the very nature of the market, if a commodity is limited the natural consequence will be greater investment in similar goods that are left. That is why it is perhaps misleading, although not deliberately so, to assume that, if what is currently proposed would affect 80 per cent. of handguns, that 80 per cent. will always be the figure. Many of those who give up what will become illegal handguns could well then buy what will subsequently be legal.
  The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) mentioned the number of homicides involving handguns. In paragraph 9.11 of his report, Lord Cullen points out:
  "in 12.5 per cent. of the firearms-homicides in Scotland in the years 1990–94 … the firearm was lawfully held by the perpetrator."
  He goes on to say that the use of legally held firearms in crime was "significant", although small. That evidence cannot be lightly ignored.
  Another consequence of the partial ban under the Bill is the obligation of smaller handgun owners to keep their weapons in a licensed club, a measure that could lead to the creation of larger arsenals. Initially, my colleagues and I were willing to consider support for a partial ban,

  209
  coupled with an assessment of the feasibility of ensuring that firearms for sporting purposes are kept inside a suitable armoury, subject to nationally agreed standards. Ironically, the Government's response on that aspect of secure storage and the scepticism with which it was met by police persuaded many of my colleagues that that was not a viable option.
  The Government's White Paper in response to Lord Cullen's report states that few, if any, existing clubs will meet the criteria. Enforcement of such a partial ban, with such strict club security arrangements, will be complex and costly, certainly compared with, as it were, the clean way of approaching the matter—an outright ban. The hon. Member for Blackburn read out the comments of the British Shooting Sports Council on transport. In clause 8(8), the Secretary of State is given power to designate, by order, the competitions to which people are allowed to take weapons. I am not sure whether he would intend to exercise that power, whether all competitions would be allowed or whether he has in mind some competitions, but that underlines the considerable bureaucracy and cost that will be associated with trying to police and enforce the partial ban.
  Moreover, it has been claimed that the security requirements will further reduce the number of legally held handguns in circulation to well below the 20 per cent. shown in the Government's response. If the intended effect is to achieve a near complete ban by the back door, it would be far better for Parliament's credibility if we were to do it by the front door. I hope that, even at this late stage, this will be an opportunity for right hon. and hon. Members to exercise their individual conscience and judgment.
  On compensation, it is the duty of the House not to punish the innocent. Clearly, a vast majority of firearms enthusiasts are not criminals. I agree with the comments of the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling). Those of us who have met firearms enthusiasts at our surgeries will recognise the integrity of many of those people, who are going to lose out not only by an outright ban, but even by a partial ban. When it deprives many people of their hitherto legal sport, the House must face up to the consequences with regard to compensation.
  As it stands, what the Bill proposes is inadequate. It was therefore welcome news to hear the Home Secretary announce that he is willing to hear further debate before closing the door on compensation, which would have been the effect if the money resolution were passed this evening. He accepts that, as well as the weapons, there are the accompanying accessories, ammunition and specialist equipment. We said that there was no precedent for small businesses being covered, but perhaps it would be interesting to know whether there is any precedent in such circumstances for small businesses not to be covered.
  I ask the Minister to deal with the fact that many people will have what will be, technically, legal handguns—if the Bill is passed as it stands—but will not find an outlet for using them if all clubs in their region cannot meet security requirements. If, in effect, they have to give up their weapons—because they cannot use them anywhere—it would be only fair if they were entitled to compensation.
  If gun owners are not adequately compensated, that not only would be unfair but would potentially lead to the Bill not working effectively. If compensation is inadequate,
  210
  many gun owners may be less likely to part with their weapons. They may find overseas markets with a higher price and thereafter those guns may find their way back illegally into Britain. That could lead to the legislation's aims being defeated. I hope that there will be a proper opportunity for the Government to listen to the legitimate demands for much wider compensation.
  Let us not pretend that, by passing the legislation, even amended to extend to a full handgun ban, we can guarantee that somewhere, sometime, some wicked or deranged person will not cause a further outrage. Constant effort, for example, will be needed to combat the illegal use of guns. We can legislate to make such outrages less likely by restricting the guns legally available and by restricting those to whom certificates may be granted.
  The Bill goes some significant way towards achieving that. It should be supported, but it can be made better still by the amendments that we will debate next week.
  6.44 pm
  Sir Cranley Onslow: The headquarters of target shooting in Britain are at Bisley in my constituency. I have been involved with shooting ever since I was elected to the House. I have been a co-opted member of the National Rifle Association council for 30 years. I do not own—and it is a long time since I have shot with—either a revolver or a pistol, but I have many friends and constituents who do. Many of them will be adversely affected by the Bill.
  Having said that, I still assert that every member of the shooting community in Britain was just as appalled and shocked by the Dunblane tragedy as the rest of nation. I resent the implication that sometimes arises in discussion that that is not so.
  What happened at Dunblane exposed serious deficiencies in the present law and in its enforcement, and the need for fresh legislation, but we all need to recognise that, if we are to legislate, we should not do so under any illusions. No Bill can undo what happened at Dunblane, wreak revenge on the man Hamilton or guarantee that mass murder will not occur again by some other means. One has to consider only the Oklahoma tragedy to recognise what can be done with materials that are easily available for public purchase.
  Any Bill that we consider must be thought through properly and framed carefully. I am sorry to have to say to my hon. Friend the Minister of State that the Home Office does not seem to have persuaded Britain as a whole that the legislation is as carefully framed as it should be. Certainly, it has not persuaded the shooting community, which generally supports the recommendations of Lord Cullen's excellent report, but which in many cases is not persuaded that the Government's solution of going beyond Cullen is justified.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) has just handed me the letter from the Forensic Science Service, on which the Government appear to rely in going beyond Cullen. Although the limitations of time do not make it possible for me to read it out, I hope that hon. Members will read it. I should be surprised if they thought that it is very adequate in what it says.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary upset people in the way that he handled the matter. I do not understand why he did not keep his undertaking to

  211
  consult the Firearms Consultative Committee before coming to the House with legislation, particularly in relation to Lord Cullen's preferred option not to ban larger-calibre pistols and revolvers, but to require them to be dismantled when stored. That refusal has led to much suspicion, which was not necessary and which needs to be ironed out in full debate. There has been no proper test of the practicality of Lord Cullen's option and many people remain convinced that it is a workable solution that would save bureaucracy and public expense.
  I hope that the Home Secretary will understand that he does not carry full conviction on his decision and that the owners of guns that are to be banned have some justification in thinking that they are being used as scapegoats, which is unfortunate. They are overwhelmingly decent, law-abiding citizens, as many hon. Members have said. Their sport has been legitimate and is internationally recognised as such. If they are to be deprived of it, after the Bill has had full consideration in the House, it is obviously equitable that they should have full and proper compensation.
  I welcome the Government's decision to withdraw the money resolution that they originally tabled. I shall reserve judgment on compensation until I see what form the fresh money resolution takes. Although we have been encouraged to believe that it might deal with the vexed questions of historic guns and antique guns and weapons, what is to be the position with regard to collections of guns? How are they to be valued? How, in particular, is the very important matter of loss of livelihood to be treated under the new money resolution?
  I received a letter today from a constituent who works as a gunsmith. He started 20 years ago as an apprentice and is now a partner in the business, which stands to be ruined by the Bill. Surely he must be entitled to proper compensation, as must all others in the same position. It is monstrous that, simply because there are restrictions on public expenditure, the House should consider allowing such people to be victimised and penalised in the way that is likely to happen under the Bill. After all, it was not the owners of pistols and revolvers who allowed Hamilton to hold and use his guns, so they should not bear the brunt of the penalty.
  I am satisfied to some extent by what my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said. He has undertaken to produce amendments and his concession on compensation is something that the House should welcome. However, matters have not yet reached the position where I would feel disposed to support the Bill. Indeed, if the money resolution had not been withdrawn for amendment, I should most certainly have voted against it.
  6.50 pm
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: I welcome the Bill as a further strengthening of the firearms legislation. However, we could achieve the objective that we all have in common—to control access to handguns, to ensure that a repetition of Dunblane is not possible and to make it impossible for people to have complete handguns outside licensed and controlled premises—by the much simpler proposal of requiring dismantling of guns.
  I tabled an amendment that was not selected. My early-day motion 136 fits in with the reasoned amendment moved by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare
  212
  (Sir J. Wiggin), which is a more bland and statesmanlike version of my proposal. Everybody has in common the aim of taking guns off the streets, preventing them from being available outside licensed premises and making another Dunblane impossible. We can make it impossible to have complete guns outside licensed premises by requiring guns to be dismantled. In other words, part of the gun—presumably the heavier part—would be kept at the gun club under security, while the other, lighter and more portable part could be taken home by the gun owner. If that were to be the basic approach in our legislation, it would be cheaper, safer and less draconian than a ban, whether complete or partial, such as the Government are proposing.
  I am making my suggestion out of rational motives. I am not a gun enthusiast; indeed, I do not like guns. I am not persuaded by the arguments that the gun lobby has put before us. I am not part of the gun lobby. I do not like speaking for anyone else. That is a problem I often have in politics because I rather like to put my own point of view. I have reached my point of view by reading the evidence, reading the Cullen report and reading the Government's reply. I hope that I am suggesting a rational approach. I believe that it is the most direct and effective route to securing what we all want.
  This is an emotive issue. We pass the worst legislation when we rush into it under the influence of strong emotion. We must stop and think. So far, the Government have taken a rational approach by appointing Lord Cullen to carry out a full inquiry. That was very sensible. Indeed, if there had been such an approach after Hungerford, Dunblane might never have happened. There are the beginnings of a rational approach and we must see where that takes us.
  In paragraph 9.106 of his report, Lord Cullen said:
  "I am satisfied that of all the measures which stop short of a ban the one that is open to the least objection on the ground of practicability is the temporary dismantling of the self-loading pistols and revolvers by the removal of major components … It has the merit that it does not require clubs to accommodate the handguns, with the various accommodation and security problems which I have already mentioned. In each case the component which is removed could be kept by a club official or on the club premises, where there was adequate space and security for the purpose, while the remainder of the handgun would be kept by the shooter at home."
  Lord Cullen repeats that recommendation in paragraph 9.112.
  The Government should consider that approach to see whether it would fulfil their objective. However, there is no evidence that the Government have considered that approach with the same open-mindedness shown by Lord Cullen. Instead, they have concentrated on refuting another of Lord Cullen's suggestions—that there should be barrel blocks. They said that that would be impossible and it probably would be. However, they have ignored the most serious and important recommendation of dismantling.
  The Government said in their reply that dismantling was not a practical proposition for some types of handgun. I am no expert; I do not know guns. However, people who do know guns tell me that it is possible to dismantle 95 per cent. of handguns. Indeed, handguns must be dismantled for cleaning. The Government could then ban any handguns that could not be dismantled. That would be an easy way round the problem. I do not understand why the Government did not adequately consider that proposal.

  213
  The Home Secretary said this afternoon that frequent dismantling could affect weapons through wear and tear, making them less reliable and less accurate. People interested in shooting would not buy guns that became less accurate over a period. The guns must be dismantled for cleaning. It is not a complicated, technical operation requiring the attendance of a specialist.
  The advantages of dismantling are enormous. For example, currently the costs of compensation are unknown and unpredictable. We do not know how much it will cost to compensate people fairly and reasonably, as we must do. That problem would not exist under the dismantling proposal. The dangers of theft raids on licensed premises and the massive security required if clubs are to keep .22s would not exist, because any raider would get only incomplete weapons. That is equally true of a raid on the home of a gun owner.
  An extremely important point is that the proposal is less draeonian than the Government's proposals and would allow the sport to continue. I have had intermittent discussions on the issue with the right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor). He appears to be more inclined to talk about it on radio and television than in the Chamber. He is not here at the moment. He evinces—as many do—a great distaste for gun clubs and their members. I do not share that distaste. Some of my constituents are members of gun clubs and they have a right to enjoy their sport. I would not get any pleasure out of it. The only shooting equipment I want to handle is an old camera. Being a Yorkshireman, that is much better, because a gun can cost about £1,000 while a 1938 Retina costs £25 and gives me much greater pleasure than handling guns.
  If people can be enabled to carry on their sport in controlled and licensed premises, why not? We must draw a balance between freedom and control, and we can achieve that through the dismantling proposal. I discussed the matter this morning with some of the parents of children killed at Dunblane. I am grateful to them for being prepared to talk to me. I did not convince them in any way. Indeed, they were far more effective in convincing me than I was in convincing them. They raised objections saying, for example, that in 1989 one man killed somebody in a gun club in Stockport. No proposal could stop that happening—certainly not either mine or the Government's.
  The parents asked about illegal weapons. The Bill does not increase penalties and sanctions for possession of illegal weapons, as it should. They also asked about the problem of people using spare parts to replace parts left at clubs—a problem that could easily be dealt with through licensing conditions. A police representative at the meeting said that a dismantling requirement would be more difficult to enforce. It probably would, but it would be less expensive than the current proposals. Moreover, we must put effort into enforcement if we are to make control effective.
  At the end of my discussions with the people from Dunblane—I am grateful to them for seeing me and discussing the issue with me—I came to the conclusion that they want, first, to end the gun culture. They are right in wanting to reach that goal, but it will achieved through a long-term process of education and controlling violence on television, which we should support.
  214
  Secondly, the parents want a complete handgun ban. From their viewpoint, they are right to want that, and in similar circumstances I, too, would want it. But the Bill does not provide a complete ban. My proposal, which echoes the Cullen report, will provide much more effective control.
  Ultimately—after the parties have imposed three-line whips or allowed free votes, and hon. Members have expressed their views—there is no guarantee of the type of ban that will emerge. Will the ban be partial or complete? To approach the issue through dismantling would obviate that problem, because it would provide the enormous advantage—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Time is up.
  7 pm
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes: I warmly welcome the Bill and the extent to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has acted on the issue of handgun control. I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland for the part that he has played in ensuring that the Government have come as far as they have. We should be quite clear about the fact that the Bill is not a knee-jerk reaction by the Government. The Cullen inquiry was conducted over many months, and now, after considered reflection, the Bill has been introduced and we are debating it, after which hon. Members will have to decide what will happen.
  Although I welcome the Bill and the Government's actions, I firmly believe—from some of the noises that have been made on the Conservative Benches, some hon. Members believe differently—that there is no distinction between .22 calibre weapons and other handguns. I plan to table an amendment to the Bill in Committee which, if selected, would propose to ban all handguns.
  The question that we must ask is: what will be the effect of legislation on .22 shooting and gun ownership? Is it safe to allow .22s to be kept in the manner proposed in the Bill? I have heard two versions—both from Ministers, so at least one version must be right—of what will happen. The first possibility is that compensation will be used by target shooters to buy a .22, and therefore the number of people with .22s will increase greatly.
  The second possibility is that .22 target shooting will not prove popular with target shooters—as my local target shooters have told me—and the restrictions will be so rigorous that the sport will disappear. Both outcomes cannot happen.
  It would be unacceptable if the first possibility were to happen, and we ended up with more .22s and a return to the gun culture that many of us would like to be abolished in the United Kingdom. If the second possibility is more likely, perhaps we should—as the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said—be a bit more honest and say at the outset that we will ban .22s.
  The issue is not simply a matter of licensing. I have heard Conservative Members in this debate say—from a sedentary position or by intervening—that Dunblane was the fault of Central Scotland police and an example of the licensing system not being operated properly. Of course there were faults in the licensing system, but the Cullen report states, time and again, that no licensing system

  215
  could stop another Thomas Hamilton. Very helpfully, the British Shooting Sports Council made it clear that it agrees with that statement. It said:
  "no matter what system of checks and paperwork is maintained in such circumstances, it would be a simple matter indeed for a shooter intent in recovering his guns to enter a competition, provide evidence to his club secretary that he had done so, recover possession of his complete gun together with ammunition for it, and perpetrate an outrage".
  So everyone is agreed that it is not merely a matter of licensing, and that we must go further.
  If we are to consider allowing .22s to be kept under the conditions set out by the Government, we should, first, consider those weapons. We must be clear that the .22 is the chosen weapon of Mossad, the Special Air Services and, allegedly, of professional assassins. Moreover, the shooters' lobby—to which I am again grateful—praised .22s as being better, easier to use and equally lethal.
  Page 117 of the Cullen report states:
  "It should not be supposed that .22 rimfire cannot be as lethal as other ammunition. The BSSC pointed out that at point-blank range and aimed at vital parts of the body .22 cartridges would be as lethal as 9 mm."
  At the bottom of the page, it states:
  "The BSSC pointed out that due to the lower recoil forces involved in .22 rimfire it was possible to fire a greater number of controlled and carefully aimed shoots in a given space of time than was possible with centrefire."
  So we cannot rely on the fact that those weapons are safe.
  Those weapons were not safe for Mr. Duncan Allman, a father of three who was shot at his gun club, where he was acting as the range officer. Not one proposal in the Bill would have done anything to save him. Perhaps someone should explain to the families of Robert Kennedy, Yitzhak Rabin or Ronald Reagan—who was nearly killed with a .22—that .22s are safe. Perhaps someone should explain it to James Brady, who was disabled and nearly killed by a .22. In my judgment, and in the judgment of the shooting fraternity, .22s are equally lethal, and they should be banned.
  I share the view expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House that, in general, target shooters are reasonable people who simply want to go about their law-abiding activity of shooting at targets. I have spoken to many shooters in my constituency and have visited the gun clubs that some of them use. I pay tribute to their reasonable approach in their discussions with me, even after I came to the view that we should ban their sport. I must agree with the hon. Member for Blackburn, however, that the BSSC has done nothing to help the case of shooters; in fact, shooters have been let down very badly by the BSSC. At paragraph 9.110 of his report, Lord Cullen states:
  "throughout the Inquiry the BSSC who acted as the umbrella body representing the interests of the shooting community at large were opposed in principle to any restriction on the availability of handguns; and objected not merely to the suggestion of one kind of ban or another but also … to various measures which stopped short of a ban."
  We have seen that type of belligerence and negative attitude in this debate.
  Some aspects of the campaign by shooting organisations should be rejected by the House, and hon. Members who support shooting organisations in this
  216
  debate should make it clear that they distance themselves from those aspects. The action against Ann Pearston, from the Snowdrop campaign, has been an absolute disgrace. She became involved in that campaign, although she had never been involved in politics before. In a whispering campaign by shooters, she has been accused of being a poll tax evader, of being at Greenham common and of raising money for the IRA. All those allegations are false, but no apology has ever been given or statement withdrawn by the shooters. The Dunblane parents—my God, one would have thought that they had suffered enough losing children who were barely more than babies—have been described by the National Pistol Association as "the enemy". What a disgrace. They have received hate mail from shooters for a long time.
  Mr. John Carlisle: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Hughes: I shall be happy to take an intervention when I have finished this point.
  Is it not a disgrace that the people who lost their children have had to have their mail diverted so that others can sift it before they see it?
  Mr. Carlisle: Perhaps my hon. Friend ought to know that after the comments that I made—I hope to catch your eye later and refer to them, Madam Deputy Speaker—I received hate mail and death threats. I have received some extraordinary letters from people threatening my life. The traffic is not all one way. We should not be trading emotions, but my hon. Friend ought to know the facts from the other side.
  Mr. Hughes: Naturally, I deplore what has happened to my hon. Friend as well, but Mr. Marcus Harrison, who has already been mentioned in the debate, clearly does not deplore what has happened and regards such behaviour as merely part of the rough and tumble of the campaign.
  The Dunblane parents have been accused of coercing children to sign the petition and have been libelled as having misused council facilities. On the day on which they first saw the Cullen report, they received a picture of all of them cut out of a newspaper with the word "Bastard" written across it. What sort of people are we dealing with?
  We are dealing with public policy in the proper way. This way of legislating has a longer history than the hon. Member for Blackburn suggested. There are historical precedents after incidents such as the Peterloo riots for the House deciding to change public policy because of what has happened. We have that responsibility and I hope that we shall exercise it by banning all handguns.
  7.11 pm
  Mr. Chris Mullin: It is not hard to understand why there has to be a three-line Whip for Conservatives tonight. With the exceptions of the hon. Members for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) and for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) and one or two others, the Conservatives are clearly opposed to the Bill.
  I welcome the Bill as a first step, albeit an inadequate one, towards limiting the enormous growth of weapons in private hands. The ban on handguns, however, does not go far enough—it should be total. I particularly welcome the ban on mail order weapons.

  217
  Some have argued that the Bill is a panic response to a single event and is therefore bound to be botched. I agree that it is a panic response to a single event, but the event that caused the panic that gave rise to the Bill was not the tragic massacre at Dunblane; it was the public reaction to the report produced at the beginning of August by the Home Secretary's hon. Friends on the Home Affairs Select Committee. I strongly suspect that, until that time, the Home Secretary had hoped to get away with no more than a little tinkering. He had hoped that his hon. Friends on the Select Committee would provide cover for that minimalist approach. Only when he saw the public reaction to the report did he decide to act. Within a few hours of the publication of the majority report, anonymous Home Office briefers were already trying to draw a little distance between the Government and Conservative members of the Select Committee.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Mullin: I shall give way briefly, because I have only a short time.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I hope that he is not suggesting that the Home Secretary had any input into the majority report of the Home Affairs Select Committee. It was completely independent. I should like the hon. Gentleman's confirmation that he accepts that.
  Mr. Mullin: The thought never passed through my mind. However, I am afraid that the Home Secretary has not done enough. The distinction that he seeks to make in the Bill between weapons over .22 calibre and those under is, as others have pointed out, hopelessly impractical. As the hon. Member for Harrow, West said a moment ago, it will merely create a surge in demand for lower-calibre weapons. Many shooters will use their compensation to buy other weapons. Indeed, I received a letter this week from someone who promised to spend every last penny of his compensation on new weapons. As others have argued, a .22 weapon in the wrong hands can also inflict considerable damage.
  I could have been convinced—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) wants to say that out loud, I shall gladly give way to him.
  I could have been convinced that the use of handguns for sporting purposes should continue to be permitted if they could be safely stored at a central location rather than at home. However, the shooting lobby—as others have said, what an inept lot they are—argued forcefully that that was not possible. No doubt they were hoping to convince us that there was no alternative to home storage, but they succeeded in convincing me that a total ban on handguns was the only practical solution.
  As I have said, the Bill does not go far enough. A reduction in the total number of guns of all types in circulation is a desirable objective. In its evidence to the Select Committee, the British Shooting Sports Council talked approvingly of the vast explosion in recent years in the number of weapons for sporting purposes. I believe that the time has come to turn the tide and that the Bill ought to be the opportunity to do so.
  I want a total ban on handguns. No doubt an amendment will be tabled to that effect and I shall vote for it. I want a large reduction in the number of shotguns
  218
  in private hands, starting with those in urban areas. Shotguns, licensed and unlicensed, feature all too frequently in crime, in suicides and in accidents. They have featured in several recent incidents in and around my constituency.
  A few months ago, a Sunderland councillor had a shotgun placed against his living room window and fired at him. In September, a 14-year-old boy in Houghton-le-Spring, near Sunderland, was accused by two workmen of stealing tools. The boy ran off, returning a few minutes later with a shotgun belonging to his grandfather—another legally held weapon—to threaten the workmen with it.
  Most incredible of all was the case in Scotland, not long after the Dunblane tragedy, when a 12-year-old boy prised open his father's gun case, took out the shotgun, sawed off both barrels, took the cartridges, wrote on them the names of the children at school whom he was going to kill and set off to school with the sawn-off shotgun, where, thank goodness, he was overpowered before he could do any damage. That is yet another example of a legally held weapon falling into the wrong hands.
  There are said to be some 2 million legally owned shotguns in circulation. Once again, those of us who favour drastic action are indebted to the shooting lobby for making our case for us. Mr. Yardley, one of the gun lobby's most vociferous spokesmen, said the other day that there was no point in doing anything about handguns unless we also did something about shotguns. I agree.
  Everyone understands that farmers need shotguns to deal with pests. It is more difficult to understand why someone living on a housing estate in the middle of Sunderland needs a shotgun in his home. I favour a big reduction in the number of shotgun licences, starting with those in urban areas.
  Mr. Robert Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Mullin: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am limited for time.
  The age at which someone may use a shotgun should be raised to 18.
  I also want a reduction in the number of air weapons, many of which are in the hands of children. Lord Cullen drew attention to the problem in paragraph 9.119 of his report. I am sorry that the Government are taking no notice of him on that. As most of my hon. Friends can testify, air weapons in urban areas are the source of a great deal of low-level mayhem. As my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) made clear, they can inflict some pretty terrible, and sometimes fatal, injuries.
  A little while ago, a neighbour of mine came within a fraction of an inch of being paralysed for life by a pellet from an air rifle that lodged close to his spine. A woman who used to work for me had her windows shot out by youths who were driving down her street shooting out windows at random. A man stopped me in the street the other day and said that his neighbour's son had already slaughtered most of the wildlife in his garden and was now firing randomly across a road used by traffic and pedestrians. I want air weapons to be brought within the licensing system. No one under 18 should be given a licence and there should be a presumption against granting licences to those who live in urban areas.

  219
  Like many hon. Members, I have received hundreds of letters from irate shooters. Most, but not all of them, are courteously worded and advance a number of reasons—several of which we have heard this evening—for leaving things as they are. They argue that most crime is carried out with illegally held weapons and that the Bill will not stop criminals getting their hands on guns. That is not entirely true. Many weapons that fall into the wrong hands initially have licensed owners and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said, it is an irrefutable fact that no amount of bluster can get around that the massacres in Dunblane, Hungerford and Tasmania were carried out with legally held weapons.
  As I mentioned in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, Tony Hall, the father of one of those killed at Hungerford, has compiled a list of 178 people who have been shot dead with legally held weapons since 1988. In some cases, whole families have been wiped out when one member—not necessarily the one with the gun licence—has gone berserk with a licensed weapon.
  Although a ban on handguns will not prevent further tragedies, it will at least reduce the likelihood of them happening. It is argued that the overwhelming majority of shooters pose no threat to society and that an entire sport should not be jeopardised by the actions of one madman. I agree that, thank goodness, there are not many Thomas Hamiltons about and most shooters are upright citizens. However, unstable personalities are attracted to guns. Let me draw the attention of the House to an article—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Time is up.
  7.21 pm
  Dame Jill Knight: Let there be no doubt whatsoever of the universal horror and condemnation felt in every part of the House for the depth of wickedness shown by Thomas Hamilton at Dunblane last March. Those of us who oppose the banning of a long-established sport are not blood-thirsty savages: we too have wept for the innocent children and their teacher who died.
  I have never owned a pistol, let alone shot one. I am not a member of the so-called gun lobby and I came to the matter with a totally open mind. If anything, I was rather inclined to support the idea of banning guns. However, I am a member of the Select Committee on Home Affairs. After Dunblane, we spent many weeks studying evidence and listening to witnesses, and I became increasingly convinced that the way forward is to impose stringent new licensing procedures and to take a number of other measures to stop guns falling into the wrong hands.
  The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) quoted members of the gun lobby saying that the Bill would not stop people killing. Nothing will stop madmen going on the rampage. If they do not have guns, they will use something else, so we cannot pretend that we can magically end danger to all people in the country.
  The six Conservative Members on the Select Committee expressed that opinion, and in so doing ran headlong into a campaign of hate and vilification such as I have never seen. The Sun newspaper and a rag called
  220
  The Daily Record gave out our addresses and telephone numbers and urged their readers to write or telephone and condemn us.
  As a result, I received a number of death threats. I was sent photographs of myself with a bullet hole through the centre of my forehead. I received parcels of excreta and, worst of all, threats that people intended to wait outside the schools that my grandchildren attend and shoot them.
  I received about 40 letters of condemnation, only five of which were calm and sensible and inquired why I voted as I did. Since then, I have received nearly 1,000 letters from those who support the sport. Two themes run through them. First, there was a great sadness and sympathy about the horror of Dunblane and, secondly, there was a disbelieving outrage among the writers of those letters that they would have to pay for Hamilton's crime. They are not criminals; they are among the most responsible, disciplined and law-abiding people in the land.
  A number of women shoot as a sport, and there are disabled shooters. Women and disabled people can participate in the sport without being disadvantaged by size or disability. I must confess that I never thought that I would see the day when a Conservative Government would rush to deprive such people of the opportunity to pursue their chosen sport—and rushing they are. There has been no chance for a proper debate in the country or for proper consultation. To my mind, there has never been a clearer example of hard cases making bad laws.
  Why did the Government set up the Cullen inquiry and then fail to accept its recommendations? Why did they ignore the deliberations of the Home Affairs Committee? However much shock and horror we feel, it is wrong to make judgments on the basis of emotion, even though those emotions are fully justified and understandable.
  At first I thought that the Bill would permit the sport to continue, but now I have no doubt that it will bring an end to the legal sport of target shooting. If we are not careful, the Bill will impose great injustice in failing to pay proper compensation, not only for guns, but for property. I do not believe that the Government have counted accurately the cost of compensation, which could well be as much as £1 billion—certainly more than half a billion pounds. I would prefer that money to be spent on hospitals, housing or schools.
  The Bill will turn any remaining gun clubs into fortresses. They will certainly be desirable targets for criminals who wish to acquire guns. It would be far more sensible to pursue the idea of dismantling guns, with one part being kept at the home of the shooter and the other at the gun club. I agree with the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), and would add to what he said. It would much safer if one part of the gun were in one place and the rest were in another because any criminal who attacked the gun club would not know where the rest of the gun was kept.
  There are many other issues. Members of The Sealed Knot, a well-known and respected historical group, use replica guns that fire blank ammunition. They also use smooth-bore muskets and cannons firing black powder. Will they have to stop? Olympic events use only .22 guns, but other world and regional pistol contests do not. Will there be compensation to firearms dealers and manufacturers?

  221
  I am aware that others wish to contribute to the debate and I have no wish to prolong my speech. I believe absolutely fundamentally that we owe our constituents and the country calm judgment on a highly emotional matter. We must carefully consider all points of view, ask ourselves whether the Bill will do what we intend it to do and, above all, make just and fair decisions. Those are the duties that we owe the people of Britain, and I do not believe that we are carrying them out by supporting the Bill.
  7.29 pm
  Mr. William Ross: I hope that no one in the House will accuse me of ignorance about the destruction that firearms can cause. I have seen much of it and attended enough funerals to know exactly what the consequences of illegal firearms are in this country of ours.
  As usual, the Bill's purpose is set out in the long title. It is
  "A Bill to amend the Firearms Acts 1968 to 1992; to make provision in relation to the licensing and regulation of pistol clubs; to make further provision for regulating the possession of, and transactions relating to, firearms and ammunition; and for connected purposes."
  That, in itself, is a considerable exercise in misdirection. We all know perfectly well that the Bill's real purpose is to try to prevent another atrocity like the one that occurred at Dunblane primary school. The question to be asked, therefore, is simply whether it will accomplish that objective. Have the Opposition and the Government reasoned their way through the matter? The Home Secretary's comments today about the money resolution left me yet again with a clear impression that something had been cobbled together hurriedly without the slightest thought about its implications or what it was intended to accomplish.
  If the Bill has not been reasoned through, one is forced to conclude that the House, the Government and the Opposition are being driven by the tabloid press and emotion, which is the late 20th century equivalent to the 18th century mob and its agitators. When we are sent here, we are charged to look after the best interests of our constituents. We need, therefore, to think a problem through and apply reason to it. If we do not, we betray those best interests and end up with the poll tax or legislation such as the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. With this Bill, we are going down exactly the same route to exactly the same evil consequences. The Government are yet again thinking through what is to be done about knives, and are—to some extent, I believe—bringing back the old sus law, which is widely welcomed on the Opposition Benches—to the surprise of those who take an interest in such matters.
  We had perfectly workable legislation on dangerous dogs in Northern Ireland before the enactment of the Dangerous Dogs Act. We on this Bench advised the Government simply to apply it to the whole of the United Kingdom. They declined, making the excuse that it did not work. Nobody in Northern Ireland thought that. We all thought that it worked quite successfully. We have not managed to improve matters in Great Britain from that day to this.
  The law governing firearms in Northern Ireland is perhaps the strictest in Europe. There is, therefore, a ready-made body of legislation that could be lifted in its
  222
  entirety and applied to the rest of the United Kingdom. The Government have failed to do that, and I think that they will live to regret it. We have a very tight system governing the application and revocation of licences, and an appeals system which is cheap and effective. Of course, since the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has to take the final decision in the appeals system, it is not very welcome to Ministers in this place.
  As has already been pointed out, the proposals in the Bill will have widespread effects on persons who make their living from shooting sports and have many ramifications that have not yet surfaced. The letters that we have all received tell part of the story.
  Given the impact of the Bill, why has no greater thought—no detailed consideration—been given to who was responsible for what happened? In the final analysis, responsibility lay with Hamilton, but was the granting of his application and the subsequent renewals of firearms certificates done in such a fashion as to inspire confidence in police procedures? Anyone who has read the Cullen report—I hope that all hon. Members have—is forced to conclude that the procedures were plainly not conducted in a way that inspires confidence.
  Given police responsibility and the effect on clubs, why did the police take into their possession the records of many shooting clubs in Scotland, and why have they not yet been given back? I do not know how many records they took. I think that we would all like to know. Without such records, clubs are deprived of information that they might need. Why was no receipt given? When will the documents be returned to the clubs? Will the Minister assure the House that copies of standing orders on firearms administration for police forces throughout the United Kingdom, but especially in Scotland, will be deposited in the Library with a copy of the report made by the chief constable of Thames Valley police to the Home Secretary and the police authority after the tragedy in his jurisdiction some years ago? Can copies of various letters on firearms that the Home Office sent to chief constables and the minutes of meetings of the Association of Chief Police Officers and ACPO Scotland on firearms matters be made available? Such information would be of interest to many hon. Members.
  I note that the police made the excuse—and Cullen accepted it—that there was no good reason for rescinding Hamilton's firearms certificate. The councils that had certain responsibilities in those matters did not take very much action either over the years whenever Hamilton was in their purview. Nor was action taken—apparently—by welfare authorities, children's officers of councils and various other folk. I wonder why, given the man's history, only the boy scouts spotted him—20 years ago—and got rid of him. They at least got it right while everyone else was getting it wrong. The man had a strange personality and character, and his action at the school was one of unmitigated horror.
  I believe that everyone in the House and far beyond understands the murder that is a consequence of violent rage, very often in a domestic situation. One wonders about the statistics on firearms and deaths. How many were the result of such incidents? We can also understand the murder that flows from attempts to get money—the ordinary criminal act, no matter how horrific—which nowadays is very much allied to drugs and the control of drugs sales. Hamilton did not have such reasons. His motive was entirely different. I believe that his motive

  223
  was vengeance on society and the parents who protected their children from his evil intentions and attentions. His crime was carefully calculated to inflict the maximum hurt not only on the parents but on the society and community in which he lived. Even if he had not had guns, I believe that he would have found some other way of killing those children and himself. Anyone who studies such horrors across the world will know how that could be done.
  I conclude, therefore, that although the Bill will accomplish what is described in the long title—at least to some extent—it cannot accomplish its real purpose because the evil that Thomas Hamilton perpetrated had its source in a very wicked heart and brain. Christianity and other great religions have spent many thousands of years trying to deal with that problem without success.
  7.37 pm
  Mr. David Wilshire: I should explain at the outset that although I do not shoot, own a gun or have any sort of relevant declarable interest, I have some very worried constituents.
  When my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary moved the Second Reading, he said that it was impossible to overlook that "dreadful event" in Dunblane. One aspect of that dreadful event is the response to those who were bereaved and affected. I judge that that raises two very sensitive issues. First, how should we respond to 16 pairs of bereaved parents in Dunblane? Secondly, how should we in the House respond to the 700,000 or more people who have signed the Snowdrop petition? I fully realise that both questions raise very difficult and emotive issues that most of us would rather not address, but they cannot be ducked if we are to do our parliamentary duty. It follows from that that somebody has to swallow hard and comment. I have a nasty feeling that I am better placed than most to do just that because I, too, have lost a child.
  The circumstances of Sarah's death are not really relevant, except to enable me to acknowledge that some hon. Members may see a great difference between a 12-year-old choking to death after her school sports and a five-year-old being dismembered by a madman's gun. Talking to many bereaved parents has convinced me that it is the death rather than the circumstances that matters most, and that leads me to want to make two points from my own experience.
  The first is that disagreeing with the instinctive reactions of bereaved parents, their families and their friends is not necessarily heartless. It can be helpful. The second is that it is possible and, I believe, essential to reason constructively with all those who feel closely involved in such a tragedy. I readily admit that disagreeing and reasoning with those who have been touched by tragedy can appear heartless, but—as we are now being asked to legislate because of what happened in Dunblane—we have a duty to consider all of the issues raised, however uncomfortable they make us feel. That is surely why we asked Lord Cullen to investigate on our behalf. I know that some hon. Members believe that backing Lord Cullen's recommendations alone will be unpopular, but I have found that it is possible to convince those with whom it would be unpopular that we care just as deeply while disagreeing with them and some of their proposals.
  224
  Let me try to explain, if I can, why we sometimes need to disagree with the instinctive reactions of bereaved parents. When one of your children dies, everything you say and everything you do has but one instinctive objective—to bring your child back. When you finally accept that you cannot bring your child back, you instinctively try to make some positive sense out of an apparently meaningless tragedy. That regularly results in campaigning to establish blame or to change things. All too easily, those campaigns can become obsessive and unreasonable. When they do, the people who are doing the campaigning damage themselves and, in the end, they undermine the legitimate interests of others. We can all think of examples, such as the campaign that followed the death of a nurse who fell from a balcony in Saudi Arabia or the campaign on airport and airline security after the Lockerbie disaster. We can think of many such examples.
  Let me make it clear that I am not necessarily arguing that the campaigning post-Dunblane falls into the category of doing harm, but we need to ask the question if only to satisfy ourselves that it does not. Let me also try to explain why we need to ask those who signed the Snowdrop petition to pause for a moment and to reflect. When a child of a friend of yours dies, you too react instinctively. You are desperate to support your friend and you have a sense of guilt for not anticipating the tragedy and doing something to try to prevent it. Because of the awfulness of Dunblane, that sense of involvement, of wanting to help and to support a demand for action spreads far and wide. I rejoice that it does, but we need to ask why. Was it because Dunblane was so mercifully unique? Perhaps we have become hardened to a child a week being killed by a motor vehicle, but we have not become hardened to Dunblane.
  As with the bereaved themselves, the instinctive reaction of those who feel involved also needs to be supplemented by quiet thought and discussion with other people. The purpose of intervention needs to be to assist the bereaved to come to terms with what has happened and to help them avoid a downward slide into obsession. Before we vote, therefore, we need to satisfy ourselves that our response to the tragedy in Dunblane and to the bereaved and the petitioners is both supportive and helpful. That usually means, from my experience, warning people against overreaction.
  We need to think through our response. Respect for the bereaved and disgust at the crime naturally makes all of us sympathetic to whatever it is that the bereaved want, but our uncomfortable task tonight is to work out what to do in a way that is most likely to help those people in the long term and to avoid overreaction that unreasonably harms others.
  When my daughter died, I could easily have campaigned to ban school sports and I suspect, if I had asked them, my friends would have supported me. Fourteen years on, I am certain that I would have been wrong. That campaigning would have destroyed me and prevented some children from enjoying themselves. Is it possible—perhaps we should stop and think—that the same might be true for banning some or all handguns? I have no doubt that some will dismiss the comparison that I seek to make between school sports and handguns. Perhaps the lack of a ban on minibuses after 12 children were killed in a crash in 1994 is a better comparison, because that too makes my point.

  225
  All that leads me to reach three conclusions. First, neither sympathy for the bereaved nor guilt at our previous inaction should ever be our yardstick for deciding what to do. Secondly, instinctive reaction is not the only way to help the grieving and those who feel involved. Thirdly, action based on instinct alone is all too often wrong, especially when that response is rushed.
  Over the past 14 years I have learnt the hard way that it helps if we allow our heads to guide us as well as our hearts. My heart goes out to the bereaved parents of Dunblane. I know of no words that are adequate to explain how I feel, but my head tells me that we owe it to the memory of those slaughtered innocents to stop and think and to vote against overreaction. However we vote at 10 o'clock, each of us must have more than sympathy with the bereaved and more than support for the petitioners to back whatever decision it is that we make.
  7.46 pm
  Mr. Terry Lewis: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) and I share some of his emotions—I, too, am a parent who has lost a child—but I depart from many of his arguments because I do not believe that the debate is all about Dunblane: it is also about the control of guns in society in general.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) referred to my Adjournment debate on 3 May 1995, in which I raised the issue of gun control and the keeping of weapons on domestic premises. What my hon. Friend did not know is that for some time before that I had made representations to successive Home Secretaries, through correspondence and orally, on the same issue. I came to the conclusion that gun control was needed because of local incidents. On many occasions over the past two years in and around my constituency, people have lost their lives at the end of legally held firearms. Some irresponsible shooters in my area have advertised the fact that they kept weapons on domestic premises. On more than one occasion, those weapons have been stolen by the criminal fraternity and good people have died.
  In May 1995, I made four simple demands. One was that the storage of handguns of any kind on domestic premises should be banned. I also argued that there was a need for a national firearms index, which would track every firearm wherever it was moved legally within the country. I said that details would have to be kept on the police computer. I also demanded strict psychological testing. I must again mention the people who claim to be responsible shooters, yet who cannot keep their mouths shut about where and why they have weapons and what they are supposed to do with them. I further suggested exemplary sentences for people who merely possess illegal weapons, let alone those who use them.
  I believe that that debate was fairly constructive, but the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), who was the responsible Minister at the time and who is in his place today, argued vociferously against my suggestions. I do not want to score points in such a debate, but I wish that the Government had moved then, rather than 16 young lives—and the lives of many adults throughout the country—later. They are several lives too late.
  226
  The Dunblane tragedy moved us all. It moved many Members of Parliament on from having zero interest in weapons control, firearms et alia, and it moved me on from my four basic demands. I now support a complete ban on the ownership of handguns.
  I have spoken to shooters and non-shooters alike, and in my opinion there is no reason not to include .22 rimfire pistols. That seems to be the division between the Government Front Bench and the rest of us. I do not believe that the handgun ban will drive the shooters to buy .22s. Many shooters are saying that it will signal the demise of .22 pistols in any event.
  The Liberal spokesman, the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), used the word "dishonesty" to describe the Government's approach to that part of the ban, and he was right. It would be dishonest to ban handguns but leave .22s in the possession of shooters, knowing full well—or at least having a good idea—that the final result was likely to be a de facto ban on .22s with no compensation payable. I should like the Minister to dwell on that thought.
  We must now turn our attention to replica guns and deactivated weapons. Many of my contacts in the police tell me that the deactivated weapons market is growing all the time. Weapons are obtained legally in a deactivated form, but I understand that no very detailed expertise is required to reactivate them. There are many people with service experience who can easily do the job.
  We cannot leave the debate without talking about shotguns. As one or two Members have already said, we must make a serious attempt to remove shotguns—at least from urban areas, for a start. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) emphasised that. I recognise the utility of shotguns for certain categories of people, but I do not believe that there should be multiple ownership of shotguns on one licence. The position should be strictly controlled, with one shotgun to one licence.
  As for the shooters who have lobbied us, many arguments have been advanced by Conservative Members about what law-abiding and upright citizens they are. No doubt some are. I have seen shooters at my advice bureau and received letters and phone calls from shooters. I even met some who were lobbying Parliament today. Many of them conduct themselves with respect and dignity and argue their case sensibly and without rancour, but there is a vituperative majority—and to say that they are fit to own even a pea-shooter would stretch my generosity.
  Finally, I shall address the canard that most of the responsible shooters use: that guns do not kill people—people kill people. The truth is that people too often use guns to kill people. Fewer guns in society will result in fewer tragedies.
  7.55 pm
  Mr. John Carlisle: I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) is still in his place as I have listened to his speeches over many years and I thought that his contribution this evening was admirable, sensible, calm and reasoned. It touched the emotions and hearts of many people here, and I think that it will do the same for those outside. I shall say a few words about the Dunblane parents later, but I must say at the outset that my hon. Friend spoke with great sense and reason. The whole House should be grateful to him.

  227
  I feel that on this subject my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench have got it wrong. Their intentions have encountered an enormous amount of opposition both outside this place and, as they will have heard, from the Conservative Benches—although a muted response from the Opposition.
  The description "knee-jerk legislation" must be applied. When Cullen finally reported, the Home Secretary said that the response would be held back until after the party conferences—a deal that was undone by the Labour party. Then there was a knee-jerk response. At 3.30 there were statements, which were not available to Members until that moment, and by 3.31 the Home Secretary had announced that there would be legislation.
  One of the tragedies is that there has been no time to discuss legislation in a reasoned and honest way—almost until today, although the subject was touched on in the debate on the Queen's Speech. Had my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Government not only heard what our colleagues have said this evening, and will presumably continue to say, but seen the welter of correspondence and realised the good sense of those who have written, they might have changed their ideas.
  The problem was that the Government gave the impression that all would be well, but that nothing should be said until Cullen had reported. Many of the shooting lobbies took the same view. Yet as soon as Cullen reported, legislation was bounced upon the House. I regret that, because if the intended legislation is passed we shall all have become victims of the sins of one awful man, which will affect many thousands of innocent citizens.
  Perhaps the Bill should be renamed the Firearms (Confiscation) Bill, because of the remarkable fact that the Government intend to confiscate legitimately held private property—property that in many cases has been held for scores of years. Their action will risk the livelihoods of many thousands of people and put many legitimate business people out of business and into poverty.
  The tragedy of the legislation is, I regret to say, that it will do nothing to prevent a similar event from occurring again. During his visit to Dunblane, the Prime Minister said:
  "You cannot legislate against this sort of incident."
  He was absolutely right. That is why we must ask the questions.
  Why have the Government chosen to go beyond Cullen? Cullen sat for six weeks, heard comprehensive evidence and spent about £1 million collecting that evidence. No one begrudges that money, but having established some sensible reasoned arguments, the Government then abandoned the crux of the argument—regrettably, for some kind of political reason. Why have we not accepted the lessons of the past? Why do we not remember what a farce the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 has become because, like the measures passed in 1988 following Hungerford, it was rushed legislation? Why have this Government, of all Governments, given in to the various pressures of blackmail and emotion that have been heaped on all of us who are involved in this argument, and why have they listened to those arguments instead of the arguments of reason?
  228
  Obviously, most of us support Lord Cullen's very sensible recommendations.
  Mr. John Cummings: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman will understand why I cannot do so.
  Lord Cullen called, rightly, for stricter scrutiny, the need for which everyone would acknowledge. He called for a greater number of referees for firearm certificates—again, people acknowledge and accept that recommendation. I agree with the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith), who said that GPs should be involved in some way in determining the fitness of certificate holders. Lord Cullen also called for greater police involvement, which we would all support, provided that the police behave somewhat more sensibly than the Central Scotland police behaved in respect of Mr. Hamilton.
  At no point in his report does Lord Cullen advocate the banning of all guns. He says:
  I do not consider that the banning of handguns … or … of shooting clubs would be justified."
  Her Majesty's Government have effectively destroyed pistol shooting. Many of us who have visited shooting clubs either prior to Dunblane or in the past few weeks will be aware of the devastating effect that the Bill will have on those clubs. The Government themselves admit that the majority of clubs will close because there will be no point in their continuing to exist.
  My own party has shattered the faith of many who believe in Conservative policies, and we have alienated thousands upon thousands of voters. I will not say that the Labour party has gained electoral favour by its antics, but many Conservatives cannot understand why their Government have acted in this way.
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) and many others, I have received a massive postbag—the biggest that I have ever had in my 17 years in this place—and the letters come from a great variety of people. Approximately a fifth come from Scotland, and many are from Labour supporters. In addition, my correspondents include people who are disabled and people who are not involved in the sport of shooting. They watch our debates with incredulity.
  To an extent, emotion has dominated the argument. That is why I felt it necessary to say to the parents of Dunblane that by trying to be judge and jury in this case they almost put themselves beyond the argument. That is not as it should be, because they are crucial to the argument and everyone sympathises with the suffering that they have endured. I suggest to them that their accusations—such as calling some members of the shooting lobby "murderers" and, like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), calling shooting people "perverts"—do not help in the arguments arising from the Dunblane tragedy. Similarly, in announcing that they were to put up a candidate against my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland they did not endear themselves to many who wanted to keep the issue out of the political arena.
  The Labour party, described as "graverobbers" by one of my correspondents, has—with one or two honourable exceptions—jumped on the bandwagon. It has been

  229
  interesting tonight to see that the arguments of those who oppose shotguns—especially for youngsters—are now gathering pace in that party. The people should be warned.
  The Bill will have a devastating effect on pistol shooters everywhere, including those in my constituency, and on gun dealers—not only those who deal only in pistols and rifles, but shotgun dealers, who say that their business is already suffering because of the sentiment engendered by Dunblane and the Cullen inquiry. Of course shotgun dealers will not qualify for any form of compensation, but it must be acknowledged that they are feeling the cold draught of this legislation. The extraordinary thing is that many shooters will now say that holding .22 guns is hardly worth it. I do not entirely support their argument, but I can understand it.
  We have to do two things tonight. First, the Government should go back to Cullen's recommendations and stick at them. We can then pass legislation with virtually no dissension by those who believe in logic and reason. I do not believe that the Government will do that, but I shall continue to fight for it. Secondly, the Government should make absolutely sure that the scope of the compensation is much wider than has been offered so far.
  The legislation is illogical, unfair and ill thought-out and if some Members go into the Lobby to vote against the Government tonight, it will be the Government's own fault.
  8.5 pm
  Mr. Alex Salmond: I was hoping that, when talking about the Dunblane parents, the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) might have found it within himself to apologise for some of the remarks that he made several weeks ago. For his information, the Dunblane parents are not "hysterical"—given the circumstances, I have never meet a group of calmer and more rational people and their arguments have been commendable for their reasoned approach. The hon. Gentleman's remarks this evening were more moderate than those of a few weeks ago, but they were, none the less, offensive.
  It was interesting that the hon. Gentleman started by paying tribute to the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), who made an emotional speech which touched many of us. I know the hon. Member for Spelthorne and he would never have expressed himself in the clumsy and offensive way that the hon. Member for Luton, North did a few weeks ago.
  The impact of this debate will be felt strongly in Scotland and, indeed, in other parts of the country. People were, rightly, touched by the Dunblane tragedy and that feeling has hardened into a determination to try to prevent that sort of tragedy from happening again. Everyone who argues that case realises that there can be no absolute guarantees, but we can move the boundary somewhat and make it less likely that such a tragedy will happen again. That makes the case for a complete ban on handguns.
  I have listened to Conservative Members relate in the debate some of the things that have been said to them. They should remember that a highly personalised campaign of slurs and innuendo was waged against the key Snowdrop campaigners by some elements in the gun lobby. There is no doubt about that—their actions and words are on the record. Equally, some members of the
  230
  gun lobby have expressed themselves fairly while still putting their arguments with vigour—many of my constituents have done so. It does not help—especially when calm and reasoned debate is called for—to have those accusations flowing back and forth across the Chamber, instead of hon. Members trying to identify the case on its merits.
  No system of checking, however rigorous, can prevent every unsuitable person from gaining access to guns. It has been said in the debate that the police made mistakes, as if that were an argument against a complete ban on the civilian use of handguns. The fact that the police make mistakes is one of the arguments for such a ban. No system of checking is foolproof and any system that depends on people is essentially flawed in that human beings, including the police, make mistakes.
  Hon. Members have spoken about sports and I hope that alternatives can be devised so that people can continue to practise their sport. Some of my constituents have said that they could not understand why some pistol shooters have to use extremely powerful weapons—they ask why the same skill and precision cannot be expressed through new technology, perhaps laser technology. I hope that such possibilities will be investigated. At the end of the day, however, people's pursuit of a sport must be a lesser point than the issue of public safety.
  Our job, as representatives of the people, is to square our actions with our conscience. That is why it would be wrong were the House to allow the substantial loophole in respect of handguns as proposed by the Government. We should start from the principle that no one should own a handgun and only then should we discuss the exceptions. The position adopted by the Japanese in this respect is enlightening. In that whole country, there are 58 handgun licences. Hon. Members will be aware of the Home Office statistics, which point to some correlation between the number of legal firearms in circulation and the incidence of firearm homicide.
  The hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith), in an interesting speech, made the reasonable point that one cannot prove anything absolutely through international comparisons. One comparison should, however, be introduced into the debate. In the United States, which has some of the most lax gun legislation, there are 27 times as many firearm killings per million than in the United Kingdom. In Japan, where the basic principle is no handguns, the killings number one eighth of the UK total. For all the differences in culture and experience in the international comparisons, those figures are very compelling.
  I am angry that the Government have decided to whip their Back Benchers on this issue. It is fair to contrast their position on this issue with the decision to allow a free vote on corporal punishment in schools. It is an insult to the intelligence of voters to say that using the cane in England is a matter of conscience, but using a handgun is not.
  This debate has shown up the real reason why the Government intend to whip Members through the Lobby during the next week. There have been many speeches—mainly from the Opposition Benches, but some from the Government side—arguing for the complete ban of handguns. Many Conservative Members have argued that the Government have gone too far. However, support for the Government position from the Back Benches has been

  231
  noticeable by its absence. That is why the Government feel that they can sustain their position only by the use of the Whips on this, an issue that, above all others, should be one of conscience. The Government's position is a fraud—an uneasy compromise, which has been patched together with no intellectual coherence and which depends on the Whips Office to hold it together.
  As has been said, the clearest evidence was presented to Cullen—in some cases, by the gun lobby itself—to show that the option of gun club storage was unsound and unsafe. The quotations are there for all to see in the Cullen report. I was convinced by those representations, because they were widespread and they were backed up by the police.
  The logic of the Government's central proposals is impossible to fathom. They have drawn a line at .22 calibre weapons in the full knowledge that such an arbitrary decision and division have been generally discredited. As has been said, a .22 handgun is as deadly as a high-calibre weapon. In some cases, it is the weapon of choice for killers. It was the weapon used to assassinate Bobby Kennedy, it was used in the attempt on President Reagan's life and it is the weapon responsible for the largest number of killings in the United States. Indeed, it is favoured for its size, ease of carrying and concealment and efficiency. The common term for some .22s in the United States is the "Saturday night special". Lord Cullen emphasised that point in his report, saying:
  "In terms of pure precision the .22 calibre was capable of inherent accuracy beyond the skill of the shooter. Whether high accuracy is obtained depends on the quality of the particular gun, the quality of the ammunition and the skills of the shooter. The .22 rimfire represented the highest precision cartridge which was available. It was highly evolved."
  People will not accept the continued existence of 40,000 legally held handguns or the bizarre decision to allow multi-fire handguns to continue to be in this legal group. Let the House be under no illusion: some .22 weapons can fire even more rapidly than the 9 mm Browning that Hamilton used. If any lesson is to be learnt from Thomas Hamilton's actions, it is surely that rapid-fire weapons are the most deadly. Hamilton fired a hail of 106 bullets in a matter of seconds—that damage from a handgun should surely never be allowed again. Of course hon. Members have a point when they say that a madman could take a machete or another weapon and try to inflict damage, but few other weapons can inflict the carnage of a rapid-fire handgun.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland suggests that the measures in the Bill amount to a virtual ban and that gun clubs will be forced out of existence. If that is so, would it not be better to face the issue honestly, rather than by back door prohibition? The Home Secretary is singing a different tune. He has spoken of the possibility of new gun clubs coming into existence to meet the new regulations. We are entitled to ask, what is the Government view—is it effective prohibition, or the rejuvenation of gun clubs?
  There is to be compensation and, like many hon. Members, I accept that point on principle. There should be compensation, but I would think it ill if compensation were used so that people could trade into new .22 weapons. The Government cannot have it both ways. The only effective handgun control is a handgun ban and
  232
  they should know that public opinion will not tolerate money being used to bring new .22 handguns into people's possession.
  I hope that hon. Members will find the strength to do what is right by their constituents and by the people of Dunblane.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Time is up. Mr. Rupert Allason.
  8.15 pm
  Mr. Rupert Allason: After the appalling tragedy of Hungerford, the House was determined to rush to legislate. I regret having supported that legislation at the behest of my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), who was then the Home Secretary. I did support it, however, and it banned a type of weapon. That was what I believed that I was legislating for. The reality was that that legislation placed an enormous and expensive burden on entirely legitimate shotgun certificate holders.
  This is another occasion on which the House is being invited to rush through ill-prepared legislation. The fact that the money resolution was withdrawn this afternoon, shows the lack of proper preparation and consultation. This is not a choice between the right to life and the right to sport; it is a measure that penalises and stigmatises a wholly law-abiding section of the community.
  I must now turn to the horrendous tragedy of Dunblane. My criticism of the present law is the built-in bias in favour of the applicant, to which hon. Members have referred, and the weight against revocation on appeal to the court. That crucial issue is key to the administration of a proper and effective control regime, which is what all responsible shooters desire.
  The description given by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) of the police procedures examined by Lord Cullen is comprehensively contradicted by the report. I must remind the House of precisely what Lord Cullen said. Thomas Hamilton was regarded as
  "a scheming, devious and deceitful person who was not to be trusted."
  It is true that Hamilton first acquired a firearms certificate in 1977, but he had deliberately and consistently deceived the police since then, as is clear from paragraph 6.30 of the report. As for ammunition, Lord Cullen considered it "strange" that Hamilton was ever allowed to buy large quantities of bullets or, indeed, additional weapons of the same calibre. Lord Cullen said that that
  "does not inspire me with confidence".
  If anyone believes that the Cullen report absolves the police, let him take another look. The report is a damning indictment. In paragraph 6.42, the author refers to the Holden memorandum, saying that it
  "should have been placed in the firearms file … but this was not done."
  Detective Sergeant Hughes said that Hamilton was
  "an unsavoury character and unstable personality",
  that he had
  "an extremely unhealthy interest in young boys",
  and that he was
  "an unsuitable person to possess a firearm certificate".

  233
  Paragraph 6.45 of the report states:
  "Detective Constable Taylor believed that Thomas Hamilton had been guilty of criminal conduct",
  but that did not give him any
  "concern about his fitness to hold a firearm certificate."
  Paragraph 6.47, relating to the 1995 renewal signed by the deputy chief constable, states that the latter, in his evidence to Lord Cullen, said that he spent "only a few moments" on the renewal:
  "Only the certificate was before him. He said he did not apply his mind to the question of whether Hamilton was a fit and proper person".
  No wonder he resigned!
  Consider the criticism in paragraph 6.62 of the way in which the deputy chief constable gave evidence, which differed over two days, on whether Hamilton was fit to hold a firearms certificate.
  The entire system administered by Scottish Central police was flawed. Lord Cullen talks of
  "a glaring deficiency in the operation of the force's information system"—
  that is found in paragraph 6.72. In paragraph 6.73, Lord Cullen refers to the criminal intelligence check that should have been conducted in February 1992 on the renewal—it was never executed. In paragraph 6.78, he cites
  "a disturbing picture of the operation of the decision-making process. The senior officer who had the responsibility of determining the outcome of Thomas Hamilton's application had nothing put before him but the new firearms certificate to be signed. In the absence of any indication to the contrary he assumed that it was appropriate for him to sign."
  The left hand clearly did not know what the right hand was doing.
  The whole report is a damning indictment of the way in which the police exercise their powers under current legislation. I recognise that there was confusion about how the law operated in Scotland. I recognise, too, that there was great anxiety about the benefit of the doubt always being given to the applicant. The solution is to reverse the balance, leaving it in favour of any police objection.
  In paragraph 7.17, Lord Cullen concluded:
  "I do not recommend that such a wholesale prohibition should be considered."
  I tend to agree.
  I welcome the Home Secretary's concession this afternoon to extending compensation to auxiliary equipment. Over the weekend, I met more of my constituents who are firearms certificate holders. They certainly do not conform to the image portrayed in the smears that have been aimed at the gun lobby. Those people have held certificates for 20 or 30 years and have been obliged to show responsible police officers that they are indeed fit and proper persons.
  What am I to say to one of my constituents who has £3,000 worth of reloading equipment for making the ammunition for his weapons? There is also a gun dealer in my constituency, operating from home, who has invested thousands of pounds in security precautions for his house. Will he be compensated? Absolutely not.
  The only equitable approach, if we are to legislate on this issue, is to make certain that everyone adversely affected, including the clubs, is compensated in full. No
  234
  such proposals are in the Bill, nor are they in prospect. In my judgment, therefore, the Bill is unjust; furthermore, it is un-Conservative. Accordingly, I commend the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) to the House.
  8.23 pm
  Mr. Martyn Jones: Like other hon. Members, I have read the Cullen report. Reading the account of how Hamilton committed his atrocious act, I was moved to tears—as, I am sure, were other hon. Members. I am not ashamed to admit that. They were tears of anger, disbelief, horror and pity for those poor children.
  Against whom should the natural human reaction of anger be directed? The anger of the children's parents and others has been directed against the means that Hamilton used to commit the atrocity—the handgun; more specifically, the repeating full-bore weapon. The motive must be anger; otherwise logic would dictate banning all guns, especially shotguns, which are the firearms most often used in crime and murder.
  Taken to its logical extreme, however, this natural reaction is unworkable. Some firearms are used as legitimate tools. Many categories of firearm that would be encompassed by such a reaction are plainly harmless to public safety, such as antiques and even the nail guns used in construction work.
  This time, unlike the aftermath of the Hungerford tragedy, we had a public inquiry conducted by an erudite judge who had the advantage of having all the information to hand and the time to consider every aspect, including school safety and control of firearms.
  Back in 1988, we debated the response to the dreadful events in Hungerford perpetrated by Michael Ryan, who supposedly possessed legally held firearms—but in dubious circumstances. In that debate, I suggested three measures that were not taken up by the Government. First, I asked for controls on the shooting gallery style of club which exercised no control over its members. That at least was implemented about two years later, although I was not given the credit for it—not that that worries me.
  My second suggestion was for a statutory examination of a firearm applicant's health and social security records. Thirdly, I suggested a reduction in an applicant's grounds for appeal against a police decision to refuse an application.
  Taken together, those measures might—might—have prevented Thomas Hamilton from possessing legal firearms. Of course he could still have tried to obtain one of the estimated 1.5 million illegal firearms in this country. I take no pleasure in saying, "I told you so," but I did.
  There followed the even more horrendous incident at Dunblane in March this year; yet, despite an inquiry costing more than £1 million, the Government are entering on the same course of action as they did after Hungerford. At least this time they are tightening up on the ownership of firearms by agreeing to Cullen's 23 well-considered recommendations in that regard, but they should not ignore the 24th, to which I shall come later.
  The Firearms Consultative Committee, which was set up in 1988 and of which I recently became a lay member, has recommended at least 38 minor changes to the law; it

  235
  has also recommended creating a national body to co-ordinate the issuing and monitoring of firearms certification. That idea was turned down flat, while the other proposals were held in abeyance until the time came for primary legislation. We have that opportunity today, but the committee's submissions are still being ignored.
  What is needed is not a hasty amendment to the—already much amended—1968 Act but a root-and-branch review of the whole issue; otherwise, we are in grave danger of another equivalent of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, now widely acknowledged as unworkable.
  At least this time an in-depth inquiry was held and Lord Cullen recommended 24 worthwhile ways of improving the system—23 of them are rightly being implemented, but why are we not considering setting up a national licensing board that would be party to all the information that the police could obtain, co-ordinating inquiries on a standardised basis? If such a body had existed, it would have taken away the onerous responsibility on the police to check up on the membership of the clubs of which Hamilton claimed to be a member. It seems that there is evidence that those clubs were not appropriate to the sort of firearms which he was granted permission to obtain.
  Going back to Lord Cullen's 24 recommendations, in paragraph 9.112 he recommended that firearms should not be kept in one place as workable firearms. The Government suggested that that was not a feasible option. I strongly suggest that it is. Virtually all firearms can be stripped down to their component parts. In the case of self-loading pistols, the slide mechanism could be taken home. It is not possible to obtain a duplicate slide without a firearms certificate endorsement. There is therefore no possibility of circumvention of that rule. The same applies to revolvers; the cylinder could be taken home.
  The cause of public safety would be much better served. The sport of full-bore target shooting could continue, but if that is not the Government's wish, the proposal could be applied to .22 pistols. That has many merits, not the least of which is that the tiny minority of shooters who are driven by some kind of American-style macho image would have nothing to posture with at home. Equally, criminals and terrorists would have nothing to steal from target clubs.
  The Government again insist on legislating against one type of firearm. They must compensate not only those people who will lose their often valuable firearms, but dealers who will lose their hobby and their livelihood.
  If the Government are determined to legislate against one type of firearm, they should go further in the cause of public safety and insist that .22 pistols are disabled in the way that Lord Cullen recommended. Shooters do not want people like Hamilton to have workable firearms. There is one genuine way in which the Bill could prevent a repeat of Dunblane or Hungerford: through the disablement of firearms.
  8.31 pm
  Mr. Michael Colvin: The House will, I am sure, acknowledge the expertise of the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones). When it comes to firearms, he knows what he is talking about, unlike some hon. Members who have spoken in the debate.
  236
  The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) was the first person speaking today to say that the use and ownership of firearms was a privilege, not a right. That is important. We all have the right to apply for a firearms certificate, but it is a privilege to be granted one.
  I have experienced that privilege for most of my adult life. It is also a privilege of mine to be a co-opted member on the executive council of the National Rifle Association and to be the president of the Palace of Westminster Rifle Club, which includes a pistol range. The range has three .22 pistols, which will continue to be legal if the Bill is passed as drafted, and one .32 revolver, which will have to be surrendered. I hope that the club will comply with the clause 16 provisions for licensing, which may be too onerous for some other clubs to meet. To hon. Members who would like to know more about firearms and their use, let me say that the club is always open for those who want to visit it.
  We all reacted in much the same way to the horrible events in Dunblane on 13 March: horror at the shooting of 17 innocent people; incredulity that a man like Hamilton could possess and use firearms, apparently legally; immediate and continuing heartfelt sympathy for the families bereaved at the school and in the community of Dunblane; and lastly, a determination to do everything possible to reduce the chances of such a thing ever happening again.
  I join in commending Lord Cullen for his inquiry and his report. I find little fault with his conclusions and recommendations.
  Initially, after Dunblane, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary rightly said that he would resist a knee-jerk reaction to the tragedy, unlike some people. He said that the Government would wait for Lord Cullen's report and give serious consideration to his proposals for changes in the law. Unfortunately, having resisted the initial knee-jerk, he has knee-jerked to the Cullen report. He would have done better to enact the Cullen recommendations, as he is doing, and to publish a consultation paper on anything further that he might do, rather than being caught up in the continuing tidal wave of emotion whipped up by the media.
  Why did Hamilton possess weapons and ammunition, apparently legally? Had he lived in my county, Hampshire, there is no way that he would ever have been granted a firearms certificate, or, if he had, it certainly would not have been renewed. There might even have been a civil case to revoke it. I am glad that the Bill provides for the revocation of certificates.
  Hamilton was investigated by the police seven times and no action was taken against him. He obtained his firearms certificate by deception. He did not belong to or attend a gun club.
  Following the Hungerford shootings and the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988, the United Kingdom has had some of the toughest gun laws in the world. Some may say that they are still not tough enough, but I say that they are not enforced adequately to prevent a psychopath like Hamilton from slipping through the net. Those shortcomings have been addressed by Lord Cullen, and my right hon. and learned Friend is right to seek to implement almost all his recommendations, but I think that my right hon. and learned Friend goes too far, too soon in the Bill.

  237
  It is unnecessary to ban all large-calibre pistols, leaving only the .22 rimfire, which is to be stored and used at club premises. The way that the provisions will be implemented is unjust. They will result in 57,000 law-abiding citizens being made to look guilty and being wrongly deprived of the privilege of continuing their sport of pistol target shooting.
  Our postbags are a litmus test of public opinion. In my bag, the proportion of letters opposing the Bill is 5:1. We have all been impressed over the past few weeks by the lobby of Parliament and visits to our constituency surgeries. We have seen the admirable people whom we will deprive of their sport.
  Last week, when the gun lobby came to Parliament, I wondered whether the Royal British Legion, rather than shooting sportsmen, had come to see us. Those people were decent, patriotic and well turned out. They were wearing their blazers, badges and regimental ties. There were young and old among them. They were the sort of people whom we saw on parade on Remembrance day and who observed the two-minute silence yesterday.
  If the Bill proceeds, the compensation proposals will compound the injustice. If law-abiding citizens are to be deprived by Parliament of lawfully held assets, they must be properly and fully compensated: anything less would be legalised robbery. The fact that the Home Office believes that only £25 million to £50 million is required for compensation shows that it is either hopelessly ill advised or determined to act unjustly.
  The realistic figure, with weapons valued at about £500 each, is closer to £150 million. If, as is now proposed, dedicated accessories are added—including holsters, ammunition-loading equipment, spare magazines and other pieces of equipment—the total compensation figure could approach £500 million. That money could be far better spent on the police and enforcement of the firearms laws. That figure allows nothing at all for the 100 or so pistol clubs, which will almost all have to close, or for the 2,000 dealers and gunsmiths who may be put out of business by loss of assets, if not by clause 16.
  Unless the Bill is radically amended, it will do nothing to enhance the reputation of Parliament. It seems as if my right hon. and learned Friend has considered only one side of the debate. As John Stuart Mill said:
  "There is always hope—when people are forced to listen to both sides; it is when they attend only to one, that errors harden into prejudice. The quiet suppression of half the truth is the formidable evil."
  Perhaps the House will decide that 57,000 law-abiding citizens are a small enough minority to be used as a scapegoat and sacrificed to the god of populist opinion. I was not elected to Parliament to sacrifice my judgment to the opinion of the majority. We are here to defend the rights and privileges of individuals and minorities, which is why we should support the reasoned amendment.
  8.39 pm
  Mr. Donald Anderson: There are two separate issues before the House this evening: first, the appropriate rules for gun ownership in response to the massacre of innocents at Dunblane—I, with some hesitation, am prepared to accept a complete ban—and, secondly, the issue of compensation. I shall devote my speech to the latter issue.
  238
  I shall use a constituency example to illustrate the hardship that the Bill is likely to cause unless there is a more generous financial resolution. I shall then set out the principles of law that I believe are applicable in this case and argue that Parliament must be seen to respond in a fair and a democratic manner.
  Obviously, shooting centres are likely to be affected most by the legislation. The largest commercial shooting range in Wales, Shooters of Swansea, is located in my constituency. It opened five years ago and is owned by Mr. Adrian Morris and his family. The range was built with the encouragement of the local authority, Swansea city council, which provided the site and the infrastructure, and it was supported by the Sports Council for Wales.
  It is a family-run business, with personal guarantees from the family, who invested substantial sums. The family have no other business interests and there is no alternative use for the building. The Government's proposals would remove more than 80 per cent. of turnover, making the business not commercially viable—in effect, the family would face certain ruin. All machinery and special equipment would be made redundant and their livelihood destroyed. In pursuing a deemed public interest, does the Home Office see no obligation to protect people such as the Morris family in my constituency? They are the innocent victims of a measure that has been advanced for the public good.
  I hope that the Home Office will consider seriously certain propositions of law when determining the extent of the compensation proposals. If it adopts a minimalist position, it will certainly face legal challenge. A state must ensure that its domestic law conforms with accepted legal obligations; so what key principles are relevant and should guide legislation in this case? The first is the principle of equality.
  Where possible, our legislation should comply with the principle of equal treatment under the law. That principle finds expression in several cases, both domestic and European— notably in the skimmed milk powder case that was reported in 1977 in European Court Report 1311. The argument, if applied to the Bill, is that to compensate only the owners of firearms would offend the principle of equality of treatment in circumstances where others who suffered a direct loss from the ban were not so compensated also.
  In terms of human rights, it may be argued that not to compensate certain categories of those who suffer loss would be a violation of their fundamental human rights, partly because it deprives them of a property right and partly because it infringes the right to free pursuit of an economic activity. The 1974 case of Nold v. Commission, European Court Reports 491, is relevant here. It would be a violation of those principles if vested rights were interfered with without compensation—although I accept that the damage alleged must be "a sufficiently direct consequence" of the act.
  There is a close analogy between this case and the acquisition and expropriation of property cases. I refer the Home Office to the 1986 case of Lithgow v. United Kingdom, which appeared in European Human Rights Reports 335. The judgment states at paragraph 120:
  "not only must a measure depriving a person of his property pursue, on the facts as well as in principle, a legitimate aim 'in the public interest' but there must be a reasonable relationship of

  239
  proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised …the notion of the 'fair balance' that must be struck between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual's fundamental rights. The requisite balance will not be found if the person concerned has had to bear 'an unconditional and excessive burden'.
  Clearly compensation terms are material to the assessment as to whether a fair balance has been struck between the various interests at stake and notably, whether or not a disproportionate burden has been imposed on the person who has been deprived of his possessions.
  The Court further accepts that the taking of property without payment of an amount reasonably related to its value would normally constitute a disproportionate interference which could not be considered justifiable under Article 1."
  Those principles are essentially enshrined in European Community law and in human rights legislation and conventions, but many of them owe their origins to related common law principles. I hope that the Home Office will consider those principles seriously, as they should be a guide to the compensation provisions in the Bill. I do not suggest that ignoring such principles would necessarily provide a remedy in law, but I hope that Ministers will examine them and be sufficiently troubled by them to modify their response.
  In this case, principles of law coincide with the principles of justice and fairness valued by ordinary citizens. People accept that gun regulations should be tightened in this legislation, but most do not believe that others should as a result be deprived of their livelihoods without compensation in the way that the Government have proposed. Taxpayers expect the Government to be hard-nosed in assessing compensation and to insist upon normal principles of remoteness and mitigation of damages. However, it would be wrong to deprive people of their livelihoods without adequate compensation.
  8.46 pm
  Mr. Robert Banks: There are occasions when legislation comes before the House and I am uncertain about whether it will achieve its stated objectives. On other occasions— such as this—I have a gut feeling that we are dealing with a problem in entirely the wrong way.
  All hon. Members are united in their grief over the tragedy at Dunblane. We also recognise that, whatever measures are implemented, no one can guarantee 100 per cent. that the Dunblane tragedy will not be repeated in one form or another, involving guns or other deadly methods. We are dealing with maniacs—they are always lurking somewhere in society—but we must do what we can to tighten the regulations and avoid a recurrence of the Thomas Hamilton episode.
  We all recognise that gun clubs throughout the country are run responsibly; their members are responsible people. A great strength of this country is the way in which those with common interests band together to form organisations and committees, with a chairman, perhaps a president, a secretary and a treasurer. Such groups are the backbone of this country: they are well organised and they take their responsibilities very seriously. The same is true of gun clubs, and we should acknowledge that fact.
  This country's marksmen and their achievements often go unrecognised. League tables showing the total number of medals won in shooting events at the Olympic games
  240
  since 1896 place Britain fourth in the world. Many of our gun clubs provide those marksmen who win those successes for this country, and they get very little credit for it.
  The core debate in this afternoon's deliberations is whether a ban or dismantlement of weapons would be the best and the right thing to do. The Cullen report takes some seven pages to express the advice that Lord Cullen took from firearms experts, dealers and people involved in the industry. He concluded that, short of a ban, he would recommend the dismantlement of weapons, and for those that cannot be dismantled he would recommend the fitting of a barrel blocking device. That goes without question. It is comprehensively explained and understood in the report.
  The Government's response was that they
  "were not convinced that a barrel block or similar device could not be removed by a determined individual and the Government does not therefore believe that it could rely on such a measure. It is also not certain that the removal of key components for the types of weapons where this is appropriate would be practical."
  That flies entirely in the face of the Cullen report. It is based on the evidence of the Forensic Science Service. Its report is a letter, of about a page and a quarter in length. It deals with a number of issues about shotguns that are not relevant to the issue, and it is signed by one person, Mr. Warlow. That is the only evidence that the Government have taken on board to contravene the evidence that the Cullen report has provided. I do not think that that is satisfactory. The amendment speaks of the lack of evidence. The evidence from which I have just quoted became available only during the course of the debate, although it was issued on 16 October.
  I am convinced that the Bill has been prepared, in a sense, as a response to press comment and to the emotion that has been stoked up by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and it is unwise to proceed down the road that has been determined. The 40,000 weapons that would be left in the hands of individuals would have to be stored in clubs, which are primarily in areas away from habitation, in isolated parts of the countryside, by and large, in old gravel pits or wherever. In order for the weapons to be stored in a gun club, the gun clubs would have to ensure that they have reinforced walls, safes, strong perimeter fences, burglar alarms, access control, including metal detectors, and regular and stringent inspection arrangements. The cost would be so prohibitive that I do not believe that gun clubs could survive.
  I do not believe that it would be sensible to provide for a great arsenal of stored weapons, however secure they may appear to be, when the club is probably used only once or twice a week or at the weekends. Such arsenals would be an open invitation to burglars, if they were inclined to obtain weapons in that way.
  Many of Lord Cullen's suggestions that the Government have accepted are indeed sensible. They rely on common sense and reasoned judgment. One of the areas that we should look at is referees for licence applicants. Two referees are now accepted as being desirable, but it would be sensible if a doctor were one of the referees. I do not think that it would be practical for doctors to give a mental report on the applicant, but at least if they had any doubts about his stability that would be reflected in their reference. I would rather that were included.

  241
  The costs of this exercise are escalating. This has been a very expensive afternoon for the Home Secretary. I agree that the people who will lose their livelihoods and weapons as a result of the Bill must be properly compensated, but the costs may reach £200 million if we stay with what is proposed in the Bill. I believe that that will be the wrong thing to do. We can spend that money in a different way to help to ensure that all the regulations are complied with. We can ensure that weapons are dismantled so that they cannot be used until the two parts are put together at a gun club. That is a thoroughly sensible proposal, and we can embrace a whole range of weapons—all the weapons—under that umbrella That will be a much safer and much better way to go about things.
  8.55 pm
  Mr. Harry Barnes: After listening to the debate, I have a problem as I am greatly attracted to the argument, analysis and tone of the speeches of hon. Members who have spoken in favour of a total ban, including my hon. Friends the Members for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) and for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). I do not, however, accept their conclusion.
  I often do not like the argument, analysis and tone of the speeches made by Conservative Members who are close to the gun lobby, but I am reaching the same conclusion as them— but not because of their arguments. There are often better arguments than the ones made by people in the gun lobby, who are pursuing their present direction because they cannot take another. At one stage, they did not want any legislation to be introduced, but that game is now up so they must deal with Cullen's recommendations on the dismantling of guns and their separation, whereby one part will be stored in gun clubs and another in a person's home.
  I shall not vote with the gun lobby, as I call it, by voting for their reasoned amendment or against the Second Reading, but in Committee I will support amendments that are in line with early-day motion 136, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), who expressed the position quite carefully and sensibly.
  We all owe a considerable debt to Lord Cullen, and it is unfortunate that we have never had a full discussion of his report, but have merely moved into the White Paper and the Bill and have therefore changed the ground considerably.
  The Government have accepted 23 of Lord Cullen's recommendations—all but the key recommendation about what should be done with handguns. He asks only for consideration. He has two major positions: the dismantling of guns, which has been explained by other hon. Members, and the fall-back position of a total ban. I am attracted to Cullen's position in connection with this. If we do not achieve the dismantling of guns, that might make the case for a total ban. It is unfortunate that the Government have dealt with Cullen's key proposal merely by a one-line response in the White Paper. We have had little more than that from the Home Secretary today.
  What I say is bound to be misinterpreted and misunderstood. I am anti-gun: I was on the media's list of people who would provide an anti-gun comment. However, I am for an amendment that might come from early-day motion 136, because the anti-gun position has moved too far with its absolutist notions about a total ban. I do not think that it is incompatible to be anti-gun and to be in favour of dismantling.
  242
  I am for tackling and seeking effectively to overcome the gun culture. I am referring not only to the gun culture in the media—television violence and so on—but to the culture in which people are hooked on this activity. We cannot suddenly stop that culture. We must detach people by putting forward alternative views. Legislation can help, but it is not the sole solution.
  I have fears about a total ban, although I know that that was the second option proposed in the Cullen report, and I may be obliged to accept that view in certain circumstances. Those who advocate a total ban are arguing for prohibition—that term has been used by hon. Members. We should closely consider the lessons of prohibition and the fears created by it. We would destroy people's pastimes and activities in a stroke. We should have tried to prevent those pastimes through education, but it has occurred, and to change that in one fell swoop would cause problems.
  We have discussed compensation for people who would have to hand in their guns and for those in the trade, who are reasonable and respectable people who need to be able to plan for the future and move out of that area if it is no longer likely to sustain them.
  The Government want a partial ban. That would leave stocks at gun clubs, which would create many problems. The position taken by Cullen could be used by the Government, because .22 calibre guns could be dismantled and the parts held separately. That could be the subject of another amendment for us to consider in Committee.
  How have we moved to a position in which we are in favour of a total ban? In June, the Dunblane Snowdrop petition asked for guns to be held at clubs, and for firing mechanisms to be held separately. I sent press releases to local newspapers in support of that position. In July, the Labour minority on the Select Committee on Home Affairs were in favour of the banning of handguns with a qualification. Its report says:
  "However, it may be that particular gun clubs at particular locations might be able to demonstrate that guns for use at the club could be securely kept, at a central point, in such a way as to preserve the safety of the public. Where this is so, we consider that exceptions to the general ban might be made."
  Conservative Members referred to the famous letter from my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson). I sent similar letters, because the Labour party's position at that time was that there should be a ban on handguns being kept at home, not that there should be a total ban.
  The alternative position should be considered not only by people associated with gun clubs and with the gun culture, but by the rest of us who are concerned about general developments in society.
  9.3 pm
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: It is an oft quoted maxim that sensational cases make bad law. We are elected to this House to weigh carefully the arguments on difficult issues and come up with objective and reasoned legislation. Many Conservative Members have spoken against the Government's proposals in the Bill. I want to deal with those proposals carefully, consider where they fall short and support them when they are correct.

  243
  My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) mentioned that his constituency postbag on this issue was five to one in favour of gun-using folk. My postbag is running at about 10 to one in favour of the gun-using folk. They have been to see me in my surgery, and I have had many letters from them. They are ordinary people—thoroughly decent, law-abiding people—and I think that their case should be heard this evening.
  I am pleased that the Government set up the Cullen committee so that it could examine the issue objectively. I have read Lord Cullen's report. It is well reasoned, well written and well argued, and he has examined a range of witnesses very carefully. I shall return to the report later. First, however, let me warmly welcome the concession that the Government made this evening in withdrawing the money resolution and having a rethink.
  The original money resolution allowed expenditure of between £25 million and £50 million. Approximately 160,000 guns are to be taken out of circulation. If the average price of a gun is £300—the amount that I calculated when I was writing my speech —that means £48 million to start with. My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside says that the average price is £500, which would mean a total bill of £80 million. That does not include the accessories involved in shooting sports. I think it wholly reasonable for people to be properly compensated for all the accessories that they have had to purchase in order to obtain shotgun and firearms certificates.
  Perhaps I should declare an interest at this point. I hold a firearms certificate and a shotgun certificate, I own firearms and shotguns and I have shot all my life, so I can claim to know a little about the issue.
  In order to obtain a firearms certificate, people have been obliged to have expensive steel cabinets installed to satisfy police requirements for safe keeping of the weapons. I think it entirely reasonable for compensation to be provided in that regard, and I think that my right hon. and learned Friend acknowledged the need for such compensation this evening. Much more difficult issues are at stake, however, and the Home Office will have to deal with them. For example, there must be some compensation for gun clubs. If a group of law-abiding people have got together and installed their own gun safe or, indeed, armoury and the gun club is now to be closed because there is no raison d'être for its membership, it is surely incumbent on the Government to compensate the club to some extent.
  I return to Lord Cullen's proposals and what the Government intend to do about them. I hope that, even at this late stage, the Government will examine the proposals very carefully. My right hon. and learned Friend made great play of a letter—which has appeared in the Library—from the Forensic Science Service signed by a Mr. Warlow.
  As other hon. Members have said, the letter runs to one and a quarter pages; half of it relates to shotguns, which are irrelevant to the issue that we are discussing. We are going to deprive 57,000 people of their guns on the basis of a flimsy letter like that. I have to say that it is incumbent on the Government whom I support to come up with better reasons for taking large-bore handguns away from those people.
  244
  I submit that it would be perfectly possible to oblige the gun trade to design guns in a way that permits them to be easily dismantled and reassembled. As Lord Cullen stated, different parts could be kept in the gun club and elsewhere, which would make it much more difficult to steal them. I do not think that it is good enough simply to say that, because most guns today are designed in a way that makes it difficult to take them apart, we should ban large-bore pistols. I do not think that that argument holds water.
  Although I support the Government's proposals, I ask them, even at this late stage, to consider allowing some larger-bore pistols to be kept centrally in gun clubs, under proper control—in armouries, perhaps—fitted with burglar alarms and constantly inspected by the police, who would also constantly inspect the official registers. The range of controls could be enormous, and it would be virtually impossible for the guns to be stolen.
  We must put the issue into context. In Britain, barring the horrific incidents at Dunblane and Hungerford, in a normal year there are approximately 40 deaths by firearms. That is 40 too many, but there are 20,000 in the United States of America. I have listened with dismay to the ignorant comments of Opposition Members. If they tighten gun law and ban all guns, they will still get a Dunblane. They will not be able to legislate madmen such as Thomas Hamilton or Michael Ryan out of existence. If Opposition Members give me enough money, I can go to the black market and purchase any semi-automatic or automatic rifle that they care to name. The more they legislate against guns, the more they drive them underground. We must, therefore, be logical and calm on the issue.
  There are some sensible proposals in the Bill. I intervened on my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary on the issue of the granting of shotgun licences. My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) made crystal clear the police's mistakes in granting licences. I support the Government 100 per cent. in their wanting to tighten the granting of licences, but I urge them, as I said in my intervention, to make it less arbitrary.
  Let us have a national register of guns and of gun users so that every police force can quickly check who is applying for guns and whether they have any criminal record or any suspected medical history that might lead another force to refuse or to revoke a licence. That seems eminently sensible. Let the gun-using lobby pay for such a register. I know that gun applications would cost more as a result, but it is reasonable that the gun-using lobby should be responsible in this respect.
  I warmly welcome other proposals in the Bill. It is right that, when applying for a gun licence, people should have to have two referees. It has been suggested that a medical practitioner should be one of them. I wholeheartedly support that, but it would be unreasonable to expect the medical profession to detect every psychopath at every stage. Anyone who knows anything about the subject knows that psychopaths can arise quickly, but applications need to be vetted closely in the first instance so that such people, if they have any history, are rooted out and not granted an application.
  I hope that my hon. Friends will be able to clarify other provisions in the Bill on Report. One concerns the necessity for all firearm holders to be a gun club member.

  245
  The relevant clause makes it clear that people who are granted firearms certificates for vermin destruction will not have to be gun club members—at least I hope that my interpretation is correct—but most police will grant firearms certificates on the basis that they are for vermin destruction and for target shooting, thereby obliging all firearms certificate holders to become a member of a registered gun club.
  Such people will not only have to become a member of a club, but attend that gun club regularly. That is too onerous a hurdle for people who genuinely use firearms for vermin and deer destruction. I hope that my hon. Friends will be able to clarify that matter.
  Much has been said tonight about the issue. I hope that we will consider it in Committee in a cool, calm manner. I warmly support the major thrust of the Government's proposals.
  9.13 pm
  Mr. Frank Cook: May I congratulate the hon. Member for Spell home (Mr. Wilshire) on his well-measured, compassionate and sensible speech? I commend it to the House.
  On a point of order, the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) referred to motion No. 2 on today's Order Paper, which he described as effectively a guillotine motion. I had responsibility for whipping proceedings on the 1988 Firearms (Amendment) Bill, which was introduced after the Hungerford incident. It too was guillotined in its final stages— after the Government had introduced a whole raft of 60-plus clauses, despite having given a commitment to do no such thing. That was legislation in haste and we have since repented at leisure. There is a great danger that we will do the same with this Bill.
  Much has been said tonight, and I will not repeat most of the points that have been made. I am the honorary pistol captain of the Palace of Westminster Rifle Club. I will return to that matter later if there is time.
  In an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) earlier, I said that the certificates possessed by Thomas Hamilton were obtained on the basis of false information. My hon. Friend countered, quite correctly, by saying that there was no evidence of that in the Cullen report. A great deal of evidence that was not included in that report has since come to light. It is now an undisputed fact that Mr. Hamilton—as with Michael Ryan before him—obtained his firearms certificates on the basis of false information and that the police failed to exercise due diligence.
  Hon. Members have said that even if the police had exercised diligence, that would not have stopped Thomas Hamilton. That is probably true, but no matter what legislation we pass, if the police are not there to enforce it or are unable to enforce it, it does not mean a thing.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn said that there are 240,000 illegally held guns. Some people say that there are twice as many, others say there are 14 times as many and some agencies even say that there are 16 times as many. If the police cannot enforce the law on illegal firearms, what is the point of asking them to enforce it on legally held guns that the Bill will make illegal? It is unenforceable. As responsible politicians, we have a bounden duty ensure that whatever we consign to law must be enforceable. To do anything less would be dishonest.
  246
  I have not consulted only shooters on this matter; I have consulted the police. A fortnight last Friday, I spoke to a very senior policeman who had read in the press all the comments that I am supposed to have made. His reaction was, "Frank, you are saying the right things at the wrong time." I said that if he really thought that, he should be repeating those same statements.
  If the Bill passes into law, when the next foul deed is done—and as surely as night follows day it will happen at some time—people will look not to Parliament but to the police for failing to enforce the legislation that they had been led to believe would resolve the problem, but cannot. The police officer was somewhat embarrassed by that observation.
  I spoke to a second policeman only yesterday. He is even more senior—I suppose I could say that he is staff rank. I put the same arguments to him. His reaction was, "Frank, if I had my way I would do away with every bloody firearm in the country." He followed that by saying, "But given the circumstances that apply at the moment, I know you are right."
  What are we about this evening? Are we thinking of passing some sop to convince the people on the streets that their protection is assured? If that is the game, once again we are being dishonest. I was every bit as distressed as anyone by what happened at Dunblane, just as I was distressed by what happened at Hungerford long ago. I would support the most stringent application of Lord Cullen's proposals, and go even further.
  Instead of accepting illogical proposals to pay various amounts of compensation, which is bound to prove inadequate, will not work and is unnecessary if we opt for the dismantling of weapons, we should give the money to the police to improve their manning levels, equipment and means of dealing with the problem—as they should have dealt with it before Dunblane and before Hungerford. The money resolution has had to be withdrawn, which shows how much careful preparation has gone into it. What a farce.
  On the five or six occasions over the past four or five years when my constituents have called me to comp that Cleveland constabulary was being too stringent with their applications, my reaction has always been: damn good show; that is how it should be done. Time and again, I have told shooters, "If you have any belief in the respectability of your sport, you should welcome that stringency," and they agreed with me.
  I have already talked about our responsibility as hon. Members. Before we cast our votes today, we must remember that we cannot con the public. We must enact achievable, enforceable, reasonable and necessary legislation—but the Bill meets none of those criteria.
  I am unfortunately unable to take part in the Bill's Committee stage on Monday because, as Rapporteur of the Defence and Security Committee of the North Atlantic Assembly, I must present my report on the partnership for peace at the plenary session in Paris, but I shall be hoping to God that hon. Members see sense before it is too late. There is a danger that we will enact legislation which, in future years, will be recognised for what it is: simply silly.
  9.21 pm
  Mr. Tim Devlin: I am not a gun owner or a licence holder, although I have shot one or two pistols. I am a legislator, and I come to the House as

  247
  a representative of the people of Stockton, South, who hold differing views on this issue. Some people want a complete ban on firearms; others own firearms and do not want them to be banned. My duty is to represent all those views.
  Above all, however, my duty is to use my judgment. I have been in the House long enough to know that when it acts in hast, it repents at leisure, that undoing bad laws is considerably harder than passing them initially, and that when fashionable causes drive us to legislate it demonstrates the power not of the House but of the media.
  I call to mind immediately the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988, which was passed after Hungerford and intended to ensure that no other such massacre occurred. I call to mind the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, which was supposed to stop dogs savaging children. I find that just as many dogs are savaging small children as ever before, and that the legislation that we passed was unenforceable, ineffective and useless.
  Like the vast majority of my constituents, I share the grief of parents whose children were killed at Dunblane. Indeed, my wife was a personal friend of some of them. Nothing can bring back those children. It was a tragedy, the like of which has never been seen before in this country. I can well understand the subconscious feeling that those parents must have of being cheated out of their chance to get even with Thomas Hamilton as a result of his killing himself.
  We should do all that we can to prevent a recurrence of such a tragedy. However, I cannot understand the revanchist quest to ban all pistols to "prevent" such a tragedy from ever happening again. What Hamilton did at Dunblane was and is illegal. There is already a law against it. I deplore the illusion being put forward that something like that can be prevented by law. As my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) said, we cannot legislate for the actions of a lunatic. Banning all guns will no more prevent the next massacre than the present law on murder has prevented previous ones.
  Do any of us—right, left or centre—want to stand for election on this issue alone? Does anyone here really think that this issue should be the sole determinant of whether either party is fit to govern the country? Of course not. We all stand for office on the basis of the principles that we set out to the public at a general election. We are then trusted to decide these matters in accordance with those principles. One of the principles that I stood for at the general election was the public safety of my constituents. Another was the protection of individual liberties. Those two need to be balanced.
  Looking back over my nine years' experience in the House, I think that three features make for good law. First, an Act should be an effective and enforceable measure to deal with the mischief in question. Secondly, it must be comprehensible. Thirdly, it must be fair.
  If we examine the Bill with those criteria in mind, we find that, first, it will probably not be effective. Only 0.2 per cent. of legally held firearms currently figure in homicides. They do not figure at all in other major crimes. It is a fallacy to suggest that banning pistols will cut off the supply of illegal weapons.
  Four years ago I went to Czechoslovakia. I went to a market place in a small town where the Czechoslovak army, as it then was, was selling off its weapons to anyone
  248
  from the West who wanted to buy them. I could have put a weapon in my car boot. I then drove through Austria, Germany and France on my way back to the United Kingdom. Nobody looked in the car at the various borders that I crossed. Many criminals in this country know that that is possible.
  The leading criminologist in the United States, Professor Don Kates, who teaches constitutional and criminal law at St. Louis university, considered the issue of restricting handguns. Coming from a liberal tradition, he concluded:
  "Banning guns … defies criminological scholarship. Indeed, the consensus in criminology today is that no form of gun control has much value."
  Mr. Colin Greenwood has produced the most extensive study on the subject in this country, entitled "Firearms Control: A Study of Armed Crimes and Firearms Control in England and Wales". He concluded:
  "No matter how one approaches the figures, one is forced to the rather startling conclusion that the use of firearms in crime was very much less when there were no controls of any sort and when anyone, convicted criminal or lunatic, could buy any type of firearm without restriction. Half a century of strict controls on pistols has ended. perversely, with a far greater use of this class of weapon in crime than ever before."
  As I pointed out to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), shotguns are more powerful than pistols. They are easily sawn off and are more often used in crime.
  If criminals do not have access to weapons, they will find other means. Nikki Conroy was murdered with a knife and other children in the same class were threatened with knives in a constituency next to mine.
  My second criterion is comprehensibility. Of course it is comprehensible to every member of the public that we ban all handguns.
  The third criterion is fairness. Is it fair that 2,000 members of the Muzzle Loaders Association of Great Britain should be banned from having matchlocks, flintlocks and percussion cap pistols? The Opposition propose the banning of all handguns. When was the last time someone was held up with a flintlock pistol? Perhaps it was by Dick Turpin.
  We should consider the proposal to offer compensation for legitimately bought weapons. Is it feasible for us to hand out enormous sums of money—far more than the Government are prepared to admit—when hard-pressed public services and many more worthy causes, including hospitals, schools and prisons are seeking increased resources in the forthcoming Budget? Is it right that we should implement the legislation in two months when it took us 13 months to pass the last firearms measure, which was supposed to have solved the problem altogether?
  Hon. Members may know that I am vice-chairman of the Anglo-Japanese group, so I found out what has happened in Japan where private ownership of handguns is prohibited. The relevant statute is the Firearms and Swords Control Law which provides punishment of up to 10 years forced labour for violation. The results are as one would expect: a thriving black market, an enormous criminal and illicit armoury outside any control which by all accounts is steadily growing through criminal imports. In 1952, the police in Japan seized 17 pistols from gang members. In 1972, they seized 778 pistols, and two years later 1,054. In the past four years they have seized an average of more than 1,200 weapons per year.

  249
  We should ask ourselves what we are trying to do. The Bill will affect only weapons currently held on legitimate firearms certificates. What have legitimate firearms certificate holders done to deserve that? All hon. Members know that the Bill is an overreaction and that it will not solve the problem. We all know that we are bowing to media pressure and that it will not work. Why do we not support the Cullen report's recommendations? It was a careful report and we should amend the Bill to bring it back into line with the original report.
  I shall support the Bill on Second Reading because I believe that we should control guns. However, we should amend the Bill quite radically—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Time is up.
  9.31 pm
  Mr. George Robertson: We have had a sober and well informed debate on a serious issue. For the most part, it has been conducted with detail and knowledge and, of course, strong feelings. However, there have been some exceptions. The hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) made yet another disgraceful speech, which plumbed depths even for him. I found the remarks of the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) difficult to take in the atmosphere of consideration that has permeated the debate.
  The issue is so serious and feelings run so deep that I am not the only one to wonder why, when heavy issues of conscience such as abortion, Sunday trading and now the question of caning in English schools were deemed appropriate for a free vote, an issue on which Parliament and its Members will be judged in years to come is subject to a Conservative Whip so that Conservative Members will be dragooned through the Lobby to produce a decision which, as a consequence of that, cannot be sustained.
  Making a law which, from its very birth process, cannot be stable, effective or long lasting, does no justice to the strength of feeling on all sides of the argument and on both sides of the House. Even at this 11th hour, I call on the Government to drop the Whip before Monday's votes and let Parliament decide so that the law that we make will endure.
  If the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) chooses to press his amendment to a vote, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), right hon. and hon. Members on the Government Front Bench and I will vote against it. I shall advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to do the same. We are not happy with the Bill in certain key areas, but it is better than the law at it stands at present.
  I live in Dunblane, but I do not approach this debate with any irrational knee-jerk reaction to one particularly awful atrocity. Like so many others, alongside the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister for Education, Housing and Fisheries, I have been deeply and permanently moved and changed by what I saw and heard in Dunblane on 13 March, but I still look on this key issue as being one of ensuring public safety and not some punitive raid on a legal hobby carried out by thousands of ordinary and largely law-abiding people. I react with passion and quite natural emotion to what happened that day at the hand of a crazed, legally armed and suicidal killer, but I address the issues of firearms control coolly,
  250
  rationally and dispassionately. I find offensive the idea that those who argue alongside the Police Federation of England and Wales for a complete outlawing of handguns are to be defined as merely hysterical, emotional or somehow lacking in reason or justice.
  I once shot a rifle as a recreation—it is perhaps one of the few sports that I did passably well—but I will never do it again. I do not, therefore, speak with ignorance on the subject or with insensitivity about a sport that will be affected by the law that we shall pass, but I believe that the right to life is greater and more important than the right of any person to conduct themselves in any sport.
  The policy is not one of vengeance. Nor is it an instant reaction to be worried about such a vast and previously unseen arsenal of handguns. Having waited nine long months for this debate, this policy is not one of indecent haste. It is not a policy of blame or emotion to say that one category of firearms more than any other poses a very different and distinct threat to public safety and that we should do something radical to prevent what has now happened twice in a single decade in our country, when legally held, legally obtained firearms were turned against ordinary citizens.
  Sir Jim Spicer: I know the hon. Gentleman well and I look on him, if I may say so, as a friend. He said that he has fired a rifle. I represented the United Kingdom in the modern pentathlon championships and had to fire a pistol. What he is saying is that never again will anyone represent the United Kingdom in the modern pentathlon, never again will any paraplegic who does not run the marathon or play basketball but who enjoys shooting a pistol be allowed to do so, and that such activity will be outlawed totally for all time. He is saying that we shall never again be represented at the Olympics or any other sport worldwide. Does he accept that?
  Mr. Robertson: I respect the hon. Gentleman and I reciprocate his sentiments. It is with some feeling, therefore, that I say that when he makes a passionate plea for something that we might never do again, let him remember the innocents who died on 13 March and what they will never do again. We have to strike a balance—it is an onerous burden for us to do so —between those who might not take part in a sport as it is currently defined and those who have lost everything and are now campaigning to ensure that no other families have to go through the same tragedy. I do not find it difficult to make that judgment, most hon. Members do not find it difficult to make that judgment, and outside the House there is no doubt where the judgment lies.
  It is not a policy of blame or emotion to say simply that we should identify handguns. It is no knee-jerk reaction to do now what we should have done after 1988 and to minimise the risk of another Hungerford or of a repetition of what happened on 13 March at Dunblane primary school.
  Mr. Devlin: I ask for the hon. Member's assurance that if we pass the legislation in the form that he would like, that sort of massacre will never happen again.
  Mr. Robertson: I suspected from the quality of the hon. Member's contribution that he would be unable to rise to the seriousness of the debate, and his intervention

  251
  proves it. Had he been listening, he would know that I have just mentioned the minimising of risks. The Government made a decision about minimising the risks. There are 200,000 handguns in circulation and the Home Secretary, who does not consider himself a liberal dove on that or any other issue, has decided to minimise the risks by reducing that number by 80 per cent. My hon. Friends and I want to go 20 per cent. further than that in minimising the risks that we believe should be contained and which now exist.
  The definition of a gun, in the original firearms legislation which replaced the zero regulation in the 1920s, is clear and unmistakable. A gun is a
  "lethal barrelled weapon of any description from which any shot, bullet or missile can be discharged".
  "Lethal" is the word. Such guns are designed to kill. That is their purpose and function, and pistols stand out in a special category. No other instrument of death, no other firearm licensed today, would have enabled one man to carry 743 bullets, to fire 106 shots, to cause 58 wounds, to kill 16 children and their teacher, to injure 15 people and to commit suicide himself—all within four minutes. Pistols are small, hidable and portable. They are also horribly lethal and we have to deal with that.
  A number of the points that were made in the debate should be addressed. One point in particular must be addressed seriously—the claim by hon. Members that their postbags should tell them what to do. The October 1996 edition of the magazine, Target Gun, said:
  "It is time for us to start writing again to our MPs, a brief letter, not detailed, just stressing our participation in an honourable sport that we wish to continue to enjoy. This is particularly important if your MP is Labour, but Conservatives too need to feel the weight of the pro-gun post bag."
  We are feeling that.
  I was handed a book at my surgery a week last Saturday by the secretary of the Clyde Valley pistol club, Mr. McGhie, who is a constituent of mine. It is 400 glossy pages long and was produced by the pro-gun lobby. It analyses all the evidence and the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) chose to quote from it during the debate. It has no price on it. It is being handed out free throughout the country. That takes a lot of money. Against that, the Dunblane Snowdrop petition's total resources at the moment are, I believe, £3,000. A gun lobby with a war chest of £250,000 is set against a sentiment and a petition signed by 750,000 people and hardly any money. Nobody should come to the House and claim that we should make a decision based on the postbags that we receive on the issue.
  Mr. John Carlisle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Robertson: No. I have limited time and some of it has already been taken. Hon. Members have said that it is the individual and not the gun that causes the problem and that we should address the individual, not the gun.
  Lord Cullen, in paragraph 1.11, was clear about that:
  "There is no certain means of ruling out the onset of a mental illness of a type which gives rise to danger; or of identifying those whose personalities harbour dangerous propensities. On this ground alone it is insufficient protection for the public merely to tackle the individual rather than the gun."
  252
  That is why we must address the issue, and why the Government have chosen to do so.
  Some, such as the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook), say that everything was the fault of the Central Scotland police. The police, they say, did not implement the law, so we should pile the blame on one of the smallest police forces in the country. Then, apparently, we would have the solution to everything that happened.
  Lord Cullen examined that idea in enormous detail. A deputy chief constable, one of Her Majesty's inspectors of constabulary, admitted an error and has resigned. That could be an example to many people on the other side of the argument. But I remind hon. Members what Lord Cullen said about the licence:
  "On balance I consider that there was a case for revocation of Thomas Hamilton's firearm certificate and that it should have been acted upon. However, I do not consider that this would have been the end of the matter."
  Using the usual double negative for which the legal profession has such a great affection, he continued:
  "It is not certain that an appeal would have been unsuccessful."
  That is Lord Cullen's considered view.
  I knew the murderer, Hamilton. I was uneasy and angry about him, and my wife and I campaigned against him for years. But I recognise that the evidence against him is easier to see after the event, now that his supporters—he had many—have all disappeared like snow from a dyke. It is not sufficient, and never will be sufficient, to put the blame on an individual police force.
  Now the Government have offered their solution, which has been berated both by Opposition and by Conservative Members. The Home Secretary has left a major loophole by saying that the Government will exempt .22 weapons. Those are said to be somehow less lethal than the instruments of death that are to be banned. However, in the letter sent to hon. Members, the British Shooting Sports Council wrote:
  "While the rate of fire of a single-shot gun is somewhat less than a multi-shot handgun, the difference (perhaps 12 per minute instead of 20 per minute) is not significant in the context of events like Dunblane."
  I draw to the attention of the House a brochure for target guns—.22 pistols. I have it in my hand now, and hon. Members can see the face of the guns that will remain in circulation, and which may indeed become more numerous because compensation money may be diverted from the larger guns to those that will remain legal.
  The decision on the issue will be ours. It will be for us, as Members of the House, to judge the balance between a sport and the risk to people from the thousands of guns now in legal circulation. This is a defining moment for all of us. Heavy is the responsibility of having a vote tonight, and perhaps more serious votes on Monday. If we choose wrongly and allow more than 40,000 lethal pistols to remain in circulation, it may be we who vote, but we are hardly likely to be the ones who pay the price.
  9.48 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Ann Widdecombe): The debate and the Bill have their roots in the tragedy of Dunblane. The tone of the debate and the nature of most of the contributions have made it a constructive discussion. I can guarantee that, although the Government will not be able to accept all the suggestions made tonight, every contribution will be carefully studied and assessed, to guide our thinking during the passage of the Bill.
  In a debate to which many distinguished contributions have been made, hon. Members on both sides of the House were moved and impressed by the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire). It was a very thoughtful and moving speech, which endeavoured to address an extremely difficult subject with good sense and mildness in the face of the emotion generated.
  The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) talked about the collision of two rights—the right of people to enjoy a legitimate sport and the right of the public to be protected. We believe that we have produced a solution that achieves both those aims. We believe that the public are protected by our proposals as far as they can be. Of course, no matter what measures we take, neither I, nor my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, nor anyone else can absolutely guarantee that there will never be a repetition of the dreadful tragedies in Dunblane and, before that, in Hungerford. We have to try to find the solution that best protects the public and if, in the course of that solution, it is also possible to protect—at least to some extent—a legitimate sport that has been practised in this country to Olympic standard for 100 years, it is right that we should take that solution.
  Mr. John Carlisle: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Miss Widdecombe: I shall; but I would point out, not in an aggressive way, that, because Opposition Members' speeches have eaten into the time available for my winding-up speech —[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—this will be the only intervention I accept.
  Mr. Carlisle: My hon. Friend mentioned Olympic sports, but she should also address Commonwealth sports. Our right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said that he would look at amendments that might allow certain weapons to be brought into this country for the Manchester Commonwealth games in 2002. On that basis, will she acknowledge that, even though those weapons might come in from abroad, they will not be available for the British team to practise with? As a result, we shall be at a severe disadvantage—indeed, we shall be unable to take part even if the exemption is given. Will my hon. Friend address that problem and advise the Commonwealth games associations on what they should do in respect of Manchester?
  Miss Widdecombe: I would point out to my hon. Friend that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary did not say that we would consider amendments to achieve the event at Manchester. In fact, no amendment would be necessary—the authority could simply be given. It is true and it must be faced that, under our proposals, it will no longer be possible for British competitors to take part in some Commonwealth games events.
  254
  I want to make progress on answering some of the points that were raised in the debate. A point that was raised consistently, not only by Conservative Members but by several Opposition Members—specifically, the hon. Members for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) and for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook)—was whether we should accept the Cullen preference for dismantling rather than banning. We have come to the view that there have been no convincing arguments to overcome the objections that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary explained in his speech and that were based on advice from the Forensic Science Service and on the document that has now been placed in the Library.
  My right hon. and learned Friend pointed out that existing barrel blocks are currently commercially available only for certain types of shotgun and that they are not suitable for handguns. Even if such blocks became more widely available, it would be quite impossible to guarantee that someone with enough determination could not remove them.
  As for removing parts from handguns so as to disable them, my right hon. and learned Friend acknowledged that it is true to say that the slide or cylinder can be removed from many handguns and, indeed, that it is quite easy to do so. However, that is not universally the case and, more important, it would again be impossible to ensure that people did not keep illicit spares at home.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Miss Widdecombe: I regret that I shall not. Many questions were asked in the debate, which I want to answer. I shall be happy to engage in further discussion with the hon. Gentleman, as I shall be happy to engage in discussion on any of the questions raised by my hon. Friends and by Opposition Members, but my time is somewhat truncated.
  The hon. Member for Blackburn asked whether I would consider making any changes in the age limits. The hon. Gentleman was not inaccurate, but he gave a brief description of the present system and, in the limited time available, it is important to put on record that a great many caveats are already built into provisions dealing with young people's access to the types of gun that he mentioned. For instance, a person under the age of 17—the hon. Gentleman concentrated on 14-year-olds and was not inaccurate—may not purchase or hire any firearm or ammunition, and that includes shotguns, air weapons and their related ammunition. It is an offence to sell or hire a firearm or ammunition to an under-17-year-old and, again, that includes shotguns, air weapons and ammunition. A person under the age of 15 may not have an assembled shotgun with him, unless he is under adult supervision, and it is an offence to give a shotgun or ammunition to someone under 15, and so forth—I shall not go into further detail, but I thought it necessary to put that on record.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Sir C. Onslow) asked about the arrangements that we would make for museums and whether they were affected by the proposals. No changes are proposed to the existing arrangements for granting museum licences to those institutions covered by the existing legislation—those

  255
  funded wholly or partly from public funds. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has said that we will produce an amendment to the definition to include other museums or similar institutions that are not publicly funded, such as regimental museums. I hope that that offers some reassurance to hon. Friends who raised the matter.
  I was also asked about compensation for collections. Although compensation will be based on the value of the individual pieces in a collection, it stands to reason that, merely by being a part of a collection, a piece may have an enhanced value or a value that is affected by that fact, and that will certainly be taken into account. Again, I hope that that provides some of the necessary reassurance.
  Much of the debate, particularly on the Government side, concentrated on compensation. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary made the situation extremely clear. We have made it clear that we will table an amended money resolution and that we will take into account the points raised in the debate when we consider our response to them and how that should be reflected in that resolution.
  The hon. Member for Blackburn and others repeatedly pointed out that .22s can also be used to kill. That is self-evidently true, but in 95 per cent. of homicides involving the use of firearms recorded between 1992 and 1994, the weapons were not in that category. Indeed, the American experience clearly shows that fewer than one in eight of the weapons used in crime —not just for homicides—are .22s.
  The effect of the Bill will be to give us some of the toughest gun laws in the world. That will provide the public with the protection that they deserve and that we are duty bound to give them.
  I believe that this measure gives the public much reassurance, and that it is a wise and sensible Bill. At the same time, we have been concerned to preserve the legitimate activities of a century-old sport. I commend the Bill to the House. Possibly the reason why Opposition Members have been given a free vote is the number of dissenting voices that we have heard among their ranks.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 35, Noes 384.

  Division No. 12]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Hamilton, Sir Archibald

  Batiste, Spencer

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Beggs, Roy

  Hunter, Andrew

  Biffen, John

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Body, Sir Richard

  Jopling, Michael

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  King, Tom

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Carlisle, John (Luton N)

  Mills, Iain

  Churchill, Mr

  Onslow, Sir Cranley

  Colvin, Michael

  Richards, Rod

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Gilbert, Dr John

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Gill, Christopher

  Taylor, John D (Strangf'd)

  Gorst, Sir John

  Viggers, Peter

  Grant, Sir Anthony (SW Cambs)

  Whittingdale, John

  256

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Mr. Tony Marlow and

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Mr. Rupert Allason.

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Conway, Derek

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Cook, Robin (Livigston)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)

  Alexander, Richard

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Alison, Michael (Selby)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Allen, Graham

  Cousins, Jim

  Amess, David

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try SE)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Cunningham, Ms R (Perth Kinross)

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Curnie, Mrs Edwina

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Curry, David

  Ashby, David

  Dafis, Cynog

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Dalyell, Tam

  Atkins, Robert

  Darling, Alistair

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Davidson, Ian

  Austin-Walker, John

  Davis, David (Llanelli)

  Baker, Kenneth (Mole V)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Davia, Terry (B'harn Hodge H)

  Baldry, Tony

  Day, Stephen

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Barnes, Harry

  Devlin, Tim

  Batiste, Spencer

  Dewar, Donald

  Battle, John

  Dixon, Don

  Bayley, Hugh

  Dobson, Frank

  Beith, A J

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Benda, Vivian

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Benn, Tony

  Douglas-Harnilton, Lord James

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Dover, Den

  Benton, Joe

  Down, Jim

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Duncan, Alan

  Boateng, Paul

  Dunn, Bob

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Booth, Hartley

  Dykes, Hugh

  Boswell, Tim

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltharn)

  Eastharn, Ken

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Eggar, Tim

  Bowls, John

  Elletson, Harold

  Boyson, Sir Rhodes

  Ernery, Sir Peter

  Bradley, Keith

  Etherington, Bill

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfld)

  Brazier, Julian

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Brooke, Peter

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Evans, Roger (Monrnouth)

  Burden, Richard

  Evennett, David

  Burns, Simon

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Burt, Alistair

  Faber, David

  Butler, Peter

  Fabricant, Michael

  Caborn, Richard

  Fatchett, Derek

  Callaghan, Jim

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Forman, Nigel

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Forth, Eric

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)

  Fowler, Sir Norman

  Carrington, Matthew

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Cash, William

  Fraser, John

  Channon, Paul

  Freeman, Roger

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  French, Douglas

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Fyfe, Mrs Maria

  Clappison, James

  Galbraith, Sam

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochfd)

  Gale, Roger

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Gallie, Phil

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Galloway, George

  Clelland, David

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  George, Bruce

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Gerrard, Neil

  Coe, Sebastian

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Cohen, Harry

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Congdon, David

  Goodlad, Alastair

  257

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Gordon, Ms Mildred

  Lord, Michael

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Loyden, Eddie

  Graham, Thomas

  Luff, Peter

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McAllion, John

  Gunnell, John

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Hague, William

  Macdonald, Calum

  Hall, Mike

  McFall, John

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  MacKay, Andrew

  Hanley, Jeremy

  McKelvey, William

  Hannam, Sir John

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Hanson, David

  Maclean, David

  Hardy, Peter

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  McMaster, Gordon

  Harris, David

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Hawkins, Nick

  McNamara, Kevin

  Hayes, Jerry

  McWilliam, John

  Heald, Oliver

  Madden, Max

  Heath, Sir Edward

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Madel, Sir David

  Henderson, Doug

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hendry, Charles

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Heppell, John

  Major, John

  Heseltine, Michael

  Malone, Gerald

  Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)

  Mandelson, Peter

  Hinchliffe, David

  Marek, Dr John

  Hogg, Douglas (Grantham)

  Marland, Paul

  Home Robertson, John

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Horam, John

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Howard, Michael

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Howarth, Alan (Stratfd-on-A)

  Martlew, Eric

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Maxton, John

  Howell, David (Guildfd)

  Meale, Alan

  Hughes, Robert (Ab'd'n N)

  Merchant, Piers

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Michael, Alun

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Milburn, Alan

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Miller, Andrew

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensb'ne)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hurd, Douglas

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Ingram, Adam

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Jack, Michael

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Janner, Greville

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)

  Mowlam, Ms Marjorie

  Jenkins, Brian D (SE Staffs)

  Mudie, George

  Jessel, Toby

  Needham, Richard

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & D'side)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Newton, Tony

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Norris, Steve

  Jones, Dr L (B'ham Selly Oak)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Olner, Bill

  Jones, Robert B (W Herts)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Jowell, Ms Tessa

  Ottaway, Richard

  Key, Robert

  Page, Richard

  Kiffoyle, Peter

  Paice, James

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Patten, John

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Pattie, Sir Geoffrey

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Pawsey, James

  Kynoch, George

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Pickles, Eric

  Lamont, Norman

  Pickthall, Colin

  Lang, Ian

  Pike, Peter L

  Legg, Barry

  Portillo, Michael

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Lewis, Terry

  Purchase, Ken

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Lidington, David

  Raynsford, Nick

  Litherland, Robert

  Redwood, John

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretfd)

  Reid, Dr John

  258

  Rendel, David

  Sykes, John

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Robathan, Andrew

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

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

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Rooker, Jeff

  Thomason, Roy

  Rooney, Terry

  Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)

  Rowe, Andrew

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Timms, Stephen

  Rumbold, Dame Angela

  Tipping, Paddy

  Sackville, Tom

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Sainsbury, Sir Timothy

  Tredinnick, David

  Salmond, Alex

  Trend, Michael

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Trickett, Jon

  Sheldon, Robert

  Trotter, Neville

  Shephard, Mrs Gillian

  Turner, Dennis

  Shepherd, Sir Colin (Heref'd)

  Tyler, Paul

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Short, Ms Clare

  Waldegrave, William

  Simpson, Alan

  Walden, George

  Sims, Sir Roger

  Wallace, James

  Skinner, Dennis

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Ward, John

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfld)

  Watson, Mike

  Spearing, Nigel

  Watts, John

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Welsh, Andrew

  Spellar, John

  Widdecombe, Miss Ann

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Spicer, Sir Jim (W Dorset)

  Wilkinson, John

  Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

  Willetts, David

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Wilson, Brian

  Spring, Richard

  Winnick, David

  Sproat, Iain

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Stanley, Sir John

  Worthington, Tony

  Stephen, Michael

  Wray, Jimmy

  Stewart, Allan

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Stott, Roger

  Yeo, Tim

  Strang, Dr Gavin

  Young, Sir George

  Straw, Jack

  Streeter, Gary

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Sumberg, David

  Mr. Roger Knapman and

  Sweeney, Walter

  Mr. Gyles Brandreth.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 60 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.
  Motion made, and Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills),
  That Clauses Nos. 1 to 5 and any new Clauses and Schedules appearing on the Order Paper not later than Friday 15th November which relate to the prohibition of small firearms or to further special exemptions from the general prohibition of small firearms be committed to a Committee of the whole House.
  That the remainder of the Bill be committed to a Standing Committee.
  That when the provisions of the Bill considered, respectively, by the Committee of the whole House and by the Standing Committee have been reported to the House, the Bill be proceeded with as if the Bill had been reported as a whole to the House from the Standing Committee. —[Miss Widdecombe.]
  Question agreed to.
  Committee tomorrow.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, at any sitting day on which the House resolves itself into a Committee on Clauses Nos. I to 5 of the Firearms (Amendment) Bill and any new Clauses or Schedules committed to a Committee of the whole House.
(1) the Chairman shall, not later than Ten o'clock, put successively—
(a) the Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question on any Amendment to such a new Clause or Schedule which has been selected by him and which may then be moved and, thereafter, the Question that the Clause or Schedule, or the Clause or Schedule as amended, be added to the Bill); and
(c) any other Question necessary for the disposal of those provisions of the Bill committed to the Committee, which shall include the Question on any Amendment or new Clause or Schedule or Amendment thereto which has been selected by him and which may then be moved; and
(2) proceedings in the said Committee may be taken, though opposed, after Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Coe.]
Hon. Members: Object.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
DELEGATED LEGISLATION

  ECCLESIASTICAL LAW
  That the draft Grants to the Churches Conservation Trust Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 15th October, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—[Mr. Coe.]
  Question agreed to.

WELSH DEVELOPMENT AGENCY BILL
Ordered,
That—
(1) in respect of the Welsh Development Agency Bill, notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time; and
(2) if the Welsh Development Agency Bill is committed to a Committee of the whole House, further proceedings on the Bill shall stand postponed; and that as soon as the proceedings on any Resolution come to by the House on Welsh Development Agency Bill [Money] have been concluded, this House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill.—[Mr. Coe.]

PETITION

  Firearms
  10.16 pm
  Mr. Barry Field: This petition was signed by more than 200 handgun owners and target shooters on the Isle of Wight last weekend. They feel aggrieved that they are being penalised because of a dreadful and heinous crime committed by an evil man.
  The petition reads:
  To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
  The Humble Petition of the rifle, pistol and shot gun shooters of the Isle of Wight assembled at the meeting at Brickfield's Horse Centre, Isle of Wight on Saturday November 9th 1996.
  Sheweth that insufficient consideration is being given to the lawful interests of all rifle, pistol and shotgun shooters, resulting in a grave injustice.
  Wherefore, your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House base any amendments to the Firearms Acts on the recommendations of the report submitted to the House by the Lord Cullen and in particular, paragraph 9.112.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray &c.
  The petition is signed by B. R. Hall, 34 Vinings road, Sandown, Isle of Wight.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Holocaust Victims (Compensation)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Coe.]
  10.19 pm
  Mr. John Marshall: Recent events have reminded the world of the depravity of Hitler's Germany and the evil that was the holocaust. But the litany of shame engulfs civilised countries such as Switzerland and Austria, as well as Germany.
  The holocaust was unparalleled in its ferocity, and mere headline numbers of those who were killed do not show the extent of the depravity. Homes were looted, property was transferred to the Germans' lackeys, paintings and valuables were confiscated, wedding rings were melted down and the gold teeth of holocaust victims were removed from dead bodies and transformed into gold for the Germans to use. It has been estimated that by the end of the war the Germans had looted £550 million.
  No depravity was too wicked for Hitler. The record of some so-called neutral countries was less than distinguished. The Swiss used confidentiality laws to squirrel away many millions of pounds. During the pre-war period, there was apocryphal evidence of future victims depositing money in Swiss banks. After the war, when the dependants of those victims claimed their inheritance, they were denied access to those accounts.
  Secrecy was used to camouflage the selfish exploitation of the dead by the Swiss. Only now is the matter being thoroughly investigated. It is a scandal of the highest proportions. Many people who could have benefited have died, and those who stand to benefit are in the evening of their lives. Given that, are the Swiss moving with speed to investigate those accounts? No. They said that it would take two or three years, during which time many of the potential beneficiaries will pass on.
  Mr. David Sumberg: Is not the nub of the matter that innocent men and women placed their trust in the Swiss banking system, and that system totally failed them? If the Swiss have any sense of honour and decency, they will disgorge those assets without being pressed or nagged, and do what is right and just for the people who died in the holocaust.
  Mr. Marshall: My hon. Friend is right. It is scandalous that more than 50 years after the end of the war, the Swiss have still not disgorged those ill-gotten gains. Many of the individuals concerned have lived traumatic lives, and they may be financially pressed. The least that the Swiss can do is to honour that debt from the past. It is a scandal that the Swiss Government and Swiss bankers have put greed before conscience, and money before principle. Their sleight of hand since the war is nothing compared with their activities during the war.
  During the war, Swiss banks were happy to accept deposits from the German authorities. Part of the proceeds were used to find havens for war criminals towards the end of the war. Where did the money come from? As early as 10 August 1942, Professor Urner warned the Swiss national bank that the money coming from Germany was looted money: it did not belong to the German people; it was stolen money. In 1943, the allies warned the Swiss that they were receiving looted gold—
  262
  partly from melted-down teeth and wedding rings—and not money that belonged to the German pre-war gold reserves.
  The Swiss have a shameful record. They had no conscience about receiving stolen money or selling stolen goods. They closed their eyes in war; their consciences should be opened in peacetime.
  The gold that was given to the Tripartite Gold Commission in 1946 included much stolen gold. Will the Minister give me an assurance that before the residue of that gold is distributed, the Government will insist that its origins are checked closely? The gold in that pool that was taken from individuals should not be returned to the Government, but should be given to those who are still working for the refugees from the last war. Receiving stolen gold is an offence; receiving this stolen gold is a particularly offensive crime.
  Mr. Sumberg: It is a sin.
  Mr. Marshall: It is indeed.
  The lethargy that has characterised Austrian and Swiss dealings with the matter since the war is unacceptable in this country. As I said, a delay of two to three years is involved, and the immediate descendants of those who placed the money in Swiss banks before the last war may not be alive in two or three years' time. Is that what the Swiss want? Historically, Switzerland has been regarded as a principled democracy, but this record of procrastination and delay threatens Switzerland's position in the world, and it risks becoming an international pariah. I ask the Swiss Government to order the Swiss banking system to expedite the inquiry as a matter of urgency.
  Austria, however, joins Switzerland in this litany of shame—
  Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me some of his time. I ought to tell the House—my hon. Friend may be unaware of this —that I work for a Swiss bank. I declare that interest before making my observations.
  Will my hon. Friend urge the Minister to tell the House exactly what the Government's view is of their dealings with the Swiss—whether they have been co-operative—and what is the Government's view of the demands now being made of the Swiss commercial banks, as opposed to the national bank, to pay further moneys in addition to those that were paid in 1946?
  Mr. Marshall: I should like my hon. Friend the Minister to do that. There is no doubt in my mind that the money paid over by the Swiss in 1946 was inadequate: it was regarded as the best that could be got in an effort to sort out a mess. There is also no doubt that Switzerland did very well out of the war, rather like the Conservative Members of Parliament who, in 1918, looked as if they had done "rather well out of the war". There is no doubt that Swiss banks, including the one employing my right hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), did rather well out of the war. They should hang their heads in shame. Not only did they get the gold; the Swiss unquestionably sold many looted paintings and other valuables that had been taken from people in the occupied parts of Europe. Switzerland has a record of which it can

  263
  justly be ashamed—and my right hon. Friend is working for an organisation that should probably be ashamed of what it did as well.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: Certainly not.
  Mr. Marshall: My right hon. Friend may not be ashamed of it, but most people would be.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Marshall: No. I have given way once, and my right hon. Friend declared his interest. I will not give way again.
  Another country with a record of shame is Austria. In 1955, Austria was given a pile of paintings and other works of art and instructed to return them, or to try to find the rightful owners. Only in the past few days have the Austrians held an auction of those paintings. They squirrelled them away in the Mauerbach monastery from 1955 until 1996. Only when the catalogue of that auction was published did a lady in Israel see it and say, "Those are two paintings that were in our home in Vienna before the war."
  For years and years, that lady assumed that the paintings had disappeared. For years and years, she would have loved to have them in her own house. Instead, they were in a monastery in Austria where she had no access to them. No wonder the Austrian Chancellor has apologised —but the Austrians should do more than apologise: they ought to be willing to make reparations to those who would otherwise have benefited.
  Let me now talk about Germany. I recently met constituents who were slave labourers during the last war. The only hope that people had of surviving the death camps was to work in the factories of Nazi Germany. They were exploited; they received no pay and little food. The prisoners knew that, if they ever faltered in their work, they were liable to be killed the next day. They knew that if their health gave way, their lives would give way as well. They were literally working to survive. All those prisoners had suffered a loss of close relatives.
  The other day, I met a constituent who was a slave labourer for just over two years. During that time, he was in five camps and had to march from Auschwitz to Austria. No one needed a map to see the way ahead because it was littered with bodies. Every time someone faltered on that march, German soldiers killed that person.
  That was the reality of being a slave labourer in Germany from 1939 to 1945, but there was one thing that slave labourers did not receive. No one paid any insurance for them, so everyone who worked in Germany from 1939 to 1945 is entitled to a pension, except people who worked as slave labourers. That is iniquitous in the extreme and I call on the German Government to right that wrong. All they need to do is to impute insurance contributions for the time that people worked as slave labourers so that they may receive a pension. One of the people who got in touch with me had worked in a camp for 56 months as a slave labourer. Surely, any decent person would say that that lady was entitled to a pension, as well as substantial compensation for what she had to go through.
  264
  Victims of the holocaust include not only people who lived in the camps and survived, but all the children who came to England in 1938 and in 1939 through the Kinder transport system, who said goodbye to their parents in Berlin, never to see them again, and who were the only members of their family to come to Britain and to survive.
  I am told by one of my friends, who is an expert on the matter, that those people are entitled to a pension, provided that they had a child before 30 November 1949. This constituent of mine secured a pension for someone who had a baby on 30 November 1949. If that child had been born on 1 December 1949, no pension would have been paid. That is bureaucratic madness and unkindness to an extreme Germanic extent.
  I call on the German Government to fulfil their debt of honour to all the people who suffered under the Hitler regime, so that slave labourers and people who had to come to Britain to secure their future life and freedom are compensated by Germany. No money or financial payment can be enough to compensate them, but at least the German people should compensate them as much as they can.
  10.32 pm
  Mr. Greville Janner: I thank the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), who is my local Member of Parliament, my pair and my friend, for many personal kindnesses in rough times and for securing the debate.
  On Monday, I will travel to Switzerland with the right hon. Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt) at the invitation of the Swiss Foreign Minister to discuss with him and others many of the matters that have been raised by the hon. Member for Hendon, South. I shall take a copy of his speech because it is important that the Swiss Government and people should understand the depth of feeling among hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  I ask the Minister to do only these things. First, will he express the Government's feelings about the 1946 agreement? The Swiss sent 40,000 mainly Jewish people back from the Swiss border to their death, but accepted readily enough the gold from their teeth, which was melted into bars and sent to Switzerland by Germany. Under the agreement, the Swiss kept some $220 million of gold, providing only $60 million to the Tripartite Gold Commission. They should now make amends and renegotiate the agreement. I hope that that is the Government's view and that they will say so.
  Secondly, I hope that the Government will express the view that, while awaiting the results of the commissions that they have rightly set up, the Swiss—as a Government and a people —should make a substantial gesture to help the Jewish and non-Jewish victims of Nazism.
  Thirdly, the Tripartite Gold Commission—the United Kingdom, the United States and France—has almost finished its work. It is about to distribute the last tranche to Albania. It will then have a residue. Some 5.5 tonnes of gold will remain in the Bank of England. I ask the Government to say that they will not agree to the distribution of that residue unless and until the origins of that gold have been researched and investigated. It is stolen gold, robbed from individuals; robbed from the bodies of the dead. I am sure that the Government will agree with hon. Members on both sides of the House that in so far as it is individuals' gold, that proportion should

  265
  be returned—if not to the individuals who lost it, at least to their families and successors, who are still living in need and poverty as a result of the Nazi looting and the Nazi holocaust.
  10.35 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Dr. Liam Fox): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) for raising this subject. If I am unable to reply to all the points raised in the debate, I shall write to hon. Members.
  The series of events that my hon. Friend has called to our minds is one of the darkest episodes in the history of the European continent. The question of compensation for survivors of the holocaust is one that it is right for us to review regularly, although as the German Government stated in 1988:
  "No matter how large the sum, no amount of money will ever suffice to compensate for National Socialist persecution. In this, the Federal Republic of Germany, its Western allies and responsible independent organisations have always concurred."
  A provision of the treaty that effected the transition of the federal republic from occupied territory to sovereign state in 1952 required the new state to make restitution. Later the same year, following a conference on Jewish material claims against Germany, an agreement was signed in Luxembourg under which Germany agreed to pay DM3 billion to the state of Israel and DM450 million to various Jewish organisations that had been represented at the conference. The payment to the state of Israel was in recognition of the huge financial burden that that young nation had assumed in accepting so many victims of Nazi persecution in Europe.
  Since then, the German authorities, at federal and state level, have continued to make available substantial sums to individual victims of Nazism. Such payments have been made both in single sums and in continuing pensions. The most recent figures issued by the German Government show that up to May 1996 they had disbursed DM97 billion for those purposes and that their continuing pension obligations were likely to bring that total up to DM124 billion. About 80 per cent. of the pension payments have been made to people outside Germany. In the case of the United Kingdom, under a bilateral agreement concluded in 1964, lump-sum payments were made to more than 1,000 people then living in the UK who had been held in concentration camps or comparable places. These averaged about £1,000 at 1965–66 prices—about £10,000 at today's prices.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South drew attention to the residue of the monetary gold pool held by the Tripartite Gold Commission in the UK and the USA and to the proposal by the World Jewish Restitution Organisation that this gold should be made available to compensate individual victims of Nazism, instead of being distributed to the Governments whose monetary gold was looted by the Nazis during the second world war. There are formidable legal and practical difficulties in the way of that proposal and with the permission of the House I would like briefly to outline the background.
  Under the Paris agreement on reparations of 1946, the western allies agreed that gold and other valuables recovered from the Nazis should be allocated in two separate ways. Monetary gold—gold that had been looted
  266
  or improperly removed from the gold reserves of occupied countries—was, as far as possible, to be returned to those countries. The Tripartite Gold Commission was set up for that purpose by the British, French and United States Governments. Non-monetary gold, together with a sum of $25 million in cash, was to be used to assist in the resettlement of persons displaced at the end of the war who could not be returned to their homes. That was done.
  Countries that had had their reserves of monetary gold looted by the Nazis were invited to lodge claims with the Tripartite Gold Commission. Ten countries did so: Albania, Austria, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland and Yugoslavia. The commission then adjudicated the claims in bilateral negotiations with each claimant country, and with help from financial experts.
  Monetary gold recovered by the allies after the war, with a cash contribution of 250 million Swiss francs from the Government of Switzerland, amounted to about 60 per cent. of the adjudicated and agreed claims. Most of the gold was distributed to claimant countries in the years immediately after the war, but in some cases distribution was delayed by counter-claims, two of which were taken to the International Court of Justice. Albania received its principal share of the gold pool only last month.
  As has correctly been stated during the debate, a residue remains, which has been kept by the commission, because of the technical and practical difficulties of exactly dividing quantities of monetary gold. The legal position now is that the British, French and United States Governments, and the commission on their behalf, have a clear legal obligation to distribute the remaining gold to participant countries. Agreement would be required of the parties to the 1946 Paris agreement, and of the claimant countries themselves, if the residue were not to be distributed to claimant countries. There are also practical difficulties, one of which is that two of the recipient countries—Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia—have ceased to exist in their previous forms.
  The Government are, however, extremely sympathetic to the idea of benefiting individual victims of Nazism in the final distribution of the gold pool, if a method can found of doing so that has a reasonable prospect of success. Therefore, we are consulting the French and US Governments about the matter. We are in close touch with the World Jewish Restitution Organisation and with the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) about how that might be achieved, and about how individual victims of Nazism who might benefit from such an arrangement could be identified.
  The World Jewish Restitution Organisation has recognised that it would be appropriate for a mechanism to be set up to compensate non-Jewish victims of Nazism. We shall examine that possibility. I assure the House that any arrangement we reach will be fully in accordance with our legal and moral obligations.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel—Jones) has raised the issue of whether the Swiss Government should contribute further to the funds available to the Tripartite Gold Commission. The position is that the Swiss Government—after negotiations with the war-time allies—agreed in Washington, in 1946, to make available 250 million Swiss francs to form the basis of the commission's monetary gold pool. That was in response to the allies' contention that the Swiss national

  267
  bank must have known during the war that some of the monetary gold that it was buying from Germany had been looted from the monetary gold stocks of occupied countries. The allies expressly accepted that payment as a final settlement of any claims that they might have against Switzerland in relation to German gold.
  Following expressions of concern in several countries about Switzerland's financial dealings with Nazi Germany, and the handling of deposits in Swiss banks that might have been made by holocaust victims, the Swiss Government announced, in September, a new and comprehensive expert inquiry into the entire course of Switzerland's financial exchanges with the Third Reich between 1933 and 1945. The law establishing the inquiry, which is currently passing through the Swiss Parliament with all-party support, will enable experts to override banking, legal and other professional secrecy rules. The Swiss Government have said that when the inquiry produces its report, which will be made public, they will give the findings appropriate consideration.
  Mr. Janner: How long?
  Dr. Fox: At the same time, another inquiry under the former US Treasury Secretary, Paul Volcker, is investigating the details of dormant bank accounts in Swiss banks, and the Swiss foreign ministry is looking into the question of post-war agreements with other countries on the bilateral settlement of claims. We are satisfied—following talks in September, in Berne, between the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and the Swiss federal councillor, Flavio Cotti—that the Swiss Government are conducting all the investigations in good faith. To answer the question of the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West, I cannot provide a time scale, but we are determined to uncover as much of the truth about these dealings as can be revealed after the passage of half a century.
  In those circumstances, I believe that it is right to await the results of those inquiries before considering what further action ought to be taken.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South has referred to suggestions that some non-monetary gold might have been wrongly included in the monetary gold pool administered by the Tripartite Gold Commission. I have already described the arrangements, made under the 1946 Paris agreement on reparations, under which monetary gold and non-monetary gold were to be treated separately and used for different purposes. In the light of the suggestions referred to by my hon. Friend, we are conducting a study of the available documents to try to establish as best we can after 50 years how thoroughly the task of dividing the gold was carried out.
  From the documents we have so far found, it looks as though those concerned tried with great care and in good faith to allocate only monetary gold to the Tripartite Gold Commission's pool, working from descriptions submitted by the claimant countries of what had been in their gold
  268
  reserves before occupation. It is relevant that the total amount of gold assembled in the monetary gold pool was enough to restore to the claimant countries only about 60 per cent. of what they had lost. We shall be looking into the matter further.
  Mr. John Marshall: Will my hon. Friend the Minister consider giving restitution to organisations that help victims of the Holocaust, as well as to the victims themselves?
  Dr. Fox: I have already mentioned that non-Jewish victims must be considered. I am certainly willing to investigate the issue that my hon. Friend has correctly raised.
  As a matter of fairness, it is right to acknowledge that successive German Governments have tried to make amends for the heinous crimes that were carried out. Since the establishment of the federal republic, the German Government have tried to make some reparations to victims of Nazism in Germany and in other countries.
  Immediately after the second world war, the occupying powers in Germany enacted laws designed to restore property confiscated by the Nazis to its original owners. Thereafter, one of the first acts of the new federal republic was an official expression of intent to make restitution for loss of property, for personal damage to the victims of Nazi persecution, for physical and psychological suffering, for unjust deprivation of freedom and for injury to people's professional or economic potential.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South, the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West and others have reminded the House of the horrors that occurred in the Holocaust. Those matters can never be put to rest and must never be forgotten. The House must be grateful to those hon. Members who remind us time and again of what can happen, even in Europe.
  I hope that I have been able to show that the Government take seriously the questions raised by my hon. Friend. We may not be able to give answers on the specific timetables available, but I hope that my hon. Friend will accept in good faith that the Government are giving very serious consideration to the important points that he has raised—points not of history, but of crucial importance to us and to generations to come. We must never forget them.
  Mr. Janner: Will the Minister assure the House that, when he says that the Government will consider the moral and legal implications before allowing a residue to be distributed, he means that they will not undertake a distribution until they have investigated where the residue came from? Please.
  Dr. Fox: I think that I have made it clear that we intend a proper investigation. As I have said, we shall consider not only our legal obligations but what we regard as our moral obligations. That makes the point clearly.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes to Eleven o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT

  Planning Guidance
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what evaluation his Department has made of the capacity of the planning system to absorb a new(a) low-impact and (b) permaculture use class into existing guidelines; and what assessment he has made of the advantages of this policy. [3368]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  We have not conducted such research.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment his Department has made of the advantages of giving additional weight to environmental impact in determining planning restrictions on agricultural buildings. [3370]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  We published research on planning controls over agricultural forestry development last December. The report "Planning Controls over Agricultural and Forestry Development and Rural Building Conversations" is available from HMSO.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research his Department has(a) planned, (b) commissioned and (c) evaluated into the advantages of establishing a permaculture use class within the planning system; and if he will make a statement. [3236]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  None.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to review(a) planning policy guidance and (b) other planning guidance on agricultural and other dwellings in the countryside in order to give greater weight to environmental and social sustainability; and if he will make a statement. [3299]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  We are reviewing PPG7. We issued a draft revision for public consultation earlier this year.

  Standard Spending Assessment (Lincolnshire)
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on discussions his Department has had with North Lincolnshire council and North East Lincolnshire council regarding their standard spending assessment for 1997–98. [3221]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My officials have been in correspondence with the authorities on issues currently under consideration about possible changes in the standard spending assessment for 1997–98. Their views,102
  and indeed those of others who have made representations to my Department, will be taken into account when we finalise our decisions on the 1997–98 settlement.

  I have also met a delegation from the area, led by the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), which made representations about SSAs.

  All authorities will have the opportunity to make representations on the proposals for next year's settlement during the consultation period which follows the provisional local government finance settlement soon after the Budget statement, which will be made on 26 November.

  Low-impact Accommodation
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the role of low-impact and self-built accommodation in the provision of affordable housing; and if he will make a statement. [3373]

  Mr. Clappison
  In the last financial year, 7 per cent. of all new housing completions in the United Kingdom were self-built. My Department has grant-supported a number of charitable trusts and agencies promoting low-impact self-build accommodation in the belief that this represents a valuable contribution to the provision of affordable housing.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research his Department has(a) planned, (b) commissioned and (c) evaluated into establishing practical criteria for assessing sustainable and low-impact developments, with particular regard to rural areas; and if he will make a statement. [3270]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  We have commissioned good practice guidance on planning for sustainable development. Work on this continues, with a view to publication next year. We have no plans for research into "low-impact developments".

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment his Department has made of the capacity of the planning system to accommodate low-impact development; and if he will make a statement. [3359]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  We have not conducted such research.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the advantages of amending the Building Regulations to make it obligatory to conform to the highest energy—saving standards; and if he will make a statement. [3188]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Building Regulations require only that reasonable provision should be made for the conservation of fuel and power. They do not make it obligatory to conform to the highest energy—saving standards. The regulations were last amended in July 1994 and the changes came into effect in July 1995. In the normal way, arrangements have been made to assess the advantages gained from the changes after two to three years' experience.

  Radioactive Waste Sites
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with the chief executive of the Environment Agency concerning the agency's independent evaluation of Nirex's research on the suitability of sites near Sellafield for final disposal of intermediate-level radioactive waste; and what further discussions he plans. [3416]

  Mr. Clappison
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has had no formal discussions with the chief executive of the Environment Agency but does from time to time have discussions with the chairman, Lord De Ramsey, on various matters.

  Leasehold Enfranchisement Advisory Service
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has in respect of the funding of the leasehold enfranchisement advisory service in the coming financial year.[3537]

  Mr. Curry
  The leasehold enfranchisement advisory service has submitted a proposal concerning future funding arrangements and this is being considered. No final decision will be made before the Budget when it will become clear what funds will be available to my Department in the coming financial year.

  Rural Business Use Class
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for a reformulation of the new rural business use class to a sustainable rural business use class; and what assessment he has made of the desirability of such a reformulation. [3503]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Department's consultation paper describing the proposed rural business use class made it plain that the objective was to encourage development that sustained the character of rural areas while controlling business uses that were likely to generate excessive traffic. As such, the proposal is already consistent with the principles of sustainable development.

  Construction Skills Certification
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many operatives have been registered under the construction skills certification scheme to date, broken down to show(a) bricklayers, (b) roofers and tilers, (c) painters and decorators, (d) partitioning fixers and (e) piling operatives, indicating in each case what percentage those registered represent of the total numbers employed in each grade. [3538]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Information on registrations under the scheme is the property of Construction Skills Certification Scheme Ltd.

  Leasehold Property
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish the code of management practice in respect of leasehold property for which provision was made in section 87 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993. [3536]
  104
  Mr. Curry
  Two codes, entitled "Rent" and "Service Charges", concerning the management of residential property, have been prepared by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and submitted to the Secretary of State. They will be approved by order to be laid before Parliament on 21 November. A code of practice covering private sheltered leasehold housing, produced by the Association of Retirement Housing Managers, came into force on 1 January this year.

  Building Research Establishment
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 5 November,Official Report, column 463, if he will list the criteria for the future operation of the Building Research Establishment specified by him in April which were not satisfied by the proposal from the Construction Industry Council for a national centre for construction. [3566]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  My answer of 5 November made it clear that our judgment related to whether the package of proposals put forward by the Construction Industry Council provided a basis on which to take forward single tender sale negotiations, rather than whether the proposal for a national centre met particular criteria. It would be wrong, in any event, to enter into discussion about the merits of the NCFC proposal, when the Construction Industry Council bid for BRE, at its request, remains available for consideration, in competition with other bids that may come forward.

  Office of Water Services
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment by how much Ofwat has exceeded its budget in(a) the current year, (b) last year and (c) the previous year. [3110]

  Mr. Clappison
  Ofwat did not exceed its budget in 1994–95. Regarding expenditure in 1995–96 and 1996–97, I refer the hon. Member to paragraphs 5 and 11 of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's answer of Monday 4 November 1996,Official Report, columns 346–48, to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day).

  Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what meetings officials of his Department have had with officers of Hillingdon borough council to discuss the objections he has lodged with the council to its proposed changes to Hillingdon's draft unitary development plan; and what meetings are planned for the future; [3708]

  (2) to which of its proposed changes to the Hillingdon draft unitary development plant his Department lodged objections with Hillingdon borough council; [3709]

  (3) on what grounds his Department lodged objections with Hillingdon borough council to its proposed changes to the Hillingdon draft unitary development plan; [3710]

  (4) if he will publish in the Official Report the text of his letter to Hillingdon borough council in objection to its planned changes to Hillingdon's unitary development plan.[3711]
  105
  Sir Paul Beresford
  Objections were made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to 26 proposed modifications. The objections were made to modifications that appeared to bring the plan into conflict with national or regional policies without good reason and where that was proposed would result in the plan lacking clarity such that it could cause great difficulties to users later.

  Twelve modifications concerned green-belt and metropolitan open land; six modifications would produce policies or proposals that were unclear or imprecise; and three modifications conflicted with our preferred approach to planning and affordable housing. A further five modifications to which objections were made related to proposals for residential development on two recreation grounds.

  Objections to the published modifications in respect of the deposited Hillingdon unitary development plan are addressed to the council of the London borough of Hillingdon. I would be pleased to provide a copy of the objections made by my right hon. Friend, but the approach in the first place should be to the council.

  We encourage local authorities to meet objectors to discuss objections. These informal meetings are helpful, not least to consider how the plan might be changed to meet the objections. Officials in the Government office for London and those from Hillingdon have met recently to pursue the objections made by my right hon. Friend. Further discussion is likely once Hillingdon's response to the objections it has received is known.

  Compulsory Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has, following the consultation, to vary any of the proposals to tighten up the compulsory competitive tendering framework for local authority professional services and housing management which he announced in May. [4112]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Secretary of State is today writing to the local authority associations to consult them on draft regulations which we intend to put before the House early in the new year. The Welsh and Scottish Offices are also writing in similar terms. These draft regulations will amend the existing CCT framework for local authorities, other than police authorities in England and Wales. The Government will be considering whether to make comparable changes to the CCT regime for police authorities and will be consulting the relevant associations.

  These draft regulations incorporate the proposals which we put forward earlier this year, except that they will include five main variations in respect of English authorities—there are minor differences in the variations for Scotland and Wales:
  (a) The means by which authorities calculate the amount of work which must go out to competition to exclude the need for credits and allowances which prevent work from being exposed to competition more than once;
  (b) Goods and services which are "bought-in" will be recognised in the new formula. Where work has been awarded after a competition, this will directly work towards satisfying the amount which must be exposed to competition;
  106
  (c) As a result of these two changes, which effectively concentrates competition on local authority labour costs, the competition percentages for finance and information technology services will be 50 per cent. and 40 per cent. respectively, except for county councils in England where the Finance competition requirement will be 40 per cent.
  (d) On housing management, the "de minimis" level is reduced in due course to 2,500 properties as proposed, but not further reduced to 500 properties as originally proposed;
  (e) Authorities are given 18 months from the new regulations coming into force to meet the new requirements on finance and housing management.

  These variations address the major concerns that local authorities put to us in the consultation exercise, namely, that the calculation framework remained unclear in the light of our intention to abolish certain credits and allowances, that the proposed 65 per cent. competition percentage on finance cut too deeply into core services and did not recognise differences in the functions of different local authorities, that a 500 property de minimis figure for housing management might mean competitions which cost more than they saved, and that, because local authorities were unprepared for competition beyond the existing CCT requirements, they needed more time than proposed to meet the higher requirements.

  The revised package of changes, which is summarised in the table, will restore the amount of white collar work subject to competition to a level first envisaged when the statutory framework was introduced lat year, with an increase in the volume of work where subsequent experience has shown the market is well placed to respond. It will mean we have a much more robust CCT framework which will force authorities to put the interests of local taxpayers first. Local authorities that have voluntarily sought opportunities to involve the private sector will find that the calculation framework recognises this. Authorities that are reluctant to expose work to competition will find it much more difficult to use flexibilities within the rules to avoid competition. External auditors will also have a clear basis for checking local authority calculations.

  Type

  Activity

  Details

  1

  Credit

  All

  Amend credit on work for LMS and DSM schools

  2

  Credit

  Personnel

  Amend credit on Grant for Education Support and Training

  3

  Calculation/Allowance

  All

  Abolish 'double-counting' of work in totals and allowance

  4

  Credits

  All

  Abolish credits on work done in support of DSOs and DLOs

  5

  Calculation/Allowance

  All

  Abolish 'pre-shrunk allowance'; create credit for indirectly contracted-out expenditure applied before competition percentage in CCT calculations

  6

  Allowance

  All

  Replace 'Bought-in Goods & Services allowance with BIGs credit applied before competition percentage and credit for work awarded under CCT applied after the competition percentage

  7

  Competition Percentage

  Finance

  Increase percentage from 35 per cent. to 50 per cent. (40 per cent. in English County Councils)

  8

  Competition Percentage

  Personnel

  Increase percentage from 30 per cent. to 40 per cent.

  9

  Competition Percentage

  IT

  Reduce percentage from 70 per cent. to 40 per cent.

  107

  Type

  Activity

  Details

  10

  De Minimis

  Construct & Property

  Reduce from £450,000 to £300,000

  11

  De Minimis

  Personnel

  Reduce from £400,000 to £300,000

  12

  De Minimis

  Housing Management

  Set level at 4,000 properties in England reducing to 2,500 properties. In Wales and Scotland the 2,500 properties figure comes into effect when the regulations take effect.

  13

  Exemption

  Security work

  Increase cut-off from 51 per cent. to 81 per cent.

  14

  Allowance

  Vehicle management

  Abolish allowance

  Lead Pollution (Barham Base)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps have been taken to clean up land contaminated by lead-polluted water at the Barham base near Thetford. [3415]

  Mr. Soames
  I have been asked to reply, as this matter falls within my area of responsibility.

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

  Effluent Reports
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what effluent reports have been prepared by the Laboratory of the Government Chemist in regard to(a) British military bases (b) bases made available to the United States in the United Kingdom and (c) British overseas territories in each year since 1979; and if he will place copies in the Library. [3281]

  Mr. Soames
  I have been asked to reply as this matter falls within my area of responsibility.

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

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Tourism
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what measures she is taking to increase tourism to the north-east of England. [3388]

  Mr. Sproat
  Government support for tourism is channelled through the statutory British Tourist Authority and English tourist board. Through the ETB, support is made available to the 10 non-statutory regional tourist boards, including the Northumbria tourist board, which helps them undertake a variety of marketing and development activities of benefit to the tourism industry in their regions.

  The Northumbria tourist board has been instrumental in widening the appeal of the region. In 1995, the number of UK and overseas visitors to the region rose by over 20 per cent. on 1994. Overseas visitor spend showed an impressive increase of 53 per cent. on the previous year.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list the rules and regulations she proposes to repeal or amend by means of a reference to the Deregulation Committee before the end of 1996; and if she will make a statement. [3443]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 11 November 1996]: The Department of National Heritage does not plan any such repeals or amendments before the end of 1996.

  National Heritage Bill
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when an environmental appraisal was produced using the guidance contained in the Department of the Environment's guide "Policy Appraisal and the Environment" for the National Heritage Bill[Lords]; and if she will place a copy in the Library. [3309]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 11 November 1996]: My right hon. Friend has considered the guidance contained in "Policy Appraisal and the Environment" and is satisfied that an appraisal of the environmental effects in relation to the National Heritage Bill is not appropriate at this time. We will keep this decision under review as appropriate. The main purpose of the Bill is to extend the powers of the national heritage memorial fund so that it can support applications from a wider range of projects and applicants. There is nothing in the Bill that should have an adverse effect on the environment. On the contrary, the NHMF's new powers will provide greater protection for the environment. The Bill will allow the NHMF to provide support for recording schemes such as a survey of the flora and fauna of our rural areas. Also, privately owned scenic areas which may act as havens for wildlife will become eligible for funds.

  British Academy of Sport
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will place in the Library all the bids submitted for the British academy of sport; and if she will make a statement. [3031]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 11 November 1996]: The bids we received for the British academy of sport are commercially confidential to the bidders. I understand that a small number of bidders have made aspects of their proposals public, but it would be a breach of confidentiality for me to place copies of the bids in the Library.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Citizens Advice Bureau
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what arrangements have been made to review Government funding of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux and Citizens Advice Scotland. [4046]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  My Department is the major provider of funds to NACAB and CAS. A financial, management and policy review of both organisations began in October. The review will take place in two
  109
  stages, the first stage being a prior options review and the second an examination of efficiency and financial management and control systems. Pannell Kerr Forster Associates has been appointed to carry out the work and report its findings to my Department. The report on stage 1 will be submitted before the end of the year, with completion of the review and final report before the end of March 1997. The detailed terms of reference for each stage of the review have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Works Councils
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many United Kingdom-based companies have adopted works councils as specified by the European social chapter. [2820]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The European works councils directive sets down requirements for European level information and consultation arrangements in companies which operate in more than one of the countries covered by the directive and are above a specified size. The directive was adopted under the agreement on social policy and therefore does not apply to the UK, but a number of UK-based companies are affected by it because they have employees above the threshold levels in the countries covered.

  My Department does not hold precise information on the numbers of companies affected, but I understand that approximately 40 UK-based companies had reached voluntary agreements by 22 September 1996.

  Taxation (Self-assessment)
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assurances his Department has(a) sought and (b) been given from the Inland Revenue regarding its ability to deal with the volume of queries likely to arise regarding self-assessment of taxation. [3113]

  Mr. Page
  The President of the Board of Trade is aware of the Inland Revenue's preparation for self-assessment which includes a programme to handle inquiries from taxpayers, employers and tax agents. A new telephone helpline has been established to assist taxpayers outside normal working hours.

  Century Date Change
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what advice his Department has issued to small businesses regarding the need to plan for changing information technology systems for 2000. [3114]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Taskforce 2000, a cross-private group set up at my invitation to increase awareness of the century data change issue, has over recent weeks stimulated considerable media coverage. The task force is well on its way to ensuring that, by the end of March 1997, maid board level executives in every company in the UK are aware of the problem. The task force has recently produced an awareness pack which my Department will make available through our network of business links and on the web page. The pack contains a statement of the problem, advice to companies and sources of help.

  Post Office
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment his Department has made of the percentage of small firms which are(a) in favour of and (b) against the end of the Post Office's monopoly on letter delivery. [3115]

  Mr. Page
  None. I am, however, aware of the survey recently carried out by the Federation of Small Businesses on members' attitudes to the future delivery of mail.

  Business Links
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the cost of advertising business links. [3259]

  Mr. Page
  The total cost of the national advertising campaign and supporting publicity activities for business link in 1996–97 will be £4 million. A survey of business link target client companies following the July wave of advertising showed that the campaign was increasing their awareness and understanding of business link. A further survey will be conducted following the present wave of advertising which ends in mid-November.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade 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. [3782]

  Mr. Page
  My Department has consulted or is currently consulting on the following proposals for use of the deregulation order-making power:Consumer Credit Act 1974—exempt lending and hiring to unincorporated business from the Act and modify notification requirements for consumer credit licence holders;
  Companies Act 1985—reduce information required on shareholder details;
  Electricity Act 1981—enable projects not linked to the electricity grid to benefit from the fossil fuel levy; and
  Companies Act 1985—alter the law on disclosure of directors shareholdings.

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

PRIME MINISTER

  Anglo-French Summit
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list(a) the members of his Office who attended the Anglo-French summit in Bordeaux and (b) the positions they hold. [3615]

  The Prime Minister
  I was accompanied to the Anglo-French summit by three officials and four support staff.

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 November. [2182]
  111
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 November. [2183]

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

  Burma
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the Government of Burma regarding abuses of human rights; and if he will make a statement. [3178]

  The Prime Minister
  We have recently issued several statements about violations of human rights in Burma, and did so again yesterday.

  In addition, our ambassador in Rangoon has expressed our grave concern at recent events in Burma on several occasions.

  The EU presidency and troika Foreign Ministers also raised these concerns at meetings with the Burmese Foreign Minister on 22 July and 26 September.

  Land Mines
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received from UNICEF concerning land mines in(a) Cambodia and (b) Thailand; and if he will make a statement. [3175]

  The Prime Minister
  As far as I am aware, none.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Prime Minister what assistance(a) Her Majesty's Government and (b) non-governmental organisations have given to (a) Cambodia, (b) Laos and (c) Thailand in respect of the clearance of land mines; and if he will make a statement. [3176]

  The Prime Minister
  Since 1 April 1993, the British Government have committed over £5.1 million for humanitarian mine clearance activities in Cambodia, £543,000 in Laos and £5,000 in Thailand, concentrating on specific clearance projects addressing urgent humanitarian needs. Some of these projects are managed by British non-governmental organisations.

  We do not have details of all non-governmental organisations' commitments to mine clearance in Cambodia, Laos and Thailand.

DEFENCE

  Unidentified Flying Objects
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what factors underlay his Department's decision that the reported sightings of unidentified flying objects on 5 November 1990 and 31 March 1993 were not of defence significance; [2898]

  (2) for what reasons his Department assessed the sightings of an unidentified flying object over RAF Shawbury, referred to in his answer of 24 July, Official Report, column 424, as having no defence significance. [2928]
  112
  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave him on 8 July 1996,Official Report, column 26.

  Gulf War
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if supplies of vaccine 10HO3A supplied to the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment were used in circumstances relating to the Gulf war. [1674]

  Mr. Soames
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours, dated 12 November 1996:
  I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about whether the Vaccine 10HO3A supplied to the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment were used in circumstances relating to the Gulf War. I have been asked to reply since The Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment (CBD) is now part of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency of which I am Chief Executive.
  I regret that it is not our policy to provide details of the particular vaccines required for the research programme at CBD Porton Down.
  I am sorry I could not be more helpful.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) on what date vaccine 10HO3A was received by United Kingdom military personnel in the Gulf; [1675]

  (2) if named patient requirements as required by the manufacturer were used in the case of vaccine 10HO3A while used in circumstances relating to the Gulf war; [1673]

  (3) on what date Her Majesty's Government purchased from the Miles Drug Company, Miles Pharmaceuticals or Bayer UK vaccine 10HO3A; and which was used in the Gulf war; [1672]

  (4) how many British Aerospace personnel (a) did and (b) did not receive doses of vaccine 10HO3A during the course of the Gulf war; [1671]

  (5) if he will make a statement on the use of vaccine 10HO3A during the course of the Gulf war. [1670]

  Mr. Soames
  At present, details relating to biological warfare medical counter-measures remain classified for operational reasons.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence at what time on 20 and 21 January 1991 United Kingdom personnel were brought into contact with chemical or biological agents near Dhahran. [1677]

  Mr. Soames
  No chemical or biological agents were detected at Dhahran on 20 and 21 January 1991.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence at what time on 20 and 21 January 1992 chemical agent monitors indicated sarin in the air in the vicinity of United Kingdom personnel at Dhahran. [1676]

  Mr. Soames
  There is no evidence of sarin being detected at Dhahran on 20 and 21 January 1991.

  Gurkha Troops
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Gurkha troops will be stationed in Britain as a result of the handover of Hong Kong; where they will be stationed; what will be their remuneration relative to British troops of similar rank; and if he will make a statement. [3205]

  Mr. Soames
  On the completion of the restructuring of the Brigade of Gurkhas, some 2,000 Gurkha troops will be garrisoned in the UK, including those on long leave in Nepal. On current plans they will be stationed as follows:

  First Battalion, Royal Gurkha Rifles: Church Crookham;

  Gurkha Demonstration Company: Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst;

  Gurkha Demonstration Company: Brecon;

  Queen's Gurkha Engineers: Maidstone;

  Queen's Gurkha Signals: Blandford;

  Queen's Own Gurkha Transport Regiment: Colchester

  Three Gurkha reinforcement companies will be allocated to the following battalions stationed as follows:

  First Battalion, The Royal Scots: Colchester;

  First Battalion, The Princess of Wales' Royal Regiment: Canterbury;

  Second Battalion, The Parachute Regiment: Aldershot.

  There will also be some Gurkhas stationed elsewhere on individual postings or attending training courses.

  We intend that the Gurkhas' remuneration will be broadly equivalent to that of British troops of similar rank.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many wives and children of Gurkha troops will be returning to Nepal as a result of the handover of Hong Kong; and if he will make a statement. [3206]

  Mr. Soames
  Between June 1996 and June 1997 some 359 wives and children of Gurkha troops will have returned to Nepal as a direct result of the drawdown. In addition, 74 dependants of those Gurkha soldiers who have completed their service will return to Nepal, and a further seven will return as a result of postings to other units. Future arrangements for married accompanied service for Gurkhas are under review.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received regarding the Gurkha troops who will be moving to Britain; and if he will make a statement.[3207]

  Mr. Soames
  I have received a number of representations regarding the move of Gurkha troops from Hong Kong to the United Kingdom. Possible changes to the terms and conditions of service of Gurkha soldiers are under review.

  Channel Islands (Wartime Occupation)
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when further documents on the wartime occupation of the Channel Islands are due to be released into the public domain; and if he will make a statement. [3668]

  Mr. Soames
  A number of previously closed files concerning the wartime occupation of the Channel Islands will be made available at the Public Record Office on 19 November 1996.

  Performance Measurements
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how his Department performed against performance measurements in the period 1 April 1995 to 31 March 1996; and if he will make a statement. [3887]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department has today published a performance report covering the period 1 April 1995 to 31 March 1996. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Private Sector Contracts
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total value of his Department's contracts with the private sector; and how many people are employed to carry out those contracts. [3239]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  My Department publishes each year in table 1.14 of "UK Defence Statistics", a copy of which is in the Library of the House, details of numbers and values of contracts placed by headquarters contract branches. Table 1.10 of the same publication gives estimates of the number of UK jobs dependent on my Department's expenditure.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reasons, his Department does not collate information on the number of written and oral parliamentary answers issued by his Department that require correction. [3222]

  Mr. Soames
  Where a correction to a parliamentary answer is necessary, it is usually our practice for this to be done by means of a pursuant answer in the Official Report. My Department has not thought it necessary to record such corrections centrally.

  Quadrilateral Armaments Structure
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made on the quadrilateral armaments structure with France, Germany and Italy; and if he will make a statement. [3975]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I am pleased to announce that today the UK signed a memorandum of understanding for the establishment of a quadrilateral armaments agency with France, Germany and Italy. The UK is now fully involved on an equal basis in the agency's formation, operation and subsequent development. This important initiative will lead to a more efficient and effective approach to the management of collaborative defence programmes.

TRANSPORT

  Mr. Kashieris
  Mr. Deva
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the circumstances leading to the injury to Mr. Kashieris of Isleworth on 1 June 1993; if he will investigate the work of the Civil Aviation Authority in attempting to identify the aircraft involved; and if he will ensure that Mr. Kashieris is compensated. [3790]
  115
  Mr. Bowis
  My noble Friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping wrote to my hon. Friend about this on 20 October 1995. There have been no new developments since that time.

  Traffic Area Boundaries (Manchester)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations the Minister for Transport in London, local transport and road safety has received from the leader of Manchester city council on redrawing the traffic area boundaries; what reply he is sending; what action he will be taking; and if he will make a statement. [2034]

  Mr. Bowis
  Two letters dated 30 July and 3 October have been received from the leader of Manchester city council about redrawing the traffic area boundaries. Replies were sent on 10 August and 20 October respectively. I hope to make an announcement about traffic area boundaries shortly.

  Motor Cycle Licences
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will repeal the provision to suspend motor cycle licences upon failure to pass a test at the same time as implementing the provisions of the second EC directive on driving licences. [3083]

  Mr. Bowis
  The provision under which licences are suspended if a motor cycle test is not passed within two years was introduced in 1981 in order to improve motor cycle safety by providing an incentive for learner motor cyclists to take training and become qualified early in their riding careers. There are no plans to repeal it.

  Fuel Duty
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what factors underlie the differential in fuel duty between private bus companies and private rail companies. [2600]

  Mr. Bowis
  In 1993, operators of rail passenger services were charged duty on diesel at a rate of 2.33p per litre. Bus operators of registered local bus services were eligible for fuel duty rebate and effectively paid no duty on diesel. In 1993, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer froze the level of fuel duty rebate for buses at 25.14p per litre. This coincided with the strategy of increasing fuel duty by on average at least 5 per cent. per annum above inflation every year, to contribute to the UK's Rio target that levels of carbon dioxide emissions should be at 1990 levels in 2000. It was important that the UK bus industry also played its part in improving fuel efficiency and in meeting the Rio target. It would not be possible for the red diesel scheme set up for rail, agricultural and construction uses to be applied to buses, or to charge different rates of duty for different uses of red diesel. This creates practical difficulties in changing the taxation of diesel used by rail in response to changes in the fuel duty regime for buses.

  Civil Aviation Accidents and Incidents
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he has taken to implement Council 116
  directive 94/56/EC establishing the fundamental principles governing the investigation of civil aviation accidents and incidents. [3997]

  Mr. Bowis
  This directive will be implemented by the Civil Aviation (Investigation of Air Accidents and Incidents) Regulations 1996 which come into effect on 21 November 1996.

  Civil Aviation Authority
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what objectives he has set for the new chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority. [3974]

  Sir George Young
  I wrote to Sir Malcolm Field on 11 November and have today placed a copy of my letter in the Library.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Members of the European Parliament
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will arrange for(a) a register of MEPs' interests, (b) a list of MEPs' attendance records and (c) copies of debates in the European Parliament to be placed in the Library. [3242]

  Mr. David Davis
  (a) The European Parliament agreed arrangements for a register of Members' interests in July 1996. We understand that the register will be complete around the end of the year.

  Arrangements for consulting the register have not been finalised.

  (b) Attendance at European Parliament sessions is recorded in the Parliament's minutes, which are placed in the House Library.

  (c) Minutes of European Parliament debates and other business are already placed in the Library.

  Visas
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the range of charges for applications for visas; what is the average cost of processing each application; what is the reason for the policy of making no refunds, in whole or in part, in the event of an application being refused; and what was the difference between the income from visa applications and the expenditure in processing them in the last year for which figures are available. [2035]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  Details of the fees for receiving applications for entry clearance for the United Kingdom are given in the Consular Fees Order 1996, SI 1996 No. 1915. The average cost of processing an application ranges from £25 for a direct airside transit visa to £230 for a settlement visa. Application fees are not refundable because it is Government policy to recover the full cost of processing an application irrespective of the outcome. However, if at a preliminary assessment stage the entry clearance officer believes that an application probably will not succeed, the applicant is informed and given the opportunity to decide not to make a formal application. In
  117
  that case, no fee is paid. In 1995–96, the income from fees was £42 million; the global entry clearance operation cost £48 million.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many potential applicants in(a) 1995 and (b) January to October 1996 seeking visitors' visas at (i) Islamabad, (ii) Delhi, (iii) Bombay and (iv) Lagos have been advised not to pursue their application; and if he will make a statement. [3209]

  Dr. Fox
  The numbers of entry clearance applicants who, following preliminary assessment advice, chose not to proceed were:

  Islamabad

  Delhi

  Bombay

  Lagos

  1995

  13,717

  6,101

  4,260

  348

  January-September 1996

  10,643

  4,905

  2,618

  0

  Statistics of those who were advised not to pursue their applications, but who nevertheless chose to do so, are not recorded.

  Entry Clearance
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the number of pre-sifted withdrawals for entry clearance from(a) Islamabad, (b) New Delhi, (c) Bombay and (d) Lagos for 1995; and if he will make a statement. [3208]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  The numbers of entry clearance applicants who following preliminary assessment advice chose not to proceed were:

  Islamabad

  Delhi

  Bombay

  Lagos

  1995

  13,717

  6,101

  4,260

  348

  Iraq
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on missing Kuwait prisoners of war held in Iraq. [3172]

  Mr. Hanley
  Britain remains concerned about the plight of over 600 Kuwaitis and other nationals missing in Iraq since the Gulf war. We strongly support Kuwait's efforts through the International Committee of the Red Cross to establish the whereabouts of its missing citizens and will continue to play an active role.

  Sadly, the Iraqis continue to show no interest in making progress. We have made it clear to Iraq that this is unacceptable.

  I discussed this issue with Ministers in Kuwait in October.

  Diplomatic Appointments
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what restrictions his Department places on the religious affiliation permissible to a head of mission to the state of Israel. [3339]
  118
  Mr. Hanley
  There are no restrictions on the religious affiliation of a British ambassador accredited to the state of Israel.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reasons his Department appoints only non-Roman Catholics as head of mission to the Holy See. [3338]

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on 11 July 1994,Official Report, column 428.

  Sri Lanka
  Sir John Gorst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures his Department is taking to prevent human rights abuses against Tamils in Sri Lanka.[3516]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  We believe that the Sri Lankan Government have made genuine efforts to improve their human rights record, which was very poor under the previous Government. Reports of abuses cause us great concern. We have raised our concern with the Sri Lankan Government on a number of occasions, most recently during the visit by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and by me, and stressed the importance of ensuring that violators are prosecuted.

  Non-co-operation Policy
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the measures from which the Government withheld agreement in the Council of Ministers under their policy of non-co-operation which have not yet been agreed. [3672]

  Mr. David Davis
  As a consequence of the policy of non-co-operation announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 21 May, the UK did not sign the EC convention on insolvency proceedings. The deadline for signatures passed on 23 May.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Traffic Police (South Yorkshire)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers have been dedicated to traffic division operations in each of the past five years in the South Yorkshire police force; and what percentage this is of the total South Yorkshire police force.[2674]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information is as follows:

  Police strength: traffic operational

  Percentage of total police strength

  1991

  205

  6.84

  1992

  189

  6.30

  1993

  169

  5.61

  1994

  182

  5.99

  1995

  189

  6.14

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list by year for each of the last five years, and by sex, the number of persons successfully convicted under section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988; [2721]

  (2) how many (a) men and (b) women have been successfully convicted under (i) section 1 and (ii) section 139 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 in each of the last five years. [2722]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information is given in the table.

  Number of persons convicted at all courts for offences involving carrying weapons by sex 1991 to 1995

  England and Wales

  Offence description/sex

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Carrying article with blade or point in a public place (Criminal Justice Act 1988, section 139)

  Males

  1,671

  1,778

  1,783

  2,424

  2,469

  Females

  66

  70

  69

  78

  90

  Carrying of offensive weapons1 without lawful authority or reasonable excuse in a public place (Prevention of Crime Act 1953, section 1)

  Males

  3,785

  3,490

  3,028

  3,186

  3,063

  Females

  122

  116

  90

  109

  127

  1May include a small number of offences involving truncheons etcetera.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many crimes ended in a court conviction in each police force area of England and Wales in(a) 1993, (b) 1994 and (c) 1995. [2232]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 11 November 1996]: Information available centrally on the number of offenders found guilty is published annually in "Criminal Statistics England and Wales", supplementary tables, volume 3. Tables S3.2(A) and S3.4(A) refer to that subject.

  Copies of the publication are available in the Library.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many crimes ended in a caution in each police force area of England and Wales in(a) 1993, (b) 1994 and (c) 1995. [2233]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 11 November 1996]: Information available centrally on the number of offenders cautioned is published annually in "Criminal Statistics England and Wales", supplementary tables, volume 3. Table S3.6(A) refers to that subject.

  Copies of the publication are available in the Library.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many crimes were cleared up by the police in each police force area of England and Wales in(a) 1993, (b) 1994 and (c) 1995. [2234]
  120
  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 11 November 1996]: The information requested is given in the following table.

  Notifiable offences cleared up1 by police force area

  Police force area

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Avon and Somerset

  29,769

  34,226

  35,008

  Bedfordshire

  12,110

  11,377

  11,142

  Cambridgeshire

  16,375

  15,019

  12,626

  Cheshire

  19,875

  22,049

  22,329

  Cleveland

  19,758

  14,429

  18,180

  Cumbria

  15,677

  14,657

  15,639

  Derbyshire

  18,278

  17,891

  16,434

  Devon and Cornwall

  30,534

  29,257

  27,771

  Dorset

  17,073

  16,373

  14,765

  Durham

  18,663

  19,041

  16,113

  Essex

  35,991

  37,691

  31,404

  Gloucestershire

  12,134

  14,493

  14,928

  Greater Manchester

  116,938

  105,157

  71,314

  Hampshire

  37,223

  36,905

  36,552

  Hertfordshire

  12,039

  13,044

  15,270

  Humberside

  22,399

  23,291

  24,347

  Kent

  40,163

  43,338

  40,348

  Lancashire

  41,211

  36,356

  37,607

  Leicestershire

  27,391

  28,817

  26,924

  Lincolnshire

  18,755

  15,062

  17,878

  London, City of

  1,225

  1,406

  1,325

  Merseyside

  54,101

  45,328

  40,998

  Metropolitan Police

  146,342

  175,105

  187,671

  Norfolk

  17,664

  18,936

  15,758

  Northamptonshire

  16,294

  17,595

  15,948

  Northumbria

  38,227

  40,340

  39,034

  North Yorkshire

  16,816

  14,542

  13,816

  Nottinghamshire

  44,789

  40,708

  33,897

  South Yorkshire

  30,247

  36,669

  35,589

  Staffordshire

  28,602

  28,496

  29,179

  Suffolk

  15,571

  13,603

  12,831

  Surrey

  10,604

  14,119

  13,649

  Sussex

  25,391

  24,991

  29,297

  Thames Valley

  40,948

  41,174

  41,210

  Warwickshire

  9,665

  10,202

  9,725

  West Mercia

  23,035

  23,957

  21,971

  West Midlands

  86,809

  77,531

  75,279

  West Yorkshire

  54,073

  58,167

  59,012

  Wiltshire

  14,395

  13,433

  11,455

  Dyfed-Powys

  11,518

  10,501

  10,147

  Gwent

  17,411

  17,699

  16,093

  North Wales

  16,899

  16,416

  13,336

  South Wales

  45,173

  36,975

  43,076

  England and Wales

  1,328,155

  1,326,366

  1,276,875

  1Excludes criminal damage £20 and under.

  Police
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on(a) the terms of reference of his Department's review of the area cost adjustment as applied to the police service, (b) the alternative methods of measuring the local costs of policing which are being considered to replace the area cost adjustment, (c) the nature of the proposed regional salary premium for the police service and (d) the date on which the outcome of this review will be published. [2896]

  Mr. Maclean
  We have commissioned no such review, but the review of the area cost adjustment commissioned by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration considered the adjustment as it affects all local authority services including the police. The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, my hon. Friend the Member
  121
  for Croydon, Central (Sir P. Beresford), announced the publication of the report of the review on 12 July, column 350, and a copy has been placed in the Library.

  The report proposed that all local authority services should receive a regional pay premium to reflect the difference in average wages in different parts of the country. The police and local authority associations are being consulted about the recommendations. No further alternatives to the present adjustment for the police are currently being considered, although work continues on methods of taking into account any extra costs associated with the policing of sparsely and densely populated areas.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many full-time equivalent(a) police officers and (b) civilian staff were employed by each police authority in England and Wales; and what was each police authority's annual expenditure on the salaries and other employment costs of (i) police officers and (ii) civilian staff in the latest year for which figures are available. [2897]

  Mr. Maclean
  The latest available information on police and civilian staff numbers relates to those in post at 31 March 1996. The latest available data on police expenditure on salaries and other employment costs cover the financial year 1994–95. The information is set out in the tables.

  Table 1: Full-time equivalent police officers and civilian staff as at 31 March 1996

  England and Wales

  Police force

  Police officers

  Civilian staff

  Avon and Somerset

  2,981.0

  1,213.2

  Bedfordshire

  1,127.7

  472.2

  Cambridgeshire

  1,238.1

  529.7

  Cheshire

  1,997.9

  689.5

  City of London

  869.5

  324.0

  Cleveland

  1,420.3

  553.3

  Cumbria

  1,115.0

  407.8

  Derbyshire

  1,763.1

  655.5

  Devon and Cornwall

  2,898.9

  1,120.9

  Dorset

  1,263.0

  620.5

  Durham

  1,401.0

  530.5

  Dyfed-Powys

  991.0

  309.5

  Essex

  2,884.3

  1,130.0

  Gloucestershire

  1,132.7

  415.0

  Greater Manchester

  6,938.0

  2,748.9

  Gwent

  1,043.5

  377.5

  Hampshire

  3,347.1

  1,323.0

  Hertfordshire

  1,712.0

  753.7

  Humberside

  2,041.0

  682.7

  Kent

  3,120.1

  1,140.9

  Lancashire

  3,171.0

  1,349.0

  Leicestershire

  1,908.3

  667.0

  Lincolnshire

  1,144.6

  441.8

  Merseyside

  4,411.0

  1,560.0

  Metropolitan Police

  27,343.0

  14,371.5

  Norfolk

  1,401.0

  529.2

  Northamptonshire

  1,152.5

  511.0

  Northumbria

  3,668.3

  1,318.8

  North Wales

  1,377.5

  512.0

  North Yorkshire

  1,324.4

  520.1

  Nottinghamshire

  2,317.7

  979.1

  South Wales

  3,027.0

  1,286.5

  South Yorkshire

  3,073.1

  1,418.0

  Staffordshire

  2,208.8

  753.5

  Suffolk

  1,137.8

  485.2

  Surrey

  1,643.8

  754.0

  Sussex

  3,073.5

  1,131.5

  Thames Valley

  3,674.0

  1,738.0

  122

  Table 1: Full-time equivalent police officers and civilian staff as at 31 March 1996

  England and Wales

  Police force

  Police officers

  Civilian staff

  Warwickshire

  979.0

  376.1

  West Mercia

  2,016.8

  963.7

  West Midlands

  7,145.1

  2,780.0

  West Yorkshire

  5,142.0

  2,036.5

  Wiltshire

  1,218.5

  452.6

  Total all forces

  124,843.7

  52,933.2

  Table 2: Police service: expenditure on salaries and other employment costs

  1994–95 outturn (£000s)

  Total police pay-related expenditure1

  Total civilian pay-related expenditure2

  Police forces in England and Wales

  Avon and Somerset

  85,316,111

  19,139,213

  Bedfordshire

  33,140,685

  7,457,656

  Cambridgeshire

  36,242,935

  8,128,967

  Cheshire

  56,217,819

  9,355,671

  City of London

  30,983,908

  6,956,611

  Cleveland

  40,931,816

  7,694,758

  Cumbria

  32,637,506

  6,964,780

  Derbyshire

  54,267,941

  10,016,527

  Devon and Cornwall

  83,887,086

  18,029,887

  Dorset

  37,305,970

  9,733,193

  Durham

  39,142,692

  6,965,621

  Dyfed-Powys

  27,216,557

  4,905,418

  Essex

  91,146,416

  17,906,359

  Gloucestershire

  34,703,509

  6,529,384

  Greater Manchester

  209,642,777

  38,231,708

  Gwent

  29,576,743

  4,701,197

  Hampshire

  100,624,081

  17,244,553

  Hertfordshire

  48,478,580

  11,264,686

  Humberside

  60,229,954

  9,932,736

  Kent

  94,163,173

  18,715,546

  Lancashire

  90,848,818

  14,541,103

  Leicestershire

  51,620,858

  11,245,407

  Lincolnshire

  36,042,507

  7,356,684

  Merseyside

  138,009,293

  22,924,164

  Metropolitan Police3

  886,003,000

  267,568,000

  Norfolk

  42,573,312

  8,607,065

  North Wales

  38,981,949

  7,397,179

  North Yorkshire

  37,809,131

  6,627,382

  Northamptonshire

  35,768,521

  7,667,025

  Northumbria

  106,112,247

  19,801,523

  Nottinghamshire

  65,261,970

  14,184,376

  South Wales

  88,142,297

  17,359,348

  South Yorkshire

  88,151,669

  15,922,784

  Staffordshire

  62,084,101

  9,766,539

  Suffolk

  36,198,568

  7,689,433

  Surrey

  49,062,078

  12,485,234

  Sussex

  86,111,850

  18,072,982

  Thames Valley

  117,103,908

  27,034,246

  Warwickshire

  31,345,249

  5,557,639

  West Mercia

  60,839,289

  12,408,662

  West Midlands

  201,413,195

  41,182,039

  West Yorkshire

  143,186,706

  28,458,413

  Wiltshire

  36,557,487

  6,243,494

  Source:

  Home Office 1994–95 revenue expenditure grant claim forms.

  Notes:

  1Police pay and related expenditure comprises police salaries, overtime, national insurance, allowances and expenses.

  2Civilian pay and related expenditure comprises salaries, overtime, national insurance and employers' pension contributions.

  3Expenditure data were taken from the Metropolitan police budget and precept report 1996–97.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what adjustment was made in(a) percentage

  123
  and (b) cash terms to the budget of each police authority in England and Wales in 1996–97 as a result of the area cost adjustment. [2895]

  Mr. Maclean
  The area cost adjustment is applied to the share of police principal grant and standard spending assessment allocated to individual forces. The following table shows how the allocations in 1996–97 would have varied if area cost adjustment had not been applied, and there had been no change in the total amount allocated.

  Effect of removing area cost adjustment factor

  Police principal grant and SSA

  With ACA £ million

  Without ACA £ million

  Percentage change

  Avon and Somerset

  153

  160

  4.4

  Bedfordshire

  57

  57

  -0.2

  Cambridgeshire

  66

  69

  4.5

  Cheshire

  98

  102

  4.5

  City of London

  53

  36

  -32.2

  Cleveland

  73

  76

  4.5

  Cumbria

  57

  59

  4.4

  Derbyshire

  92

  96

  4.5

  Devon and Cornwall

  152

  159

  4.4

  Dorset

  64

  67

  4.5

  Durham

  71

  74

  4.4

  Dyfed-Powys

  48

  50

  4.5

  Essex

  150

  147

  -2.3

  Gloucestershire

  58

  61

  4.6

  Greater Manchester

  340

  356

  4.5

  Gwent

  62

  65

  4.5

  Hampshire

  174

  174

  -0.2

  Hertfordshire

  89

  84

  -5.4

  Humberside

  102

  107

  4.5

  Kent

  163

  161

  -1.0

  Lancashire

  162

  169

  4.5

  Leicestershire

  94

  98

  4.5

  Lincolnshire

  58

  60

  4.4

  Merseyside

  217

  227

  4.5

  Metropolitan Police1

  1,551

  1,416

  -8.7

  Norfolk

  75

  79

  4.5

  North Wales

  69

  72

  4.5

  North Yorkshire

  69

  72

  4.4

  Northamptonshire

  58

  61

  4.5

  Northumbria

  186

  195

  4.5

  Nottinghamshire

  114

  119

  4.5

  South Wales

  149

  156

  4.4

  South Yorkshire

  154

  160

  4.5

  Staffordshire

  108

  113

  4.4

  Suffolk

  61

  64

  4.4

  Surrey

  81

  76

  -6.3

  Sussex

  150

  149

  -0.6

  Thames Valley

  200

  197

  -1.9

  Warwickshire

  49

  51

  4.5

  West Mercia

  103

  107

  4.5

  West Midlands

  340

  356

  4.6

  West Yorkshire

  258

  270

  4.5

  Wiltshire

  60

  63

  4.8

  Total

  6,487

  6,487

  0.0

  1Including a special payment of £130 million to cover national and capital city functions.

  Children (Sexual Exploitation)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he plans to take in response to resolution 1099 (1996) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe concerning the sexual exploitation of children; and if he will make a statement. [2746]
  124
  Mr. Maclean
  The Government are studying the terms of the recommendation, which appears broadly in line with the agenda for action adopted by the world congress against the commercial sexual exploitation of children, held in Stockholm last August. The United Kingdom played a leading role at the congress, and in encouraging other states to adopt the agenda and to bring their law and procedures into line with its requirements.

  Stringent laws already exist in this country in regard both to the sexual abuse of children and to child pornography. Legislation planned for this Session of Parliament will extend that protection further by giving Untied Kingdom courts jurisdiction over acts of child sex abuse committed abroad by British nationals or residents, and by requiring paedophiles and other serious sex offenders to register changes of name and address with the police.

  Death Penalty
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the Government's policy towards the sixth protocol to the European convention on human rights concerning the abolition of the death penalty; and if he will make a statement. [2747]

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government have no plans to review its policy towards the sixth protocol to the European convention on human rights. The Government believe that the question of the reintroduction of capital punishment for murder or its abolition for those offences for which it is still available are matters for Parliament to decide.

  Television Licences
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many people have been arrested for non-payment of television licence fines in each of the last five years;[2801]

  (2) how many single mothers in receipt of income support have been arrested for non-payment of television licence fines in each of the last five years. [2803]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information is not available centrally.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce provisions to allow single mothers in receipt of income support to have free television licences. [2802]

  Mr. Sproat
  I have been asked to reply.

  No.

  Asylum and Immigration Act 1996
  Mr. Keith Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now remove Pakistan from the list of designated countries under the Asylum and Immigration Act 1966; and if he will make a statement. [3042]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  We have no plans at present to remove Pakistan from the list.

  Mr. Kenneth Noye
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions since his conviction for manslaughter in 1986 Mr. Kenneth Noye has been used by the Metropolitan police as an informer. [3276]

  Mr. Maclean
  This is an operational matter which is the responsibility of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.

  Burglary and Vehicle Thefts
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of recorded offences of(a) burglary in a dwelling, (b) burglary elsewhere, (c) theft of a vehicle or taking and driving away and (d) theft from a vehicle in each police force area of England and Wales in the year to June 1996. [2235]

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

  Notifiable offences recorded by the police by police force area 12 months to June 1996

  Police force area

  Burglary in a dwelling

  Burglary other than a dwelling

  Theft of a vehicle1

  Theft from a vehicle

  Avon and Somerset

  17,881

  16,167

  16,548

  31,688

  Bedfordshire

  5,358

  5,363

  6,141

  10,473

  Cambridgeshire

  6,443

  8,042

  7,638

  14,119

  Cheshire

  7,808

  8,698

  6,488

  10,006

  Cleveland

  12,604

  10,721

  8,795

  11,847

  Cumbria

  4,101

  4,816

  2,309

  6,792

  Derbyshire

  8,117

  11,349

  9,451

  14,248

  Devon and Cornwall

  12,630

  13,463

  6,035

  19,358

  Dorset

  6,023

  5,588

  3,607

  9,527

  Durham

  6,078

  7,277

  6,189

  6,914

  Essex

  7,992

  11,316

  9,071

  16,802

  Gloucestershire

  6,865

  6,074

  4,145

  12,154

  Greater Manchester

  50,936

  35,853

  46,742

  48,638

  Hampshire

  11,089

  13,601

  8,749

  26,699

  Hertfordshire

  4,519

  6,446

  5,839

  12,886

  Humberside

  16,594

  22,104

  11,787

  18,651

  Kent

  15,332

  18,770

  16,278

  24,443

  Lancashire

  17,647

  12,977

  9,109

  22,275

  Leicestershire

  13,597

  12,143

  9,979

  16,358

  Lincolnshire

  5,210

  6,906

  3,377

  5,934

  City of London

  31

  556

  114

  513

  Merseyside

  20,133

  12,158

  19,009

  18,423

  Metropolitan Police

  100,497

  65,069

  57,871

  110,810

  Norfolk

  5,013

  7,416

  3,464

  8,194

  Northamptonshire

  7,126

  6,803

  6,495

  9,122

  Northumbria

  24,250

  24,423

  19,977

  21,927

  North Yorkshire

  7,146

  8,831

  5,346

  9,587

  Nottinghamshire

  18,147

  17,367

  15,161

  18,891

  South Yorkshire

  23,559

  22,483

  23,016

  24,052

  Staffordshire

  12,380

  12,246

  9,058

  13,941

  Suffolk

  2,790

  4,021

  2,140

  5,113

  Surrey

  3,922

  4,873

  2,787

  8,154

  Sussex

  11,582

  10,626

  7,069

  19,417

  Thames Valley

  19,301

  18,708

  18,088

  38,274

  126

  Notifiable offences recorded by the police by police force area 12 months to June 1996

  Police force area

  Burglary in a dwelling

  Burglary other than a dwelling

  Theft of a vehicle1

  Theft from a vehicle

  Warwickshire

  3,748

  5,210

  4,207

  7,283

  West Mercia

  6,996

  7,719

  7,143

  15,464

  West Midlands

  47,621

  45,147

  48,140

  52,862

  West Yorkshire

  54,257

  35,007

  33,846

  42,419

  Wiltshire

  3,586

  3,933

  1,907

  5,995

  Dyfed-Powys

  1,296

  2,086

  999

  2,043

  Gwent

  3,311

  4,202

  3,172

  5,823

  North Wales

  3,429

  5,902

  2,267

  7,147

  South Wales

  13,974

  20,457

  22,104

  24,340

  England and Wales

  630,919

  582,917

  511,657

  809,606

  1Includes aggravated vehicle taking and unauthorised taking of a vehicle.

  Immigration
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many applications to enter the United Kingdom for temporary purposes have been made in each year since 1994; how many have been refused; and if he will list the refusal rate for each year as a percentage of the whole; [3336]

  (2) if he will list the number of refusals for applications to enter the United Kingdom for temporary purposes according to geographical region or country in each year since 1992; and if he will list the refusal rate for each year and geographical region as a percentage of the whole; [3337]

  (3) if he will list the number of known applications and refusals for entry clearance to the United Kingdom in 1995; and if he will make a statement. [3334]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Information on applications to enter the United Kingdom, refusals and the refusal rate, 1994–95, is contained in table 1.

  Information on refusals to enter the United Kingdom for temporary purposes by geographical region, 1992 to 1995, is contained in table 2.

  Table 1: Entry clearance applications, 1994–95

  United Kingdom

  Number of persons

  Entry clearance applications

  Newly received

  Total granted1

  Refused initially2

  Initial refusal rate Percentage3

  Temporary purposes

  1994

  1,086,940

  980,600

  64,420

  6

  1995

  1,168,240

  1,044,590

  72,640

  7

  Settlement

  1994

  47,800

  35,250

  9,690

  22

  1995

  44,600

  33,830

  10,890

  24

  1Granted initially or on appeal.

  2Some may have been granted subsequently on appeal.

  3Calculated as the number of initial refusals as a proportion of total decisions.

  127

  Table 2: Decisions on entry clearance applications worldwide, by geographical region, 1992–95

  United Kingdom

  Number of persons

  Entry clearance applications for temporary purposes1

  Geographical region where application made2

  Granted3

  Refused initially4

  Initial refusal rate percentage5

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Europe

  214,040

  236,750

  281,820

  309,900

  9,820

  10,470

  10,870

  13,160

  4

  4

  4

  4

  Europe Economic Area

  74,500

  77,160

  82,600

  80,640

  2,380

  3,040

  2,850

  2,390

  3

  4

  3

  3

  Remainder of Europe

  139,540

  159,580

  199,220

  229,260

  7,440

  7,430

  8,020

  10,770

  5

  4

  4

  4

  Americas

  62.980

  67,220

  76,960

  76,850

  1,180

  1,130

  1,380

  1,090

  2

  2

  2

  1

  Africa

  106,150

  106,690

  114,840

  117,380

  24,760

  20,450

  20,450

  20,980

  19

  16

  15

  15

  Indian sub-continent

  135,890

  136,020

  152,070

  160,500

  21,420

  18,760

  23,510

  27,130

  14

  12

  14

  4

  Middle East

  108,630

  126,190

  134,100

  136,100

  5,230

  4,800

  4,480

  6,330

  5

  4

  3

  4

  Remainder of Asia

  160,360

  174,920

  200,520

  214,220

  5,240

  4,450

  3,680

  3,930

  3

  2

  2

  2

  Asia

  406,370

  437,130

  486,700

  510,820

  31,990

  28,010

  31,670

  37,390

  7

  6

  6

  7

  Oceania

  12,390

  13,770

  20,040

  29,400

  60

  40

  50

  30

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  Other

  1,600

  270

  240

  250

  20

  6—

  6—

  —

  1

  1

  6—

  —

  All countries

  803,520

  861,810

  980,600

  1,044,590

  67,830

  60,100

  64,420

  72,640

  8

  7

  6

  7

  1Nationals of certain counties currently need a visa to enter the United Kingdom regardless of the purpose of their journey.

  2Some applications, particularly many of those in EEA countries, will have been made by nationals of other countries.

  3Granted initially or on appeal.

  4Some may have been granted subsequently on appeal.

  5Calculated as the number of initial refusals as a proportion of total decisions.

  6Five or fewer (less than 0.5 per cent.).

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people who had obtained entry clearance as visitors prior to travelling to the United Kingdom were refused entry on arrival in 1995. [3335]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The information available relates to the total number of persons with an entry clearance or work permit who were refused leave to enter at ports in the United Kingdom. There were 1,260 such persons in 1995.

  Citizenship
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what right to British citizenship a child of British parents, adopted in babyhood by a couple of other nationality and brought up by them retains; and if he will make a statement. [3558]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  A child who is a British citizen at birth retains that status irrespective of the nationality of his or her adoptive parents, unless, when of full age, he or she voluntarily renounces it.

  Animal Head Transplants
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated in respect of experiments involving the transplantation of heads from one animal to another; and if he will make a statement. [3596]

  Mr. Sackville
  None.

  Repatriations
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 5 November,Official Report, column 440, if he will clarify the final sentence of paragraph 1. [3785]

  Miss Widdecombe
  I regret that, due to an error, the meaning of the original answer was unclear. The sentence in question should have read:"Repatriation is subject to the agreement of both states concerned, as well as of the prisoner, following consideration of all the relevant information".

  Criminal Cases Review Commission
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the members of the selection committee who appointed the chairman of the Criminal Cases Review Commission and, for each, the outside interests which they declared. [3706]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The Criminal Appeal Act 1965 provides for the members of the Criminal Cases Review Commission to be appointed by Her Majesty on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. The panel which advised on the selection of the chairman of the commission consisted of Mr. Richard Wilson, permanent under-secretary of state at the Home Office; Mr. David Burr, a civil service commissioner; Professor Sir John Smith, former assessor to Sir John May's inquiry into the convictions arising from the 1974 Guildford and Woolwich bombings; and Sir David Yardley, former chairman of the Commission for Local Administration in England. None of the members of the panel declared an outside interest.

  Correspondence
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the letters from the hon. Member for Barking of 4 September, 26 September and 4 October. [3707]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  I will be replying to the hon. Member very shortly.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  7 Millbank (Newspapers)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee what estimate he has made of the cost of the theft of newspapers from the foyer of 7 Millbank over the last 12 months.[2653]
  129
  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  The estimated face value of newspapers removed is £520 per year. This estimated annual "cost", based on nine newspapers removed daily, is slightly misleading, given that by their very nature newspapers have a value only on the day of publication.

  Initiatives have been taken to reduce the loss, but they do require the co-operation of all hon. Members.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee what estimate he has made of the cost of fitting wooden library newspaper holders for daily newspapers in the foyer of 7 Millbank; and if he will make a statement. [2654]

  Mr. Martin
  The item concerned was taken from stock purchased five years ago. Its cost did not exceed £50.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Zaire
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what requests Her Majesty's Government have received from the United Nations or its agencies to investigate the supply of arms from the United Kingdom to the Hutu refugees or other groups in Zaire; when these requests were received; what steps have been taken to undertake such investigations; and when Her Majesty's Government responded to the United Nations. [3610]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  The Government have a record of having received one letter, dated 12 September 1996, from the United Nations commission of inquiry regarding the supply of arms to the former Rwandan armed forces. Her Majesty's Customs and Excise has not at this stage found evidence to support criminal proceedings in the UK, but will continue to co-operate with the United Nations commission, will investigate as appropriate any new allegations and is responding to the inquiry already made.

  UN Refugee Camps
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list United Nations refugee camps on the African continent indicating the number of refugees they hold at the most recent available date; and if he will make a statement. [3177]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  The numbers of refugees in UN camps on the continent of Africa within individual countries are shown in the table. Figures for individual camps within countries are not held centrally.

  Refugee population by country 1995

  Number 000's

  Algeria

  219.1

  Angola

  10.7

  Benin

  70.4

  Burkina Faso

  50.0

  Burundi

  300.3

  Cameroon

  44.0

  Central African Republic

  47.8

  Congo

  15.5

  Côte d'Ivoire

  360.1

  Djibouti

  33.4

  Egypt

  7.2

  Ethiopia

  348.1

  130

  Refugee population by country 1995

  Number 000's

  Gambia

  2.2

  Ghana

  113.7

  Guinea

  553.2

  Guinea-Bassau

  23.9

  Kenya

  252.4

  Liberia

  120.0

  Libya

  2.0

  Malawi

  90.2

  Mali

  15.8

  Mauritania

  82.2

  Namibia

  1.1

  Niger

  15.1

  Nigeria

  6.0

  Rwanda

  6.0

  Senegal

  73.0

  Sierra Leone

  15.9

  South Africa

  91.9

  Sudan

  727.2

  Tanzania

  883.3

  Togo

  12.4

  Uganda

  286.5

  Zaire

  1,724.4

  Zambia

  141.1

  Zimbabwe

  2.2

  Other Countries

  3.7

  Total Africa region

  6,752.0

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the United Nations refugee camps in the Gulf area indicating the number of refugees they contain at the most recent date; and if he will make a statement. [3174]

  Dr. Fox
  The numbers of refugees in UN camps in the Gulf area within individual countries are shown in the table. Figures for individual camps within countries are not held centrally.

  Number 000's

  Iran

  2,236.4

  Iraq

  119.6

  Saudi Arabia

  18.0

  Total Gulf region

  2,374.0

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Nursery Vouchers
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the value of the contract awarded to Capita Managed Services to administer the national implementation of the voucher scheme; and what is the length of the contract period. [2762]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The cost of administering the nursery education voucher scheme will be around £15 million over three years—a cost of less than £10 per child.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when she plans to publish her report on phase 1 of the nursery education voucher scheme. [4092]

  Mr. Squire
  A report on the first phase of the nursery voucher scheme is being published tomorrow morning. Copies of the report will be placed in the Library by 9.30 am.

  Education Expenditure
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was (i) the actual spending per pupil in each local education authority and (ii) the education standard spending assessment per pupil in(a) primary schools, (b) secondary schools and (c) total in 1996–97. [2758]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Actual spending per pupil for 1996–97 will not be known until the year has ended. The following table shows the 1996–97 education standard spending assessment per pupil in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools for each local education authority, and (c) the England averages.

  LEA

  Primary SSA per pupil 1996–97 £

  Secondary SSA per pupil 1996–97 £

  Barking and Dagenham

  2,273

  3,057

  Barnet

  2,203

  2,897

  Barnsley

  1,955

  2,617

  Bath and North East Somerset

  1,880

  2,462

  Bedfordshire

  2,057

  2,750

  Berkshire

  2,047

  2,733

  Bexley

  2,124

  2,831

  Birmingham

  2,173

  2,907

  Bolton

  1,958

  2,603

  Bradford

  2,070

  2,777

  Brent

  2,554

  3,504

  Bromley

  2,074

  2,744

  Buckinghamshire

  2,021

  2,715

  Bury

  1,909

  2,517

  Calderdale

  1,986

  2,650

  Cambridgeshire

  1,962

  2,615

  Camden

  2,841

  3,596

  Cheshire

  1,903

  2,529

  City of Bristol

  2,011

  2,759

  City of Kingston upon Hull

  2,080

  2,789

  City of London

  2,736

  7,422

  Cornwall

  1,984

  2,644

  Coventry

  2,049

  2,731

  Croydon

  2,277

  3,089

  Cumbria

  1,957

  2,598

  Derbyshire

  1,911

  2,555

  Devon

  1,958

  2,609

  Doncaster

  2,039

  2,719

  Dorset

  1,909

  2,536

  Dudley

  1,896

  2,526

  Durham

  1,983

  2,649

  Ealing

  2,378

  3,246

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  1,890

  2,517

  East Sussex

  2,043

  2,728

  Enfield

  2,289

  3,034

  Essex

  2,055

  2,749

  Gateshead

  2,006

  2,691

  Gloucestershire

  1,912

  2,542

  Greenwich

  2,716

  3,620

  Hackney

  2,991

  4,207

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  2,808

  3,701

  Hampshire

  1,989

  2,657

  Haringey

  2,631

  3,599

  Harrow

  2,194

  2,951

  Hartlepool

  2,010

  2,673

  Havering

  2,104

  2,816

  Hereford and Worcester

  1,914

  2,556

  Hertfordshire

  2,074

  2,754

  Hillingdon

  2,195

  2,930

  Hounslow

  2,341

  3,072

  Isle of Wight Council

  2,070

  2,755

  Isles of Scilly

  3,574

  4,794

  Islington

  2,865

  3,889

  132

  LEA

  Primary SSA per pupil 1996–97 £

  Secondary SSA per pupil 1996–97 £

  Kensington and Chelsea

  2,628

  3,605

  Kent

  2,032

  2,714

  Kingston upon Thames

  2,108

  2,787

  Kirklees

  1,971

  2,637

  Knowsley

  2,231

  3,055

  Lambeth

  3,024

  4,431

  Lancashire

  1,964

  2,616

  Leeds

  1,947

  2,597

  Leicestershire

  1,954

  2,601

  Lewisham

  2,803

  3,769

  Lincolnshire

  1,969

  2,630

  Liverpool

  2,203

  2,924

  Manchester

  2,320

  3,141

  Merton

  2,216

  2,948

  Middlesbrough

  2,109

  2,859

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  2,104

  2,793

  Newham

  2,620

  3,490

  Norfolk

  1,971

  2,630

  North East Lincolnshire

  1,982

  2,638

  North Lincolnshire

  1,965

  2,595

  North Somerset

  1,863

  2,462

  North Tyneside

  1,946

  2,620

  North Yorkshire

  1,940

  2,560

  Northamptonshire

  1,927

  2,568

  Northumberland

  1,935

  2,582

  Nottinghamshire

  1,973

  2,630

  Oldham

  2,008

  2,646

  Oxfordshire

  1,985

  2,625

  Redbridge

  2,241

  2,970

  Redcar and Cleveland

  2,042

  2,698

  Richmond upon Thames

  2,040

  2,660

  Rochdale

  2,017

  2,711

  Rotherham

  1,978

  2,609

  Salford

  2,047

  2,747

  Sandwell

  2,051

  2,734

  Sefton

  1,955

  2,590

  Sheffield

  1,996

  2,679

  Shropshire

  1,952

  2,596

  Solihull

  1,872

  2,468

  Somerset

  1,933

  2,580

  South Gloucestershire

  1,834

  2,442

  South Tyneside

  2,012

  2,681

  Southwark

  2,926

  3,933

  St. Helens

  1,945

  2,609

  Staffordshire

  1,894

  2,520

  Stockport

  1,863

  2,482

  Stockton on Tees

  1,981

  2,622

  Suffolk

  1,901

  2,538

  Sunderland

  2,001

  2,673

  Surrey

  2,040

  2,723

  Sutton

  2,162

  2,829

  Tameside

  1,908

  2,530

  Tower Hamlets

  3,052

  4,051

  Trafford

  1,905

  2,518

  Wakefield

  1,910

  2,536

  Walsall

  1,991

  2,634

  Waltham Forest

  2,484

  3,348

  Wandsworth

  2,654

  3,551

  Warwickshire

  1,906

  2,543

  West Sussex

  1,987

  2,647

  Westminster

  2,667

  3,470

  Wigan

  1,905

  2,523

  Wiltshire

  1,921

  2,561

  Wirral

  2,024

  2,690

  Wolverhampton

  2,081

  2,807

  York

  1,888

  2,533

  England—average

  2,053

  2,728

  Former Incapacity Benefit Claimants
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what research her Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the employment needs of people who have previously claimed incapacity benefit; [2771]

  (2) what assessment she has made of the similarities and differences between the employment needs of people registering as unemployed who were formerly incapacity benefit claimants who (a) first claimed incapacity benefit after April 1995 and (b) formerly were on invalidity benefit before 1995. [2772]

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

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Alan Howarth, dated 12 November 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the research and evaluation which has been commissioned into the employment needs of people who have previously claimed Incapacity Benefit (IB). You also asked what assessment has been made of the similarities and differences between the employment needs of people registering as unemployed who were formally IB claimants, who first claimed IB after April 1995 and those who were on Invalidity Benefit before 1995. I will answer both questions in this one reply. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  The needs of people who have previously claimed a sickness benefit have been examined by Employment Service (ES) Occupational Psychology Division. This work compared the needs of those people who had been disallowed IB (which we refer to as ex-IB) at the time they make a claim to unemployment benefit with those of other jobseekers at the same point. It was hoped that through this work it would be possible to identify whether ex-IB jobseekers had different employment needs so that the package of help that the ES offers these people could be reviewed to ensure that it is correctly focused. This package of help includes, a full advisory interview when they first make their claim, early access to ES programmes such as Jobplan and Jobclub and, if appropriate, help from our specialist disabilities services.
  The work by our Psychologists showed that this was a diverse group with a wide range of employment and jobseeking needs. It did not specifically compare those who had been on Invalidity Benefit (IVB) with those who made a claim to IB after April 1995, but looked across the board, finding that other personal factors influenced need rather than purely the time that they had been claiming a sickness benefit and the nature of that benefit.
  The psychologists found that the full advisory interview was valuable and that ES programmes could meet the needs of many of these people. The work has led ES to consider the possibility of a specially tailored programme for people who have previously claimed a sickness benefit, should the future volumes of such clients warrant it. The work of the psychologists has also enabled us to provide additional guidance for our advisers dealing with people who have claimed Incapacity Benefit.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Safety Measures (Guidance)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidance she plans to issue to local education authorities and schools on the development of action plans for implementing and monitoring the effectiveness of safety measures. [2753]
  134
  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department produces a wide range of safety guidance for local education authorities and schools, for example, on improving school security, safety aspects of outdoor education and safety in science education.

  Schools (Selection Applications)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many schools have applied to select more than 15 per cent. of their intake; and in each case if she will list(a) the percentage selected, (b) the selection criteria and (c) the status of the schools concerned. [2754]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Since 1989, 25 schools have applied to select more than 15 per cent. of their intake. The following table lists the percentage of selection, the selection criteria, and whether the proposals were approved, rejected, or are still under consideration.

  LEA area

  School name

  Selection

  Approved Grant maintained

  Barnet

  Queen Elizabeth Boys' School

  100 per cent. including 10 per cent. by aptitude for music

  Barnet

  Mill Hill County High School

  30 per cent. by aptitude for technology

  Berkshire

  Southlands School

  One selective form of entry (18 per cent.)

  Cumbria

  Queen Elizabeth Grammar School

  100 per cent. by ability

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  London Oratory School

  20 boys at age 7 on musical and general ability

  Hertfordshire

  Watford Grammar School for Girls

  50 per cent. selection by ability

  Hertfordshire

  Watford Grammar School for Boys

  50 per cent. selection by ability

  Hertfordshire

  Parmiters School

  50 per cent. selection by ability

  Hertfordshire

  Rickmansworth School

  50 per cent. selection by ability

  Kent

  Chaucer Technology School

  100 per cent. by aptitude for technology

  Kingston

  Holy Cross School

  15 per cent. selection by ability

  Lambeth

  Archbishop Tenison's GM school

  {*B}banding including

  Lambeth

  St. Martin in the Fields High School

  {*B}40 per cent. of above average

  Lambeth

  Dunraven GM School

  {* B}ability

  Surrey

  Roseberry GM Girls School

  30 per cent. selection on academic ability and 10 places on aptitude for music

  Wandsworth

  Graveney GM School

  50 per cent. selection by ability

  Wandsworth

  Burntwood School

  50 per cent. selection by ability

  Voluntary aided

  Liverpool

  The Blue Coat School

  100 per cent. selection by ability

  Rejected Grant maintained

  Hertfordshire

  The Bishop's Stortford High School

  50 per cent. Selectionby ability

  Kent

  The Westlands School

  One selective form of entry (11 per cent.)

  Kirklees

  Castle Hall GM School

  100 per cent. selection by ability

  135

  LEA area

  School name

  Selection

  Lambeth

  Dunraven GM School

  50 per cent. selection by ability

  Surrey

  Glyn ADT GM Technology School

  40 per cent. selection by aptitude for technology

  Sutton

  Cheam High School

  50 per cent. selection by ability

  Under consideration Grant maintained

  Bromley

  Hayes School

  25 per cent. selection by ability

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many three and four-year-olds were in(a) nursery classes in primary schools, (b) nursery schools and (c) reception classes at January 1996. [2756]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The available information is shown in the following table:

  Pupils aged 3 and 4 in maintained nursery and primary schools in England

  Position as at January

  Nursery classes in primary schools

  312,094

  Nursery schools

  52,177

  Infant classes in primary schools1

  344,222

  1Includes reception and other classes.

  Jobseeker's Agreement
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is her estimate of the costs to the Employment Service of administration of the jobseeker's agreement. [2770]

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

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Alan Howarth, dated 12 November 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the costs to the Employment Service of administration of the Jobseeker's Agreement. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  The Jobseeker's Agreement is an integral part of the effective delivery of the Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA). It is an agreement which is entered into by a Jobseeker and an employment officer and which complies with the prescribed requirements in force at the time when the agreement is made.
  The Jobseeker must sign the agreement which states their availability for, and what they will do to actively seek employment. The Jobseeker's Agreement is used during the Jobseeker's intervention to discuss their efforts to find work.
  However, the agreement is only one aspect of an intervention under JSA, and therefore it is not possible to separately identify the cost of administering just the Jobseeker's Agreement within the overall costs of Jobseeker's Allowance.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Books Expenditure
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the average amount spent per pupil on books, for each of the past five years, broken down by (i) special schools, (ii) primary schools and (iii) secondary schools. [2763]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The following table shows expenditure per pupil on books and equipment for local education authority maintained (i) special, (ii) pre-primary and primary, and (iii) secondary schools from 1990–91 to 1994–95, the latest year for which figures are available. Spending on books is not recorded separately.

  Books and equipment cost per pupil

  £

  Special

  1990–91

  177

  1991–92

  236

  1992–93

  255

  1993–94

  241

  1994–95

  249

  Pre-primary and primary

  1990–91

  41

  1991–92

  54

  1992–93

  59

  1993–94

  62

  1994–95

  64

  Secondary

  1990–91

  80

  1991–92

  93

  1992–93

  98

  1993–94

  102

  1994–95

  103

  Age Limits
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will introduce legislation to eliminate job advertisements specifying age limits, except where reasons are given for them; and if she will make a statement. [3189]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The Government are convinced that the best way to combat age discrimination is through persuasion and education and they do not intend to introduce legislation to eliminate job advertisements specifying age limits.

  Pupils
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the school population of primary and secondary schools in England and Wales in each academic year since 1978–79. [3170]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information for England is shown in the following table. Pupil numbers in Wales are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.
  137

  Numbers of pupils (millions) in maintained primary and secondary schools in England

  Position in January each year

  Year

  Primary

  Secondary1

  1979

  4.52

  3.82

  1980

  4.36

  3.81

  1981

  4.18

  3.78

  1982

  4.01

  3.73

  1983

  3.84

  3.67

  1984

  3.77

  3.58

  1985

  3.75

  3.46

  1986

  3.76

  3.32

  1987

  3.79

  3.18

  1988

  3.84

  3.01

  1989

  3.91

  2.87

  1990

  3.98

  2.79

  1991

  4.05

  2.77

  1992

  4.09

  2.82

  1993

  4.17

  2.87

  1994

  4.24

  2.93

  1995

  4.31

  2.99

  1996

  4.39

  3.01

  1Excludes pupils in sixth form colleges which ceased to be classified as schools in April 1993.

  Project Work
  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a progress report on the project work pilot schemes. [3285]

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to extend the project work pilots; and if she will make a statement. [3237]

  Mr. Forth
  I am very encouraged by the results of the two current pilots of project work, which having been running since April in Hull and Medway and Maidstone. The latest information indicates that around 25 per cent. more people are leaving the unemployment register in the pilot areas than in comparable areas. Based on this encouraging evidence, the Secretary of State announced on 7 November that the project work approach was to be extended early next year to around 100,000 people in a wide range of locations in England, Scotland and Wales. The full list of areas in which the pilot will run is as follows:

  Travel-to-work areas to be covered by the further pilots of the project work approach

  Bath

  Bolton and Bury

  Bradford

  Brighton

  Bristol

  Derby

  Dudley and Sandwell

  Dundee

  Dunfermline

  Edinburgh

  Grimsby

  Hertford and Harlow

  Huddersfield

  Lanarkshire

  Leicester

  London, East and North-east

  138

  Merthyr and Rhymney

  Neath and Port Talbot

  Norwich

  Nottingham

  Peterborough

  Portsmouth

  Preston

  South Tyneside

  Stoke

  Swansea

  Weston Super Mare

  Wigan and St. Helens

  The existing pilots, in Hull and Medway and Maidstone will also continue beyond July 1997.

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what estimate she has made of the effect of project work by April 1997 on the official count of claimant unemployed with durations of over two years in the(a) Hull travel-to-work area and (b) Medway and Maidstone travel-to-work areas; [3062]

  (2) if people currently counted as having an unemployment duration of more than two years will continue to be classified as such on their return to the register direct from project work.[3063]

  Mr. Forth
  The treatment of people who claim jobseeker's allowance after a period on project work is consistent with that of people leaving training for work, or other Employment Service programmes which have involved the payment of an allowance. They will be treated as new claims for the purposes of payment of jobseeker's allowance. Those who return will continue to qualify for all ES programmes, including those for people unemployed over two years, and for training for work. The numbers of those entering and leaving project work will be made publicly available.

  Collective Worship
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent representations she has studied from the British Humanist Association regarding collective worship; and if she will make a statement. [3190]

  Mrs. Gillan
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received a letter dated 29 October from Mr. Robert Ashby, the executive director of the British Humanist Association. I have placed a copy of my reply in the Library.

  Surplus School Places
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many surplus places there were in primary and secondary schools in England and Wales in each academic year since 1978–79. [3169]
  139
  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested is only available on a consistent basis for England for 1993–94 and 1994–95. In those years, the number of surplus places was as follows:

  thousand

  Year

  Primary

  Secondary

  1993–94

  541

  476

  1994–95

  478

  406

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is responsible for monitoring surplus places in Wales.

  Office for Standards in Education Research
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will place the recent Ofsted research into (i) the background of excluded pupils and (ii) school library provision in the Library. [3103]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  This is a matter for Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools, who heads the Office for Standards in Education. I have asked Mr. Chris Woodhead to write to the hon. Member.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if she will publish the current unemployment rates in each European Union member state, indicating in each case whether the social chapter is in force; [2919]

  (2) if she will publish the current youth unemployment rates in each European Union member state, indicating in each case whether the social chapter is in force. [2920]

  Mr. Paice
  [holding answer 11 November 1996]: The information is set out in following table. I am pleased to confirm that, both for unemployment overall and for unemployment of people below the age of 25, the UK rate is substantially below the figure in the European Union as a whole. The UK is the only country to which the social chapter does not apply.

  Total

  Under 25 years

  Belgium

  09.8

  25.0

  Denmark

  06.1

  07.9

  Germany

  08.9

  09.7

  Greece

  —

  —

  Spain

  21.3

  39.2

  France

  12.4

  28.7

  Ireland

  12.5

  19.0

  Italy

  —

  —

  Luxembourg

  03.1

  07.7

  Netherlands

  —

  —

  Austria

  04.1

  06.1

  Portugal

  07.1

  16.7

  Finland

  16.0

  35.2

  Sweden

  09.8

  22.6

  UK

  08.2

  15.0

  EU

  10.8

  21.1

  Employment Service
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) which body established 140
  the resource baselines quoted by the chief executive of the Employment Service as a factor in the decision to make staffing reductions; [3613]

  (2) what estimate she has made of the likely costs of (a) redundancies and (b) transfers occasioned by the reductions in activity in the headquarters of the Employment Service; [3612]

  (3) who announced the decision to reduce activity at the Employment Service headquarters; and in what manner the announcement was made; [3608]

  (4) what is (a) the timetable for and (b) the distribution of the staffing reductions at the headquarters of the Employment Service; and how many and what percentage of staff are to be lost at each divisional office; [3611]

  (5) what is the staffing budget for the Employment Service in 1996–97, broken down according to grades; and what is the projected staffing budget for (a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000; [3609]

  (6) what account was taken of public expenditure negotiations in respect of her Department as a whole in the decision to reduce staff activity at the Employment Service headquarters. [3607]

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

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. David Blunkett, dated 12 November 1996:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has asked me to reply to your questions on staffing reduction in the Employment Service Headquarters. For ease of reference I have grouped my replies by subject using the numbers that will appear in Hansard.

  Determination of Employment Service resources and relationship with public expenditure negotiations (questions 3613 and 3607).

  In common with other Departments and Agencies, the Employment Service's resource provision is determined by Government within the public expenditure framework. As part of that framework Departments and Agencies are required to absorb pay and price increases and to improve the efficiency with which they are run. It is one of my tasks to identify and develop efficiency measures to meet these requirements. Our current work to reduce the Headquarters overhead is one strand in a programme of continuing efficiency measures designed to do that.

  Announcement of decision on ES Headquarters Review and timetable/distribution of reductions (questions 3608 and 3611).

  The decision concerns Agency management rather than wider policy questions. To help us plan for the future effectively and to minimise uncertainty within ES I wrote to all my colleagues in ES's Head and Regional Offices (our "Headquarters") at the earliest opportunity. As part of that process we wrote to our trade unions and offered them a meeting to discuss the matter. This meeting took place on Monday 11 November.

  141
  Detailed plans for implementing the changes are in development, but broadly I see the process as starting now and continuing through to March 2000. Reductions in posts will be spread across this period and I envisage that these could be in the order of 750 by March 1998.
  The exercise encompasses my Head Office (mainly Sheffield, but also London) and 9 Regional Offices. The reductions will be spread across these locations. However, as distribution of the reduction will depend on a series of decisions over a range of functions, it is too early to say exactly where they will fall but it seems likely that more will occur in the Regions than in Sheffield. We currently have some 1,400 permanent posts in Sheffield. I should emphasise that these plans are intended to exclude the great majority of ES people who work in Jobcentres delivering services to employers and our clients seeking work.

  Cost of consequent redundancies and transfers, and staffing budgets for the Employment Service (questions 3612 and 3609).

  I intend to avoid redundancies if at all possible and they do not form part of our current plans. ES has a good record in managing fluctuations in staffing without recourse to compulsory redundancy and we will do everything in our power to manage these reductions in the same way. On transfers, I have said that if a member of staff is required to move they would be entitled to transfer expenses under normal rules. It is, though, too early to predict the numbers of transfers that will take place and therefore their cost. Transfer costs will, of course, be taken into account in reaching decisions on the implementation of the various changes.
  The current staffing budgets and forward plans for ES are:

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Running costs

  £910 million

  £800 million

  £798 million

  Staff years

  36,536

  32,867

  32,586

  These include both paybill and general administration expenditure.
  The staff numbers for the current year broken down into broad divisions are:

  Grade

  Number

  Senior management

  (Grades 3-7)

  292

  Executive grades

  (SEO-EO)

  13,993

  Clerical

  (including temporary staff)

  22,251

  A breakdown of staff by grade is not available for future years. Unfortunately, the information for 1999–2000 is not yet available as the current public expenditure survey has yet to be concluded. The earlier information is published in the 1996 DfEE Departmental Report.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the rules and regulations she proposes to repeal or amend by means of a reference to the Deregulation Committee before the end of 1996; and if she will make a statement. [3442]
  142
  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 11 November 1996]: The Department has laid today a deregulation order relating to the distribution of school action plans. The effect of the order is to reduce unnecessary burdens on schools by allowing them to send parents a summary of the school action plan, instead of the full text. This order will be considered by the Deregulation Committee in due course.

  Teachers (Early Retirement)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to restrict the number of early retirements in the teaching profession. [3417]

  Mrs. Gillan
  I announced on 22 October consultation on a proposal to transfer directly to employers the costs of the premature retirement of teachers from 1 April 1997. This will enable employers' contribution rates to the teachers' superannuation scheme to be reduced to 7.2 per cent. of salaries instead of raised to 8.8 per cent. It will be for employers to decide how many premature retirements they want to finance. The Government think it important that schools should retain more of their experienced teachers, so as to maintain the quality of education and reduce demands on the teacher training system.

  Information to Schools
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the cost of producing and circulating information sent by her Department to schools during the academic year 1995–96. [3632]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  To separate the cost of producing and distributing information sent to schools in 1995–96 from that sent to other educational establishments, parents, governors and the general public would involve disproportionate cost. The total cost of producing and distributing the Department's programme of education publicity in 1995–96 was some £5.4 million. Around £800,000 was spent on distribution of material from the Department's own mailing house, including some of the material covered above and a number of circulars and letters. It is not possible to disaggregate the cost of producing the latter from the Department's total copying costs.

  Spanish and Portuguese Examinations
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many candidates sat GCSE examinations in(a) Spanish and (b) Portuguese in each of the last six years for which figures are available; how many passed in each year; and what was the breakdown of passes by grade. [3458]
  143
  Mrs. Gillan
  The numbers of candidates that sat GCSE in(a) Spanish and (b) Portuguese in each year since 1992 and their pass grades are as follows: comparable information is not available before 1992.

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  (a) Spanish

  Number of candidates

  27,334

  29,370

  34,341

  37,970

  Number achieving pass grades

  Grade A*

  —

  —

  1,985

  2,234

  Grade A

  7,407

  7,531

  6,534

  6,779

  Grade B

  4,141

  4,685

  5,464

  6,020

  Grade C

  3,764

  4,102

  4,899

  5,841

  Grade D

  3,433

  3,869

  4,503

  5,667

  Grade E

  2,791

  2,837

  3,544

  3,825

  Grade F

  3,012

  2,918

  3,527

  3,683

  Grade G

  1,514

  1,987

  2,154

  2,014

  (b) Portuguese

  Number of candidates

  305

  250

  349

  318

  Number achieving pass grades

  Grade A*

  —

  —

  40

  39

  Grade A

  161

  138

  148

  125

  Grade B

  51

  39

  53

  63

  Grade C

  45

  36

  43

  45

  Grade D

  22

  18

  24

  18

  Grade E

  11

  2

  12

  10

  Grade F

  4

  3

  11

  5

  Grade G

  2

  —

  1

  —

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many candidates sat GCE advanced level examinations in(a) Spanish and (b) Portuguese in each of the last six years for which figures are available; how many passed in each year; and what was the breakdown of passes by grade. [3512]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The numbers of candidates who sat GCE advanced level examinations in(a) Spanish and (b) Portuguese in each year since 1992 are as follows: comparable information is not available before 1992.

  GCE A level pass achieved

  Number of candidates

  A

  B

  C

  D

  E

  (a) Spanish

  1991–92

  4,244

  877

  819

  779

  683

  535

  144

  GCE A level pass achieved

  Number of candidates

  A

  B

  C

  D

  E

  1992–93

  4,363

  911

  858

  786

  713

  501

  1993–94

  4,260

  980

  858

  863

  649

  384

  1994–95

  4,222

  910

  866

  810

  640

  461

  (b) Portuguese

  1991–92

  139

  34

  35

  34

  11

  15

  1992–93

  93

  31

  23

  15

  5

  9

  1993–94

  131

  40

  46

  21

  12

  3

  1994–95

  120

  43

  26

  15

  14

  3

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many students graduated from degree courses at United Kingdom universities in which a principal subject was(a) study of the Spanish language and (b) study of the Portuguese language, in each of the last six years for which figures are available; and what projections can be made of the expected numbers in each of the next three years. [3513]

  Mr. Forth
  Information on students graduating in Portuguese or Spanish separately is not available for all of the years requested. The available information for the years 1990 to 1995 is given in the following table. Projections of graduates in individual subjects are not produced by the Department.

  First degree graduated in Spanish, Portuguese and other Latin American languages

  Year of graduation

  Numbers of graduates1

  1990

  214

  1991

  211

  1992

  279

  1993

  294

  1994

  328

  1995

  328

  of which:

  Spanish

  232

  Portuguese

  1

  Other Latin American languages

  95

  1Prior to 1995, the figures cover former University Funding Council funded establishments in the UK and former Polytechnic and Colleges Funding Council funded and FE establishments in England and Wales. The figures for 1995 relate to all HE institutions in the UK.

SCOTLAND

  Maintenance Work
  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  To ask the Secretary o f State for Scotland what is the current backlog of maintenance work in(a) education institutions, (b) prisons and police stations, (c) council housing, (d) transport infrastructure, (e) the national health service and (f) defence bases in Scotland. [2792]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Recent road condition surveys would appear to indicate that the structural integrity of the trunk road network is being maintained at an acceptable level. There is therefore no evidence that there is a maintenance backlog.

  The on-going programme of maintenance work in prisons is on schedule and there is no large amount outstanding.

  Information on the level of maintenance work to be carried out in education institutions, police stations,

  Hospitalisations with a diagnosis related to the adverse effects of prescribed drugs, Scotland, calendar years 1991–95

  Year

  All ages

  <10

  10–19

  20–29

  30–39

  40–49

  50–59

  60–69

  70–79

  80–89

  90+

  Numbers

  1991

  2,632

  75

  66

  181

  180

  272

  338

  503

  586

  378

  53

  1992

  2,603

  66

  84

  210

  190

  228

  336

  524

  566

  352

  47

  1993

  2,678

  91

  97

  150

  186

  221

  364

  532

  591

  392

  54

  1994

  3,031

  87

  109

  200

  229

  283

  413

  579

  648

  416

  67

  1995

  3,683

  78

  134

  241

  269

  306

  493

  683

  835

  532

  67

  Percentages

  1991

  0.3

  0.1

  0.1

  0.2

  0.2

  0.3

  0.3

  0.4

  0.4

  0.5

  0.4

  1992

  0.3

  0.1

  0.1

  0.2

  0.2

  0.2

  0.3

  0.3

  0.4

  0.4

  0.3

  1993

  0.3

  0.1

  0.2

  0.1

  0.2

  0.2

  0.3

  0.3

  0.4

  0.4

  0.4

  1994

  0.3

  0.1

  0.2

  0.2

  0.2

  0.2

  0.3

  0.3

  0.4

  0.4

  0.4

  1995

  0.3

  0.1

  0.2

  0.2

  0.2

  0.2

  0.3

  0.4

  0.5

  0.5

  0.4

  Total discharges1

  1991

  919,120

  84,560

  58,212

  98,313

  95,905

  96,517

  110,576

  142,899

  137,189

  82,842

  12,107

  1992

  981,213

  90,766

  58,506

  104,040

  103,456

  103,672

  117,262

  151,669

  148,656

  89,595

  13,537

  1993

  1,052,709

  95,349

  59,506

  104,806

  110,873

  112,444

  128,438

  163,825

  163,013

  98,761

  15,251

  1994

  1,097,149

  96,878

  61,990

  105,502

  117,876

  119,027

  136,412

  171,835

  169,362

  102,200

  16,067

  1995

  1,147,438

  97,846

  64,045

  107,765

  125,831

  123,609

  144,060

  180,524

  178,078

  108,462

  17,218

  1Percentages are based on total discharges in each age group for each year.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the average(a) number of types and (b) quantity of preparations taken by people in Scotland in each of the last five years broken down by (i) gender and (ii) age bands of 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [2885]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No such estimate has been made.

  Nursery Vouchers
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the impact on the provision of nursery education in the pilot areas of the introduction of vouchers. [3090]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The pilot schemes of the pre-school education voucher initiative started only in August. Early indications show that a considerable number of new places have been created and early inspections by HM inspectorate confirm that there is good-quality pre-school education being offered in a wide 146
  council housing, local roads and other transport infrastructure, and the NHS in Scotland is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Defence bases in Scotland are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

  Prescribed Drugs
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of, and how many, people admitted to hospital have been suffering from adverse reactions to a prescribed drug in each of the last five years and in age bands of 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [2907]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is shown in the table and relates to the number of discharges from hospital where an adverse reaction to "Drugs, medicaments and biological substances causing adverse effects in therapeutic use" has been recorded. It is not possible to identify centrally information relating specifically to prescribed drugs.

  diversity of settings. There are therefore encouraging signs that the aims of the initiative—in terms of growth, quality, and choice for parents—are being met.

  A comprehensive evaluation of the operation of the pilot year schemes is being conducted by Stirling university; and the findings of the study will be taken into account in planning for national extension. The authorities involved in the pilot are also conducting their own monitoring and evaluation of the initiative; and this too will contribute to my right hon. Friend's final assessment.

  Monofilament Nets
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what monitoring arrangements he is putting in place with regard to the reintroduction of monofilament gill nets. [3091]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The Inshore Fishing (Monofilament Gill Nets) (Scotland) Order 1996 permits the carriage by UK-registered vessels in Scottish waters
  147
  of monofilament nets only with a mesh size greater than 250 mm. Use of these nets will not be permitted within the six-mile limit. The Scottish Office is monitoring the levels of effort in those fisheries affected by this order.

  Dunblane
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what forms submitted by the late Thomas Hamilton by way of applications for the granting of firearms certificates required him to provide the names and addresses of one or more character references; if that requirement was met in full by the applicant; if in each case public office was held by any such referees cited; and if he will make a statement. [3015]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 7 November 1996]: Under the provisions of the Firearms (Scotland) Rules 1989, all applications for firearms certificates require to be verified by means of countersignature by a person who is not a member of the applicant's family, is resident in Great Britain, has known the applicant for at least two years and is a justice of the peace or someone of similar standing. Lord Cullen's report on the public inquiry into the shootings at Dunblane primary school, Cm 3386, records at paragraph 6.46 that Thomas Hamilton's applications in 1992 and 1995 were countersigned by a justice of the peace.

  Mr. Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the consequences of the approaches made by Thomas Hamilton to the ombudsman. [3019]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 7 November 1996]: This is dealt with in chapter 4 of Lord Cullen's report, Cm 3386.

  Housing
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the role of low-impact and self-built accommodation in the provision of affordable housing; and if he will make a statement. [3374]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  There are a number of schemes in place designed to encourage the provision of appropriate affordable housing in Scotland. The role of low-impact accommodation within that provision has not yet been formally assessed. Scottish Homes is supporting self-build housing through a number of its existing grant mechanisms and will be evaluating the success of this approach in due course.

  Planning Guidelines
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment his Department has made of the advantages of giving additional weight to environmental impact in determining planning restrictions on agricultural holdings. [3365]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The Scottish Office has not made any specific assessment of the weight which should be given to environmental impact in relation to agricultural holdings. Each planning application has to be considered on its own merits, taking account of the provisions of the 148
  development plan and all other material considerations, including environmental impact. It is for the planning authority determining the application to decide what weight to give to particular considerations. However, the Government recognise the importance of protecting the environmental qualities of rural areas and this principle is acknowledged in current planning guidance.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to review planning guidance on agricultural and other dwellings in the countryside in order to give greater weight to environmental and social sustainability; and if he will make a statement. [3379]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The Scottish Office is presently drafting a new national planning policy guideline on rural development which should be issued for consultation early in 1997. Publication of this NPPG will fulfil a commitment in the White Paper "Rural Scotland: People, Prosperity and Partnership", Cm 3041, that the Government would produce guidance intended to encourage positive and sustainable provision for employment and community purposes using the development plan and development control systems.

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy in relation to his Department's non-departmental public bodies(a) consulting with hon. Members on developments in their constituencies and (b) inviting hon. Members to events within their constituencies; what advice or guidance he (i) has given and (ii) proposes to issue on these matters; and if he will make a statement. [3034]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have given no specific advice to non-departmental public bodies on these issues. I would, however, expect them to observe the normal courtesies in relation to matters in hon. Members' constituencies.

  Crofting Trusts Advisory Service
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide a breakdown of the number of specific inquiries made to the crofting trusts advisory service since its inception; and if he will make a statement. [3173]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The crofting trusts advisory service has had nine inquiries from crofting communities plus four from individual crofters and 26 from other parties.

  There have also been eight meetings with individual crofting communities, an open meeting in Skye and another in the Uists. In addition, CTAS has assisted one community to meet the cost of a study into the viability of community ownership and helped another with the legal costs of establishing a crofting trust.

  Forestry Commission (Woodland Sales)
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will list all Forestry Commission woodlands currently for sale, and indicate for each
  149
  (a) into which English or Welsh county or Scottish region it falls, (b) the number of hectares covered and (c) if an access agreement has been made with the local authority guaranteeing continuing public access; [475]

  (2) how many Forestry Commission woodlands have been sold since October 1991; how many of these were sold without public access protected; how many hectares of Forestry Commission woodland have been sold from October 1991 to the latest available date; and how many hectares have been sold with public access protected; [476]

  (3) how many Forestry Commission woodlands have been sold in each month of 1996 to date, indicating for each month (a) the number sold with access to the public protected and (b) the number sold with access to the public not protected; [477]

  (4) if he will list all the Forestry Commission woodlands for which the level of existing access has been assessed under the guidelines on continued public access to Forestry Commission woodlands after sale, giving for each (a) the English or Welsh county or Scottish region into which it falls, (b) the number of hectares covered by the woodland (c) the Forestry Commission's formal judgement regarding the importance of access at that woodland, (d) what consultations were carried out by Forestry Commission staff in making their judgment, (e) whether the woodland has been sold, or is currently for sale, or has been withdrawn from sale and (f) whether a public access agreement is currently in force. [478]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 28 October 1996]: The subjects of the questions relate to matters undertaken by Forest Enterprise. I have asked its chief executive, Mr. Gordon Cowie, to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Gordon M. Cowie to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 12 November 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Scotland has asked me to reply to your four Questions about the sale of Forestry Commission woodlands.
  1. At Annex A, I enclose a list of all Forestry Commission Woodlands currently for sale, either on the Open Market or by Negotiation.
  2. The Forestry Commission sold 766 Woodlands covering 39,938 hectares in the period 1 October 1991 to 31 December 1995. Of them 48, 2,421 hectares, have Public Access protected either through a public access agreement or under the sponsorship arrangements.
  3. I enclose at Annex B, details of the number of Forestry Commission woodlands sold in each month this year.
  4. I regret that I am unable to answer your final question asking for details of the assessment of the level of public use in each individual case. We have assessed well over 1,500 woodlands since these procedures were introduced, and the details of the assessments are only stored on the individual files which are held in local offices throughout Britain; we have not summarised the assessments in any way. I am sure that you will appreciate, therefore, that it would be a very expensive and time-consuming task to provide the information needed to answer your question.

  Annex A: List of Forestry Commission woodland areas currently for sale

  Name of property

  Area (ha)

  ENGLAND

  Avon

  Greyfield Wood

  38.0

  150

  Annex A: List of Forestry Commission woodland areas currently for sale

  Name of property

  Area (ha)

  Buckinghamshire

  Back Lane Wood

  7.5

  Beech and Howlets Wood

  7.0

  Greens

  1.5

  Cornwall

  Port Eliot Kilquite and Waste

  6.6

  Wheal Par

  5.0

  Cumbria

  Denton Fell

  627.0

  Devon

  Deershill

  11.0

  Knowle Wood

  8.0

  Durham

  Stanley Cotts Wood1

  31.0

  East Yorkshire

  Black Plantation

  14.0

  Greenwickdale

  43.5

  Seaton Old

  16.5

  Hampshire

  Basset Green (land at)

  1.9

  Hereford and Worcestershire

  Newhouse Wood2

  227.5

  Hertfordshire

  Dawley Wood

  19.0

  Hoo Wood

  18.0

  Priest Wood

  28.0

  The Square and Cooks Coppice

  5.5

  Kent

  Challock Benacre Wood

  25.0

  Norfolk

  West Rudham

  78.0

  North Yorkshire

  Cold Kirby Woods1

  116.0

  Dunnington Woods

  80.0

  Glaisdale Blocks

  141.5

  Hayton Wood2

  56.0

  Hazel Wood2

  51.0

  Nottinghamshire

  Roe Wood

  47.0

  Shropshire

  Caldy Bank

  8.9

  Curnia Bank

  13.3

  Llan Llwyd

  3.8

  Somerset

  East Cranmore Wood2

  28.0

  Higher Bitcombe

  30.0

  Pink Wood

  33.0

  The Bushes

  15.0

  Wanstrow2

  45.0

  South Yorkshire

  Green Springs Wood2

  12.0

  Old Park Wood2

  41.0

  Wiltshire

  Stanton Park

  58.0

  151

  Annex A: List of Forestry Commission woodland areas currently for sale

  Name of property

  Area (ha)

  WALES

  Aberconwy and Colwyn

  Blackthorn Covert

  21.5

  Cefn Mawr

  81.7

  Cerrigellgwm

  20.0

  Coed Bryn Kenrick

  8.0

  Coed Melin Y Moch

  12.0

  Coed Plas Isaf

  6.0

  Coed Salisbury

  4.0

  Gelli Wood

  6.0

  Gwrych Castle Woodlands

  49.0

  Caerphilly

  Bedwas

  2.0

  Craig Y Parc

  16.0

  Craig Yr Arail

  58.0

  Hafodrisclawdd

  24.0

  Carmarthenshire

  Allt Cil Y Llyn Fawr

  2.5

  Allt Maes Yr Awdy

  6.0

  Allt Pant Glas

  9.0

  Allt Parc Y Dilfa

  14.0

  Allt Wig Wen

  8.2

  Allt Y Fron-Abermarlais 2

  5.6

  Cathilas

  51.4

  Cefn Wig

  19.0

  Coed Caeau Gwynion-Abermarlais

  4.8

  Coed Glyn Aeron2

  57.0

  Cwmllannarch

  32.0

  Falcondale Big Wood

  10.0

  Farthings Hook

  18.0

  Gallt Fydr

  33.0

  Henfeddau Ty Hen and Long Wood

  23.0

  Maesgwyn

  20.0

  Martletwy Wood

  18.0

  Nant Ffrwd

  26.0

  Penhill Wood

  4.0

  Pentre Mawr Trebwi

  10.0

  Rosehill Wood-Abermarlais 3

  3.9

  Tannerdy and Allt Y Fan Glansefi

  22.0

  Ty Rhyg2

  120.0

  Gwynedd

  Amnodd Wood

  87.5

  Bodfuan

  101.0

  Bronaber

  10.0

  Bryn Hendre

  10.0

  Brynffynnon

  7.0

  Brynffynnon Coed

  6.0

  Caeau Bodfel

  28.0

  Cefn Glas

  12.0

  Coed Cefn

  16.0

  Coed Mynydd Mawr

  24.0

  Cwm Prysor

  56.0

  Cymerau2

  87.5

  Dolymoch2

  22.0

  Flat Covert

  15.0

  Frochas 1

  7.5

  Frochas 2

  3.1

  Frochas 3

  5.4

  Frochas 4

  7.4

  Gelli Dywyll2

  25.0

  Graianog2

  19.0

  Hafotty Covert

  35.0

  Pengwern

  15.0

  Rhiwbach and Tyddyn Bach2

  106.0

  Tan Y Clawdd2

  13.0

  152

  Annex A: List of Forestry Commission woodland areas currently for sale

  Name of property

  Area (ha)

  Ynys Creua

  67.0

  Ynys Galed

  22.0

  Ty Coch North

  7.1

  Neath and Port Talbot

  Graig Ynysgollen

  10.0

  Nant Y Stalwyn2

  44.0

  Powys

  Cefn Derw Cil Owen

  10.0

  Cefn Perfa Wood

  3.4

  Cil Llawyn2

  15.0

  Freezeland2

  10.5

  Geufron

  10.1

  Gloddfa Nursery

  5.2

  Gorther Rough

  8.0

  Husky Hall

  1.8

  Llys Coppice and Penllys

  16.0

  Lower Ceulannau

  3.8

  Lower Wig

  2.2

  Penycarreg East

  3.0

  Penycarreg West

  11.0

  Penycastle Wood

  10.4

  Pool Plantation and Kerry Hill

  12.7

  Rock Wood and Fronfraith Wood2

  30.5

  The Smatcher2

  35.5

  Tyn Y Cwm

  3.5

  Y Wern2

  453.0

  SCOTLAND

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Cairnhead1

  1,361.0

  Euchenhead1

  689.0

  Glaisters

  383.0

  Glenluce1

  40.0

  Polskeoch1

  830.0

  Shinnelhead1

  843.0

  Grampian

  Auchinroath Plantation

  62.0

  Balmakewan (3222M)

  0.6

  Haremoss

  21.0

  Highland

  Ardbrecknish2

  626.0

  Kirkton

  92.0

  Orbost Plantation

  575.0

  Waternish

  1,159.0

  Strathclyde

  Ardlamont1

  749.0

  Knockbain

  145.0

  Little Clyde

  650.0

  Scoor Wood, Lot 5

  360.0

  Tayside

  Easter Muirhead

  34.4

  Newbigging and Braedownie

  413.0

  Warroch

  68.0

  1CPA agreement being negotiated.2CPA agreement completed.

  153

  Annex B: Forestry Commission areas sold in 1996

  Without CPA agreement

  With CPA agreement

  Public access protected1

  January

  18

  3

  —

  February

  9

  3

  —

  March

  16

  7

  —

  April

  10

  1

  1

  May

  13

  1

  —

  June

  10

  3

  —

  July

  13

  1

  —

  August

  6

  1

  —

  September

  6

  3

  —

  October

  6

  2

  —

  1Sold under Forestry Commission Sponsorship arrangements.

  BSE
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the total expenditure to date on the BSE eradication and compensation schemes; and if he will make a statement. [2163]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 6 November 1996]: The total expenditure to date is £700 million. Most of this expenditure has been on the over-30-month slaughter scheme, the calf processing scheme, the additional ELI compensation package—beef special premium scheme and suckler cow premium scheme top-up, beef marketing payment scheme—the beef stocks transfer scheme, the animal feed recall scheme, aid to renderers, emergency aid to the slaughtering sector.

HEALTH

  Dementia
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on the basic training nurses receive in respect of Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia; [3272]

  (2) what steps he has taken to improve the training of health and social care professionals in respect of people with Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia. [3271]

  Mr. Burns
  Such training is primarily the responsibility of the relevant professional bodies and of the organisations which employ health and social care professionals.

  Students who undertake pre-registration nursing programmes in adult or mental health nursing gain an understanding of the various forms of dementia arid the care and treatment of people with dementia, including Alzheimer's disease.

  The Department has contributed funding towards the provision of training material on dementia for mental health professionals. We commissioned Manchester university to produce training literature in mental health, including specific guidance on older people with mental health problems. We helped the Alzheimer's Disease Society with the production costs of its recent training pack for general practitioner trainers, "Dementia in the Community: management strategies for general practice".
  154
  The Department also contributed funding to a recent feasibility study led by the British Medical Association into an educational video for GPs on dementia.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of people suffering from Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia(a) at present and (b) for the year 2006. [3274]

  Mr. Burns
  We estimate that there were around 600,000 people with a diagnosis of dementia, including Alzheimer's disease, in 1994, which will rise to 652,000 in 2006.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the current state of research(a) funded and (b) evaluated by his Department into Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia. [3275]

  Mr. Burns
  The Department runs two separate research programmes: the policy research programme and the national health service research and development programme. The latest available information on research being carried out under the policy research programme is contained in "The Centrally Commissioned Research Programme: Commissions in 1994–95", copies of which are in the Library.

  The NHS research and development programme consists of a number of national programmes and regional research activity. The mental health programme includes a project examining the development of screening tests for dementia and depression in ethnic elders; it also includes a project which is examining dementia information in order to develop a model to establish the number of people in a given population needing specific dementia services. Information is not available centrally on all the regional research projects being undertaken. The projects on which information is available centrally include a study of the patterns and consequences of semantic memory impairment in Alzheimer's disease; a community-based control study of dementias; a study of neuronal structure in aging and Alzheimer's based dementia; and cognitive decline, dementia and aging in people with Down's syndrome: a study of the risk factors and care needs.

  NHS Information Management Group
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been spent by the national health service information management group in each of the last three years on consultancy fees; to which organisations it has been paid; and for what purposes. [3288]

  Mr. Horam
  The spend on consultancy fees from vote 2 of Department of Health budgets by the information management group in the last three years is as follows:

  1996–97: £3 million (estimated)

  1995–96: £4.8 million

  1994–95: £4.1 million

  These fees were paid for consultancy in support of the information management and technology strategy across a number of projects. Many consultancy firms and individuals were employed during this time and a breakdown by individual firms and projects can be provided only at disproportionate costs.

  Tay-Sachs Disease
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funding his Department has made available for research into Tay-Sachs disease. [3061]

  Mr. Horam
  Information on research commissioned by the Department of Health is contained in "The Centrally Commissioned Research Programme" and "The Centrally Commissioned Research Programme: Commissions in 1994–95", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Prodigy Pilot Study
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact of the extension of the Prodigy pilot study on(a) inward investment by non-United Kingdom-owned pharmaceutical companies, (b) research and development expenditure by the United Kingdom pharmaceutical industry, (c) export performance by the United Kingdom pharmaceutical industry and (d) the introduction in the United Kingdom of new medicines; and if he will make a statement. [3294]

  Mr. Malone
  None.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what consultations there were with patient groups over the drafting of the patient advice leaflets provided in the Prodigy pilot study; and if he will make a statement; [3290]

  (2) when the steering group of the NHS executive's patient partnership initiative was consulted about the recommendations on prescribing in the Prodigy pilot study and the contents of the patient advice leaflets; and if he will make a statement; [3295]

  (3) what steps he has taken to ensure that the prescribing recommendations in the Prodigy pilot study (a) are up-to-date, (b) are fully evaluated and (c) have as their primary purpose the greatest possible improvement in patient health; and if he will make a statement. [3432]

  Mr. Malone
  Prodigy is a research project to assess the value and acceptability of decision support for general practitioners. The prescribing recommendations and patient advice leaflets for the pilot were derived from respected sources including the British National Formulary and validated by a multi-professional group.

  Formal consultation at this stage would not have been appropriate, although we are in discussion with a number of interested parties about possible enhancements for the next phase of the project. The Department recently held a seminar, chaired by the chief medical officer, to look at which processes could be used to develop the therapeutic guidance and advice leaflets if it is ultimately decided to implement a national decision support system. A large measure of agreement was reached on the basis of a process which would be transparent, open and professional and reflect the latest evidence-based information. The seminar was attended by professional interests, patient groups, NHS management and the pharmaceutical industry.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the total cost to date of the Prodigy pilot study; how this cost is broken down; what estimates he has made of the cost to his Department of phases 2 and 3156
  of the study; and what estimate he has made of the cost of extending the project to all United Kingdom general practices. [3293]

  Mr. Malone
  The total cost to date is £1,900,000. Costs for phase 2 are currently being negotiated. Any decision on future roll-out will be taken in light of the research findings which will also indicate the likely costs.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact on patient care and the results of treatment of implementing the recommendations of the Prodigy pilot study about prescribing; and what further steps he is taking to assess the impact. [3287]

  Mr. Malone
  Prodigy is a three-year research and development project the results of which will not be known until late 1997.

  Health Strategy Committee
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many times the Ministerial Sub-Committee on Health Strategy has met in the last three years; on how many of these occasions "The Health of the Nation" targets have been discussed; when the last meeting took place; and when the next meeting is scheduled. [3298]

  Mr. Horam
  The Ministerial Sub-Committee on Health Strategy, EDH(H), has met seven times in the last three years. EDH(H)'s terms of reference are: to oversee the development, implementation and monitoring of the Government's health strategy, to co-ordinate the Government's policies on United Kingdom-wide issues affecting health, and report as necessary to the Ministerial Committee on Home and Social Affairs. "The Health of the Nation" targets were discussed on all occasions. The last meeting was on 18 June 1996. The next meeting has not yet been scheduled.

  Nursing and Residential Homes
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nursing and residential homes there are in(a) England, (b) Scotland and (c) Wales. [3273]

  Mr. Burns
  At 31 March 1995, there were 16,320 local authority and registered residential care homes with four or more places, 5,540 registered residential homes with less than four places and 5,330 registered private nursing care homes in England. The numbers of homes in Scotland and in Wales are matters for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales respectively.

  Steroids
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it mandatory for warnings on the hazards associated with steroid treatment to be issued with each steroid prescription. [3057]

  Mr. Malone
  This is already mandatory.

  Duplicate NHS Numbers
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many duplicate NHS numbers have been issued to date; if further duplicate numbers are being issued; what progress has been made towards correcting the duplicate
  157
  number problem and renumbering persons issued with duplicate numbers; what has been the total cost to date of the duplicate number problem; and what estimate he has made of the final cost.[3297]

  Mr. Horam
  National health service numbers issued by registrars of births and deaths are provisional until confirmed through health authorities on a patient's medical card.

  Between 4 December 1995, when the new NHS number was introduced, and 18 October 1996, the latest date for which figures are available, 4,793 new NHS numbers were assigned by RBDs which were re-issued at a subsequent birth registration. This is approximately 1 per cent. of all registrations. Whenever an NHS number is erroneously re-issued, at least two registrations are affected; occasionally numbers have been re-issued more than once, thereby affecting three or more registrations.

  Duplicate numbers continued to be issued at birth registration, but at a reduced rate. In the reply I gave the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) on 8 July, Official Report, column 14, it was confirmed that a study into the reasons for the issuing of duplicate numbers would be carried out. That study is now complete, and a copy of its final report is due to be placed in the Library shortly.

  If a duplicate number is issued at birth registration, this is detected at the NHS central register. In this circumstance, the duplicated number is not used for either baby; both are issued with unique replacement NHS numbers. This also applies if more than two babies have been issued with the same number.

  The cost to date to the new NHS number programme of addressing the issue of non-unique NHS numbers is £40,000; the expected final cost is £130,000.

  Public Health Laboratory Service
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are his Department's proposals for reductions in the budget of the public health laboratory service; and which services will be affected. [3408]

  Mr. Horam
  The public health laboratory service received funding of £55.2 million directly from the Department of Health for 1996–97. As with all Government bodies, the public health laboratory service is expected to achieve efficiency savings each year, and the level of these savings is reviewed annually. Funding for 1997–98 will be notified shortly after the Chancellor's "Autumn Statement".

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has for the future of the public health laboratory service; and if he will make a statement. [3419]

  Mr. Horam
  I announced on 19 July that a prior options review of the public health laboratory service had recently begun, that interested parties would be invited to comment and that the review would report to Ministers in December. The period of consultation drew to a close last week, and comments from a wide range of organisations, including professional bodies, are now being analysed.

  Child Labour
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the procedures are for liaison between his Department and other Government Departments with responsibilities in the area of child labour. [3683]

  Mr. Burns
  The Department maintains close links with other Government Departments as part of its everyday business.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the replies which he received to his letter of 7 November to all Labour Members. [3688]

  Mr. Dorrell
  The letters referred to were sent out in my capacity as a Member of Parliament and not as the Secretary of State for Health.

  Personal Social Services
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made on the proposed new initiative to encourage better use of research evidence in the purchasing and provision of personal social services. [3971]

  Mr. Burns
  The aim of this new initiative is to help local authorities improve the cost-effectiveness of social services through better use of research evidence. I am very pleased to say that contractual terms have now been agreed, and contracts are likely to be signed very shortly with Exeter university and a consortium of 12 directors of social services in the south-west of England for this jointly funded initiative, beginning in January 1997.

  Dental Services
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his oral answer of 5 November,Official Report, column 1024, what was the number of dentists in England providing NHS treatment on 30 June 1995. [4049]

  Mr. Malone
  I regret that my reply, which quoted 15,927 dentists in the general dental services in England at 30 June 1995, was incorrect. That is the figure for June 1996. The correct number for June 1995 is 15,616.

  Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to ensure health professionals are informed of the methods of recognising and treating attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder now employed in the United States of America; and if he will make a statement. [2504]

  Mr. Burns
  It is the responsibility of professional and academic bodies to assess the evidence for the best approaches in the recognition and treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. This evidence is available in literature from around the world, including the United States, and is widely available in professional journals within this country.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received on use of advice issued to child psychiatrists in respect of treatment of
  159
  hyperactivity and of the flow chart attached; what plans he has to review the efficacy of such advice; and if he will make a statement. [2505]

  Mr. Burns
  None. It is for the relevant professional and academic bodies to review and evaluate evidence for the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and to disseminate such information through training and through publications in professional journals and texts.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to examine the practice among medical practitioners of giving up the use of Ritalin among children suffering from attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder after 12 months' use; and if he will make a statement. [2506]

  Mr. Burns
  The use of Ritalin to treat children suffering from attention deficit hyperactivity disorder is a matter for professional and clinical judgment and we have no plans to examine it.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate his Department has made of the number of children identified as suffering from hyperkinetic disorder; and what percentage this is of his estimate of the total number of persons suffering from this disorder. [2507]

  Mr. Burns
  Information on the number of children identified as suffering from hyperkinetic disorder is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his Department's latest assessment of the effectiveness of dopamine-releasing agents with special reference to Ritalin, in the treatment of attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder; what is his assessment of the use currently made of such treatment in the United States of America; and if he will make a statement. [2508]

  Mr. Burns
  We recognise that the more severe forms of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder can be treated with Ritalin or other appropriate medication. Such medication should be part of a comprehensive treatment programme which may also include psychological, educational and social measures designed to stabilise children with the condition. There is a widespread view among clinicians in this country that a higher percentage of such children are treated with medication in the United States than is desirable or necessary.

  Coronary Care
  Sir John Gorst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the(a) medical receiving room and (b) minor accident treatment service units capable of dealing with coronary care. [3515]

  Mr. Horam
  This information is not available centrally.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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 such a repeal. [3780]
  160
  Mr. Horam
  The Department currently proposes to repeal or amend the following regulations by the end of 1996:

  The Imported Food Regulations 1984;

  The Food Safety (General Food Hygiene) Regulations 1995;

  The Nursing Homes and Mental Nursing Homes Regulations 1984.

  Since the effect in each case will be to reduce, rather than increase, compliance costs, a compliance cost assessment is not required. Departments do, however, seek to estimate approximate savings wherever possible and, where there is a potential impact on industry, a CCA is completed in all cases. The cost of undertaking a CCA varies from case to case but it is generally modest. Because part of the cost falls on the businesses consulted, a full CCA would be inappropriate for measures designed to reduce business burdens.

  Silicon Bridge Research
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 1 November,Official Report, column 293, if he will place in the Library a copy of the Silicon Bridge Research report. [3669]

  Mr. Horam
  The Silicon Bridge Research report will be published shortly. Copies will be placed in the Library.

  CAMS Ltd.
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 1 November,Official Report, column 293, which parts of the CAMS contract with his Department have recently been terminated; and if he will make a statement. [3670]

  Mr. Horam
  No parts of the CAMS contracts with the Department of Health for the licensing and support of Read codes in the national health service, and for their licensing and support internationally, have been terminated recently.

  Neonatal and Perinatal Mortality
  Mr. Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the(a) neonatal and (b) perinatal mortality rates for the last four years by (i) trust, (ii) health authority and (iii) region. [2668]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  I have been asked to reply.

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Alan Keen, dated 12 November 1996:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as the Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent question requesting neonatal and perinatal rates for the last four years by (a) trust, (b) health authority and (c) region.
  The information by health authority and region for the last four years is available in OPCS/ONS Monitors DH3 93/1 (1992). DH3 94/2 (1993) DH3 95/2 (1994) AND DH3 96/1 (1995), copies of which are available in the House of the Commons Library.
  Neonatal and perinatal mortality statistics by hospital trust is not routinely available and can only be obtained at a disproportionate cost.

TREASURY

  Taxpayers
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many taxpayers paid tax at the lower and basic rates between 1992–93 and 1996–97. [3972]

  Mr. Jack
  The figures are set out in the table. Over a quarter of taxpayers now have a marginal rate of only 20 per cent.

  Millions

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  11995–96

  11996–97

  Lower rate1

  4.24

  5.39

  5.18

  5.6

  7.1

  Basic rate

  19.40

  17.87

  18.17

  18.0

  16.5

  Notes:

  1Provisional.

  2From 1993–94 onwards a number of taxpayers with taxable income in excess of the lower rate limit pay tax only at the lower rate. This is because their dividend and (from 1996–97) their savings income takes their taxable income above the lower rate limit and such income is chargeable to tax at the lower and not the basic rate. The numbers in this category for the four years between 1993–94 and 1996–97 are 0.22/0.24/0.3/0.8 millions respectively.

  EU Budget Council
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the EU Budget Council meeting of 25 July. [3973]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Sir Stephen Wall, the United Kingdom permanent representative to the European Union, represented the United Kingdom at the Budget Council on 25 July. The Council considered the Commission's preliminary draft budget for 1997. The

  Financial perspective ceilings1

  Preliminary draft budget

  Budget council draft budget

  mecu

  £million

  mecu

  £ million

  mecu

  £ million

  Commitment appropriations

  1. EAGGF guarantee

  41,805

  32,698

  41,805

  32,698

  40,805

  31,916

  2. Structural operations

  31,477

  24,620

  31,477

  24,620

  31,477

  24,620

  3. Internal policies

  5,603

  4,382

  5,523

  4,320

  5,255

  4,110

  4. External action

  5,622

  4,397

  5,528

  4,324

  5,310

  4,153

  5. Administration

  4,352

  3,404

  4,369

  3,418

  4,245

  3,320

  6. Reserves

  1,158

  906

  1,158

  906

  1,158

  906

  7. Compensation

  212

  166

  212

  166

  212

  166

  Total: Commitment appropriations

  90,229

  70,574

  90,072

  70,452

  88,461

  69,191

  Total: Payment appropriations

  85,807

  67,115

  84,521

  66,110

  81,646

  63,861

  1Throughout this reply the rate of £1=1.2785 ecu has been used (the rate notified in the Official Journal as prevailing on the last working day of the last month (31 October)).

  Inheritance Tax Exemption
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the value of inheritance tax for which conditional exemption has been granted to allow public access to land for each year since 1975. [1647]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 5 November 1996]: The annual average cost, in the years 1983–84 to 1995–96, of conditional exemption from inheritance tax—or its
  162
  draft budget established by the Council totalled 88.5 billion ecu—£69.2 billion—in commitment appropriations and 81.6 billion ecu—£63.9 billion—in payment appropriations. The draft budget would require own resources totalling 1.15 per cent. of Community gross national product, compared with the own resources ceiling of 1.24 per cent. of Community GNP. The draft budget is within the financial perspective ceilings.

  For the first time ever, the Council set its draft budget at the same level overall as in the preceding year—that is, zero growth.

  In establishing its draft budget the Council took account of the economic and financial context for 1997 to define real priorities within the resources available and to ensure that this was reflected in a realistic budget.

  The Council established its 1997 draft budget by a qualified majority with Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium and Austria voting against. No other formal votes were taken.

  The summary table below compares the outcome of the Budget Council to the proposals in the Commission's amended preliminary draft budget by reference to the financial perspective ceilings.

  (Further information is contained in the explanatory memorandum (9372/96) on the draft budget, which was deposited in the UK Parliament on 11 October.)

  The European Parliament considered the draft budget for 1997 at its plenary in October. The Parliament's amendments and modifications will be considered at the second Budget Council on 19 November. The European Parliament's Second Reading is likely to be in mid-December.

  predecessor, capital transfer tax—for land and buildings is estimated at between £5 million and £10 million. Figures for earlier years are not available.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many sites in(a) England, (b) Scotland and (c) Wales have been granted conditional exemption from inheritance tax on the basis of reasonable public access being granted; and what is the area of each site. [1648]
  163
  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 5 November 1996]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 29 March, Official Report, column 777.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library copies of any statements made since 1979 setting out Government policies and practices which outline the granting and publicising of conditional exemption from inheritance tax in return for reasonable public access. [1649]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 5 November 1996]: The Government's various statements to the House on the topics in question are already a matter of public record. I am arranging for copies of the Inland Revenue's publications about conditional exemption, booklets IR 67, "Capital taxation and the national heritage", and IR 88, "Capital tax relief for national heritage property—how to make a claim", to be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many locations granted conditional exemption from inheritance tax on condition of allowing reasonable public access have been included in the annual register of countryside stewardship scheme access sites in each of the past five years; [1625]

  (2) how many sites in the register of countryside stewardship scheme access sites received funding through the granting of conditional exemption of inheritance tax on the basis of reasonable public access for each of the last five years. [1628]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 5 November 1996]: In return for conditional exemption from inheritance tax, the owners have to give undertakings which cover not only provision of reasonable public access but the maintenance and preservation of the land. There have been 11 areas of conditionally exempt scenic land included with the countryside stewardship scheme access sites since 1993, when such land first appeared in the records of the scheme.

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what is his policy in respect of British membership of the Monetary Committee, appointed under article 109c of the treaty on European Union, if the United Kingdom declared against proceeding to the third stage of economic and monetary union; and to what extent the British members' powers and voting rights would be modified; [49]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the impact on United Kingdom membership of the Economic and Financial Committee appointed under article 109c of the treaty on European Union of a United Kingdom declaration against proceeding to the third stage of economic and monetary union. [9]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Article 109c(1) of the EC treaty provides for the establishment of a Monetary Committee with advisory status. Its tasks include keeping under review the monetary and financial situation within the Community and preparing the work of the Council of Economic and Finance Ministers, ECOFIN, including the formulation of opinions on excessive deficits under article 104c(4) of the treaty. The United Kingdom would still participate in the Committee if the Government were to 164
  decide that the United Kingdom should not participate in the third stage of economic and monetary union. The powers and voting rights of its two members on the Committee would not be modified.

  Article 109c(2) of the treaty provides for the Monetary Committee to be dissolved at the start of the third stage of EMU. It also provides for all member states, the European Commission and the European central bank to each appoint "no more than two members" to the Economic and Financial Committee. The EFC will be an advisory body. Its tasks will include keeping under review the monetary and financial situation within the Community and preparing the work of ECOFIN, including the formulation of opinions on excessive deficits under article 104c(4) of the treaty, and other tasks assigned to it by ECOFIN.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent the United Kingdom's right to participate in the discussions, and vote on which countries fulfil the necessary conditions for the adoption of a single currency, as described in article 109j of the treaty on European Union, is(a) withdrawn and (b) modified if the United Kingdom decides not to join the third stage of economic and monetary union. [10]

  Mrs. Knight
  All member states will be able to participate and vote in the decisions under article 109j of the EC treaty on which member states fulfil the necessary conditions to adopt the single currency at the start of the third stage of economic and monetary union.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the United Kingdom is obliged to subscribe to the capital of the European central bank when it comes into being if the United Kingdom does not join the third stage of economic monetary union; and what estimate he has made of the cost of subscription. [50]

  Mrs. Knight
  Article 28 of the statute of the European system of central banks contained in protocol No. 3 to the EC treaty provides for the European central bank to have capital of 5,000 million ecu when it is established. The subscription to the capital by the national central banks of countries participating in the single currency will be on the basis of the key in article 29 of the statute. The ECB will, in addition to its tasks relating to the single currency and participating member states, also take over certain remaining tasks of the European Monetary Institute relating to countries not participating in the single currency. Article 48 of the statute of the ESCB provides for the possibility of non-participating member states' national central banks contributing a "minimal" share of the capital towards the operational costs of the ECB in certain circumstances. This would require a decision of the general council of the ECB on which the national central banks of non-participating member states will be represented.

  Single European Currency
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the cost to the United Kingdom of converting to a single European currency; and if he will list cost estimates for each major sector of commerce, industry, Government and the general public. [11]
  165
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The Government have not made any such estimates. The Government will take into account the potential costs of introducing the single currency when the facts are known and when they make their decisions on whether the United Kingdom should seek to participate in the single currency, at the appropriate time.

  Self-employment Statistics
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the population in(a) the London borough of Lewisham, (b) the SOLOTEC area, (c) the wider central area, (d) Greater London and (e) the rest of southern England, were self-employed, using the labour force survey and mid-year population estimates in each of the past three years. [2300]

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mrs. Bridget Prentice, dated 12 November 1996:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as the Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent question on the proportion of the population who are self-employed in the South East.
  The Labour Force Survey (LFS) covers the population in private households plus persons in NHS accommodation and students in halls of residence. The mid-year population estimates additionally cover the rest of the non-household population. It is therefore more appropriate to calculate the proportions who are self employed using LFS estimates. This information can be accessed through the NOMIS database by the House of Common Library.
  Mid-year population estimates taken from the Census of Population are published in Monitor—Population and Health. A copy of this publication is also available from the House of Commons Library.

  Unemployment
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will list the proportion of male and female unemployed for(a) one year and (b) two years among the total unemployed for the latest period, and for the same period in 1995, 1994 and 1993 in (a) the London borough of Lewisham, (b) the SOLOTEC area, (c) the wider centre area, (d) Greater London and (e) the rest of the south-east; [2304]

  (2) if he will list the proportion of 17 to 19-year-olds unemployed for the latest period, and the same period in 1995, 1994 and 1993 in (a) the London borough of Lewisham, (b) the SOLOTEC area, (c) the wider central area, (d) Greater London and (e) the rest of southern England. [2303]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The information falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
  166
  Letter from Tim Holt to Mrs. Bridget Prentice, dated 12 November 1996:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as the Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent questions on the proportion of the population who are unemployed in the South East.
  Published information on the numbers of people unemployed by duration and sex for the areas requested is restricted to claimant unemployment. The corresponding analyses from the Labour Force Survey (LFS), on unemployment on the internationally standard ILO basis are not available for TEC areas such as SOLOTEC which do not match local authority boundaries. In addition figures are not available for Lewisham because they are unreliable at this level of geographical disagregation.
  The LFS provides ILO unemployment rates covering all the years requested for 16–19 year olds for Greater London and ROSE but not for the other areas listed. Claimant unemployment rates at this level of disagregation are only available for travel-to-work areas and unitary authorities and are not calculated for different age groups.
  The available data can be assessed through NOMIS and the LFS Database in the House of Commons Library.

  Ms Church
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many people(a) in total and (b) in the age bands (i) 16 to 24 years, (ii) 25 to 34 years, (iii) 35 to 44 years, (iv) 45 to 54 years, (v) 55 to 64 years and (vi) 65 years and over, have experienced at least one spell of unemployment since 1992, in each parliamentary constituency in the United Kingdom, taking the new constituency boundaries, (1) as an absolute figure and (2) as a percentage of the number of people employed in the constituency using the 1993 figures in the absence of the 1995 figures in the relevant age band; [1907]

  (2) what is the average length of time between claims for a claimant since 1992 (a) in total and (b) in the age bands (i) 16 to 24 years, (ii) 25 to 34 year, (iii) 35 to 44 years, (iv) 45 to 54 years, (v) 55 to 64 years and (vi) 65 years and over, in each parliamentary constituency in the United Kingdom; [1912]

  (3) what is the average number of claimants, in each constituency of the United Kingdom, (a) in total and (b) in the age bands (i) 16 to 24 years, (ii) 25 to 34 years, (iii) 35 to 44 years, (iv) 45 to 54 years, (v) 55 to 64 years and (vi) 65 years and over, whose duration of unemployment became more than 12 months in each month since January 1992;[1892]

  (4) how many people (a) in total and (b) in the age bands (i) 16 to 24 years, (ii) 25 to 34 years, (iii) 35 to 44 years, (iv) 45 to 54 years, (v) 55 to 64 years and (vi) 65 years and over, have experienced (1) two, (2) three, (3) four and (4) five spells of unemployment, since 1992, in each parliamentary constituency in the United Kingdom, taking the new parliamentary constituency boundaries, (x) as an absolute figure and (y) as a percentage of the number of people employed in the constituency using the 1993 figures in the absence of the 1995 figures; [1914]

  (5) what is the average number of claims made by a claimant since 1992 (a) in total and (b) the age bands (i) 16 to 24 years, (ii) 25 to 34 years, (iii) 35 to 44 years, (iv) 45 to 54 years, (v) 55 to 64 years and (vi) 65 years and over, in each parliamentary constituency in the United Kingdom; [1911]

  (6) what is the number of claimants, in each parliamentary constituency in the United Kingdom, (a) in total and (b) in the age bands (i) 16 to 24 years, (ii) 25 to 34 years, (iii) 35 to 44 years, (iv) 45 to 54 years, (v) 55

  167
  to 64 years and (vi) 65 years and over, who have cumulatively claimed for 12 months or over, since 1992, in either one continuous claim or several separate claims (1) as an absolute figure, (2) as a percentage of the economically active work force in the relevant age band and (3) as a percentage of claimants in the relevant age band. [1889]

  Mrs. Knight
  [holding answer 7 November 1996]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Ms Judith Church, dated 12 November 1996:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as the Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent questions (1889, 1892, 1907, 1911, 1912 and 1914) on unemployment spell details by parliamentary constituency.
  The information requested is unavailable as the JUVOS unemployment cohort does not hold data by parliamentary constituency.

  Ms Church
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many claimants, who had been claiming for 52 weeks or more in the United Kingdom,(a) in total and (b) overall and (1) in the age bands (i) 16 to 24 years, (ii) 25 to 34 years, (iii) 35 to 44 years, (iv) 45 to 54 years, (v) 55 to 64 years and (vi) 65 years and over, left the count for a job, in the year to June 1996 (1) in absolute terms and (2) as a percentage of all those who had been claiming for 52 weeks or more, in the year to June 1996. [1895]

  Mrs. Knight
  [holding answer 7 November 1996]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Ms Judith Church, dated 12 November 1996:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as the Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent question on how many claimants, who had been claiming unemployment-related benefits for 52 weeks or more in the United Kingdom left the count for a job.
  The figures requested are shown in the tables below.

  Number of leavers from claimant unemployment with a known destination, who had been claiming for 52 weeks or more, by destination of leaver and age

  Thousands

  Age band (year)

  Found work

  Destination of leaver Other known destination

  Total

  16–24

  66.0

  55.2

  121.2

  25–34

  84.1

  76.6

  160.7

  35–44

  48.3

  50.6

  98.8

  45–54

  37.4

  47.0

  84.5

  55–64

  12.0

  47.6

  59.5

  65 and over

  0.0

  0.6

  0.6

  All ages

  247.8

  277.6

  525.4

  Leavers over the year to June 1996.

  United Kingdom.

  168

  Percentage of leavers from claimant unemployment with a known destination, who had been claiming for 52 weeks or more, by destination of leaver and age

  Percentage

  Age band(year)

  Found work

  Destination of leaver Other known destination

  Total

  16–24

  54

  46

  100

  25–34

  52

  48

  100

  35–44

  49

  51

  100

  45–54

  44

  56

  100

  55–64

  20

  80

  100

  65 and over

  2

  98

  100

  Total

  47

  53

  100

  Leavers over the year to June 1996.

  United Kingdom.

  You should note that for about a quarter of leavers we do not know their destination.

  Ms Church
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the average length of time between claims for a claimant since 1992(a) in total and (b) in the age bands (i) 16 to 24 years, (ii) 25 to 34 years, (iii) 35 to 44 years, (iv) 45 to 54 years, (v) 55 to 64 years and (vi) 65 years and over in the United Kingdom. [1909]

  Mrs. Knight
  [holding answer 7 November 1996]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Ms Judith Church, dated 12 November 1996:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as the Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent question on the average length of time between claims for claimants since 1992, by age.
  The available data are shown in the following table. Data are only available for Great Britain.

  Average length of time between claims by age band, for claims since January 1992

  Age band (years)

  Average length of time between claims (days)

  16–24

  195

  25–34

  204

  35–44

  204

  45–54

  193

  55–64

  177

  65 and over

  0

  All ages

  198

  Great Britain.
  It is not possible to calculate proportions as a percentage of the economically active workforce because the corresponding number of people who have never been economically active over the period is not known—only point in time estimates of the latter are available.

  Ms Church
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how may people in the United Kingdom(a) in total and (b) in the age bands (i) 16 to 24 years, (ii) 25 to 34 years, (iii) 35 to 44 years, (iv) 45 to 54 years, (v) 55 to 64 years and (vi) 65 years and over, leaving the claimant count in the year to June 1996, went to (1) jobs and (2) other destinations; and if he will give (3) as a percentage of those leaving the claimant count in each age band.[1890]
  169
  Mrs. Knight
  [holding answer 7 November 1996]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Ms Judith Church, dated 12 November 1996:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as the Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent question on how many people in the United Kingdom leaving the claimant count in the year to June 1996, went to jobs and other destinations, by age.
  The figures requested are shown in the tables below.

  Number of leavers from claimant unemployment with a known destination, by destination and age

  Thousands

  Destination of leaver

  Age band (years)

  Found work

  Other known destination

  Total

  16–24

  526.1

  191.0

  717.1

  25–34

  465.3

  186.5

  651.8

  35–44

  283.0

  117.3

  400.3

  45–54

  241.4

  111.3

  352.7

  55–64

  80.3

  95.9

  176.2

  65 and over

  0.1

  3.0

  3.1

  All ages

  1596.2

  705.0

  2301.2

  Leavers over the year to June 1996.

  United Kingdom.

  Percentage of leavers from claimant unemployment with a known destination, by destination of leaver and age

  Percentage

  Age band (years)

  Found work

  Destination of leaver Other known destination

  Total

  16–24

  73

  27

  100

  25–34

  71

  29

  100

  35–44

  71

  29

  100

  45–54

  68

  32

  100

  55–64

  46

  54

  100

  65 and over

  2

  98

  100

  Total

  69

  31

  100

  Leavers over the year to June 1996.

  United Kingdom.

  You should note that for about a quarter of leavers we do not know their destination.

  Ms Church
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many people in each parliamentary consistency in the United Kingdom(a) in total and (b) in the age bands (i) 16 to 24 years, (ii) 25 to 34 years, (iii) 35 to 44 years, (iv) 45 to 54 years, (v) 55 to 64 years and (vi) 65 years and over, leaving the claimant count in the year to June 1996, went to (1) jobs and (2) other destinations; and if he will give (2) as a percentage of those leaving the claimant count in each relevant age band; [1891]

  (2) how many claimants, who had been claiming for 52 weeks or more, in each constituency in the United Kingdom (a) in total and (b) in the age bands (i) 16 to 24 years, (ii) 25 to 34 years, (iii) 35 to 44 years, (iv) 45 to 54 years, (v) 55 to 64 years and (vi) 65 years and over, left the count for a job in the year to June 1996 (1) in
  170
  absolute terms (2) as a percentage of all those who had been claiming for 52 weeks or more in the year to June 1996. [1922]

  Mrs. Knight
  [holding answer 7 November 1996]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Ms Judith Church, dated 12 November 1996:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as the Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent questions (1891 and 1914) on the destination of those leaving the claimant count in each parliamentary constituency.
  The information on the destination of leavers from claimant unemployment is not available by parliamentary constituency.

  Ms Church
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the number of claimants in the United Kingdom(a) in total and (b) in the age bands (i) 16 to 24 years, (ii) 25 to 34 years, (iii) 35 to 44 years, (iv) 45 to 54 years, (v) 55 to 64 years and (vi) 65 years and over who have cumulatively claimed for 12 months or over, since 1992, in either one continuous claim or several separate claims (1) as an absolute figure, (2) as a percentage of the economically active work force in the relevant age band and (3) as a percentage of claimants in the relevant age band. [1921]

  Mrs. Knight
  [holding answer 7 November 1996]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Ms Judith Church, dated 12 November 1996:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as the Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent question on the number of claimants in the United Kingdom who have cumulatively claimed for 12 months and over, since 1992, in either one continuous claim or several claims, by age.
  The available data are shown in the following table. Data are only available for Great Britain.

  Number of claimants within each age band, who have cumulatively claimed for 12 months or more, since January 1992

  Thousands

  Age band (years)

  Average length of time between claims (days)

  16–24

  1,457.1

  25–34

  1,065.6

  35–44

  683.9

  45–54

  587.4

  55–64

  248.2

  65 and over

  0

  All ages

  4,042.3

  171

  Percentage of all claimants within each age band, who have cumulatively claimed for 12 months or more, since January 1992

  Age band (years)

  Percentage of claimants

  16–24

  38

  25–34

  41

  35–44

  40

  45–54

  40

  55–64

  34

  65 and over

  9

  All ages

  39

  Great Britain.

  It is not possible to calculate proportions as a percentage of the economically active work force because the corresponding number of people who have never been economically active over the period is not known—only point in time estimates of the latter are available.

  Ms Church
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the average number of claims made by a claimant since 1992(a) in total and (b) in the age bands (i) 16 to 24 years, (ii) 25 to 34 years, (iii) 35 to 44 years, (iv) 45 to 54 years, (v) 55 to 64 years and (vi) 65 years and over in the United Kingdom. [1908]

  Mrs. Knight
  [holding answer 7 November 1996]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Ms Judith Church, dated 12 November 1996:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as the Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent question on the average number of claims by claimants since 1992, by age.
  The available data are shown in the following table. Data are only available for Great Britain.

  Average number of claims made by claimants since January 1992

  Age band (years)

  Average number of claims

  16–24

  2.2

  25–34

  2

  35–44

  1.92

  45–54

  1.8

  55–64

  1.45

  65 and over

  1.05

  All ages

  1.99

  Great Britain.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the(a) first-year and (b) full-year costs of raising the personal income tax allowance in 1997–98, in addition to price indexation, by (i) £50, (ii) £100, (iii) £150 and (iv) £200; and what is his estimate in each case of the number of individuals who as a consequence would no longer be liable to pay income tax. [3244]
  172
  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 11 November 1996]: Available information is given in the table.

  Increase in non aged and aged personal allowances indexation £

  Full year cost at 1997–98 income levels 1£million

  First year cost at 1997–98 income levels £million

  Number of taxpayers taken out of income tax thousands

  50

  320

  240

  120

  100

  630

  470

  230

  150

  940

  710

  350

  200

  1,250

  940

  450

  1Based on the Summer Economic forecast and allowing for statutory indexation.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the cost in 1997–98 of reducing the present 24p income tax band to a 20p income tax band. [3243]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 11 November 1996]: The estimated full-year cost at 1997–98 income levels of reducing the basic rate of tax from 24 per cent. to 20 per cent. is £6.8 billion after allowing for statutory indexation of allowances and tax band widths. This is based on the summer economic forecast.

  Mr. Alison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will estimate the cost of revalorising fully the married couples allowance and the additional personal allowance to their 1990 introductory value, assuming that the allowances continue to be given at the rate of 15 per cent.; [2827]

  (2) if he will estimate the cost of revalorising fully the married couples allowance and the additional personal allowance to their 1990 introductory value, assuming that the allowances were given at the taxpayers' marginal tax rate. [2825]

  Mr. Jack
  The full year cost of revalorising the 1990–91 married couples allowance and the linked allowances, which include the additional personal allowance and the widows bereavement allowance, to 1996–97 levels is given in the table.

  Cost in full year at 1996–97 income levels £ billion

  Allowances given at 15 per cent.

  0.5

  Allowances given at marginal rates

  3.0

  Mr. Alison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the cost of allowing a married person to transfer an unused personal allowance to their spouse, on the assumption that the couple would not also be able to claim the married couples allowance. [2824]

  Mr. Jack
  The estimated full-year cost of allowing personal allowances to be transferred between spouses would be about £0.5 billion at 1996–97 income levels. This assumes that the married couples allowance would be abolished, but the widows bereavement allowance and the additional personal allowance would be retained. It does not take into account any behavioural change which would result from such a measure.

  Overseas Investment Services
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will instruct the Inland Revenue to review the liability of Overseas Investment Services registered in the Turks and Caicos to pay tax in the United Kingdom in respect of its management from the United Kingdom;[2650]

  (2) if he will investigate the financial regularity of the circumstances in which Firthpalm Ltd. transferred ownership of land at Mayals, Swansea in 1987–88 to Overseas Investment Services; [2652]

  (3) if he will instruct the. Inland Revenue to examine the terms in respect of liability for tax on which in 1987–88 Firthpalm Ltd. sold land at Mayals, Swansea, to Overseas Investment Services in Grand Turks and Caicos. [2651]

  Mr. Jack
  The tax affairs of particular companies are confidential between the Inland Revenue and the companies concerned. Treasury Ministers do not instruct the Inland Revenue to investigate a company's tax affairs or otherwise intervene in such matters.

  VAT Reclaims
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the impact of the Waelbroeck opinion on the Government's policy to place a three-year limit on VAT reclaims. [3300]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 11 November 1996]: Customs and Excise has received a copy of this opinion and has had a meeting with the firm which commissioned it. It is being considered along with other representations received on the three-year cap.

  Exchange Rates
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the change in the value of the pound against(a) the deutschmark, (b) the dollar and (c) all currencies since the first day of each month of 1996 to date; and if he will make a statement.[3080]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 11 November 1996]: The table gives the percentage increase in the value of the pound against the deutschmark, dollar and the exchange rate index from the first day of each month to close on 6 November—when sterling stood at DM2.49, $1.64 and 91.1 on the ERI. The effective exchange rate index measures the value of sterling against a basket of other currencies on a trade-weighted basis.

  Percentage increase since:

  1996

  DM

  $

  ERI

  January

  12

  6

  10

  February

  11

  9

  9

  March

  11

  7

  9

  April

  10

  8

  9

  May

  8

  9

  9

  June

  6

  7

  6

  July

  5

  6

  5

  August

  8

  5

  8

  September

  8

  5

  7

  October

  4

  5

  5

  Working Hours
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of employees working more than 48 hours per week in each year since 1979. [2067]

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Ms Joyce Quin, dated 12 November 1996:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as the Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent question asking for a time series of the number of employees working more than 48 hours per week.
  The available information is shown in the table below.

  Employees usually working more than 48 hours per week1

  Great Britain: spring of each year2

  (thousands)

  Number

  1984

  2,740

  1985

  2,763

  1986

  2,968

  1987

  3,126

  1988

  3,512

  1989

  3,598

  1990

  3,606

  1991

  3,414

  1992

  3,263

  1993

  3,360

  1994

  3,518

  1995

  3,690

  1996

  3,793

  Notes:

  1Total usual hours per week including paid and unpaid overtime and excluding meal breaks.

  2Data for 1979 to 1983 either not available or not consistent with later years.

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey, Office for National Statistics.

  Landfill Tax
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the landfill operators who have registered their liability for landfill tax, broken down by Customs and Excise region.[3328]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The information as requested is not currently held in a form that can be published. The Finance Act 1996 allows the commissioners of Customs and Excise to publish information from the landfill tax register and they will do so as soon as possible.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what sum of money he estimates will be paid to approve environmental bodies through the landfill tax credit scheme in the financial year(a) 1996–97 and (b) 1997–98. [3333]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  It is estimated that £10 million will be made available through landfill tax credits in 1996–97 and £50 million in 1997–98.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the figures for the average tenure per job in(a) manufacturing, (b) services and (c) general for (i) 1966, (ii) 1970, (iii) 1980, (iv) 1990 and (v) the latest year available. [2815]

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Peter Hain, dated 12 November 1996:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as the Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent question on the average tenure per job in manufacturing, services and all industries and services.
  Information showing the length of time continuously employed is available from the Labour Force Survey (LFS) from 1984. However, of the periods requested, it is only possible to provide accurate averages at Spring 1996. The information is provided in the following tables.

  Length of time continuously employed in Great Britain1: Spring 1984

  All2

  Manufacturing

  Services

  At least lower but less than upper band (thousands):

  Total3

  23,131

  5,767

  14,231

  3 months or less

  1,042

  251

  655

  3 to 6 months

  818

  193

  546

  6 to 12 months

  1,764

  392

  1,198

  1 to 2 years

  1,869

  437

  1,240

  2 to 5 years

  4,341

  1,062

  2,839

  5 to 10 years

  4,528

  1,290

  2,752

  10 to 20 years

  3,988

  1,185

  2,353

  20 years or more

  2,071

  703

  1,036

  1Based on employees and self-employed.2 Includes those who did not state their industry.

  3Includes those who did not state the length of time they were employed.

  Length of time continuously employed in Great Britain1: Spring 1990

  All1

  Manufacturing

  Services

  At least lower but less than upper band (thousands):

  Total3

  25,871

  5,814

  16,889

  3 months or less

  1,526

  301

  1,060

  3 to 6 months

  1,258

  243

  891

  6 to 12 months

  2,527

  519

  1,751

  1 to 2 years

  3,060

  671

  2,073

  2 to 5 years

  5,628

  1,219

  3,778

  5 to 10 years

  4,155

  931

  2,711

  10 to 20 years

  4,980

  1,184

  3,140

  20 years or more

  2,693

  740

  1,454

  1Based on employees and self-employed.2 Includes those who did not state their industry.

  3Includes those who did not state the length of time they were employed.

  176

  Length of time continuously employed in Great Britain1: Spring 1996

  All1

  Manufacturing

  Services

  Average (months)

  99

  110

  91

  At least lower but less than upper band (thousands):

  Total3

  25,225

  4.912

  17,814

  3 months or less

  1,227

  217

  899

  3 to 6 months

  1,165

  214

  870

  6 to 12 months

  2,184

  365

  1,666

  1 to 2 years

  2,838

  523

  2,103

  2 to 5 years

  4,603

  807

  3,430

  5 to 10 years

  5,167

  1,025

  3.671

  10 to 20 years

  5,054

  1,059

  3,391

  20 years or more

  2,941

  695

  1,755

  1Based on employees and self-employed.

  2Includes those who did not state their industry.

  3Includes those who did not state the length of time they were employed.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will list the figures for the change in the level of(a) employment, (b) male unemployment and (c) female unemployment since (i) November 1990 and (ii) December 1992; [2826]

  (2) if he will give figures for the change in the level of part-time (a) male, (b) female and (c) total employment and part-time employment since (i) autumn 1990 and (ii) winter 1992–93; [2821]

  (3) if he will give figures for the change in the level of full-time (a) total, (b) male and (c) female employment and full-time employment since (i) November 1990 and (ii) December 1992. [2822]

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Peter Hain, dated 12 November:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply to the Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent questions for the changes in the levels of employment and unemployment.
  Information showing the levels of employment and unemployment, broken down by full and part-time, is available from the Labour Force Survey (LFS). Information on employment is published in Table 2 of both the LFS Historical Supplement 1984–1996 and the October 1996 LFS First Release. Information on unemployment is published in Table 20 of the historical supplement and Table 9 of the First Release. Information on the number of people who are looking for work as either full or part-time employees is published in Table 28 of both the historical supplement and the LFS Quarterly Bulletin, which is next published on 18th December. Copies of these publications are available in the House of Commons Library.
  The claimant unemployment count does not distinguish between full-and part-time unemployment. Monthly seasonally adjusted counts of unemployment are available from the NOMIS database which can be accessed through the House of Commons Library.

  Entrust
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many staff are employed by Entrust and in what positions; and how many further staff appointments will be made and in what positions.[3332]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Currently, Entrust employs only an acting chief executive. He will shortly be taking on a secretary. Further staff appointments will be made on the basis of need.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many organisations have enrolled with Entrust as appropriate bodies to receive funding from landfill operators through the landfill tax credits system under the environmental trust scheme to the latest available date. [3331]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  No bodies have yet enrolled. Application forms will be issued shortly to those that have expressed an interest in enrolment.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the further directors appointed to the environmental bodies regulatory body Entrust, in addition to the appointments announced on 16 October 1996. [3329]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  In addition to the appointments announced on 16 October, two further people have accepted invitations to join the board of Entrust: Mr. Neil Caldwell, of the Prince's Trust and the Welsh Language Board, and Mr. Donald Reid, a Scottish solicitor.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many organisations have made representations regarding enrolment with Entrust as appropriate bodies to receive funding from landfill operators through the landfill tax credits system under the environmental trust scheme to the latest available date. [3330]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  As of Monday 4 November, Entrust had received 216 inquiries, of which approximately 85 per cent. were from organisations interested in enrolling.

  Births
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many live births there were in each of the last 15 years in Great Britain. [2951]

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Frank Field, dated 12 November 1996:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as the Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent question asking for the number of live births that occurred in Great Britain in each of the last fifteen years.
  178
  The figures requested are shown in the table below.

  Live births in Great Britain

  Year

  Live births

  1981

  703,546

  1982

  692,127

  1983

  694,212

  1984

  701,924

  1985

  723,093

  1986

  726,830

  1987

  747,752

  1988

  759,789

  1989

  751,205

  1990

  772,113

  1991

  766,241

  1992

  755,445

  1993

  736,755

  1994

  726,382

  1995

  708,189

  Civil Service Relocations
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he takes to monitor the impact of civil service relocations on individual localities. [1306]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 11 November 1996]: Central considerations for relocation are cost savings, employment and economic benefits.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Cetaceans (Protection)
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the number of harbour porpoises which died as a consequence of the use of monofilament nets in British waters in the last three years; and what international agreements the United Kingdom has agreed to, to ensure the protection of this and other smaller cetacean species. [2340]

  Mr. Baldry
  No reliable estimate for harbour porpoise deaths in British waters caused by monofilament nets is available. To help address this question, the Ministry is sponsoring the sea mammals research unit to develop a robust cetacean by-catch reporting scheme. SMRU is also a leading partner in an EC-funded project which will document levels of cetacean by-catch in the North sea and evaluate the likely effectiveness of a number of different management approaches aimed at reducing these by-catches.

  The UK is party to or subject to several international instruments which include measures to protect small cetaceans. They include the EC habitats directive, Council directive 92/43/EEC; the agreement on the conservation of small cetaceans of the Baltic and North seas, ASCOBANS; the convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats, the Bern convention; the convention on the conservation of migratory species of wild animals, the Bonn convention; and the convention on international trade in endangered species, CITES.

  Varroa Jacobsoni
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which areas of the country are currently assessed as being infected with varroa jacobsoni. [3597]

  Mr. Boswell
  The areas currently within the statutory infected area include all of Wales and England up to but not including the following counties: Greater Manchester, Lancashire, Cumbria, Northumberland and Tyne and Wear. During the recent search, outbreaks have also been discovered in Cumbria and Greater Manchester, but no decision has yet been taken on any changes to the extent of the SIA.

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to offer subsides to beekeepers to assist with the diagnosis and control of varroa mites on bees. [3594]

  Mr. Boswell
  The Ministry already provides a free testing and diagnosis service for varroa. The cost of treatment is borne by beekeepers.

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cases of varroasis have been reported to his Department in each year since April 1992. [3595]

  Mr. Boswell
  The annual numbers of varroa positive apiaries reported to the Ministry since April 1992 are as follows:

  Year

  Number of cases

  1992

  305

  1993

  600

  1994

  610

  1995

  988

  Up to and including September 1996

  811

  Cumulative total 3,314.

  BSE
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will list the expenditure committed to support the agricultural industry as a result of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy crisis, and the proportion of such expenditure which derives form the European Union; [3394]

  (2) if he will list, by sector, the expenditure committed as a result of the BSE crisis, separately identifying that paid to (a) abattoirs, (b) the rendering industry, (c) collection centres and (d) farmers direct; [3395]

  (3) if he will list (a) the methods by which compensation has been directed to farmers as a result of the BSE crisis, (b) the level of expenditure under these headings and (c) the amount of each expenditure item that is recoverable from the European Union.[3396]

  Mr. Boswell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 24 July,Official Report, column 533. Subsequent to that reply, additional expenditure has been agreed as follows:
  180
  Approximately £160 million from EU funds for direct support to UK beef producers. Over £100 million has already been disbursed through supplementary payments to the beef special premium and suckler cow premium schemes and through the beef marketing payments scheme.
  Some £89 million from national funds for direct support to UK beef producers. £60 million of this sum has ben earmarked for distribution to eligible cattle producers under the 1997 hill livestock compensatory allowances scheme.
  £16.6 million for extra cold storage capacity to help reduce the backlog of animals awaiting slaughter under the over-30 month scheme.

  A detailed breakdown of the latest BSE expenditure forecasts will be given in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's forthcoming Budget statement.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the impact of the BSE crisis on prices paid to farmers for beef cattle. [2451]

  Mr. Boswell
  Market prices for finished beef cattle in England and Wales have fallen by 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. since the middle of March. There have been greater price reductions for some store cattle and calves. These developments are likely to be attributable to a number of factors, some of them of a seasonal nature. It is not possible separately to identify the impact of BSE. Intervention purchases and measures announced by the Government have had the effect of limiting the extent of price reductions in the beef market and the impact on producers.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 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 such a repeal. [3781]

  Mr. Boswell
  This Ministry has already repealed or simplified a large number of regulations this year. Further measures are planned for next year. Since the effect of repealing or simplifying regulations reduces rather than increases compliance costs, CCAs are not produced. The cost of undertaking a CCA varies from case to case but is generally modest. Because part of the cost falls on the businesses consulted, a full CCA is inappropriate for measures designed to reduce business burdens.

  Food Labelling
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to receive the interim report by the Food Advisory Committee on nutritional labelling and health claims; and if he will make a statement. [3590]

  Mrs. Browning
  The Food Advisory Committee has not been asked to make an interim report on these matters. It is currently reviewing functional foods and health claims and is due to consider the issues again at its December meeting.

  Beef Farmers' Incomes
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the reduction in beef farmers' incomes since 20 March. [2583]

  Mr. Boswell
  Incomes of beef farmers in hill and upland areas are currently being considered as part of the autumn review of the economic prospects of hill farms, and forecasts of incomes for 1996–97 will be deposited in the Library of the House on 26 November.

  Estimates of 1996–97 incomes by type of farm for all farms in the United Kingdom will be published in a press notice on 31 January 1997.

  Agricultural Holdings
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans his Department has to bring the level at which agricultural holdings are deemed to be economically viable in line with Department of Social Security assessments of personal economic need; and if he will make a statement on his assessment of the advantages of such changes. [3235]

  Mr. Boswell
  The Department does not define any specific level of economic viability for agricultural holdings and there are no plans to introduce one.

  Planning Guidelines
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment his Department has made of the advantages of giving additional weight to environmental impact in determining planning restrictions on agricultural buildings. [3363]

  Mr. Boswell
  Planning authorities are already able to take full account of the environmental aspects of development proposals involving agricultural holdings.

  British Beef
  Sir Robert Hicks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he has taken since 1 August to persuade the major supermarkets and fast-food retail organisations to(a) use and (b) promote United Kingdom beef; and if he will make a statement. [1629]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 5 November 1996]: In July, I launched an initiative aimed at restoring consumer confidence in British beef, which I believe needs to start with understanding the concerns of customers and consumers. As a part of this initiative, my officials and I have held a number of discussions with leading supermarkets and fast-food businesses about the measures which the Government have taken to protect public health, and the further steps needed to restore confidence in beef. We have also held seminars with important industry groups.

  Forestry Commission (Land Sales)
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will list the plots of Forestry Commission land in Hampshire in each of the last five years which(a) were sold and (b) were offered for sale,
  182
  specifying in each case (i) which were sold without public access protected, (ii) the size of the plot and (iii) what consultation was undertaken in advance of the sale; [1968]

  (2) if he will list the plots of Forestry Commission land in Hampshire which are currently for sale, specifying in each case the size of the plot and the consultation process to be undertaken in advance of the sale. [1969]

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 4 November 1996]: The subjects of the questions relate to matters undertaken by Forest Enterprise. I have asked its chief executive, Mr. Gordon Cowie, to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Gordon M. Cowie to Mr. John Denham, dated 12 November 1996:
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply to your two Questions about Forestry Commission land in Hampshire. [1968] [1969].
  1. At Annex A I enclose a list of woodlands sold in Hampshire since 1991. There were no other cases offered for sale during this period. None of these cases were sold with public access protected.
  2. At Annex B I enclose a list of land currently for sale, either on the Open Market or by Negotiation.
  All the properties listed were notified in the Estates Gazette, and the appropriate consultations with the Local Authority took place in accordance with the Continued Public Access arrangements and Sponsorship procedures. These are explained in the Commission's Access Guidelines, a copy of which is enclosed for your information. A copy is already in the House of Commons Library.

  Annex A: Forestry Commission woodlands sold in Hampshire since 1991

  Name of Property

  Area (ha)

  1991

  Beaper Wood

  10.3

  Hill Farm Copse

  2.5

  Lower Rowborough Copse

  7.9

  Nunwell Estate (pt)

  34.7

  Roundabout Copse

  8.4

  Whitefield Copse

  2.0

  1992

  Fishpond

  7.4

  Fleming Estate, Plot 9

  11.2

  Oxlease

  8.1

  Tall Boys

  16.9

  1993

  Ashe Park Copse

  37.0

  Fleming Estate (pt)

  70.1

  1994

  Fishers Tiddles Copse

  27.5

  Fleming (pt) (road imp)

  2.0

  Itchen Wood

  5.3

  Ladycross Lodge and Peace Cottage

  0.7

  Woodhay House Copse

  5.0

  1995

  There were no sales.

  —

  1996

  Fleming Estate, Lots 1–11, 13–15

  70.0

  Pitt Down

  15.0

  183

  Annex B: Forestry Commission woodland currently for sale either on the open market or by negotiation in Hampshire

  Name of property

  Area (ha)

  Bassett Green

  1.9

  Crawley Down

  29.5

  Redcap/Catham

  14.0

  Whitelands Copse

  12.0

  Beef (Emergency Control) Order 1996
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many prosecutions have been initiated against individuals claimed to be flouting article 2 of the Beef (Emergency Control) Order 1996—statutory instrument 1996/961—and the subsequent amendments. [816]

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 6 November 1996]: This Department has not, to date, initiated any prosecutions under the article 2 of the Beef (Emergency Control) Order 1996 or its replacement orders, the Fresh Meat (Beef Controls) Regulations 1996 and the Fresh Meat (Beef Controls) (No. 2) Regulations 1996.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Prisoners (Costs)
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the current annual costs of keeping a prisoner in each of Northern Ireland's prisons; and what are the current average costs in England and Wales and Scotland. [2737]

  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.

  Letter from Alan Shannon to Mr. Tony Worthington, dated 11 November 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question about the current annual cost of keeping a prisoner in each of Northern Ireland's prisons.
  The latest available figures relate to the last financial year (1995/96) and are:

  £

  HMP Belfast

  67,023

  HMP Maze

  78,388

  HMP Magilligan

  68,802

  HMP Maghaberry

  84,579

  HM YOC

  63,597

  Forestry Grants
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has for increased financial provision in respect of proposals to increase the forest cover in the United Kingdom; what percentage of this provision is planned to be spent before May 1997; and if he will make a statement. [1846]
  184
  Mr. Ancram
  Uptake under the forestry grant schemes in Northern Ireland has increased over the past five years from around 500 ha in 1991–92 to more than 800 ha in 1995–96. Expenditure in 1995–96 was some £1.1 million and is expected to be just under £1.2 million in 1996–97. Future spending will be determined following the conclusion of the 1996 public expenditure round. Approximately 10 per cent. of annual provision is spent in each of the first two months of the financial year.

  Local Exchange Trading Schemes
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the desirability of providing financial aid and incentives to encourage rural local authorities to set up specific local exchange trading schemes to help farmers during the BSE crisis; and if he will make a statement. [2310]

  Mr. Ancram
  There have been no representations to the Department to suggest that local exchange trade schemes would be of use.

  Beach Materials (Cloghy)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what permission has been given for the removal of sand and rock from the beach at Cloghy, County Down; and if he will make a statement about the removal of beach materials. [2399]

  Mr. Moss
  None. Much of Cloghy beach is held by Ards borough council under lease from the Crown Estate Commissioners. The removal of sand and rock is therefore a matter for the council.

  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the rocks on the beach at Cloghy, County Down form part of a breakwater; and what erosion there is at the beach near No. 9 Manser road, Cloghy. [2400]

  Mr. Moss
  I understand that, while there are several small isolated lengths of rock armour along the beach at Cloghy, which offer some protection to the adjacent sea wall, no such rock armour is present opposite to 9 Manser road, where a grassed area separates the beach from the road. I am also advised that the area in question is in private ownership.

  Stalking Legislation
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consultation he has undertaken with the Home Secretary in order to have Northern Ireland included in the proposed stalking legislation. [2454]

  Sir John Wheeler
  I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the reply I gave him on 23 July 1996,Official Report, column 256. The separate Northern Ireland consultation paper was published in September, with a closing date for comments of 2 December. When all these have been received, I shall consider what legislation is required for Northern Ireland and how best to proceed.

  Fair Employment (Teachers)
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many teaching jobs otherwise exempted form the fair employment legislation are
  185
  required, by the internal guidelines of (a) the five education and library boards and (b) the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools to have appointments made under fair employment procedures. [2458]

  Mr. Ancram
  The guidance procedures to be used in individual cases is a matter for the relevant employing authority, and details are not available centrally.

  Waiting Times
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people were referred by general practitioners for(a) orthopaedic operations, (b) coronary bypass surgery and (c) coronary angiograms in each health and social services trust in Northern Ireland (i) between 1 April and 30 September 1996 and (ii) between 1 April 1995 and 31 March 1996; how many of those in (a) have been placed on a waiting list; how long they have been waiting; and what is the expected date for their operations. [2387]

  Mr. Moss
  General practitioners usually refer patients for consultant out-patient appointments in the first instance, with decisions regarding any subsequent action,

  Specialty

  Total

  Patients who had cancelled or failed to attend a previous appointment

  Patients who has not cancelled or failed to attend a previous appointment

  Time waiting of those who had not cancelled or failed to attend1

  < 6 mths Per cent.

  > 6–12 mths Per cent.

  > 12 mths + per cent.

  Orthopaedics

  3,010

  602

  2,408

  82

  9

  9

  Cardiology

  1,783

  239

  1,544

  97

  3

  1

  Cardiac Surgery

  74

  19

  55

  42

  36

  22

  1Percentages may not sum to 100 per cent. as a result of rounding. Percentages exclude a small proportion of cases where waiting time for admission was not known.

  The waiting times for admissions of elective in-patients in the trauma and orthopaedics specialty during the year ending 31 March 1996 are given in the table, with the waiting times for admission of those elective in-patients whose primary procedures in the same period were coronary bypass surgery or coronary angiogram.

  Waiting time for admission1

  Specialty

  Total

  <6 months Per cent.

  >6 <12 months Per cent.

  >12 months Per cent.

  Trauma and orthopaedics procedure

  8,988

  73

  21

  6

  Coronary bypass

  713

  65

  28

  6

  Angiogram

  974

  97

  2

  (<1)

  1Percentages may not sum to 100 per cent. as a result of rounding. Percentages exclude a small proportion of cases where waiting time for admission was not known.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the length of national health service waiting lists in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [2389]
  186
  including a decision to place on a waiting list for treatment, being taken following assessment at a consultant out-patient clinic.

  In the year ending 31 March 1996—latest figures available—there were 24,440 GP written referrals for out-patient appointments in the trauma and orthopaedics specialty and 7,676 in the cardiology specialty. Patients are not referred by GPs for coronary angiograms. The procedure which an individual patient may require is not determined until he/she is seen by the cardiologist at the first appointment. The latter information is not available centrally. In the cardiac surgery specialty, there were 823 consultant referrals for out-patient appointments. GPs do not refer directly to the cardiac surgery specialty—they refer patients to a cardiologist in the first instance. It is not possible to break down these overall Northern Ireland figures into the particular trust wherein the referring GPs are located.

  The numbers of those waiting for a first out-patient appointment at 31 March 1996 in these specialties, together with the time waiting for those who had not cancelled an appointment offered or who had not failed to attend such an appointment are given in the table:

  Mr. Moss
  The table shows that between 30 June 1995 and 30 June 1996—the latest available figures—the overall number waiting for treatment changed very little.

  Number waiting for first appointment

  For ordinary admission

  For day case admission

  June 1995

  67,750

  21,070

  14,688

  June 1996

  62,765

  21,687

  16,890

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he will take to reduce the waiting lists for coronary angiograms in each of the health and social services trusts in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [2388]

  Mr. Moss
  Information is not available on waiting lists for individual procedures. However, the table gives the number of elective in-patients who had coronary angiograms as their primary procedure in the last three years and the time they had to wait between the decision to admit them to hospital and the date of their admission. The table shows that there has been a 20 per cent. increase in the number of angiograms performed over this period.
  187

  Coronary angiograms

  Waiting time for admission1

  Total

  6 months Per cent.

  6 to 12 months Per cent.

  12 months + Per cent.

  1993–94

  814

  95

  5

  (-1)

  1994–95

  799

  96

  3

  1

  1995–96

  974

  97

  2

  (-1)

  1Percentages may not sum to 100 per cent. as a result of rounding. Percentages exclude a small proportion of cases where waiting time for admission was not known.

  Blood Spreading
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the cause of the unusual smell at Ballymaglaff road, Comber; what substances have been spread on that land; and if he will make a statement. [2444]

  Mr. Ancram
  I understand that the smell at Ballymaglaff road, Comber arose from the spreading of blood on land.

  The practice of spreading blood on land as an agricultural fertiliser is an acceptable method of disposal.

  Educational Qualifications
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps his Department is taking to ensure that the Irish Republic gives full mutual recognition to educational qualifications obtained in Northern Ireland; and what issues are outstanding. [2456]

  Mr. Ancram
  The Republic of Ireland is currently establishing new arrangements for the certification of vocational and other qualifications. Officials of my Department have initiated contact with their counterparts and will be raising issues relating to mutual recognition.

  Queen's Speech
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which of the Bills announced in the Queen's Speech and not yet published will include Northern Ireland in their extent; and what were the reasons for not including Northern Ireland in the others. [2453]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  Excluding the two Scottish measures in the Queen's Speech, nine of the remaining 12 Bills will apply wholly or in part to Northern Ireland. The nine Bills in question are: the Benefit Fraud Bill, the Compensation Recovery Bill, the Crime (Sentences) Bill, the Decommissioning Bill, the Education Bill, the Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Bill, the National Heritage Bill, the Police Bill and the Primary Health Care Bill.

  The possibility of extending the Firearms (Amendment) Bill to Northern Ireland is still being considered.

  Students
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate he has made of the effect on the number of students from the Irish Republic attending colleges in Northern Ireland of the introduction of free tuition in the Republic. [2457]

  Mr. Ancram
  None.

  Local Government Structure
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make it his policy to review Northern Ireland's local government structure so as to reform the functions and powers of the district councils in line with the proposed rearrangements for the education and library boards. [2627]

  Mr. Moss
  The Government keep the arrangements for local government in Northern Ireland under continual review. I see no case at present for reforming the functions and powers of district councils.

  IRA
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the implications for his policies on peace and reconciliation of the IRA's continuing activities. [2628]

  Mr. Ancram
  The Government's declared aim is to achieve peace, prosperity and reconciliation in Northern Ireland by pursuing a range of complementary policies, including the search for a comprehensive political settlement which can command widespread support. This has been and will continue to be the Government's policy, irrespective of the level of IRA activity.

  Stormont Talks
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the progress of the talks at Castle buildings, Stormont. [2637]

  Mr. Ancram
  The participants have all made clear their total and absolute commitment to the principles of democracy and non-violence set out in paragraph 20 of the report of the international body; they have agreed rules of procedure, established a business committee and settled the agenda for the remainder of the opening plenary. They are currently addressing proposals regarding the decommissioning of illegal weapons.

  The talks process provides the best opportunity for a generation of reaching a comprehensive and widely acceptable political settlement which could underpin lasting peace in Northern Ireland.

  Agriculture and Rural Development
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many applications were made in respect of the special programme for agriculture and rural development—SPARD—from 22 March 1995 to 24 March 1995; how many have been approved; and of these how many have received payments. [2708]
  189
  Mr. Ancram
  A total of 5,380 applications were received under the sub-programme for agriculture and rural development on 23 and 24 March 1995; 4,760 have been approved to date and, of these, 610 farmers have received payment of grant.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to expedite outstanding payments in respect of the special programme for agriculture and rural development in respect of applications which were forwarded between 22 March and 24 March.[2706]

  Mr. Ancram
  Claims for grant based on applications received on 23 or 24 March 1995 have, since 1 April 1996, been held in date order of receipt and will be paid in this order as financial resources permit. Nevertheless, the Department will make a special effort to make early payments in cases where there are exceptional circumstances. The expenditure on the SPARD schemes is monitored on a monthly basis, and if it becomes clear that the funds available are in excess of that required to pay all of the claims based on applications received prior

  Neonatal and perinatal death rates Northern Ireland

  1992

  1993

  1994

  19951

  Neonatal

  Perinatal

  Neonatal

  Perinatal

  Neonatal

  Perinatal

  Neonatal

  Perinatal

  Eastern health and social services board

  3.8

  8.7

  3.9

  7.3

  5.1

  10.7

  7.6

  12.3

  Northern health and social services board

  3.5

  7.6

  3.5

  9.4

  4.6

  9.6

  4.0

  8.5

  Southern health and social services board

  3.8

  8.5

  6.2

  8.8

  3.7

  10.0

  3.8

  8.6

  Western health and social services hoard

  5.6

  7.8

  7.5

  10.9

  2.1

  7.1

  5.0

  11.0

  Neonatal rate per 1,000 live births. Perinatal rates per 1,000 live and still-births.

  1Provisional.

  Dementia
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the status of the report "Dementia in Northern Ireland", to what extent it reflects Government policy on the matter; and what resources have been allocated to deal with the problem of dementia in each of the years 1993–94 to 1996–97. [3323]

  Mr. Moss
  "Dementia in Northern Ireland" is the report of a team brought together by the Department of Health and Social Services in 1994 to examine policy and make recommendations on the development of services. The report has been accepted by the Department and its recommendations have been adopted as the basis for its policy in this area.

  Financial provision for dementia is subsumed within overall allocations to health and social services boards, and it is a matter for each board to allocate resources within its area on the basis of assessed need and competing priorities.

  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the incidence of dementia within each of the board areas in Northern Ireland; and what the average per capita funding has been for(a) residential care and (b) respite care in each board area during the years 1993–94 to 1995–96 in respect of dementia. [3325]

  Mr. Moss
  Precise information about the incidence of dementia is not available as many sufferers are not in contact with services. However, it is estimated that in 190
  to 23 March 1995, the balance will be used to pay the outstanding claims arising from applications received on 23 or 24 March 1995.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many applications were made in respect of the special programme for agriculture and rural development from 1 April 1994 to its suspension on 22 March 1995; of these how many were approved; and what was the total cost of the approved schemes. [2707]

  Mr. Ancram
  Some 5,635 applications were received under the sub-programme for agriculture and rural development from the date the scheme opened on 14 November 1994 up to 22 March 1995; 5,586 applications have been approved and the total cost of the approved applications is £31.5 million.

  Neonatal and Perinatal Mortality
  Mr. Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the(a) neonatal and (b) perinatal mortality rates for the last four years by each health and social services board. [2669]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information is as follows:

  1994 there were 12,500 people in Northern Ireland suffering from the disease. The information requested on funding is not available.

  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what resources have been allocated towards a public awareness campaign relating to dementia. [3326]

  Mr. Moss
  Since 1991, the Department of Health and Social Services has provided funding for the Alzheimer's Disease Society in Northern Ireland, one of whose main aims is to raise public awareness of the disease.

  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the respective roles of(a) his Department, (b) the boards and (c) health trusts in dealing with the problem of dementia. [3324]

  Mr. Moss
  The Department of Health and Social Services sets and monitors strategic plans for implementation of its policy on dementia. In drawing up the regional strategy for health and social well-being 1997 to 2002, the Department has asked boards and trusts to conduct a detailed audit during 1997 of the needs of people with dementia and the services available to meet those needs. Building on this baseline, the Department intends to establish quantifiable targets for the remainder of the strategy period.

  Farmers' Income
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland 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. [1583]

  Mr. Ancram
  Estimates of farm incomes in Northern Ireland are obtained on an annual basis from the farm business survey and are published each year in "Agriculture in the United Kingdom", "Farm Incomes in the United Kingdom", the "Statistical Review of Northern Ireland Agriculture" and "Farm Incomes in Northern Ireland", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Anglo-Irish Agreement
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many recommendations have been made by the Government of the Irish Republic under article 6 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement in each year since it was signed; how many persons were appointed in each year as a result of those recommendations; and of these how many are still serving in each body. [1964]

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 1 November 1996]:

  The information now available is as follows:

  Year

  Number of recommendations

  Number of appointments resulting from recommendations

  1986

  45

  5

  1987

  21

  3

  1988

  15

  4

  1989

  6

  4

  1990

  1

  0

  1991

  21

  3

  1992

  34

  8

  1993

  30

  7

  1994

  17

  2

  1995

  53

  13

  19961

  41

  6

  1Up to 30 October 1996.

  Thirty-three of those appointments were still current as at 30 October 1996.

  The figures for recommendations relate to nominations made rather than persons nominated. Some persons were nominated a number of times.

  Orange Parade
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary are members of (i) the Orange Order and (ii) the Black Institution; and of these how many were on duty at Garvaghy road at any time during the period 6 July to 11 July. [1772]

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 6 November 1996]: It is not known how many members of the RUC are members of the Orange Order or Black Institution.

  RUC (Sick Leave)
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many members of the RUC were on sick leave in each week since 1 January. [1780]
  192
  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 6 November 1996]: The information is not available in the form requested. However, it is possible to provide information which shows the average work days lost per member of the RUC in the first three quarters of 1996:

  1 January 1996 to 31 March 1996: 3.24 days

  1 April 1996 to 30 June 1996: 3.15 days

  1 July 1996 to 30 September 1996: 3.61 days

  Further Education Colleges
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimates he has made of the sums to be spent in the current financial year, which will be contingent upon the Government gaining parliamentary consent to(a) the incorporation of the further education colleges, (b) education vouchers, and (c) its proposals on school boards. [2734]

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 11 November 1996]: Estimated expenditure contingent on parliamentary consent is:

  (a) Nil

  (b) £23,000

  There are no proposals regarding school boards.

  RUC
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to publish the RUC's fundamental review of policing; with whom he plans to discuss its findings; when decisions will be taken in respect of it, and by whom. [2736]

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 6 November 1996]: It has been necessary to re-examine the fundamental review of policing to take account of the ending of the Provisional IRA ceasefire and the public order difficulties of the summer. Once that process is completed and the review's recommendations have been approved, I shall consult the Chief Constable and the Police Authority for Northern Ireland about when the main findings will be made public as a contribution to the wider public debate on policing. Decisions on the review will fall to the members of the tripartite structure; implementation of specific recommendations will depend upon the wider environment.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to help lone parents into work. [1705]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  Successive changes to the benefits system have helped over 200,000 lone parents to move off income support into work since 1992. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has recently announced that from April 1997, we will be piloting a major new scheme, parent plus, which will involve the private sector and initially help up to 100,000 lone parents on income support who wish to return to work.

  Social Chapter
  Mr. Booth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the effect on his Department's budget of the introduction of the social chapter. [1710]

  Mr. Lilley
  Signing the social chapter would destroy jobs and so push up my Department's expenditure on benefits to the unemployed.

  Benefit Fraud Hotline
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many responses have been received by the benefits cheats hotline. [1711]

  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many calls have so far been received by the beat-a-cheat hotline. [1715]

  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what responses he has had to the beat—a—cheat hotline. [1719]

  Mr. Heald
  Since the launch on 5 August 1996, the number of calls to the national benefit fraud hotline have exceeded 91,000 in the first 12 weeks.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures have been taken to monitor the effects of the new jobseeker's allowance. [1713]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  We have set in place an extensive programme of monitoring and evaluation, to enable us to ensure that the jobseeker's allowance is achieving its policy objectives.

  State Pension
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what consultations he has had with the Government Actuary about the cost of paying the state pension from age 60 years; and if he will make a statement. [1714]

  Mr. Heald
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) earlier today.

  Mr. Forman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received in favour of a state pension age starting at 60 years. [1695]

  Mr. Heald
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State received one letter from the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) on 30 August advocating allowing people to claim state pension from age 60, but envisaging that the basic state pension would be reduced to offset the extra cost.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the future of the basic state pension. [2181]

  Mr. Heald
  I refer the hon. Member to the oral reply I gave the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) today.
  194
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which countries of the EU pay state pensions at a lower rate than the United Kingdom. [1699]

  Mr. Heald
  Because of the diverse nature of pension state schemes within the European Union, it is not possible to make a meaningful comparison.

  Child Benefit
  Sir Fergus Montgomery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the provision of child benefit. [1717]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  We have a manifesto commitment to pay child benefit to all families in respect of all children, and we have honoured that pledge. We believe that all families with dependent children should receive some help from either the tax or the benefit system, a principle recognised throughout Europe.

  Mr. Bernard Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in respect of how many children new claims for child benefit were made in each of the past 15 years; how many child benefit claims were disallowed in each of the past 15 years; and what was the estimated take-up of child benefit in each of the past 15 years. [3390]

  Mr. Mitchell
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  Child benefit take-up rates 1981–1994

  1Take-up rate for children aged 1–15

  2Take-up rate for children under age 1

  1981

  99.7

  97.9

  1982

  99.6

  97.5

  1983

  99.7

  97.0

  1984

  99.7

  98.3

  1985

  99.7

  97.0

  1986

  99.5

  97.8

  1987

  99.5

  97.8

  1988

  99.3

  96.6

  1989

  99.1

  96.9

  1990

  98.9

  97.5

  1991

  98.8

  96.9

  1992

  98.9

  96.1

  1993

  98.8

  97.3

  1994

  98.7

  95.1

  1Rates calculated from population data, Office for National Statistics.

  2Figures for children under age I reflect an average delay in claiming of six weeks and is not therefore inconsistent with the 1–15 take-up rate.

  New claims for child benefit (CHB) 1980 to 1995

  Thousands

  Total of new claims for CHB in each year

  1980

  1,093

  1981

  968

  1982

  1,020

  1983

  1,009

  1985

  1,003

  1986

  1,022

  1987

  1,033

  1988

  1,041

  1989

  997

  1990

  1,062

  1991

  1,063

  1992

  1,025

  195

  New claims for child benefit (CHB) 1980 to 1995

  Thousands

  Total of new claims for CHB in each year

  1993

  1,000

  1994

  992

  1995

  981

  1. Data are not available for 1984 due to industrial action in that year.

  2. The figures include claims made on the birth of a child, claims from families entering Great Britain and repeat claims following a period of disentitlement.

  Reduced Earnings Allowance
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many representations he has received during the past six months on the effects of the reduced earnings allowance; and if he will make a statement. [1720]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  A number of right hon. and hon. Members have written to Ministers since the amendments to regulations from 24 March which brought in fairer rules for the transfer of people on reduced earnings allowance to retirement allowance.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his latest estimate of the numbers of people who have lost entitlement to reduced earnings allowance as a result of changes to legislation. [1723]

  Mr. Evans
  The information is not available in the format requested. However, since the amendment regulations came into force from 24 March up to the end of September, approximately 21,000 over pensionable age reduced earnings allowance recipients who have given up regular employment have transferred to retirement allowance including both reviewed cases and those attaining pension age on or after 24 March.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement about the effectiveness of his Department's attempts to combat fraud in housing benefit. [1721]

  Mr. Heald
  We fully support local authorities in their efforts to prevent and detect fraud and abuse of housing benefit. In 1995–96, authorities made fraud savings of £224 million and earned £28 million in extra subsidy for their work through the incentive scheme we have introduced. In March this year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced a comprehensive strategy for tackling housing benefit fraud. We are seeking further powers to help authorities fight fraud in the benefit fraud Bill which we shall shortly lay before the House.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will report on the progress of the interdepartmental review of proposed changes to housing benefit for people living in supported accommodation. [1724]
  196
  Mr. Roger Evans
  The terms of reference for the Review of supported accommodation were announced on 22 October. We have discussed the role played by housing benefit in funding supported accommodation with housing providers, umbrella organisations, local authority associations and welfare rights groups throughout Great Britain. The anecdotal evidence is that housing benefit does meet charges for support which enables people to remain in the community. This is consistent with findings of qualitative research carried out by the centre for housing policy which ware published on 31 October. We have commissioned the centre for research in social policy at Loughborough university to carry out research attempting to quantify the extent of this expenditure whilst the interdepartmental review will continue to consider all aspects of the funding of supported accommodation and report upon where the sustainable balance should lie between social security and other funding sources in supported accommodation and, if necessary, clarify legislation.

  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to encourage further competition in the administration of housing and council tax benefits. [4111]

  Mr. Evans
  Some local authorities have expressed concern that existing legislation prevents contractors who undertake housing and council tax benefit administration from carrying out determinations of benefit entitlement. This causes unnecessary double handling of claims and reduces the efficiency of contracts which local authorities are able to negotiate. We therefore propose to allow contractors to perform such determinations. In particular, this will enable local authorities to run pilots to establish whether they would wish to see such work permanently contracted out.

  This change, allied to the proposals which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has announced today for changes to the compulsory competitive tendering framework for local authority professional services and housing management, will create a climate in which local authorities are able to negotiate more efficient arrangements for the administration of these benefits.

  We will open consultations shortly with the local authority associations with a view to bring forward an order under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994.

  Benefits Agency Medical Services
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will make a statement on the contractorisation of the Benefits Agency medical services; [1722]
  197
  (2) if companies invited to take over the work of the Benefits Agency medical services will be encouraged to take over the adjudication functions of the agency; [766]

  (3) what proposals his Department has to contract out the adjudication function of the Benefits Agency medical services. [736]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Many adjudicating medical practitioners are already fee-paid doctors working under contract. It is proposed to include the adjudication functions of the Benefits Agency medical services in the scope of work to be contracted out. This will be set out in the statement of service requirements to be issued shortly by the Benefits Agency. Including the medical adjudication function in the contract offers the greatest prospect of increased efficiency, while safeguarding the integrity and standards of decision making and protecting customers' rights. Decisions must continue to be taken as now in accordance with the facts and the law, with rights of appeal to an independent body.

  We see no reason in principle to rule out involvement of the private sector in decision making. But we will want to examine this very carefully on a case-by-case basis to ensure that standards of decision making are maintained or improved. We make no presumption about the future extent of private sector involvement.

  Independent Living Fund
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will require the independent living fund to make payments which take into account the employer's responsibilities in respect of recipients who employ their own care staff. [1725]

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he proposes to take to ensure that payments from the independent living fund cover employer's liabilities in the same way as direct payments from local authorities under the Community Care (Direct Payments) Act 1996 will do. [2427]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  We have no plans to do so. The trustees of the independent living funds have discretion to make payments towards client's care costs, and they currently help over 15,000 severely disabled people at a cost of £115 million.

  Means-tested Benefits
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the number of people dependent on means-tested benefits,(a) at present and (b) in 1979. [1712]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  There were 8.45 million recipients of one or more income-related benefits in May 1995. A direct comparison with 1979 is not possible.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received since announcing the outcome of his review into the 198
  system of cold weather payments, with specific reference to the highlands and islands of Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [1716]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Since the changes were announced on 14 October, we have received one representation relating to the highlands and islands of Scotland, from the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye.

  Benefits (Domestic Pets)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy to include an element in social security payments for the upkeep of a domestic pet. [1718]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  No. Income support does not identify separate amounts for specific expenditure items. Claimants are free to manage their income according to their preferences.

  Family Incomes
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the income that an average family in rented accommodation needs to be better off than with nobody in employment receiving(a) the jobseeker's allowance and (b) income support. [2816]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  People in work on low incomes will usually be entitled to housing and council tax benefits to help ensure work is worthwhile.

  A wide range of factors can affect a family's income in and out of work and it is difficult to illustrate the effect of these by using a single typical family as an example. A range of examples is provided in the published tax benefit model tables, April 1996, a copy of which is available in the Library. The April 1996 tables do not cover jobseeker's allowance, but the position will be the same for this purpose as for families receiving income support.

  Benefit Statistics
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many households received(a) means-tested benefits, (b) income support, (c) family credit, (d) housing benefit and (e) council tax benefit in (i) 1992 and (ii) 1996, in respect of (1) each region in Great Britain and (2) Great Britain as a whole; and what proportion of the total number of households this represented in each case; [3327]

  (2) how many households received (i) any means-tested benefit, (ii) income support, (iii) family credit,(iv) housing benefit and (v) council tax benefit in (a) 1992 and (b) 1996 in each standard region of Great Britain and in Great Britain as a whole; and what proportion of the total number of households this represented in each case. [3100]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The information is not available in the format requested. A breakdown of family credit date by Government standard statistical region could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Such information as is available is in the tables:
  199

  Table 1: Numbers on means-tested benefits—May 1992

  Thousands

  One or more means-tested benefit

  Income support

  Family credit

  Housing benefit

  Community charge benefit

  Great Britain

  8,410

  5,088

  397

  4,325

  6,564

  England

  7,040

  4,282

  325

  3,569

  5,561

  Scotland

  930

  519

  47

  539

  657

  Wales

  440

  287

  25

  217

  346

  Standard GSS region

  North

  n/a

  318

  n/a

  304

  458

  North West

  n/a

  693

  n/a

  547

  890

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  n/a

  463

  n/a

  411

  667

  East Midlands

  n/a

  321

  n/a

  266

  457

  West Midlands

  n/a

  493

  n/a

  400

  681

  East Anglia

  n/a

  143

  n/a

  127

  209

  South East (ex London)

  n/a

  706

  n/a

  574

  957

  London (Inner and Outer)

  n/a

  792

  n/a

  659

  764

  South West

  n/a

  353

  n/a

  282

  479

  DSS administrative regions

  Northern

  n/a

  n/a

  72

  n/a

  n/a

  North Western

  n/a

  n/a

  65

  n/a

  n/a

  Midlands

  n/a

  n/a

  74

  n/a

  n/a

  East Anglia and South East

  n/a

  n/a

  83

  n/a

  n/a

  South West

  n/a

  n/a

  32

  n/a

  n/a

  Table 2: Proportion of households on means-tested benefits—May 1992

  Per cent.

  One or more means-tested benefit

  Income support

  Family credit

  Housing benefit

  Community charge benefit

  Great Britain

  29

  18

  1

  15

  23

  England

  28

  17

  1

  14

  22

  Scotland

  36

  20

  2

  21

  25

  Wales

  32

  21

  2

  16

  25

  Table 3: Numbers on means-tested benefits—May 1995

  Thousands

  One or more means-tested benefit

  Income support

  Family credit

  Housing benefit

  Council tax benefit

  Great Britain

  8,440

  5,670

  608

  4,734

  5,624

  England

  7,090

  4,790

  504

  3,953

  4,756

  Scotland

  890

  555

  68

  543

  581

  Wales

  460

  325

  36

  238

  288

  Standard GSS region

  North

  n/a

  354

  n/a

  322

  393

  North West

  n/a

  757

  n/a

  597

  766

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  n/a

  513

  n/a

  438

  545

  East Midlands

  n/a

  357

  n/a

  287

  375

  West Midlands

  n/a

  548

  n/a

  425

  558

  East Anglia

  n/a

  163

  n/a

  140

  178

  South East (Ex London)

  n/a

  781

  n/a

  650

  803

  London (Inner and Outer)

  n/a

  936

  n/a

  774

  741

  South West

  n/a

  380

  n/a

  320

  397

  DSS administrative regions

  Northern

  n/a

  n/a

  110

  n/a

  n/a

  North Western

  n/a

  n/a

  97

  n/a

  n/a

  Midlands

  n/a

  n/a

  113

  n/a

  n/a

  East Anglia and South East

  n/a

  n/a

  136

  n/a

  n/a

  South West

  n/a

  n/a

  47

  n/a

  n/a

  200 201

  Table 4: Proportion of households on means-tested benefits-May 1995

  Per cent.

  One or more means-tested benefit

  Income support

  Family credit

  Housing benefit

  Council tax benefit

  Great Britain

  29

  19

  2

  16

  19

  England

  28

  19

  2

  16

  19

  Scotland

  35

  22

  3

  21

  23

  Wales

  31

  22

  2

  16

  19

  Notes:

  1. Numbers have been rounded to the nearest thousand, except figures for one or more means-tested benefit which are rounded to the nearest ten thousand. Due to rounding totals may not tally.

  2. Sample sizes: income support/family credit 5 per cent. Housing benefit/council tax benefit 1 per cent.

  3. Means-tested benefits are defined as income support, family credit, housing benefit, and community charge benefit/council tax benefit.

  4. Household information is not available since benefits are paid to a benefit unit. A benefit unit may be a single person or a couple. There may be more than one benefit unit within a household.

  5. Overlaps between benefits have been taken into account in producing the number of benefit units receiving one or more means-tested benefit. There will be a considerable overlap between individual benefit numbers, as a person may receive one or more means-tested benefit.

  6. Council tax benefit replaced community charge benefit from April 1993.

  7. English regions used for income support, housing benefit, community charge benefit and council tax benefit are Government standard statistical regions. For family credit these are DSS administrative regions.

  8. Housing benefit/community charge/council tax benefit figures include estimates due to the data collection procedure in Scotland.

  9. n/a = not applicable.

  Sources:

  1. Income support statistics quarterly enquiry May 1995.

  2. Income support statistics annual enquiry 1992.

  3. Family credit 5 per cent. sample of awards.

  4. Housing benefit management information system annual 1 per cent. sample enquiries, with and without income support taken at the end of May of each year given.

  5. Office of national statistics, family resources survey, family expenditure survey.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the rules and regulations he proposes to repeal or amend by means of reference to the Deregulation Committee before the end of 1996; and if he will make a statement. [3783]

  Mr. Heald
  The Department has no plans to repeal or amend any rules or regulations by means of reference to the Deregulation Committee by the end of 1996.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on his plans for proceeding with the privatisation of the departmental estate. [4047]

  Mr. Lilley
  The three shortlisted bidders have today been issued with an invitation to negotiate along with supporting documentation about the Department's property assets and accommodation requirements. The bidders are being asked to make proposals according to the principles of the private finance initiative where the emphasis is on service delivery to specified standards rather than detailed specification of how the services are to be delivered. Overall, the aim of the transfer is to enable the Department to make significant savings in the costs of accommodation services, in part through lower service charges and in part through an immediate return to the taxpayer reflecting the value of these assets. The assets are to be transferred to the successful bidder which will be required to provide a payment of £250 million on completion of the contract to realise immediately an appropriate proportion of their underlying value. The Government also expect that the private sector will be able to provide accommodation services more effectively than if they had remained in-house and will be better able to realise additional development potential. The service 202
  charge will therefore reflect this greater efficiency and development potential and the costs to the bidder of raising the capital sum. Specifying a set capital payment will, however, simplify the bidding process for both the bidders and Government and reduce the financial risk to the Government over the lifetime of the contract.

  Compensation Reforms
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to ensure that proposals to reform compensation recovery are implemented in the current parliamentary Session. [1613]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) on 7 November,Official Report, columns 681–82.

  Building Societies
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to the letter of 14 October from the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, what external legal advice he has received on potential discrimination caused by(a) payment of bonus shares being made only once to a named building society member and (b) building society requirements that a person with a mental impairment incapable of handling his own affairs is unable to be the first or sole named person on an account. [2748]

  Mr. Burt
  None. As with all legislation, it is for individual service providers to seek any legal advice they might require on their responsibilities.

  Mr. Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish in the Official Report the letter of 14 October from the Minister of State for Social Security and Disabled People relating to the question of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and building societies. [2749]
  203
  Mr. Burt
  Yes. The letter reads as follows:Thank you for your letter of 23 July concerning disabled people and building societies. I apologise for the delay in providing a full reply but, as I explained in my letter of 30th September, these matters are both important and complex. They have, therefore, necessitated investigation with the Treasury, the Building Societies Commission and the Building Societies Association.
  The question of the treatment of some disabled customers by building societies first arose earlier in the summer in discussions between my officials and representatives of disability organisations. The NDS has also been taking an interest.
  The main problem concerns building society accounts held by disabled people but operated under a power of attorney. In certain circumstances, where the account is held in the name of the attorney, it may be that the disabled person does not receive an allocation of bonus shares on the flotation of a society. This would therefore appear to be less favourable treatment contrary to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA).
  First I should explain that it is not always the case that the person with power of attorney necessarily becomes the member of a building society. An individual may appoint an attorney to deal with his account. However, if the account is held in the name of that individual he or she will remain the member. Alternatively if the account is opened by and held in the name of the attorney then the attorney would be the member and, therefore, be the person entitled to vote and to receive the benefits of membership.
  Similarly, a trustee or someone else acting on behalf of a disabled person may be the sole or first named person on the building society account, which would mean that they, rather than the disabled person, would be entitled to privileges of membership including the payment of bonus shares or cash.
  It is not discriminatory in itself for payment of bonus shares or cash to be made to someone acting on behalf of a disabled person rather than the disabled person himself. A trustee, attorney or other person first named on an account is under an obligation to account to the beneficial owner of the account for any benefits received. The individual should not suffer financially and is not receiving the service (the perks of membership) on less favourable terms.
  Further, the payment of bonus shares or cash to the first named member is a requirement under the Building Societies Act 1986. Therefore the building societies would be acting "in pursuance of an enactment" and would come with section 59 of the DDA. This section provides that if you are required to do something under another law this takes precedence over anything required by the DDA. In any event, the practice in itself is unlikely to be discriminatory for the reasons set out above.
  The difficulty comes in the situation that you identify in your letter, where the attorney or other trustee or first named person also has an account in his or her own right and receives a single benefit in respect of both accounts. This is usually the result of a society's decision to make its distribution scheme "member based", that is to say, linked to the entitlement of a member to vote on the transfer proposals (in building societies, as mutual organisations, members have by law only one vote regardless of the amount held in an account or of the number of accounts held). In the case of the Chelternham & Gloucester, however, the society elected to make its scheme "account based", with each qualifying account, rather than each qualifying member, being entitled to receive a cash payment calculated in accordance with the terms of that scheme, so that a member with a number of different accounts received a payment in respect of each account.
  The decisions as to which type of transfer arrangement and scheme to adopt is one for the society—and for its members—to vote on. It is not a statutory requirement in the same way as the payment of bonus shares or cash to the first named member.
  The payment of bonus shares being made only once to each named member, however many accounts he may have on his own or others' behalf. may well result in discrimination contrary to the DDA, in that a disabled person may not receive the benefits of membership in the same way as a non-disabled person.
  204
  Finally, if it is a building society's requirement that a person with a mental impairment. who is not capable of handling his own affairs, cannot be the first or sole named on the account, it is possible that there is discrimination under the DDA. The disabled person is being offered less favourable terms, for a reason relating to his disability. because he does not have the same choices in the opening of his account. However, this less favourable treatment may be justified under section 20(4)(b) of the DDA. If a building society reasonably believes that a disabled person is incapable of entering into an enforceable agreement, it would seem reasonable to treat that person differently in the opening of his account and require that someone capable deals with these important matters on his behalf. Regulations provide, however, that this subsection does not apply where an attorney is acting on behalf of a disabled person.
  As you are aware, the relevant sections of the DDA do not come into force until the 2nd of December. If, after this date, a disabled person can show that they have received less favourable treatment in terms of not receiving the benefits of membership, he or she may be able to argue that they have been unjustifiably discriminated against contrary to the DDA. Ultimately, it will be for the courts to decide whether discrimination has occurred.
  I understand that the Building Societies Association has already identified a number of these issues and will shortly be issuing guidance to it members. I will be taking steps to ensure that both the Building Societies Association and the Building Societies Commission are aware of all the potential issues.
  Thank you for this opportunity to explain the situation. I apologise again for the delay in replying.

  Incapacity and Unemployment Benefits
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people failed to qualify for(a) incapacity benefit and (b) unemployment benefit in (i) 1994–95 and (ii) 1995–96 because they failed the contribution conditions for benefit; and in each case, how many of these failed (1) the first contribution condition and (2) the second contribution condition. [2781]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table:

  Number

  Claimants who failed the contribution conditions and were refused incapacity benefit from April 1995 to March 1996

  1389,000

  Unemployed claimants as at 11 May 1995 not in receipt of unemployment benefit who failed the contribution conditions

  21,127,000

  Unemployed claimants as at 9 May 1996 not in receipts of unemployment benefit who failed the contribution conditions

  21,081,000

  Source:

  1Monthly scan of incapacity benefit computer.

  2Five per cent. sample of unemployed claimants.

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the impact of the Social Security Benefit (Computation of Earnings) Regulations 1996 and the Social Security (Invalid Care Allowance) Amendment Regulations 1996; how many people he estimates will(a) gain and (b) suffer financial loss as a result of these regulations; and what are the revenue projections relating to these measures. [2785]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  There are insufficient data on which to base reliable estimates. However, we anticipate that the numbers of gainers and losers will be small. The revenue implications of the regulations are expected to be broadly cost neutral.

  Disability Working Allowance
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of(a) the cost and (b) the numbers gaining from raising the lower capital threshold from £3,000 to £8,000 for disability working allowance claims. [2784]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The estimated cost of raising the lower capital limit for disability working allowance from £3,000 to £18,000 is approximately £1 million at 1996–97 prices and benefit levels, for around 1,000 cases.

  Notes
  1. The 1994–95 family resources survey has been used to estimate the effect of this proposal. However the data do not contain a sufficient number of DWA cases to allow the direct modelling of DWA options on the policy simulation model. Instead, the changes have been modelled using all childless benefit units as a proxy for DWA cases without children, and all family credit benefit units as a proxy for DWA cases with children.
  2. The use of proxy groups means that these estimates are subject to relatively wide margins of error. Estimates will only be accurate to the extent that the proxy groups have the same characteristics as DWA cases, which is unlikely to hold in reality. Estimates should be treated with caution.
  3. Estimated expenditure is rounded to the nearest £1 million, with caseloads to the nearest 1,000.
  4. The figures should be treated only as broad estimates and not as actual.

  Derelict Property, Romford Road
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans his Department has for the future use of the derelict property it formerly occupied at 544 Romford road, London E12.[3280]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  None, as the Department's lease on the property expired in 1991.

  Pension Liabilities
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when, and in what form, he proposes to reply to the first report of the Social Security Select Committee, HC23, Session 1996–97, on unfunded pension liabilities in the EU. [3529]

  Mr. Lilley
  We propose to respond in the usual way within the normal period of three months of the original publication date.

  Benefits Agency (Emergency Payments)
  Mr. Redmond
  To asked the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement about the work load of the out-of-hours emergency payments service of the Benefits Agency area directorate covering(a) the Yorkshire and Humberside area (b) Doncaster and
  (c) Mexborough for the financial years (i) 1995–96 and (ii) 1996–97 to date. [2718]

  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. Martin Redmond, dated 11 November 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking if he will make a statement about the workload of the out of hours emergency
  206
  payments service of the Benefits Agency Area Directorate covering (a) the Yorkshire and Humberside Area (b) Doncaster and (c) Mexborough for financial years (i) 1995–96 and (ii) 1996–97 to date.
  Information is not available in the format requested. Statistics are collated at Area Directorate level and not by office. From April 1996, the two area Directorates of "South Yorkshire and Humberside" (which included Doncaster and Mexborough) and "North and West Yorkshire" merged to form Yorkshire Area Directorate (AD).
  I have provided the number of referrals to the Out of Hours Service (OOHS) for the year April 1995 to March 1996 and the latest collated figures for Yorkshire AD for the period 1 April 1996 and 13 October 1996.
  It should be noted that a referral means any contact by a customer or third party. Approximately 50% of the referrals require a visit by Benefits Agency staff.

  Referrals to OOHS

  1995–96

  South Yorkshire and Humberside

  1.878

  North and West Yorkshire

  2,533

  1 April 1996 to 13 October 1996

  Yorkshire

  2,183

  These figures are provisional and subject to change. I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Peter Sutton
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if all the benefit claimants affected by computer error referred to in his Department's response of 12 August to correspondence on behalf of Peter Sutton have been contacted and, where applicable, reimbursed and compensated for the error; and what was the total value of both(a) arrears of benefit and (b) compensation paid. [3107]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  This is an operational 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 11 November 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking if all the benefit claimants affected by computer error referred to in his Department's response of 12th August to correspondence on behalf of Peter Sutton have been contacted and, where applicable, reimbursed and compensated for the error; and what was the total value of both arrears of benefit and compensation paid.
  The exercise to contact the 12,325 benefit customers affected by the computer fault is continuing. I can confirm that 2088 awards have been revised from the statistics received so far from Benefit Agency Offices. The information requested is not available as the statistics relate specifically to the number of cases where all action has been completed and not to the number of customers contacted. Full details of the current information received are in the following table:
  207

  Total number of cases identified

  Number revised

  Amount underpaid £000

  Number of compensation claims

  Number of compensation claims so far awarded

  Amount of compensation paid £000

  Retirement pension and windows' benefit

  6,741

  1,392

  821

  1,039

  336

  24

  Invalidity benefit

  5,583

  696

  133

  156

  41

  2.7

  Figures are provisional and subject to change.
  Compensation will be payable in any case where the benefit arrears amount to over £50, the amount of compensation exceeds £5 and the delay in payment is more than eight months (retirement pension) or seven months (widows' benefit and invalidity benefit) from the date of entitlement to the revised rate of benefit.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Benefits Agency (Public Caller Offices)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many Benefits Agency public caller offices are scheduled to(a) close and (b) have their opening hours reduced in order to reduce administrative costs in the three years to March 1999. [2118]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Gordon Prentice, dated 11 November 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent parliamentary Question asking the Secretary of State how many Benefits Agency (BA) public caller offices are scheduled to (a) close and (b) have their opening hours reduced in order to reduce administrative costs in the three years to March 1999.
  In the period April to October 1996 16 BA public caller offices were closed and 2 had their opening hours reduced. From November 1996 to March 1999, 17 BA public caller offices are currently scheduled to close and 3 are currently scheduled to have their opening hours reduced.
  Consultation with customers and customers' representatives always takes place before the closure of any BA public caller office.
  We are directing our resources to where they are needed most, and BA District Managers, using their local knowledge, will continue to review, on an on-going basis, the service they provide to maximise service to the public and provide value for money to the tax payer. Since the advent of Job Seekers' Allowance, unemployed customers also have access to enquiry facilities sited in over 1000 Employment Services Job Centres.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

WALES

  BSE (Compensation)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage and total amount of BSE eradication and compensation scheme expenditure has been received by(a) farmers, (b) slaughterers, (c) renderers and (d) other recipients; and if he will make a statement. [2162]

  Mr. Hague
  [holding answer 6 November 1996]: Between April and the end of October 1996, the total UK expenditure on BSE eradication and compensation schemes broken down by recipients was as follows:
  208

  £ million

  Per cent.

  (a) Farmers

  477

  68

  (b) Slaughterers

  97

  14

  (c) Renderers

  78

  11

  (d) Other recipients

  48

  7

  700

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the total expenditure to date on the BSE eradication and compensation schemes; and if he will make a statement. [2166]

  Mr. Hague
  [holding answer 6 November 1996]: The total UK expenditure to date is £700 million. Most of this expenditure has been on the over-30-month slaughter scheme, the calf processing scheme, the additional EU compensation package—beef special premium scheme and suckler cow premuim scheme top-up, beef marketing payment scheme—the beef stocks transfer scheme, the animal feed recall scheme, aid to renderers, emergency aid to the slaughtering sector.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list(a) the methods by which compensation has been directed to farmers in Wales since the onset of the BSE crisis, (b) the level of expenditure in Wales under each of these headings and (c) the amount of each expenditure item in Wales that is recoverable from the European Union.[3393]

  Mr. Hague
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 24 July 1996,Official Report, columns 532–33. Subsequent to that reply, additional expenditure has been agreed as follows:
  Approximately £160 million from EU funds for direct support to UK beef producers. Over £100 million—of this, £10.46 million in Wales-has already been disbursed through supplementary payments to the beef special premium and suckler cow premium schemes and through the beef marketing payments scheme.
  Some £89 million from national funds for direct support to UK beef producers. £60 million of this sum has been earmarked for distribution to eligible cattle producers under the 1997 hill livestock compensatory allowance scheme.
  £16.6 million for extra cold storage capacity to help reduce the backlog of animals awaiting slaughter under the over-30-month scheme.

  Disaggregated levels of expenditure for Wales are not held by the Intervention Board executive agency which is responsible for running the majority of BSE-related schemes in the UK. A detailed breakdown of the latest BSE expenditure forecasts will be given in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's forthcoming Budget statement.

  GP Fundholding
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many applications for fundholding status he is considering from general practitioners in Wales; and if he will make a statement.[2267]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Applications from 25 practices have been accepted and they are now preparing to start fundholding from next April.

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of the population within each health district are presently covered by general practitioner fundholding practices.[3187]

  Mr. Jones
  The latest available figures are given in the following table.

  Health authority area

  Percentage of people registered with a doctor who are covered by a fundholding practice

  Bro Tag

  42

  Dyfed Powys

  73

  Gwent

  50

  Morgannwg

  56

  North Wales

  44

  Wales

  52

  Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many cases of MRSA have been recorded in the Royal Gwent hospital in each of the last five years broken down by age bands of 10 years; and if he will make a statement; [2899]

  (2) how many (a) cases and (b) deaths from MRSA have been recorded in Wales in each of the last five years broken down in each case by age bands of 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [2888]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  There were two, two and 53 cases of MRSA recorded by the Royal Gwent laboratory in 1994, 1995 and 1996—up to 22 July—respectively. No breakdown of these data by age band is available centrally. Information relating to Wales is given in the following table.

  Laboratory confirmed cases of MRSA in Wales

  Age group

  1994

  1995

  19961

  Under 1

  2

  3

  8

  1 to 4

  1

  3

  7

  5 to 14

  —

  3

  10

  15 to 24

  16

  13

  51

  25 to 34

  17

  24

  88

  35 to 44

  21

  17

  85

  45 to 54

  23

  29

  99

  55 to 64

  26

  33

  157

  65 and over

  251

  270

  1,265

  Not known

  184

  47

  330

  Total

  541

  442

  2,100

  Source:

  CDSC Welsh unit MRSA surveillance programme in Wales.

  Notes:
  Completeness of reporting by laboratories is variable. Increased emphasis was placed on reporting in 1996 and additional features requested. Data may include some GP referrals. The numbers
  210
  indicated are patients identified with MRSA, only a proportion of these will have clinical illness—estimated at 50 per cent.—due to MRSA infection, the remainders will be carriers of the organism. 1To 4 November.

  Figures for the number of deaths are not currently available. Work being undertaken by the Office for National Statistics may provide some data in due course.

  Prescribed Drugs
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the average(a) number of types and (b) quantity of preparations taken by people in Wales in each of the last five years broken down by (a) gender and (b) age bands of 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [2884]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  No estimate has been made.

  Nursery Vouchers
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many submissions he has received(a) in favour and (b) opposed to nursery school vouchers in the last two years. [3224]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The Government's intention of increasing provision for four-year-olds has been welcomed. Submissions in favour of a voucher scheme as a means of giving effect to those proposals have not been solicited, although there has been one specific letter of support. In addition to ministerial correspondence, the Welsh Office has received some 4,500 letters and almost 60 petitions in opposition to the scheme. The large amount of correspondence against the scheme is not surprising as it is clear from the letters that there have been many misunderstandings and much misinformation.

  Crown Estate
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of the land in Wales is owned by the Crown Estate; and what environmental regulations apply to this land. [3283]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The Crown Estate in Wales extends to 67,466 acres, of which 63,509 acres are subject to commoners rights.

  Environmental regulations covering this land will depend upon its designation.

  Secondees and Consultants
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) secondees and (b) consultants are working for his Department on (i) private finance initiative arid (ii) other issues; and at what cost to public funds in (1) the current financial year and (2) 1997–98. [3673]

  Mr. Hague
  Thirteen people are currently on secondment to my Department, at a total cost in 1996–97 of £351,500. One is working on the private finance initiative. My Department plans to spend around £880,000 on external consultants in 1996–97, including £130,000 on PFI-related work. Plans for expenditure on inward secondments and external consultancy in 1997–98 have not yet been decided.

  Gwent Health Authority
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Gwent health authority concerning a recent dispute relating to the appointment of a senior manager; [3674]

  (2) what requests he has received from the chairman of the Gwent health authority for approval of an ex gratia severance payment to a senior manager appointed in January 1996; and if he will make a statement. [3675]

  Mr. Hague
  I wrote to the chairman after I received a copy of the report of the inquiry into the appointment. No proposal to make a severance payment has been received.

  University Hospital of Wales
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what secondment he has given to the former chief nurse of the university hospital of Wales; and if he will make a statement on the financial arrangements. [3676]
  212
  Mr. Hague
  The former chief nurse is working on a collaborative project managed by the trust, college of medicine and my Department on the developing role of the clinical nurse. It fulfils part of the remit of the task force on continuing education and practice chaired by the chief nursing officer. Costs are shared by the participants, with the trust paying for her salary until 31 May 1997.

  South and East Wales Ambulance NHS Trust
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 1 November,Official Report, column 295, if he will arrange for a copy of the district auditor's report into the accounts of the South and East Wales Ambulance NHS trust to be placed in the Library. [3671]

  Mr. Hague
  Yes. A copy is now available in the Library of the House.

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

Lord Paul
Swraj Paul, Esquire, having been created Baron Paul, of Marylebone in the City of Westminster, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Haskel and the Baroness Smith of Gilmorehill.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale
Miss Meta Ramsay, having been created Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale, of Langside in the City of Glasgow, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Baroness Lockwood and the Lord Haskel.

Modern Language Teachers: Recruitment
2.58 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to increase the number of modern language teachers.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, we established the Teacher Training Agency to bring together work on teacher recruitment with other functions designed to improve the quality of teaching. Last week the agency published a strategy paper on teacher recruitment. The paper contains specific proposals to increase the recruitment of modern language teachers alongside more general measures to increase teacher recruitment.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, as the Government have been trying for some three years without success to increase the number of trainee teachers in modern foreign languages and have even failed to meet their own targets by 14 per cent., is it not time to introduce new incentives? I was glad to hear the Minister say that modern foreign languages are included in the recently announced scheme. Do the Government believe that the scrapping of the bursaries which were available to trainees in subjects where there are shortages has had any effect?
Lord Henley: My Lords, obviously, that is a matter that we should examine; but I do not believe that we have in any way reached crisis point. We are moving towards a future shortage but I understand that throughout the entire country at present there are a mere
864
72 vacancies in modern language teaching. We should like to do more, and that is why last week we announced the publication of the teacher training consultation document. I shall ensure that a copy is sent to the noble Lord because he might wish to make a number of comments on it.
We replaced the bursary scheme with almost £8 million-worth of support for locally focused recruitment activity through the priority subject recruitment scheme. We shall have to examine that scheme to see how well it works. However, I welcome any suggestions from the noble Lord, and I shall send him a copy of the consultation document.
Baroness Brigstocke: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that the affiliation to the Technical Colleges Trust of 30 language colleges will help to boost the number of modern language teachers? These new language colleges have special responsibilities for developing good modern language teaching practice which can be followed by other schools.
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend is right to draw the attention of the House to the success of the language college initiative. It will not immediately increase the number of modern language teachers but I hope that over the years it will increase the number of those emerging from the schools with skills in modern languages. One hopes that in due course that will lead to an increase in the number of teachers. I hope that those who are interested will take the opportunity to visit a language college near them in order to see how well it is doing in delivering the national curriculum with an extra focus on modern language teaching.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, what is being done to encourage more part-time assistants from our European partners? Is the noble Lord aware that it is much better for a foreign language to be taught by a national of the country concerned?
Lord Henley: My Lords, that is true. The Teacher Training Agency will examine the possibility of recruiting native speakers within this country to teach foreign languages and overseas-trained teachers who could be trained on the job. It is a matter which the Teacher Training Agency can and will address.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, it is a fact (is it not?) that the DfEE's target initial training intake—which is an ugly term with an even worse acronym—for modern languages for 1996–97 is 2,250. Can the Minister tell the House how many of those places have been taken up; and if the figure is under 2,250, why is that and what is being done about it?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I and I believe the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, made clear, we are not meeting our recruitment targets, but we have not yet reached a crisis point. I can assure the noble Lord that last year applications for post-graduate training courses in modern languages rose by some 7 per cent. As there is

865
a possibility of future shortages, the Teacher Training Agency made its recent announcement, and as I promised to send a copy of the consultation document to the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, I shall send exactly the same document to the noble Lord, Lord Morris.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, what I asked about and what I should like to know is the exact number that have been recruited so far against that target. If the Minister would care to write to me with a reply, I should be very much obliged.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I shall be delighted to write to the noble Lord on that particular point.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, the Minister has twice mentioned the word "crisis". Perhaps he will tell the House what he would describe as a crisis as regards the shortage of modern language teachers. I hope that the Minister and the Government will agree that French, German and Russian are of supreme importance in the present world. In January of this year, the number of vacancies was 82, if I remember rightly, or 86; and, if I understood what the Minister said correctly, that has increased by two. If it is not yet a crisis, it must be getting close to it.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I should not wish to follow the noble Lord as regards his suggestions of what are the priority languages. The reason that I said there is not a crisis is that nationwide, we have 72 vacancies. That is a fairly small number. It is 0.5 per cent. However, I have announced a number of measures which the Teacher Training Agency is taking. I hope that in time those measures will yield results. But I do not believe that one can describe a shortage of 0.5 per cent. as a crisis situation.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, will my noble friend tell the House whether modern languages include the languages of Asia?
Lord Henley: My Lords, all modern languages include all languages which are spoken at the moment. Earlier, my noble friend Lady Brigstocke mentioned the language colleges. I believe that the Dartmouth Grammar School, which is a language school, teaches not only the European languages but three or four different Asiatic languages: Japanese, Mandarin Chinese, one language from the Indian sub-continent and I believe one other.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the second most widely spoken international language in the world is Spanish, and that there is no shortage of people with an ability to teach that language in this country?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for bringing his expertise in Spanish, and particularly in South American matters, to the attention of the House.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that for every Spanish teacher in
866
this country, we have 12 people teaching French? Could we not cancel a lot of those speakers and get down to speaking Russian, Chinese, Japanese and even Spanish?
Lord Henley: My Lords, different arguments have been put forward for a number of different languages. Traditionally in this country we have focused more on the teaching of French, but I understand my noble friend's concern about the teaching of Spanish and a whole array of different languages. However, I suspect that I could waste the time of the House in arguing about the merits of all the different modern languages which it may be advisable to teach in our schools.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it used to be said that the language of optimists was Russian, but if you were a pessimist, you should learn Chinese?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am not sure that I would necessarily follow what the noble Lord says about those two particular languages. However, perhaps the noble Lord remembers the comments of Emperor Charles V about the different languages he used in speaking to women, men, his lovers and his horses.

Birmingham Northern Relief Road and Western Orbital Route
3.7 p.m.
The Earl of Bradford The Earl of Bradford asked Her Majesty's Government, further to their answers of 1st March 1995 (H.L. Deb., WA 99) what progress has been made in the construction of the Birmingham northern relief road and the western orbital route.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, the public inquiry into the proposals for the Birmingham northern relief road ended in October last year. The Secretaries of State for the Environment and Transport are awaiting the inspector's report. The western orbital route was transferred to the longer-term programme in November 1995 and work on it was stopped at that time.
The Earl of Bradford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that fractionally encouraging response. However, is he aware of how much the timescale has slipped further since my Written Question of March 1995? Estimates of the continual traffic jams through the middle of Birmingham amount to an annual cost of between £200 million and £400 million. Is he aware also of the loss of credibility to the whole of the West Midlands area caused by those continual traffic jams at a time when many people are trying hard to create new jobs to replace those lost in the last two recessions?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the public inquiry took longer than was expected but it was particularly complex. I am well aware, however, of the great importance that is attached to the BNRR project both

867
in the West Midlands and in the north west. Of course I recognise the severe traffic problems which the M.6 is currently experiencing. Those matters were taken fully into account during the course of the public inquiry. It is not appropriate for me to comment further on that in view of the role of the Secretaries of State for Transport and the Environment ultimately in determining the application.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the congestion on the M.6 is not unconnected with the poor state of the west coast main line? Will the Minister assure the House that, when considering investment in transport, public transport by rail and trams in Birmingham will be considered as well as the building of roads?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the noble Lord will be fully aware of the Government's commitment to public transport and, indeed, to the success of the rail privatisation programme, which is aimed at encouraging people onto the railways.

Blood Donations
3.10 p.m.
Lord Marlesford Lord Marlesford asked the Chairman of Committees whether he will consult with the appropriate authorities with a view to arranging for the National Blood Transfusion Service to hold a blood donor session in the Palace of Westminster.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I have made inquiries with the appropriate authorities as to the practicalities of the request made by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. I am happy to say that they would be happy to facilitate a special blood donor session if approached by the National Blood Service. However, I draw the attention of your Lordships to the fact that the service holds—and has done so for many years—twice-yearly donor sessions in the Treasury which noble Lords, Members of another place and parliamentary staff are encouraged to attend.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees for that helpful answer. Will he agree with me that there are many people working in the Palace of Westminster who, in this fiftieth anniversary year of the National Blood Service, would wish to join the many citizens of this country who already give 2.3 million pints of good red blood in return for nothing but a cup of tea and a biscuit? That is unlike the French who, I am told, require a beefsteak and a plate of pommes frites.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I wholly agree with the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question. There are many noble Lords, Members of another place, staff of your Lordships' House and of another place and, indeed, people generally who would wish to give blood. However, the
868
point on which I might venture to differ slightly from the noble Lord is that I was informed by a very senior officer of your Lordships' House this morning that in Coke's Commentaries it is stated:
"People's blood runs blue when they become Peers".
I am not sure, therefore, whether your Lordships' House is best placed to assist in these matters. However, I am sure we can try to do so.
I should just add that I am most grateful to Sir Colin Walker, chairman of the National Blood Service, who has been in touch with me, for the background information he has provided. He makes the point that blood donation in the United Kingdom is voluntary, unpaid and, indeed, depends totally on the altruism of people. That is true and it is laudatory.
I must declare an interest. When I joined the Royal Air Force around Christmas 1950 we were offered an extra day's Christmas leave if we gave blood. I duly volunteered, but my blood was not taken because, as a child, I had suffered a mild attack of what we used to call in those days yellow jaundice. Nonetheless, as I had volunteered, I was given the extra day's leave at Christmas. That is the closest I have come in the whole of my life to an award for bravery. If your Lordships will forgive me, I have not quite finished; indeed, there is worse to come. Your Lordships will have appreciated from those circumstances that I have not even been put to the test.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, is not what the noble Lord has just said very sound evidence of the good that can arise from an attack of yellow jaundice? I say that because not many people in this country who have suffered from yellow jaundice finish up being the Lord Chairman of Committees in this House. However, I turn now to the question of blue and red blood. If the requested session can be arranged, will the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees ensure that the reception area is organised in the same manner as Customs and Excise areas at airports? In that case, those with blue blood flowing through their veins would go through the blue channel. Those of us—admittedly a much smaller number—with red blood rushing through our veins would willing go through the red channel.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for the very kind words he used at the beginning of his intervention. However, I think that he probably exaggerates the powers of the Chairman of Committees. I shall of course look into the suggestion that the noble Lord made. Perhaps I may make one practical point that arises out of the noble Lord's questions. If in fact a special session can be arranged here as a result of any consultations which may take place—that is, if we receive an approach from the National Blood Service—I should point out to your Lordships that, especially bearing in mind the facilities already available at the Treasury, it would not be practicable to provide such facilities within the buildings of the Palace itself. Your Lordships are only too familiar with the shortage of space within the Palace of Westminster. It might be possible to provide facilities in the vicinity of Black Rod's garden. I do not know

869
whether the extra facilities that the noble Lord would like to see could be accommodated there; I have my doubts.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, will the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees bear in mind that a good word from that Dispatch Box to those wonderful people who give blood to save the lives of total strangers is something for which we are all deeply grateful? It is a tribute to our country that so many are willing to step forward and help people whom they never see.
The Chairman of Committees: Indeed, my Lords; I completely agree with the remarks made by the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy. Those people are indeed providing a great service to this country. The National Blood Service has carried out splendid work over the years. However, I know that the service is concerned to continue and, if possible, build up the flow of blood. While people generally respond very well indeed whenever a special appeal is made, it is the regular donations which are so much relied upon. If the number of such donations could be boosted, I am sure, as the noble Viscount suggests, it would be very desirable.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, is there not an age limit above which blood is not readily accepted, which makes this House rather unsuitable? Can the noble Lord tell us what that age limit is?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, in the first place, I am advised sotto voce that hereditary Peers can make up for any shortcomings there may be. I pass that on as a matter of information. As your Lordships will appreciate, I do not enter into arguments of any kind. However, in answer to the noble Lord's question, I am, mercifully, able to help in that respect having been briefed on the subject. The age limits are 18 to 60, but, provided that it is medically acceptable for you to do so, you can donate up to the age of 65. I have already made one confession this afternoon. I have to tell your Lordships now that I am already passed my "gift-by date".
There is one additional piece of information that I should give your Lordships for the sake of accuracy. As the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will know, the law is different in Scotland. There the age limit is 17 to 60, but I understand that some consultations are taking place and it is possible that the age limit will be lowered to 17 in England and Wales. Whether the Scots are hardier than we are, I would not venture to suggest.

Business
3.18 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the EU Working Time Directive.

Business of the House: Debate, 18th November
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 38 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with on Monday, 18th November, to allow the Motion in the name of the Lord Hunt of Tanworth to be taken before the Second Reading of the Land Registration Bill [H.L.].— (Viscount Cranborne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Communities: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, on behalf of the Committee of Selection, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Lord Elis-Thomas be appointed a Member of the Select Committee.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Transfer of Crofting Estates (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
3.19 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Lindsay): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This Bill is an enabling measure to give the Secretary of State for Scotland the power to dispose of his crofting estates to bodies which he believes are representative of the crofters on the estates. Such organisations are commonly referred to as "crofting or community trusts" and although I shall refer to them as such noble Lords will wish to note that there will be no requirement that the bodies be trusts in the legal sense.
Before going into the details of the various provisions contained in the Bill, it may be helpful if I give a brief explanation of the background to these proposals. This, in turn, requires some delving into the history of crofting and, in particular, the origins of the Secretary of State's ownership of an extensive crofting estate.
The 19th century was a period of turmoil and hardship for many people in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. The collapse of the kelp industry, the potato famine and periodic recessions formed the background to what is now known as the Highland Clearances when many agricultural tenants left or were forcibly removed from their land. The Napier Commission was appointed by Parliament in 1883 to inquire into conditions in the Highlands and Islands. Its recommendations formed the basis for the Crofters Holdings (Scotland) Act 1886. It introduced a unique form of land tenure, now known as crofting tenure. This gave crofters—agricultural tenants with smallholdings in the crofting counties of Argyll, Inverness, Ross and Cromarty, Sutherland, Caithness,

871
Orkney and Shetland—certain fundamental rights and protections. These included security of tenure; the right to a fair rent; the right to compensation for permanent improvements on the termination of the tenancy; and the right to assign their crofts to certain members of their family.
Although the 1886 Act was an important milestone and the basis of crofting tenure as we know it today, it did nothing to reverse the effects of the Clearances. Successive Parliaments responded to pressure from crofting interests to provide land for those who had been dispossessed. They passed a series of Acts giving powers to acquire land for purposes of land settlement and to arrange for the creation and letting of new croft holdings and townships. The principal Acts were the Congested Districts (Scotland) Act 1897, the Smallholdings Colonies (Scotland) Act 1916 and the Land Settlement (Scotland) Act 1919. The 1919 Act, the most important of the various pieces of legislation, sought, in particular, to provide crofts for returning servicemen. It gave powers to acquire land by agreement or compulsory purchase. The necessary work of acquiring the land and creating new holdings was overseen initially by the Congested Districts Board and subsequently by the Board of Agriculture. Most of the Secretary of State's current estate was obtained in this way in the 20 years following the 1919 Act.
The Secretary of State's crofting estate now includes over 50 separate crofting estates with a total area of over 105,000 hectares. The estate contains over 150 townships with almost 1,400 separate crofts. The bulk of the land is in the West Highlands and the Western Isles, where the typical crofting estate includes both common grazings to which crofters in townships have agreed grazing rights and individual crofts with their inbye land. For almost all crofters on these estates, the size of the crofts and the quality of the land means that agricultural activities are now undertaken on a part-time or spare-time basis. Some of the Secretary of State's crofting estates, mostly in the Eastern Highlands in Caithness and Easter Ross, are on better quality land. Common grazings are not a feature of these estates and the typical croft is more like a smallholding elsewhere. Only 2 per cent. of the total land is, however, to be found on estates of this type.
In the early years of this century, the establishment of state owned and run estates was undoubtedly a significant benefit. The land itself is still the cornerstone of the culture and way of life of these crofting communities. But as we move towards the closing years of the century, it is surely legitimate to ask whether state ownership and management is still the most appropriate way forward. With the best will in the world, officials employed by a government department cannot be as sensitive to local needs and priorities as those who actually live there.
This is the fundamental premise which underpins the crofting trusts initiative which gave rise to the proposals on which the Bill before the House is based. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland suggested in the autumn of last year that he would be willing to transfer ownership of his crofting estates to crofting trusts. His aim was to give crofters greater
872
control of the management and future of the land on which they live and work. Most of the tenants acknowledge that the Secretary of State is, indeed, a good landlord, but the success of the trusts at Assynt and at Borve and Annishadder has shown what can be achieved by local trusts serving local communities.
In February my right honourable friend published a consultation paper, Crofting Trusts, which set out his proposals in more detail. The Government made it absolutely clear in that consultation paper that any transfers of land would be on a voluntary basis and that there was no question of the Government selling the estates to other third parties. The proposals in the consultation paper were widely welcomed. The measures in the Bill before you are based on the consultation paper and the representations which we received during consultation and subsequently.
The Bill is necessary because there is no general power in the original legislation which allows the Government to dispose of their land to third parties. Noble Lords with knowledge of crofting matters may ask why the crofters concerned cannot simply use the powers provided in the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Act 1976 which allow crofters the right to seek to buy their land at an agreed price. These powers do indeed allow individual crofters to buy their crofts, irrespective of their landlord, but they cannot be used to acquire the common grazings which form a substantial proportion of the land in crofting tenure. Moreover, under crofting law, tenants who acquire their crofts may lose some of the benefits afforded to crofting tenants. Properly constituted, a crofting or community trust can avoid these limitations and ensure that land is available for any development initiatives which the local community might wish to promote. It is important to note that tenants of a crofting or community trust would still retain the right to buy their individual croft if they so wished.
We have sought a solution which would be flexible enough to address the differing circumstances of individual crofting communities. This is because we are aware that there is no one type of trust which will address the needs of all the communities involved. The Bill gives the Secretary of State the flexibility to transfer land to different types and sizes of trusts that might be proposed by the crofters. In short, the provisions of the Bill would allow for trusts based on a single township or estate, or a group of estates in a particular area.
Clause 1 of the Bill gives the Secretary of State power to dispose of his crofting property. This is, of course, a discretionary power. The definition of "property" includes all the land held under crofting tenure. It also includes the so-called fishermen's holdings in Lewis which were initially established under the Congested Districts (Scotland) Act 1897, and certain other small pockets of land such as areas of grazing land which, while not held under crofting tenure, have traditionally formed part of the Secretary of State's crofting estate. The clause also provides the power for the Secretary of State to dispose of any interest which he has in the property including mineral, sporting or other rights. This clause also gives the Secretary of State the right to transfer the land, with the consent of the Treasury, on

873
such terms as may be agreed with the body concerned. There is a need for flexibility to strike the right balance in individual cases between the interests of the local crofters and those of the taxpayer. Each application will be looked at on its merits but my right honourable friend has made it clear that the Government are prepared to consider transfer at no consideration where this is necessary to make sure that the trust gets off to a good start.
Clause 2 restricts the Secretary of State's discretion in disposing of the estate. It requires him to consult with the Crofters Commission before disposal, and requires that the disposal should only be made to bodies which are representative of the crofting interests in the property to be disposed of, and which have the promotion of the interests of the crofting community in the district as a primary objective. The commission, in preparing advice for the Secretary of State, will be required to consider the general interests of the crofting community and the views of crofters in the district.
These provisions are necessary to ensure that the scope of the Bill is limited, in line with our objective, to transfer to crofting or community trusts rather than other third parties. The Crofters Commission is the Government's statutory adviser on crofting matters and it is only right and proper that it should be given an opportunity to offer its views before a decision is made in any particular case. The commission is well placed to offer objective and dispassionate advice on the merits of any specific proposal and in particular where it properly reflects the views of crofters in the district in question.
Clause 3 provides the Secretary of State with the power to provide financial assistance towards the costs of establishing the body. Those might include, for example, costs involved in obtaining advice, necessary equipment or training for trust board members. The clause also allows assistance to be given to defray expenditure incurred in effecting the transfer of property to a trust.
Clause 4 is linked to Clause 3. For the avoidance of doubt, it disapplies a provision contained in the 1897 Act which could have required the Scottish Office to undertake all conveyancing and other work involved in preparing titles and deeds in respect of the transfer. Instead, the trusts will commission this work with assistance, where this is agreed, under the provisions of Clause 3.
Clause 5 deals with any rights of pre-emption which may exist over the property. These may arise from statute or from provisions contained in title deeds. It is important that the existence of such rights should not be a barrier to the establishment of trusts, but, at the same time, any persons who may hold such rights must be treated fairly.
The Bill seeks to achieve those twin objectives by removing for all time any right of pre-emption over any property in the estate while providing for compensation to be paid to those who have lost a right of pre-emption.
We are proposing that claims for compensation should be made when the Secretary of State has disposed of any property. This is the point at which
874
those with rights of pre-emption would have been able to exercise them if they had not been removed. Claims would be made to the Secretary of State, who would, in the first instance, decide on the validity of the claim and the amount of compensation to be offered. Where agreement cannot be reached between the claimant and the Secretary of State on either of those questions, provision has been made for appeal by either party to the Scottish Land Court which has considerable experience in crofting matters.
Clause 6 deals with a right to buy which arises from the 1919 Act and applies to tenants who have been on the holding for more than six years. This applies only to tenants on land which is not subject to crofting tenure and the effect of the clause is to ensure that such rights are protected if the land is transferred to a crofting trust. It is important to note that this clause does not affect the right of crofters to seek to buy their crofts, which, as I explained earlier, is not affected by the Bill.
I trust that I have given a sufficient explanation of the content of the Bill and the policies which underlie it. The Government propose that the Bill will be referred to a Scottish Select Committee to take evidence from interested bodies. It is clearly a matter for that committee to make its own arrangements and to decide on a venue. However, I do not think that noble Lords will object if I remark that Inverness would have the advantage of being the recognised administrative centre for the crofting counties. It also has good communication links and is, therefore, readily acceptable to most organisations from whom the committee may wish to take evidence.
The Government see the Bill as a logical extension of the development of crofting since the Napier Commission was appointed in 1883. The initiative will offer crofters on the Secretary of State's estate a chance to follow the example of those trusts which have been set up on land previously owned by private landlords. This is a vital piece of legislation. It offers a unique opportunity to the crofting tenants and will allow a significant and far-reaching initiative to be progressed. I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (The Earl of Lindsay.)
3.34 p.m.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his clear explanation of the contents and objectives underlying the Bill and for his historic commentary, although some particulars may be open to challenge, in particular when he dealt with the causes of the Clearances.
It is a short Bill but it is not as simple as it may appear at first sight. I fear that the measure may become even more complex the more we look into it. However, it is a significant Bill. It is significant because at last, within seven months of a general election and after 17 years of Conservative government, there is a recognition by the Secretary of State for Scotland that the land question, the issue of land ownership and the pattern of land tenure are important factors affecting the

875
development of the crofting areas of Scotland. There is clear agreement on both sides of the House on the importance and centrality of land and land ownership.
Over recent years many of us have been impressed in particular by the success of the Assynt crofting community trust which may provide the model behind the Bill. Clearly Assynt has seen a new sense of dynamism develop very much as a result of local control and external support. Such innovations are to be welcomed, although we should recognise—I take to heart very much what the Minister said—the need for different solutions to different problems in different areas. There must be no fear—I believe that the Minister has removed this fear—of there being a centrally imposed solution. That simply would not work. I also wonder, if crofting trusts become widespread, whether the level of external support on the scale available to Assynt would be generally available. That is an issue of some importance.
Let me make it clear that we on this side of the House are strongly supportive of community based development. We further believe that the community ownership of the land is a necessary underpinning for successful community development. To the extent that the Bill enables progress to be made in that direction, we support it. However, I should make clear that there are a number of points of detail, some coming close to points of substance, where we should like to see modifications made, and some areas where we shall wish to seek clarification.
I welcome the proposal that the Bill will be subject to what is still the relatively new Select Committee procedure which will enable us, as a committee, to collect evidence from those whom the Bill will most directly affect. It is entirely right that the proposals contained in the Bill should be subject to detailed scrutiny within the crofting areas. Given the definition of a croft as a small piece of land surrounded by a great deal of legislation giving rise to a lot of litigation, we should approach our task with a degree of caution.
However, having urged caution, there are two areas where I believe the Government are being over-cautious, especially in the wider context of the relationship between land ownership and local development. First, the Bill relates only to the Secretary of State's crofting estate. Secondly, the Bill gives powers to the Secretary of State rather than confers rights on the people. The present Bill is a modest and limited proposal. A more comprehensive and necessary review of land reform is likely to be a high priority of a Scottish parliament. As it is, the Bill has the potential both to provide us with a first step on that road and to set an interesting precedent.
I now turn to more specific points and matters of detail. If the scheme is to succeed, it is important that it should enjoy the support, confidence and agreement of those affected by it. Anyone who has been concerned with policy innovation in the Highlands and Islands will know that support, confidence and agreement do not come easily. It is vitally important that the Bill contains a trigger mechanism that ensures that a transfer will take place only where there is demonstrable local support for such a transfer. I recognise that the Government have
876
attempted to deal with the matter of local interests in Clause 2. However, the clause as it stands is deficient. It fails to recognise that not all those who are resident on crofting estates, and sometimes not even the majority, are crofters. As they are as likely to be affected by a transfer of ownership, their views and interests matter and should be taken into account.
Rather than requiring the Crofters Commission to gauge the views of crofters and then advise the Secretary of State, there is a strong case for having a straightforward democratic trigger which would include all residents, crofters and non-crofters. Anything less runs the risk of the transfer taking place in conditions of suspicion and resulting in resentment and distrust. Clearly that is something that we all seek to avoid.
The Bill is less than clear on the approach that the Secretary of State would take on the financial basis of transfer. Although the Minister gave some clarification this afternoon, there is still a lack of clarity both with respect to the land itself and, more importantly, with respect to the sporting, mineral and other rights. We are concerned with the apparent lack of balance that appears to have been taken towards the rights that the Secretary of State may transfer and the burdens which, as I understand it, would automatically transfer with the land.
On rights, Clause 5 is purely permissive. It raises the possibility that the land would be transferred and the rights retained. Quite frankly, such a situation would be unacceptable. In many cases the mineral and sporting rights represent the only actual or potential route to economic viability; as importantly, the lack of such rights would seriously constrain the potential for future local development.
The burdens that would transfer with the land are in some cases on such a wide scale—covering, I understand, bridges, drainage systems and indeed the public water supply—that they would most effectively deter anyone from taking on the land in the first place and lead to possible bankruptcy in the face of major repair costs. I appreciate that this is a difficult area; however, I wish to explore with the Minister the possibility of ameliorating the transfer of burdens. We are certainly uncomfortable with the situation presently capable of being contained within the Bill whereby the onerous burdens would transfer, while the rights, representing a source of local income, may not.
One of our other major concerns is the problem of on-selling. The Bill creates a situation whereby the Secretary of State may transfer his estates to a limited number of individuals, it is to be hoped in the form of a crofting trust. But, as the Minister made clear, even that is not required by the Bill. Following that initial transfer, those individuals or the trust will be in a position immediately to sell on to a third party and even to seek to decroft some or all of the land. The implications, especially for those areas where there are strong residential development pressures, are far-reaching, affecting the whole social structure of the local community. Under the Bill there is a possibility of the land initially being transferred to a minority of local residents who, in turn, sell on to a third party, while the

877
majority of local residents are powerless as the nature of the land use changes irrevocably. Such a state of affairs would be wrong and we will seek to ensure that even the possibility does not arise.
Finally, I take up the remark made by the Minister about pre-emption rights. It is perhaps ironic that the one group who stand to benefit immediately and directly as a result of the Bill are those who are entitled to exercise a right of pre-emption. They will be compensated. The Bill may very well have the effect of giving value to land that was previously of little or no value before. It is the landed interest that will benefit.
I have dealt with our concerns in some detail. I very much hope that we can proceed on the basis of a broadly based agreement. However, I return to my remarks at the beginning. If a proposal such as this is to succeed, it has to have the enthusiastic support of those who will be affected. For our part, we look forward to the Select Committee taking evidence and our view at later stages will be informed by what we hear in Scotland.
3.45 p.m.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Earl the Minister for his clear and very lucid explanation of the Bill. I am not entirely sure whether I have an interest to declare. I own a number of the crofts to which he referred—I believe included in the 2 per cent. of more valuable land that was mentioned. If that represents an interest, then I declare it.
The last time I spoke in this House was in the debate on the Address. I observed that consensus in politics was rather out of fashion, particularly given the current bout of election fever that is doing the rounds. We on these Benches, and I myself, have always believed that a little dose of consensus rather than conflict would be a very healthy thing for our body politic. I am therefore delighted to be able, on behalf of all of us on these Benches, to welcome the Bill warmly. I fully expect it to receive a broad consensus in this House.
Clearly, the objective of the Bill is sound. The Government own a great deal of crofting land in the Highlands. I think it is correct to say that they are rather reluctant owners and the crofters are probably rather reluctant tenants. Provided that all those affected by the legislation, and most particularly the crofters themselves, are properly looked after by the bodies that will take over from the Government, I believe that this Bill will be warmly welcomed by both crofters and those others within the communities who are affected by the success of crofting in the community.
At first glance the Bill seemed rather like my wife, small but beautifully put together. However, when I came to read it in more detail, like the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, I managed to find one or two little mines hidden away in it. Although there is a broad consensus on the principle of the Bill, I foresee problems with a number of technical areas which will need to be examined in some detail to ensure that unlooked for consequences are avoided. In that regard the system of evidence gathering will be of the utmost importance. I am delighted that the Minister was able to confirm that that
878
will take place. I have in my notes a little plea that this might take place in Inverness, the geographical centre of the crofting world. I am delighted that he was also able to confirm that.
The key to making the scheme work will be in the nature of the bodies that will take over the ownership of estates from the Secretary of State. Having been involved with a number of trusts in both England and Scotland, and having been on one occasion the tenants' representative in a business where a major landowning trust was the landowner, I have to say that there are just as many difficulties with a corporate or trust type of landowner.
It is quite a challenge to find the right vehicle for ownership. That is dealt with in Clause 2, which states that,
"The Secretary of State may dispose of crofting property … only to a body … which has been approved by him, after consultation with the Commission … a body which … is representative of the crofting interests … and … has the promotion of the interests of the crofting community … as its primary objective".
Those laudable objectives are fine so far as they go. However, if the bodies to which the Secretary of State may dispose of the crofting properties are to be truly representative of their communities and the crofters within them and, most importantly, if they are to be successful landowners, considerable work will need to be done in fashioning the correct entity and ensuring their viability for the future. Again I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Sewel. Estates are both costly and complex to run. It is therefore most important that these acquiring bodies are financially sound. Can the Minister tell me what the profit or loss on the estate is at the present time and whether what will be transferred will in fact be a burden or a boon?
A point which does not seem to be covered by the Bill—though I believe the noble Earl, the Minister, has clarified it in his remarks—is the status of the crofts in respect of the crofters' right to purchase after the estates have been sold by the Secretary of State to an approved body. I believe I understood the Minister to confirm that the ultimate sanction for any crofter who fell out with the acquiring body would remain that he himself would have the right under the law as it currently stands to purchase his croft.
Another small area which gave me cause for some concern, and which I should be most grateful if the Minister will look into, is in relation to paragraph 5 of Clause 1 at line 27, which states:
"The disposal may include the disposal of any interest he has in the mineral, sporting or other rights effeiring to the property."
I have found one peculiar example where this may cause problems. It serves to illustrate the little mines that are peppered about in this Bill. It relates to a crofting estate in the north west of Sutherland where the Secretary of State, as part of his estate, owns the salmon fishing rights at Strathy Point. These rights have been let to a tenant netsman for a number of years. The rumour on the north coast is that the crofters will acquire the salmon netting rights as part of their acquisition and exploit these rights for themselves. It seems to me that this would not be at all in the spirit of this legislation, which I believe is to enable a more appropriate vehicle

879
for the traditional exploitation of agricultural use in the Highlands, i.e. for the crofters. I do not suppose for a minute that it is intended that the effect of the Bill should be to deprive other equally traditional forms of commercial exploitation of their livelihood, namely the tenant netsman. I note that this clause uses the word "may" and I assume that that denotes a degree of flexibility. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, that it is important that the land-based sporting rights, mineral rights and other such rights should be transferred, but I believe that the particular instance to which I have drawn attention should be given serious consideration.
I was particularly glad to note in Clause 3 of the Bill that the Secretary of State may provide such financial assistance as he considers appropriate, particularly to help defray expenditure incurred by the acquiring body by way of legal fees, since I have much personal experience of how costly legal fees can be in these matters. I hope that instinctive Scottish generosity will not be curtailed by the traditional tight-fistedness of the English Treasury.
I was also particularly pleased to hear the Minister mention that the cost of training would be eligible for aid. I believe it is very important that crofters should receive help of this kind.
There is a provision in Clause 5 of the Bill in relation to compensation which provides for the Secretary of State to agree a claim in the first instance. If the claim is rejected the claimant will then have the right to appeal to the Scottish Land Court. Clearly, a successful claim, following all the steps described in the Bill, will involve considerable cost. Will the Secretary of State consider compensation for that cost? Many of the people who have rights of pre-emption are no longer members of what the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, described as the landowning classes since the properties are in many cases now owned by smaller landowners.
The points I have raised, although important, are relatively small and of a technical nature and I believe they will be resolved as the Bill is examined by your Lordships. I return to my opening remarks. I compliment the Government on bringing forward this measure and hope it will receive a warm welcome on all sides of your Lordships' House.
3.55 p.m.

Working Time Directive
Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on the Working Time Directive which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on the Working Time Directive.
"The Court of Justice of the European Communities has today given its judgment in the proceedings we brought to have Council Directive
880
93/104/EC, the Working Time Directive, annulled. That directive derives its origins and impetus from the 1989 Community Charter of the Fundamental Social Rights of Workers, to which the United Kingdom did not subscribe then and does not subscribe now.
"The directive was adopted by the Council at a meeting on 23rd November 1993 and was forced on the United Kingdom through the use of the qualified majority voting procedure by being adopted by the European Council under Article 118a of the Treaty Establishing the European Community, which relates to the health and safety of workers. It is due to be implemented on the 23rd of this month.
"A common position on the proposals for the directive had been reached by Ministers of Social and Labour Affairs at a meeting on 1st June 1993. At that meeting, the United Kingdom announced its intention to challenge the directive's legal base. Our legal challenge was mounted in March 1994.
"The directive's main provisions include limiting the working week to an average of 48 hours; putting various restrictions on the length of night work; giving employees entitlements to minimum daily and weekly rest periods and to a period of paid annual leave. Our case before the Court was essentially that these are matters relating to terms and conditions of employment which should be settled by employers and employees and not truly health and safety at work matters.
"The Court has now delivered its judgment and I am arranging for the text of the judgment to be placed in the Library.
"The Court has in essence confirmed the Advocate General's earlier opinion that the directive was properly adopted under Article 118a of the Treaty. This is not what was envisaged when we agreed to Article 118a as a health and safety provision. We shall therefore insist that the intergovernmental conference (IGC) addresses the issues which this ECJ judgment raises. That means both ensuring that the Working Time Directive no longer affects the United Kingdom and securing measures to prevent any other social engineering directives being forced on the United Kingdom by similar manoeuvres. The use of Article 118a in this fashion wholly undermines the spirit of our opt-out from the social chapter agreed at Maastricht. As he has already told the House, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has today written to President Jacques Santer making clear in the most unequivocal terms our proposals to correct the position. A copy of the letter has been placed in the Library.
"In his letter, my right honourable friend makes clear that the broad interpretation of Article 118a implied by the ECJ judgment, 'goes directly counter to the spirit of what we agreed at Maastricht. It is unacceptable and must be remedied'.
"My right honourable friend has made clear that the Government will, therefore, be tabling amendments at the IGC aimed at ensuring that Article 118a cannot in

881
future be used as it has been on this occasion and dealing with the specific problem of the Working Time Directive.
"The Government have made clear that, as my right honourable friend also said in his letter, we attach, `the utmost importance to these amendments, and [will] insist that they form part of the outcome of the Intergovernmental Conference'.
"In the meantime of course we have no option but to obey the law until we secure the necessary treaty changes. But we will legislate to implement the directive only after carrying out proper and necessary public consultation on the issues and options. In doing so, we will aim to take advantage of the valuable derogations already secured during our negotiation on the directive. We are determined to preserve the flexibility in labour matters that has been such an important element in the revival of our economy over recent years. British industry would expect us to do no less.
"The use of qualified majority voting was agreed by member states before the Maastricht negotiations for genuine matters concerning health and safety at work. Never for a moment was it envisaged that those arrangements could properly be applied to what we would always regard as social measures—including the general regulation of working time, rest periods and holidays.
"We have always been fully committed to protections needed to ensure good health and safety standards for British and other European workers. But employers and employees should also be free to agree terms and conditions, including arrangements for working time, rest breaks and holidays, that meet their particular circumstances and needs. We reject the imposition on industry of unnecessary requirements which can only damage competitiveness and jobs and we consider that this directive would be the thin end of a wedge that would lead to more such burdens.
"Because the Working Time Directive is incompatible with these principles, and because of what appeared to be the improper use of procedures to force it through, we had no option but to bring these proceedings to have it annulled. Avoiding unnecessary burdens on British businesses remains at the top of the Government's agenda. So we firmly intend to close the loophole which allowed the Working Time Directive through and to restore the rights of British companies and their employees to reach agreement on such matters, reflecting the requirements of their particular circumstances.
"The competitiveness of our industry is the key to economic success, employment and prosperity. We are not prepared to have it unnecessarily trammelled in the way this judgment would do".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.1 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made by his right honourable friend in another place. I start by saying that the
882
language of the Statement is strange, to put it mildly. It uses expressions that I am not convinced are suitable in a Statement made by a senior government Minister, especially if such Statements are in danger at least of being misleading. I refer, for example, to the beginning of the Statement and the expression that the directive was "forced" on the United Kingdom. That is a very strange way to put a matter that was fully negotiated by government Ministers and was carried on correctly within all the procedures of the Community and on which others took a different view. I find it very strange that the Statement should use such a word.
I also find it very strange that the Statement summarises the directive's main provision but leaves out something in which I would have thought everybody would be interested; namely, that almost every provision is optional. Would it not at least have been worth while for whoever drafted the Statement—being anxious to help your Lordships or Members in another place to understand what it said—to have put in its central tenet? That is not the way to issue Statements.
Having said that, let me lean over backwards to be helpful to the Government. It is arguable that the Working Time Directive is about employment rather than about health. That is certainly arguable, though it does not necessarily mean that it is correct. The Government believed that it was correct that it was about employment and Ministers and officials put the case as well as they could. There is no doubt about that and I do not doubt it. In fact, I understand that Ministers and officials did not do too badly. From its original proposal, the directive was watered down in the directions in which we wanted, in almost every way. So much so that Mr. Hunt, the Minister, said that it was toothless. I believe he said, but I do not have the quotation to hand, that it was a victory for us at the time. Certainly—I return to the use of the word "forced"—our country did not vote against it. That is worth bearing in mind.
However, now suddenly the Prime Minister, for reasons that I dare not think about, has decided that the directive is extremely important and dangerous to the interests of the country. He has decided that it was devised solely to undermine our opt-out from the provisions of the social chapter and therefore the question was put as a legal challenge to the Court of Justice of the European Communities, a body which we are solemnly committed to respect and which we do respect in general. It examined the case and found against us. The Court has confirmed that the directive was properly set out and arrived at.
The Prime Minister and his friends may be sad about that. The Prime Minister may not care for that decision or that adjudication. But that is the decision and that is the adjudication. In my judgment, if one belongs to such bodies, when they make adjudications and decisions one responds to them in a proper way. So the question that we must ask ourselves is what is the rational response to this Statement on the directive and the European Court's adjudication.

883
My judgment is that the initial correct response is not to exaggerate the importance of the directive. The propositions in the Statement are simply mistaken—propositions such as:
"The use of Article 118a in this fashion wholly undermines the spirit of our opt-out from the social chapter".
It is absolute nonsense to say that it:
"wholly undermines the spirit of our opt-out from the social chapter";
or that it:
"goes directly counter to the spirit of what we agreed at Maastricht";
or is:
"unacceptable and must be remedied".
For such a minor, trivial directive we use that language. Finally, it is said that we attach:
"the utmost importance to these amendments"—
that is what we are proposing—
"and we [will] insist"—
a very good word to use in Europe—
"that they form part of the outcome of the intergovernmental conference".
I find it extraordinary, in a matter on which the Government feel that they have a good case, that they should use language of such kind on a matter which I should regard as not of overwhelming importance. I happen to favour it but there are many things I favour which are not of overwhelming importance.
I strongly believe that the attempt to threaten the European Union is mistaken. We all agree, and the Statement confirms, that we must of course obey the law. We also agree—here I do not disagree with the Minister—that we must continue to argue our case and convince our friends (assuming that we have some friends) that we have a case and that we are right in general. I also agree with the Prime Minister—much as I favour the social chapter and noble Lords opposite do not—that we have an opt-out and I recognise that the Prime Minister wishes to exercise it.
Let me lean over backwards again and say that he is right to scrutinise what the Community does, if it is the case that it seeks to undermine our actions. But he must not do it by misunderstanding what has happened. He must not do it by bluster and he must certainly not do it by empty threats.
I return to what I believe is the central question anyway. I asked whether this is a health related matter or employment related social legislation and therefore pertinent to the opt-out. At least one of the distinguished figures in this matter, Professor Harrington, says categorically, having examined the evidence, that excessive working time is a health matter. Others who have looked at this field say that it is a health matter. I must admit that, using my common sense, it seems to me to be a health matter. I do not say that those gentlemen are necessarily right. I do not say, to quote another of the papers that we all read, that we may not need more research. I do say that it is reasonable to argue on the basis of available evidence that it is a health
884
matter and therefore that the Community in no way is being disreputable or in any way undermining us by saying that it is.
That seems to me to be the central question. In other words, if we examine the question and obviously it is a health matter and we find that many experts tell us that it is a health matter, it seems to me that the Government's whole position is undermined right from the beginning. It is also further damaging to us in the future when we have to confront matters of this kind and wish to argue with the Community. In order words, to put it as correctly as I can, I believe that it is better to fight a battle on territory that one can win, with a cause that one can win and not this.
Nearly in conclusion, let me refer to the last paragraph, again to put this matter into perspective, where the Statement refers to the importance of competitiveness and all that. I suppose that I have bored your Lordships as much as any noble Lord with the importance of competitiveness, productivity, efficiency and all that kind of thing. I never hesitate to argue that our future depends on that and nothing else. But, again, that only brings out the triviality of the Government's position and the way they exaggerate the importance of the matter before us.
Our economic future depends on competitiveness. In the context of the real and monetary forces that determine that competitiveness, this working time directive is of no significance whatever. Its effects could not fall within our ability to measure. And despite the arguments of noble Lords opposite, I would take a similar view in regard to the social chapter; that it will not determine whether or not this country is rich or poor in the future. Quite other forces do that. For example, as I pointed out to the Minister yesterday, the rise by 10 per cent. in the value of sterling over the past two or three days has a much more powerful effect on the ability of British industry to compete overseas than the working time directive, as does the seeming rise in the price of raw materials that go into our industry. Those are the important matters.
I conclude by asking myself and other noble Lords to reflect on what this is all about. It is certainly not about economics as I understand the subject; it is not even about social policy. It is surely only about politics and especially the internal politics of the party of noble Lords opposite.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, from these Benches I join in thanking the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, for repeating the Statement. My noble friends and I take a view that is different from that of the Government as expressed in the Statement with regard to the directive.
The matter has a long history. It is not, as is sometimes claimed, to be seen as a way of getting round the social chapter and our opt-out from it. It stems from the Treaty of Rome as amended by the Single European Act, subscribed to by the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, when she was Prime Minister.
The Statement refers to the valuable derogations already secured in the Government's negotiation on the directive. It was in fact Mr. David Hunt, the then

885
Secretary of State for Employment, who, three years ago—as the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said—claimed that the teeth of the directive had been drawn. And he did not vote against it when he had the opportunity to do so at the European Council in its amended form.
I acknowledge that there are conflicting views as to whether the length of the working week should be regarded as a health and safety issue. That was plain enough from the evidence given in 1990 to Sub-Committee C of your Lordships' European Communities Committee (of which I was privileged to be a member) in its inquiry into the draft directive as it then was. The European Court of Justice has now ruled that working time is a health and safety issue. I am glad at least that the Government do not propose to go so far as to refuse to act on that judgment. However, I see from the Financial Times today—again the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has already mentioned this—that the Government's use of a confidential medical report in their appeal to the Court has now been heavily criticised by its author, Professor Harrington of Birmingham University. He said that his conclusions did not support the Government's claims and he believes that working hours are a health and safety issue. When the noble and learned Lord replies, perhaps he will comment on that report.
I do not pretend that implementation of the directive will necessarily be altogether without cost. I used to work in the chemical industry, and in the debate on the Maastricht agreement five years ago I expressed some anxiety about the provisions in the directive concerning night work and shift work because of their possible effect on continuous process work. Nor do I forget that the United Kingdom has to compete not just in Europe, but also with the United States and Japan, for example.
There are many groups who are exempt from the provisions of the directive. People who do not wish to work more than 48 hours in a week on average need not do so, and there is plenty of scope for those who are prepared to work longer hours, including continuous shift workers, to whom I have just referred, to negotiate appropriate arrangements with their employers. After all, it is the vulnerable, low paid groups who most need protection from unscrupulous employers and whom the directive will rightly most benefit.
The directive refers to amendments that are to be tabled at the intergovernmental conference dealing with the specific problem, among other things, of the working time directive. The Statement says that the Government attach,
"the utmost importance to these amendments, and [will] insist that they form part of the outcome of the intergovernmental conference".
Again, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, made some mention of that.
I wish to ask the Minister this question: is it not in our own long-term interests that, rather than threatening to impede our future developments in Europe unless there are treaty changes—as the Prime Minister has already done and as the Statement implies—the Government should now take the advice of the director
886
general of the CBI and adopt a constructive attitude in implementing the directive, taking account of the significant degree of flexibility that lies within it?
In relation to the suggestion that the directive may be the thin end of the wedge that would lead to "more such burdens", would not the approach I have advocated afford the best possible means of influencing their formulation to suit UK conditions?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, perhaps I may respond to the two contributions from the Front Benches. First, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said that it was strange language for a Statement and he took particular exception to the words,
"forced on the United Kingdom".
That language was deliberately chosen, just as the Commission deliberately chose a route towards this directive which it knew meant that it could be implemented using qualified majority voting when it was believed by all at the time that it would be included within the social chapter from which the United Kingdom had an opt-out. It was for that reason that the language was undoubtedly strongly worded.
The noble Lord went on to say that he was surprised that we took exception to the directive, seeming to believe, as I understood him, that all that was contained within it was essentially optional in nature. I invite the noble Lord to look carefully at what is included within the directive, particularly with regard to night work which, on my reading of it, certainly does not allow for a wholly optional approach to that matter. It is exceedingly complicated and I say this: where there are optional provisions within the directive, the approach of the Government will be that so long as we have to implement it we will take the best advantage of what derogations there are and seek to ensure the maximum flexibility.
The noble Lord said that he considered this simply a political matter and that there had been a recent change of heart by the Government. With respect to him, I spelt out in the Statement that as far back as June 1993—some five months before the directive was implemented—the United Kingdom Government signalled that they would challenge the legality of the basis for the directive. So it is simply not true that a late challenge has been mounted.
Nor do we regard what is contained in the directive as being minor or trivial. I agree that optional arrangements are allowed for. They are extremely complicated and we shall have to look at them very carefully. For that reason—in view of the fact that the noble Lord did not raise it—I take it that he considers it acceptable that we want to consult on the matter. Indeed, the directive itself makes specific provision for consultation. We shall certainly want to consult. These are not minor or trivial matters.
Even if the noble Lord does not accept that view of what is already within the directive, what I am surprised he does not grasp is that Commissioner Flynn has already made it clear that he will be publishing a White Paper in which he will be looking at further action that might be taken to limit very much more the

887
exceptions and derogations provided for in the directive. Once the legality of the directive is there, as we have to accept it is following the European Court ruling, it would be a very serious matter for the United Kingdom if all the hard-won derogations secured back in 1993 were at risk of being lost and the United Kingdom's position could be voted down because qualified majority voting would be the arrangement required. Some very complicated matters would then arise. For example, I understand that one of the issues the Commission now wishes to consider is the regime affecting offshore workers. That is a difficult matter because, in the interests of health and certainly safety, one would have thought that what one wanted to secure on offshore rigs was the minimum number of people and the minimum number of helicopter journeys made to and from them. If these provisions were to be imposed upon the offshore industry, far from bringing about an improvement in safety there would be a very real risk of safety being harmed yet further.
The inconsistency of the position seems to lie with the Opposition. At the time of the social chapter and the opt-out that was secured by the Prime Minister the Opposition objected to the opt-out because they believed that these very matters were included within the social chapter and would be thus excluded from consideration within the United Kingdom. If there has been a change of position, it has been by the Opposition. What has caused the Prime Minister and the Government real concern is not a matter of internal party politics; it is, as the Prime Minister said in his letter to Mr. Santer, because it goes directly contrary to the spirit of what was agreed at Maastricht. It is an issue of good faith. I believe that we are entirely within our rights to insist that where we thought we had dealt in good faith on a particular measure we should now go back and get that corrected.
I turn to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester. I agree with him. Although we might not wish to do so, we must obey the rule of law. For that reason we will implement the directive if we have not managed to bring about a change beforehand. There is little prospect of bringing about implementation before 23rd November. Indeed, I think that probably at least three other countries within the European Union will not achieve implementation by that date. But, as I indicated earlier, probably the more important feature is that we must engage now, as the directive itself enjoins us to do, in widespread consultation on some extremely complicated matters and on some parts of the drafting of the directive which I personally consider to be extremely obscure. It will take some considerable time for many to understand what it is all about.
The noble Lord referred to the comment by Professor Harrington which appears in today's Financial Times. It is correct that Professor Harrington provided a study and that it formed part of the Government's legal challenge to the working time directive. We always made clear, in accordance with established practice, that it could be published only once the case had been concluded. I have read, as the noble Lord has, what was said in the article but I have not yet read his report. I am led to understand that the report states that the scientific basis for
888
establishing optimal hours of work is in doubt from the beginning and that it is impossible to be dogmatic on scientific grounds concerning the maximum number of hours to be worked each week. Professor Harrington says that there is no firm scientific basis for setting a specific numerical lower limit. In the article in the Financial Times he certainly offers the opinion that 48 hours is a sensible limit. But the study which he was asked to carry out was more to do with the scientific basis on which such a limitation might be set.
Finally, the noble Lord asked whether it was not now in our own interests not to threaten to impede. I come back to this point. We are concerned that this is indeed the thin end of the wedge, and with some real cause. The Prime Minister negotiated long and hard to secure the opt-out from the social chapter. The noble Lord and his party may not have agreed with him but it was perfectly clear that that was a major part of his negotiating position. It was clearly understood by most people for a considerable time that the opt-out would secure exclusion from just this type of directive. It was a deliberate act by the Commission to avoid the opt-out that the route under Article 118a was taken. It is our firm intention that in the negotiations at the IGC the position on Article 118a should not only be reversed but that we should not be tricked like this in future.
4.28 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that, contrary to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, many of us have great respect for the Prime Minister's Statement? It was fully justified by the circumstances of the case and sets out the position of this country very well and very clearly. Is he also aware that some of us have had for some time a considerable disregard for the European so-called Court of Justice? Certainly its latest effort gives us confirmation of the view that it is not a body to be treated with any respect or with very much attention. Is he further aware that it is extremely important that the British Government should maintain the position they have always maintained and that this decision should be overruled?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, there are varying views on the value of the European Court of Justice. In fact, from time to time, we are more successful before it than is widely believed. I have had little time to study the judgment of the Court in its entirety, but from the parts I have looked at it seems a remarkably terse judgment and does not really provide any full explanation of the view to which it eventually comes. At the risk of repeating myself, it was because of the position taken up by the United Kingdom during the Maastricht Treaty negotiations that the Government have, in our view, the right to feel sore that this was exactly the type of directive from which we thought we would be freed. In the event, a route has been found to include us. We shall want to ensure that in the future we are excluded from it. As the Prime Minister has been saying in another place, that will be an important part of his negotiations at the IGC.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I put down a Question earlier on this subject but withdrew it because I knew that there was going to be a Statement? I am sure that he is not surprised to learn that I accept wholeheartedly, and without any equivocation at all, that this is a health and safety matter. That is also the position of the TUC, which has undertaken its own survey of health and safety representatives. That survey points out clearly that working longer hours puts workers under stress and that is a health and safety matter.
I draw the attention of the Minister to the World Health Organisation's definition, which I believe has been of some guidance to the Commission. It states:
"Health is a state of complete psychic, mental and social well-being and does not merely consist of an absence of disease or infirmity".
Quite frankly, I believe that the Government are making an enormous fuss over an issue which they cannot expect ultimately to win. As regards the argument in Europe, there is an acceptance of this issue as being totally one of health and safety.
As my noble friend Lord Peston pointed out, this is not a very strong directive: in fact, some of us would like to see a much stronger directive. It is a weak directive. It has provision for voluntary arrangements so that people can come to arrangements with their employer or there can be collective agreements between unions and employers which provide for exemption. An enormous fuss is being made about what is a relatively minor matter.
As regards the threat to employment, there is no evidence at all that implementation of the directive will mean a reduction in employment possibilities. It can probably be argued that the converse is true. If employers have to employ a few more people in order to meet the requirements of the directive, perhaps the taxpayer will benefit because there will not then be quite so much paid out in unemployment benefits, jobseeker's allowance and so forth.
The Government will have to put this directive into operation almost immediately for public service employees. They have until 23rd November. As I understand it, employees are immediately covered by the directive. The Government should stop wasting taxpayers' time and money on a futile quest to try to get this directive overturned. I hope that they will not proceed with their intention to raise this matter at the intergovernmental conference.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, in answer to a final point which the noble Baroness made, there is probably a difference in the position between those who are employed in the private and public sectors, but whether it is quite as straightforward as she suggests is open to question. There is undoubtedly something of a difference.
I cannot agree with her—as I indicated in answer to her noble friend Lord Peston—that this is a minor or trivial matter. In December 1993 we put before Parliament the compliance cost estimate if this directive were to be implemented in the United Kingdom. The
890
figure at 1992 prices was about £1.7 billion, rising to about £2.4 billion. I consider that to be a considerable compliance cost, particularly when the vast majority will fall on those companies that we are trying desperately to ensure not only become competitive but remain so. If they have to bear that sort of burden I cannot see how in any respect whatsoever it will help their position.
The noble Baroness made the point that parts of this directive were optional. I accept that. I also accept that there are a number of companies within the United Kingdom which already achieve for their employees what is included in the directive. Some of them will have terms and conditions of employment which go beyond the requirements of the directive.
Therefore, I say this to the noble Baroness: why is it necessary to impose this measure? We believe that the right way forward is that if employers wish and can afford these provisions, that is a matter for them. It is a matter for negotiation between them and their employees. To impose this inflexibility would deprive all British companies of the choice that they should be allowed to have in coming to decisions and arrangements with their workforce.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree—
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that, far from this being an unimportant matter, the Statement shows quite clearly a case where supposed partners have attempted to get round their own previous agreement by subterfuge? That is what it is. It is wrong to allow this measure to pass without comment, or by merely passing it off, as the noble Lord, Lord Peston, did, as arguable and a quibble. He did not say clearly whether he thought that, with these quibbles, we were right or wrong. He left it as an argument. The Government cannot afford to and must not do that. How can we enter into further negotiations and agreements with people who have used this kind of unfounded and almost illegal method to secure an alteration of their previous official intention?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, as I hope I made clear to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, in my initial answer, we considered and believed—it was not just the Government, but all political parties within the United Kingdom—at the time of the Maastricht Treaty that we had secured an opt-out from the social chapter and that this matter would be included within it. They might not have agreed that that was the right course to take, but they nevertheless thought at the time that we had secured exclusion from just this type of directive.
I cannot agree entirely with my noble friend, because that would be inconsistent with something I said earlier. I cannot agree that this directive was brought about by means of subterfuge, because as early as 1st June 1993 we were arguing that there was a legal invalidity in the basis on which this directive proceeded. However, he is absolutely right to say that we all believed that we would be excluded from this measure. But by means of a devious route, as we have unhappily found out today,

891
it has been possible for the Commission and the rest of the European Union to impose this directive on the United Kingdom.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that I have been a trade unionist at local, regional and national level for 44 years and during the whole of that period I was taught that matters concerning wages and conditions were best settled at the workplace, through collective bargaining? I still believe that to be the case. Indeed, throughout my time in another place, particularly in 1972, the Labour Whips instructed me to vote against the Industrial Relations Act 1972 because it imposed court decisions on trade unions and collective bargaining. Noble Lords opposite voted for the courts to be involved, but I voted against. I still believe what I believed then: the best way of settling these matters is through collective bargaining. The 48-hour week has now been reduced in most cases to 39 or 38 hours. That proves the efficacy of collective bargaining.
I am very upset, as are most of the British people, at the humiliation which has been piled on this nation by the spectacle of Mr. Flynn instructing the British Government to do something which they do not want to do. Will he confirm that if the Government and this Parliament do not enact the provisions of the Court ruling, any employer or anybody else at all can ignore them? In the light of what the Minister has been saying about getting these provisions annulled, will he further confirm that there is no way in the IGC, without unanimity, for these proposals to be annulled? Therefore, these proposals cannot be annulled.
Will the noble and learned Lord give an assurance that there will be no backstage horse-trading to give away some other right which undermines our sovereignty in order to make progress on this particular issue? It is a bad day for Britain, the British people and, in the long term, trade unionism and trade unionists.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, there is a great deal in what the noble Lord says with which I agree. However, regrettably there are some matters about which I must disabuse him. The Government believe in the rule of law. Faced with this decision of the European Court of Justice, however much we dislike the ruling we will implement it unless we manage to get it reversed before implementation. We will go forward towards implementation having carried out careful and detailed consultations. As I have indicated previously, there are matters within it which will require very detailed analysis. It may be that without implementation by the United Kingdom Government, either by primary legislation or under Section 2(2) of the 1972 Act, some employees in the United Kingdom who are employed within the public sector will have direct rights against the Government. However, this is a complicated matter on which I do not want to offer a concluded opinion immediately following the decision.
The noble Lord is absolutely right. The best manner in which to deal with these issues is to leave employers and employees to get on with it as a matter of choice without imposition. Many firms in the United Kingdom
892
already offer better terms and conditions than can be found in this directive. If we are to continue to prosper and to be flexible it is necessary that we give just those companies and those with whom they negotiate flexibility to come to the best arrangements.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that this directive is a misinterpretation of the opt-out clause? Consequently, it means that this is not a health and safety directive but a directive about unemployment, as the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has said.
Lord Peston: My Lords, the noble Lord may wish to get his facts right. I merely tried to be reasonable by suggesting that both sides could argue that point. I did not say that it was a matter of employment but said that that argument could be made.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, I was merely endorsing what the noble Lord had said. Does my noble and learned friend agree that the voluntary aspect of the directive will be considerably diluted because of trade union interference in the matter? Further, does he agree that there is bound to be a loss of jobs? Some small businesses cannot possibly survive if they have to take on extra workers. Does he agree that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister is quite correct in saying that the Government will do all they can to reverse this decision? Finally, does he agree that this court ruling places an additional burden on business and industry and affects our competitive position? Is it not better that the Court of Auditors should concentrate on looking at the profligate waste of money in the Common Market?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for the powerful support that he offers the Prime Minister in the position that he has adopted. If he cares to look at the judgment of the European Court of Justice he will find, as I do, that it is very difficult to discover what is not included within the term "safety and health". As the noble Baroness indicated earlier, a definition has been adopted from the World Health Organisation which appears to be all-embracing. The only curiosity about the judgment is that religious belief is excluded from the term "safety and health" because Sunday cannot be singled out as a particular day for rest according to the European Court of Justice.
My noble friend is absolutely right when he speaks of the possible consequences for the United Kingdom economy if this matter carries on indefinitely and we are not able to reverse it, as we are determined to do. Although he is absolutely right to single out the possible effects on small firms, those are not the only ones to be affected. Today I saw on television, and I have also met around the country, workers who dearly enjoy the opportunity to work night shifts because they wish to pursue such innocent interests as fishing during daytime hours. The noble Lord opposite may shake his head. What he did not appear to appreciate

893
earlier was that the night working provisions within the directive were not wholly optional but would have a measure of compulsion about them.
Beyond the issue of the small firms to which my noble friend has referred, what troubles me as much as anything is that some of the major inward investment successes that the United Kingdom has had recently have been achieved because it has been able to construct semi-conductor factories, for instance, at a speed far greater than is achievable anywhere else in Europe. If an investment of, say, £1 .5 billion can be brought to the point of production seven or eight months faster than anywhere else in Europe because these provisions do not apply in this country, it is not surprising that the United Kingdom is more attractive than many others. Nor is it surprising that there is concern that if these matters have to be implemented in full there will be a real effect on employment.
Lord Gladwin of Clee: My Lords, I should like to press the Minister on the effect on the public sector. My understanding is that emanations of the state are directly affected by the directive. Can the Minister indicate the timetable for the consultative process to which the Statement refers? Will he also give an indication as to when he anticipates that legislation will be introduced into Parliament? Finally, I am a little puzzled by the Statement. Is it the intention that at the same time as legislation is introduced—because it has to be—the Government will seek to repeal that very legislation?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, dealing with the first technical point raised by the noble Lord, in broad terms employees of emanations of the state (which I believe is the language that the court likes to use) can claim from their employers rights and protection within the directive providing they are sufficiently clear, precise and unconditional in the directive itself. I hazard to guess whether they will find that any of those qualities are met when they look to the directive itself. There may be a requirement for legislation, but we need to reserve judgment on whether primary legislation will be necessary if it is to be implemented or whether it can be achieved under Section 2(2) of the 1972 Act. That remains to be seen. In part, it will depend on the outcome of the consultative process, on which we shall begin work as soon as we can. Clearly, in a matter as complicated as this it will take some time to achieve that.
I make it absolutely clear to all noble Lords that even if we do go forward with consultation and legislation to ensure that we obey the law the Government are determined to do everything at the intergovernmental conference to ensure not only that this decision is reversed to exclude the United Kingdom but that in future there is no risk of any other social engineering activity being imposed upon the United Kingdom.

Transfer of Crofting Estates (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
4.49 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
The Earl of Kintore: My Lords, I also thank the noble Earl for introducing this Bill so clearly. What is proposed is certainly a way forward for the crofting estates, but there can be no universal solution. Each area, possibly broken down as in Annex A of the Scottish Office consultation paper, will require its own solution. I note that if the Bill receives a Second Reading it will be committed to a Scottish Select Committee. That committee will be required, among other matters, to look into the viability of each transfer; the relationship of each crofter to the crofting trust and whether all crofters in an area will have to become members of the crofting trust. I see that at Assynt 130 of a potential 140 crofters are members of that trust. It would interesting to know the status of the other 10 crofters.
Crofters must be no worse off after transfer to a trust than they were before. It would be interesting to know what protection an individual crofter has if his trust fails for, say, financial reasons. Are the trusts to provide annual accounts for any period when they continue to receive financial support from the Scottish Office? Is there a time limit for the transfer? What is to happen if a whole area rather than an individual crofter does not want to be transferred into a trust? I imagine that the Secretary of State for Scotland is regarded as a pretty good landlord.
It is right that mineral rights follow the land that they are on or under, but as any mining would probably be opencast there would be a vast hole somewhere on the land, and noise and dust, before any great wealth was produced. Some sporting rights are probably under current leases which will need to be honoured or renegotiated but then should revert to the land they are on. Sporting rights, if properly managed, are a valuable asset. The Scottish Secretary at present receives almost half as much rent again from the sporting rights on 18 estates as he receives for the crofting lets on 55 estates.
The crofters in three townships on the Armadale estate in Sutherland are to pilot a government scheme to transfer state-owned crofting estates into community-led trusts to see whether the trusts can go it alone. I hope that they can. I hope that we give the Bill a Second Reading this evening.
4.53 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Lindsay for his clear introduction of the Bill. The intentions in the Bill are highly commendable. I wish it well. I hope that it will lead to a substantial transfer of the Secretary of State's estate. I venture to speak (briefly) because I have been associated with some of the past proposals and changes in the crofting system. The most recent was the piloting

895
through this House in 1991 of a Private Member's Bill which became the Crofter Forestry (Scotland) Act. It enabled crofters to plant and manage trees on their land.
My home is 10 miles from Inverness but is not in the crofting area of the Highlands. I would remind your Lordships that crofting tenure is unique and operates only in what were the crofting counties in the Highlands. In areas where land is not fertile or easy to cultivate, small communities can, and have for years, had their special arrangements. The crofters are usually engaged in more than one occupation, dividing their time between them. One man, for example, may be a part-time farmer, with a few sheep or cattle, and a part-time sea fisherman, probably fishing for lobsters, other crustaceans or shellfish with a small boat in one of the firths or sea inlets.
In recent years the crofter has also often offered tourist accommodation facilities and sold the products of local crafts and materials. As a versatile all-rounder, the crofter can make a living, though not a rich one, from land which would not support normal agriculture or the same number of people otherwise engaged.
Twenty five years ago, during the four years when I was Secretary of State for Scotland, I made what I think were the first moves in planning to transfer crofting land owned by the Government to the crofters themselves. I learnt that, as Secretary of State, I was the largest landowner (in area of land) in the whole of the UK. I was very ready to part with some of it in a manner which would be acceptable to all concerned and beneficial to the public interest. Of course, I must make it clear that in my private capacity I am only a small landowner in northern Scotland—the land around my home.
My recollection is that it was difficult to produce a scheme about which crofters' representatives felt happy. Crofting tenure had traditionally become familiar to them and ingrained in their way of life. They seemed to sense insecurity and uncertainty in any proposed major changes or in a new system. That is why I congratulate my noble friend Lord Lindsay and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, Mr. Michael Forsyth.
What I was able to do in 1972 and 1973 was to reach general agreement on reforms to the crofting system. I introduced in the other place a Bill which had a Second Reading just before the February 1974 general election. At least one Scottish Labour MP, now a Liberal Democrat, made an intemperate, polemical speech, claiming that that Bill would be grossly damaging to the crofting communities. That surprised everyone, including his colleagues and the Scottish Office.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: Names!
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I shall spare his blushes, but it would be fairly easy to guess and Hansard can be looked up. He had to eat his words later when my successor, the late Lord Ross of Marnock, sensibly reintroduced the Bill unchanged. It went through Parliament with general support and became the
896
Crofting Reform (Scotland) Act 1976. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, will remember that even before 1974 that Act was introduced as a Bill by me from the Conservative Front Bench in the other place.
I should like to make a comment or two about some strange and, at times misleading, terms used in crofting tenure. For example, there is "congested areas". They are not congested in the modern understanding of that word, in very underpopulated areas. There is then the word "township". That can mislead. A township may be no more than half a dozen scattered habitations and their simple farm buildings.
I applaud what the Government propose. I support the Bill, subject to safeguards, to some of which the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, referred. I applaud also the fact that the crofters' representatives seem prepared to consider the proposals. I understand fully their past reluctance and hesitation. Their families have been used to the system of crofting tenure for generations. They include a number of Campbells—fellow clansmen. I urge them to consider positively the advantages and responsibilities of the ownership now on offer, and to take up the chance of having more of a stake in the land upon which they and their families have lived and worked for countless years.
5 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend the Minister in moving the Second Reading of the Bill. I strongly approve of the Select Committee procedure that is to follow; I believe that it is the right procedure for this Bill.
The measure is an important initiative on the part of the Government and follows much debate on the subject, particularly in recent years when the Government have sought views on devolving to the crofters themselves through trusts or any other suitable arrangements their own lands which are at present held by the Secretary of State for Scotland.
In the late 1980s I was involved in many discussions on the subject, particularly with the Scottish Crofters Union. At that time a discussion paper was produced relating to the experiment of moving the Skye and Raasay estates from the powers of the Secretary of State into the hands of the crofters. Sadly, that did not meet with crofter approval. I am glad to see that times have moved on and those land holdings in the crofting counties are now the subject of the Bill. They are very extensive.
The Secretary of State is the biggest landlord in the crofting counties by a long way. I must say straight away that their administration by the Scottish Agriculture Department has been exemplary. Nevertheless, if one studies the extent of this land holding it is right to bring about now true devolution and see these estates owned and run by those who live and work in Skye or Harris, in Barra or Caithness. The crofters themselves must take the responsibility, and I believe that they are now able and willing so to do.
The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, made an important point when he asked for details of profitability of the estates. The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, indicated that

897
different solutions for different estates was the right way to go about it. My recollection is that, as economic units, the estates vary tremendously. The key to success must be to treat each individual estate on its merits. It is absolutely vital that on transfer nothing should stand in the way of the new bodies achieving the best results for an estate. This means that in no way should rights—be they sporting, fishing or mineral—be withheld from incoming crofter trusts unless a very special case is made.
In commenting on the remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, about passing on an estate—that is, getting a quick buck for the selling of an estate—I am sure that that must be covered by Clause 2(1)(b). If it is not, it certainly should be.
I do not wish to be unkind to the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, or to his party, but Dr. Jim Hunter, the expert in crofting affairs, in his book The Making of the Crofting Community published in 1976, was not all that complimentary about Labour Governments of the 20th century and their failure to deal with issues such as the one we are debating today. Perhaps I may remind the noble Lord that there is all the difference in the world between a willing seller and confiscation. I am content that this Conservative administration is bringing forward this Bill today.
For a moment I should like to look at the scene now and the importance of understanding the real world of living in the crofting counties. It is not an easy life. If through BSE or some other agricultural crisis mainland Scotland or England catches a cold, crofting communities get flu or worse. If some environmental policy is pursued in the United Kingdom in general, we have to beware of its effects on the crofting counties. Brigadoon was a theatrical performance; it is not what I and many others want to see for the crofting communities. The new Scottish Environmental Protection Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage must be aware of the fragile balance that must be struck to enable the quality of life there to be really worth while—hence, I believe, the demise of the Nature Conservancy Council in Scotland.
To sum up, no crofting legislation was ever easy. But that does not mean that we should not act. There is a desire, particularly among the younger generation, to move to owner occupation. Yes, there will be different solutions, but I now see how crofters, through these new arrangements, can provide the security which banks require. It will thus do something to give them the initiative which is denied them by being solely crofting tenants. If this Bill helps to achieve the goal of owner occupation, I for one will be delighted.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may ask my noble friend a question. I should be grateful if he would reply in winding up the debate. The Long Title refers to the Secretary of State disposing,
"of his crofting estates and certain other property of his in the crofting counties".
898
Clause 1(3)(c) appears to include non-crofting property. Will my noble friend clarify why it is appropriate for the Bill to refer to non-crofting property when its purpose is to dispose of land to a body representative of the crofting community with an interest in the land?
That question has been put to me, and may have been put to other noble Lords, by the Law Society of Scotland and it would be helpful if at this stage my noble friend could clarify the point.
5.6 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, the Bill has already been welcomed from these Benches and continues to be so. There is no doubt that it has caused a great deal of insecurity among the Secretary of State's crofting and other tenants. That was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and I wish to reflect upon it.
It is unusual that a landlord should want to divest himself of estates, particularly without prompting from his tenants or other purchasers. The laird wants out and the tenants do not believe that they have done anything wrong to deserve it. My analogy goes on. During the Clearances the crofters became an endangered species. The Napier Commission led to their becoming protected species. Now the Secretary of State is preparing to release them back into the wild. As the Secretary of State has been a popular, kindly and not too pro-active laird, his tenants are surprised by his new found boldness and concerned about how all this will work out. Certainly, their rights as crofting tenants will be maintained and protected but the estate management, whether within local crofting trusts or perhaps a pan-Highland trust, will have a substantially reduced income by comparison with that of the Secretary of State.
The likelihood of long-term success—and, indeed, the likelihood of a successful transfer of these lands—will depend upon the willingness of the Secretary of State and the Treasury to transfer not just the croft land and the other lands mentioned but also the assets of the sporting, mineral and foreshore rights, and then to show a further willingness to retain or to transfer elsewhere the burdens upon the estates. Public road bridges and coastal erosion work could be retained. Drainage and march fencing could be invested in before transfer. A commitment to sort out all outstanding estate problems prior to transfer would be beneficial.
While debating the principle of the Bill, it must be recognised that the measure is designed to save a considerable amount of taxpayers' money. It fits into an agenda of privatisation and, concurrently, into an agenda of devolving the ownership of land to local level. I suspect that after a protracted period of supporting start-up costs for trusts and the associated fees it will show a reduction in government expenditure. But is it really helpful? No one pretends that crofting constitutes the highest level of UK farm production, but probably it is not meant to. It has become a population measure—part of the policy to keep the remoter parts of Scotland inhabited—and in consequence of its part-time nature always looking for something extra to do. Certainly,

899
croft incomes rely heavily on the auxiliary occupations permitted by the crofting Acts and on part-time jobs secured locally.
I should like to ask about the complete inventory of the Secretary of State's estate. While the Bill is specific about the croft land held under the 1993 Act and about the fishermen's dwellings and holdings held under the 1897 Act, it is not clear what is the extent of the lands referred to under Clause 1(3)(c). The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, has already mentioned the matter. I presume that some of the land was acquired under the 1919 Act. I wonder whether there is any other land which may have been acquired by the MoD, the old Post Office and other central government agencies. I hope that the noble Earl can tell us about them, if they exist, as they may hold the key to the successful funding of local or pan-Highland trusts.
It is ironic, when reading Section 1 of the Land Settlement (Scotland) Act 1919, to think of apoplectic landowners learning to live with the words,
"with the consent of the Secretary for Scotland and the Treasury, land may be compulsorily acquired by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland".
Today's Bill is not phrased in those terms but it reverses the thrust of the 1919 Act. I suppose that I should ask whether the Secretary of State retains any land outwith the seven crofting counties and, if so, whether he has any plans for that land.
The existing crofting trusts of Assynt, Borve and Annishader may act as lighthouses in this storm. Comparisons of their viability with the other estates will be useful. We must recognise the difficulty in the leadership of a crofting trust being mainly in volunteer time. The income of a local crofting trust is unlikely to support anything other than expenses unless there are hidden assets or special management grants planned for those trusts.
I should also like to ask about the nature of the bodies to which those estates may be transferred. The Bill reads quite tightly in Clause 2 but I ask how much dilution of the criteria will be allowed, particularly if commendable bodies are not forthcoming? What happens in the event of no body coming forward? The speed of transfer is a question which is causing mild panic in the form of the question, "Who will come in as laird if a local crofting trust does not emerge immediately?" I look forward to reassurance that it will be a long-term process and that agencies such as the Crofting Trusts Advisory Service and the Scottish Crofters Union will be allowed time to do the necessary development work, with willing rather than panicking volunteers. I hope that the noble Earl can confirm that this matter will be approached in a manner likely to be sustainable. The failure of a crofting trust due to over-hasty establishment will be quite counter-productive.
In conclusion, my financial appraisal is that the Secretary of State will save £200,000 a year eventually and that the new landowning bodies will generally have inadequate income to invest in and develop their estates. My economic appraisal is that a few estates will do well due to inherent assets currently under-exploited but that most will be struggling. I believe also that there will be an increase in owner-occupation of crofts.
900
My social appraisal is that local leadership will emerge where there is a good chance of some real benefit but that most estates will have no "interesting project" for volunteer managers to develop on an altruistic basis. Where owner-occupation increases, so the sense of community will decrease. Conversely, where positive leadership emerges, the benefit of increased community participation may be forthcoming. As the demand for crofting property and tenancies is already high, few extra people will be attracted to the more remote areas. I am sure that the noble Earl has the answer to all those points. I look forward to hearing from him.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I was told that this was a very simple Bill and that there would be no problems. I asked a Member from the other side of your Lordships' House whether he was coming in to debate this Bill and he said, "No, it is quite a simple Bill". Having listened to the contributions of noble Lords, it is quite clear that the Bill is a legal minefield.
Crofting is simple. Perhaps I may ask one question: what is a croft? Nobody seems to tell us what a croft is within the terms of the Bill. It talks about "crofting communities" and "crofting" this and "crofting" that. A croft is something which belongs to a family and has belonged to it over many years. Over the years, the croft passes as a piece of land which belongs to the oldest son of the family. That has never changed over the years.
What is this Bill trying to do? It is the Transfer of Crofting Estates (Scotland) Bill. I have no doubt that if the Secretary of State fell over a croft, he would not recognise it. What is a croft?
I know from experience that when a European grant was given to the outer islands and the islanders had to produce a programme to justify the European input, I saw places where people were out hammering in fences to enclose nothing and that was called a croft. They were doing that because they were getting a gift from the European Community.
In terms of this Bill, we must look at where we are going in relation to crofting because there are no cows and very few sheep in the islands and I presume that the object of this Bill is to establish some sort of community behind the crofting counties. Indeed, the Long Title of the Bill states that it is:
"An Act to enable the Secretary of State to dispose of his crofting estates and certain other property of his in the crofting counties to approved crofting bodies".
We have heard various contributions from Members of your Lordships' House and I have no doubt that they will be taken into account in due course. I do not intend to go through them at all. But this is not a simple Bill. I believe that the Members of the Select Committee are to go to Inverness and Skye, but that may not be right. However, I give notice to your Lordships that in Committee we shall have quite a fight about this Bill. At this stage, I merely thank those noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. We cannot talk sensibly about the Bill until we have been to see what a croft is, and in Committee we shall be able to discuss the whole

901
matter in depth. On this side of the House we accept the Bill in principle, but we shall await its later stages to examine the various qualities of the legislation.
5.20 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, we have had a most interesting and constructive debate. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part for the positive approach that they have taken and, indeed, for the welcome they have given to the general principles of the Bill. I also welcome the fact that this House will be able to apply its close and expert scrutiny not only within the Chamber itself but also through the evidence-taking in Scotland. The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, my noble friend Lord Sanderson, and other speakers have welcomed the fact that we shall be in the right part of Scotland. We shall be in one of the crofting counties, taking evidence from those crofters and crofting organisations who want to submit evidence. That can only help the general scrutiny and enhance any of the improvements which may be engineered into the Bill.
I shall address some of the concerns that have been expressed and see to what extent I can reassure those noble Lords who have raised queries. The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, mocked the amount of time that it has taken to get to the point where we now find ourselves. However, I believe that the contributions from my noble friends Lord Campbell of Croy and Lord Sanderson indicate just how far Scottish Office Ministers of all parties have worked over the years to bring forward reforms relevant to the Secretary of State's crofting estates. The pace of progress may have disappointed some. That has rarely been because Ministers were not enthusiastic to press ahead; it has been the need for consensus with the crofters which has been the vital determinant of the speed that has been set.
We especially welcome the Second Reading of this Bill because it indicates the extent to which consultation has begun to build consensus around the general principles which lie behind the Bill. Only a lawyer would call the Bill a legal minefield. To a lawyer, a legal minefield is, of course, a dream. Therefore, I was not surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, rush to give the Bill such a label. No doubt his profession will be looking forward, if his description is true, to a vastly more prosperous future. I do not believe that there is any justice in that remark whatever.
A better analysis was given by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, and other noble Lords when they described the challenge which the Bill addresses full in the face. We cannot achieve a single blueprint—nor should we try to—through the Bill. We are seeking to address circumstances which differ from township to township, from district to district and from estate to estate. The Bill will enable a mechanism to be sensitive to those varying circumstances. I, for one, can assure the House that we are not setting out to devise a legal minefield. I hope that that does not come as a disappointment to the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay.
Various general points have been made with which I shall deal before addressing the exact text that has attracted attention. The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, was
902
perhaps disappointed that the powers vested in the Bill only relate to the Secretary of State. I remind the noble Lord that all crofters already have the right to buy. Therefore, they already have the right to exercise voluntarily a change over their own land tenure status. I also remind the noble Lord that there are private landlords who have worked with their crofting communities to allow them either to buy or simply to take, at no consideration at all, the freehold of their own areas. In addition, the local rural partnerships, of which the noble Lord is aware, are part of another initiative we have in those areas which is available to crofters and which can deliver a level of enhanced opportunity. It should always be pointed out—I am sure all noble Lords are aware of this—that not all crofters are anxious to take on or to seize their own freeholds. Indeed, some are most content with the status quo. We fully respect that fact.
The contribution made by my noble fried Lord Campbell of Croy was especially important because of his involvement over the years in crofting legislation. My noble friend described the energies that he put into the crofters' forestry Act in this House. I was delighted that my noble friend drew attention to that fact, because I was involved last year in the launch of one of the initiatives which that Act enabled with crofters on Lewis. The Act has led to an interesting range of opportunities for crofters working with forestry. The efforts which were made in the 1970s, first, by my noble friend and then by the party opposite, helped bring forward improvements at that time. However, we now realise that we must go much further.
As regards Clause 1, my noble friend Lady Carnegy and the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, queried the reference to other properties and other lands. I remind them of the reference I made in my opening remarks to those non-crofting holdings of the Secretary of State which have come about through various land holdings Acts. They are managed in a similar way to crofting estates and can, in many ways, be treated in a similar fashion to crofting holdings. As I said, the land in question was acquired under the various land holdings Acts. In a sense, it is only historical accident that it is not, strictly speaking, labelled as crofting land. Therefore, we believe that it makes sense to have the necessary power to transfer those lands to community trusts or to crofting trusts. I mentioned specifically the fishermen's holdings in Lewis. In addition, I mentioned the other small areas of grazing which are connected with townships or communities but which may not have earned the label of "crofting grazing".
The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, asked about land outside crofting counties which belongs to the Secretary of State. Those holdings were acquired under the same land holdings Acts. Most have already been sold to sitting tenants. The rest are available for sale at discounted prices to those sitting tenants if they wish to purchase.
Clause 1 also deals with the sporting and mineral rights. The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and other speakers alluded to that part of the Bill. The noble Viscount is correct to say that the flexibility available with regard to the disposal of rights would allow the

903
Secretary of State to be fair to all parties in dealing with sporting rights and other rights, such as mineral rights. It would enable circumstances, such as those which relate to Strathy Point, to be carefully considered. There is no wisdom or sense in imposing a single solution on all such differing rights across the various estates. Each will be dealt with according to the circumstances of the case in which it arises.
The most interesting part of our debate revolved around Clause 2. I echo what the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, said about the importance of the work that is done in fashioning the trusts that come forward and about how important it is that they should have a real prospect of achieving viability. Much advice has already been taken and advice remains available to all such townships, all crofters and all districts through the Crofting Trusts Advisory Service. The crofters who have approached the service have, I believe, considered matters most carefully. The CTAS allows potential trusts to gain advice from the best experts available, including those, for example, who were involved in the Assynt project. Therefore, just to take one example, both experience and formal advice are available through the CTAS.
The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, posed the interesting point about whether a specific level of local support should be demonstrated or proven before a transfer can take place. As with all other aspects of the detail of transfers, we want to retain flexibility for the sake of the crofters themselves as much as for anyone else. We do not feel it right that a specific percentage—be it 51 per cent. or 75 per cent.—should be laid down on the face of the legislation. It is better that the Crofters Commission studies an application put forward by any group, and that the Secretary of State then has the power to consider both the evidence that has been provided with the application and the advice of the Crofters Commission. He should then be able to make a judgment as to whether or not the interests of the crofters concerned will be best represented by a transfer to a particular trust. We see no merit—and we do not consider that there would be any incentive—in forcing trusts on to unwilling crofters. We believe that the power to object about a proposal to the Crofters Commission and the Secretary of State will enable the Secretary of State and the commission to take fully into consideration the feelings of those who consider that a proposal will not properly represent the interests of those involved.
The noble Earl, Lord Kintore, asked about the fate of a crofter in a crofting area which elects to become a trust who does not want to be a member of the trust. We believe that individual crofters cannot simply opt out, but they can always elect to buy their crofting freeholds. Therefore they have other options available to them if, for instance, they are unhappy with a change of landlord from the Secretary of State to a crofting trust. In a sense that matter relates to a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel. We would happily leave such matters to be finalised on a case by case basis by the Crofters Commission and the Secretary of State when he exercises his judgment.
904
The noble Earls, Lord Mar and Kellie and Lord Kintore, also asked if there was a time limit on transfers. That is not the case. Once this Bill becomes an Act a transfer will be able to take place at any time. A number of years may pass before a group of crofters decides on their application. They will receive help on establishment, as I made clear in my opening remarks. Certainly we do not seek to hurry them nor do we seek to force them down this route. The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, asked what would happen if no trust came forward. As I have said, there is no compulsion on crofters on the estates of the Secretary of State to opt for trust status. They may continue as they were hitherto.
The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, suggested that the Secretary of State had been a reluctant landlord and that the crofters may have been reluctant tenants. That is not so in either case. It is because the Secretary of State has been a good landlord that efforts to empower crofters on his estates in the past have come to nought. The Secretary of State supports crofting both within and beyond his estates with a range of initiatives and a range of grant schemes. The extent of that support is hardly indicative of reluctance on his part as a landlord. I believe it was my noble friend Lord Sanderson who said that the Secretary of State had in general been a good landlord. I refer, of course, to successive Secretaries of State.
I believe my noble friend Lord Sanderson also referred to the interesting point made by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, as regards what would happen if trusts proceeded to sell off the assets that they had gained through taking over the freehold from the Secretary of State. Essentially that would be a matter for the trusts themselves. Trusts will no doubt consider carefully the effect of selling or leasing land. The loss of land will need to be weighed against the possible benefits, for example the benefits of providing a source of money to undertake development projects in the interests of a local community, or to create new employment prospects for that local community. However, crofting legislation provides protection for the crofting interest as the land remains in crofting tenure unless the landowner—in this case that is the trust itself—successfully applies to the Scottish Land Court to have it resumed. That is an important safety net. In considering applications for resumption, the Scottish Land Court must be persuaded that the resumption is required for some reasonable purpose in relation to the good of a particular croft, the estate as a whole, or the public interest. There is already in existence a strong counterbalance which may well be sufficient to prevent foolish development being pursued.
The noble Earl, Lord Kintore, and the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, both asked about the circumstances which would ensue if a trust became bankrupt. First, we do not expect that to be a problem, certainly not immediately, because we and the Crofters Commission will seek to ensure that a proposed trust has a sound financial base before any land is transferred. We are not in the business of seeking to sell dodgy goods on the doorstep. We are anxious that any crofting community that seeks to exploit the opportunities of this legislation does so on the basis that the proposed trust

905
will be a viable trust. We and other advisers would seek to dissuade a community from pursuing a proposal which does not appear to be financially viable.
The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, was interested in the imbalance that he perceived between rights, such as sporting rights and mineral rights, which may be transferred and burdens, such as the maintenance of the fabric of certain estates, that will be transferred. The conditions of transfer of trusts and the transfer of rights and burdens will be negotiated and agreed in each individual instance. We have made clear that we wish to ensure that trusts are able to take advantage of the sources of income that are relevant to those areas. Similarly, in negotiating or agreeing a trust, we would not wish to impose burdens on any trust which would render it less than viable, or bankrupt, from the very start. We have given assurance after assurance that we do not want to see a trust becoming established and then heading straight for financial ruin. That is not the purpose of this policy. Each case will be considered individually and we hope that will ensure that viability will ensue.
I believe it was the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, who asked about the costs that might arise from a claimant seeking compensation in the Scottish Land Court against the Secretary of State on, for example, the rights of pre-emption. I remind the noble Viscount that the Scottish Land Court has the power to award costs as it sees fit. In addition, as the noble Viscount knows, the Scottish Land Court is a low cost route to justice. Therefore I hope that the concern the noble Viscount may have on that matter will not be realised. The noble Viscount also asked about specific expenses accruing to the Secretary of State against the income of these estates. In general terms the Secretary of State's crofting estate costs something in excess of £200,000 per annum to maintain. There is a total expenditure of around £370,000 per annum and a total income of approximately £165,000 per annum.
As my noble friend Lord Sanderson stressed, the best way to approach the initiative is to see the estate broken down into separate townships or districts and to treat the viability of those townships or districts individually. That is the viability that we shall seek; it is the viability that the trusts will seek.
The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, said that one of the objectives is to save a considerable amount of taxpayers' money. The noble Earl is absolutely wrong. First, we are not saving a considerable sum of taxpayers' money. The funds required to help the trust become established will outweigh any savings in the early years. Secondly, public expenditure being what it is, a net cost of £200,000 is not a sufficient sum on which to build a policy to achieve substantial savings.
I hope that the concerns expressed have been met by some of the reassurances that I have given. I hope that the thinking underlying the Bill is somewhat clearer to those noble Lords who were uncertain prior to Second Reading. Following the debate, I shall make available notes on clauses. They will give further clarification on the details of the Bill. I look forward to the discussions that we shall have in Scotland, on taking
906
evidence, and in the House through the various stages of the Bill, in clarifying what will be best for the crofters. We wish to give the Scottish Office's crofting tenants an opportunity to take advantage of the benefits which ownership of land can bring. The Bill is designed to achieve that.
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be committed to a Scottish Select Committee.
Moved, That the Bill be committed to a Scottish Select Committee.—(The Earl of Lindsay.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Moral Education
5.42 p.m.
The Earl of Longford The Earl of Longford rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have for moral education in schools.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have put down this Question as a small contribution to the historic initiative which the right reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury launched in this House in July of this year. Since then a good deal has happened, as we all know. There have been other admirable initiatives. I have in mind the hour long speech of the Leader of the Labour Party at the party conference; the manifesto of the noble widow of the murdered headmaster; and the document produced by the Catholic Bishops. Recently, the Prime Minister explained in the most unmistakable way that he is and always has been a lifelong Christian.
Bearing in mind that last point, I hope and believe that when the noble Lord, Lord Henley, replies he will be happy to inform us that in the view of the Government Christianity must play a leading part in the attempt to improve or even maintain the moral life of this country and of our children in particular. The noble Lord will find himself in good Christian company. I notice that a number of Christians are to follow me in speaking in the debate. They are all better Christians than myself, I am sure; I should be sorry to hear that they were not. We shall hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Young, the right reverend Prelate and what Winston Churchill would call other paradigms. On this side of the House we have the noble Lord, Lord Morris, who possesses perhaps the clearest and certainly the loudest voice in favour of Christianity in this House. I am sure that the noble Lord will be happy to lead such a concourse forward.
The noble Lord is as aware as I am that this is a country in which the vast, overwhelming majority of people when asked state that they are Christian. We have been told recently by one of our most admired humanists that 10 per cent. of the population do not believe in any religion. I have remarked previously, upon expert information, that 3.7 per cent. of the population belong to other religions. Good luck to them,

907
of course, my Lords. But the fact is that this is an overwhelmingly Christian country. When the noble Lord, Lord Henley, replies, I am sure that he will speak in a way which expresses that most capably.
We shall all have to speak in a hurry and rather dogmatically in the few minutes allowed. I turn to the report of the moral forum. I find myself in some difficulty. I admire the purpose underlying the forum. I admire the chairman, a very good Christian as I well know; and I am sure that there are many other Christians in that forum. However, when all is said and done, the forum has failed to give any clear moral lead. It has failed to pay any attention to Christianity or even to religious values. So I am bound to say that if I were seeking to bring up children on the basis of the Gospels or of the moral forum I should not choose the moral forum. I should much prefer the Gospels.
Let us take one aspect of the forum. Out of those 150 people, only five supported an amendment which would have stressed the need for family values and successful marriage. In a rather patronising conclusion in the report, the majority states that while not necessarily dissenting it cannot see its way at the moment to come out clearly on behalf of the family and marriage.
I must speak rather more plainly than the bold spirits who supported the amendment. Even the supporters of the amendment do not refer to fidelity in marriage, although that is clearly implied in the amendment. However, I shall be even more outspoken and say that the great enemy of a successful marriage and of good family life is adultery. Adultery has become almost an obscene word. It is almost pornographic to mention adultery. It is like homosexuality—the sin that cannot give its name. But I am bound to say plainly—it is well known to all Christians present—that adultery is, and always has been, one of the cardinal sins not only in Christian but Jewish ethics. Unless our political and religious leaders denounce adultery more boldly than hitherto, we shall not make much moral progress.
I am bound to face the fact—it may have worried the majority of the forum—that if you tell children that adultery is wrong you may receive the answer, "But that is just what my parents are up to". And there it is. In this day and age it is no good pretending that that is not a great difficulty. But if one succumbs to that point of view, one has to say that one will never make the children better than their parents. In other words, the hope of a moral renewal becomes nonsensical.
I say these things easily enough as an elderly Back-Bencher. I know that it is harder for people in responsible positions—rulers and political or religious representatives. They have to consider the amount of popular support that can be obtained at any specific moment. It is tempting for them to seek a consensus which is the lowest common denominator to which everyone can agree, and then to go along with it. That is what the moral forum seemed to do. But at its best this House has risen above that consideration. At its best this House has been ready to give a moral lead to the nation—not only in finding a consensus, but in leading it. I hope and believe that this House will do that very thing tonight.
5.50 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I too, thank the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for introducing this short debate. As he said, it is both important and topical. When he asked me quite particularly to take part, I told him how glad I was to do so. Often in recent years he and I have stood, as it were, shoulder to shoulder on some of these issues on public platforms. I have greatly admired the stand that he has taken on moral issues during the period I have known him in this House. I think back particularly to the great debates on pornography some 25 years ago. The noble Earl's courage in these matters is very great. His is a very good example of the value of the work of an hereditary Peer.
In introducing this debate we must make it quite clear that there are no short answers to the very big questions that are raised and that it will take years before we can reverse the current climate of opinion on relative values into something more substantial. However, that does not mean that we should not try to formulate a set of principles by which we should all live. That is what we are talking about. It is not that we all live up to them every minute of our lives—as Christians, we all know that we fall, and fail to live up to the standards that we should like to achieve—but we need those standards set out before us.
In this debate we have before us the SCAA consultation document. I accept immediately that it is not a statement of government policy. It is, however, a necessary subject for debate. Before turning to the document, I should like to comment on the extraordinary event of the two minutes silence yesterday. That, after all, was a moral statement. It was accepted by some 80 per cent. of the population. Particularly impressive were the numbers of young people who took part. I asked myself why that was so. I believe that the young people took the example from their elders, who told them what it was about, and also learnt what it was about through the national curriculum, which now includes teaching on the First and Second World Wars. That tells us something about how we should proceed on the issue before us.
What is eventually included in the SCAA document is important. It will become part of the national curriculum, and once that happens it must be taught. It would be helpful if my noble friend the Minister would tell us in his reply whether some such document is to be included in regulations.
It is quite helpful to read the background notes before turning to the document itself. The findings are that there is much good practice. It seems a pity that we have not had some examples so that we may know what is meant by good practice. Secondly, it indicates that a clear statement of values has been agreed and that the forum expects all members of the community to live by those values. How important that is in schools. Whatever is agreed should be agreed by teachers, by governors, by the local education authority and, it is to be hoped, by parents as well if we wish to achieve anything at all.

909
That said, I am inclined to agree with the noble Earl, Lord Longford, that the document is incredibly anodyne and, I should have thought, most unhelpful to children. I was astonished, for example, to see, at the end of the set of values relating to society:
"make truth and integrity priorities in public life".
That may be true, but surely we make them priorities in the home and in the whole of our life. We do not decide to keep to the truth on Tuesday morning. I find that an extraordinary statement.
To explain why I believe the report is anodyne, I turn to three moral issues which confront all schoolchildren and on which I believe we would all agree. Bullying is one. Everybody believes that it is wrong and a lot of schools manage to eliminate it altogether. Cheating is another. We all agree that that is wrong. Given that so much course work for GCSE and A-levels is now internally assessed, cheating is a very serious matter. Stealing is another such issue. It is wrong to help yourself to somebody else's sweets. These are common issues faced by children. I am simply at a loss to understand why the document cannot state what we think about such matters.
Leaving all that aside, I was very pleased indeed that my right honourable friend Mrs. Shephard called for the need to rethink the point about leaving out marriage altogether. I find the omission quite astonishing at this particular time. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has set up his interdepartmental working party on marriage; he is intending to give money to support marriage or organisations that promote marriage. We have just had endless debates in this House on the Family Law Bill; everybody agreed that marriage was the most important matter. All the evidence goes to show that children require two parents, particularly fathers, who are so often absent now, and that one of the major causes of the breakdown of law and order is the fact that so many children are growing up without families and where there is not a stable two-parent relationship. I cannot see why we should not state that marriage is the right outcome; that it is not the same as cohabitation in any form. Although it is not at all politically correct to say so, I believe it is wrong for single women deliberately to have babies. To bring a baby into the world without a father is a very wrong thing to do. The child will suffer all its days. (Of course, some single mothers manage well).
There are many positive points to be stated and on which we can agree. We very much look forward to hearing the remarks of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield. I see that there were Ministers on the working party. I am bound to say that I am slightly surprised that they do not seem to have put in a minority report.
There are people who are anxious to help. I draw my noble friend's attention to the work of Sister Judith Russi, who produced a very interesting document on how moral education might be taken right across the curriculum. I am unable to describe the document in the limited time available to me. This is an important issue. I hope that the debate will be a major contribution to the discussion on the SCAA document.
5.58 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Lichfield: My Lords, those of us who live close to communities where the question of moral education is a very live issue would like to remind the House that moral education cannot be easily or completely separated from wider questions beyond the classroom. I trust that whatever plans are in hand to take serious account of moral education will not ignore those wider issues.
The Midlands diocese where I serve has over 20,000 children in its Church schools. Very many of those children live in areas where families are experiencing second or third generation unemployment. That must have a very adverse effect on the motivation of families and children to commit themselves to education. My diocese funds truancy workers to bring young people back into education as such, let alone moral education.
The question therefore of the future of employment in the large post-industrial communities of the West Midlands cannot be separated from that of moral education. When people, especially in former industrial areas, no longer go to work together, an important social glue is lost. That must have significance for the matter before us. Noble Lords should not misunderstand me. I believe that there remains on each family and on individuals living in such communities the responsibility to choose. The moral responsibility to choose is still there but regard must be paid to the context and the weekly and yearly pressure of the context.
A second point arises out of this Unstarred Question. There is a significant number of disturbed children in many of the classes of our church schools. Many classes are too large for the teachers to be able to cope with the excellent emphasis placed by the Government on higher standards in basic skills and the need to pay special attention to children to whom the question of moral education is especially applicable. I welcome the emphasis on higher standards in basic skills but I know more than one teacher who, in a too large class, is torn between trying to teach a child to read and disciplining and bringing some appropriate relational moral influence to bear on a disturbed child. I trust that those making plans for moral education are aware of those two wider factors.
I should like to mention a third point. If we are to include specific moral education in schools, I plead that the moral education lessons should be related to the other subjects in a syllabus. The Archbishop of Canterbury pleaded against the "ghetto-ising" of the subject. He pleaded that moral education should be related to the teaching of history and the sciences and not be hived off on its own.
The noble Baroness mentioned the importance of moral development being caught as well as taught. That is particularly clear in a school community—a primary school or a secondary school. I adduce as an example of good practice one of our priests who works in an area of the West Midlands where employment has fallen from 20,000 to 1,000. When he went as a new teacher to the primary school, one of the topics he had to address with staff was: is rudeness, courtesy or truth

911
speaking? That school has improved its moral and academic performance because it has seen community as a very important agent in moral education.
Finally, I want to touch lightly but with great feeling and emphasis on the question of the relationship between moral values and religious belief. I do not wish to over-state or over-clarify this very complex relationship. All of us know people of admirable moral force who are agnostic. Let us never forget that. The other night I saw at a theatre very near to this House "Uncle Vanya", a play by Chekhov, who was a humanist agnostic of enormous nobility and courage. I noticed that the moment of greatest attention by the audience was when, in the very closing lines of the play, a heroine draws attention to such things as faith, reconciliation and rest.
In 1988 your Lordships' House was very concerned to bring worship into the whole area of the moral and educational development of children. The Archbishop of Canterbury has therefore invited SCAA to include in its discussions the vital relationship between worship and moral education.
I conclude with a quotation from the Psalms. The psalmist writes:
"Thy statutes [of morality and law] become songs in the house of my pilgrimage".
In other words, worship can make moral education joyful and interesting. I wonder if the reason why people have not taken part in the forum is because we make this subject so boring. True religious belief, deeply wedded to moral behaviour, makes the subject fun. May the Lord preserve us from making the great, rich, human question of how to live boring. One way to ensure that we do not is to link it with the great mysteries of prayer and worship.
6.5 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for reminding us in his inimitable way of the responsibility we all have to give guidance and support to schools in this all-important area.
I speak as a Christian, but I hope that the noble Earl and my noble friend Lady Young will forgive me if I take a rather different line to that which they have taken. Of course the problem of how to develop young people's moral sense is not new. It has always been about older people handing on values to younger people. Centuries ago the Chinese had a saying:
"Handsome boy—O for a thread to haul you over to my side!".
It has never been easy, but in this country it is probably more difficult now than it has ever been for teachers in our state schools—notably those that are not Church schools—to know what the nation expects of them, let alone how to meet the expectations.
In our multi-cultural and multi-ethnic society our structures of law and parliamentary thinking continue to reflect Christian assumptions. Of course they do. We have heard some of those assumptions in the speeches so far. Yet children come from families adhering to a variety of religions or no religion at all. While most
912
parents do their best to teach their children moral values at home according to their lights, too many stand back from involvement in what the school is doing.
Given this scene, how should schools proceed in practice? Having read some of the material so far published, it seems to me that the two responsible bodies, the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority, which speaks by way of the moral forum to which the noble Earl referred, and the Scottish Consultative Council on the Curriculum, are very much on the right lines. Their ideas are realistic and practical and do not conflict with the aspirations of those who have spoken so far. Both bodies propose to produce material to help schools—pupils, staff, parents and governing bodies, as groups and collectively—to agree a list of values which everyone in the school can share, which all, whatever their home background and religious beliefs, consider important, so that those things can be put at the heart of what the school is about. Such a list might include, for example, such things as—my noble friend Lady Young mentioned some of them—truthfulness, honesty, keeping the law, fairness, respect for others, loyalty, family life as where one receives love and support, and respect for the environment.
It is proposed that there would also be material to help the school go on from this to think through how in practice those values which everybody shares could be put into practice in the school: how people would behave towards one another—bullying, of course, is part of that; how they would treat visitors to the school; school dress; school rules; sanctions; and how teachers can link those values across the formal curriculum. My experience not just of how successful schools in practice handle these issues but also of similar work in the past in the multi-cultural and international guide movement makes me feel that the approach which is proposed is realistic and will work.
The secret is twofold. First, it lies in agreeing values which everyone understands and shares. For that purpose there is no need to find agreement on the source of those values from an individual's point of view. Some will believe that the values come from God, from the Bible or from the Koran; others that they originate in the human mind or wherever. The right reverend Prelate made the distinction that one can share values without having to share the source of those values. He made that point using other words—the linking of shared values with individuals, families and religious beliefs. Their views on marriage and on abortion or whatever it may be are extremely important. But they can be dealt with additionally. It does not mean that they have to be separate in people's minds. But they are not the shared values of schools because people are not in a position to share them.
The other part of the secret of the proposals is that a moral sense, a sense of right and wrong behaviour, is indeed caught and not taught. Everyone taking part in deciding what they want the climate of the school to be and then collectively trying to achieve that climate is far more likely to work than all the lectures, assemblies and high minded discussions that may take place in the school or in Parliament.

913
It has been said that the quality and training of head teachers is the most important of all. Of course it is, together with the training of staff. When last we legislated, the Association of Head Teachers warned that the somewhat airy-fairy aspirations of Parliament in that area would be very difficult to achieve in many schools.
I hope that this approach and training in this approach will be put at the disposal of those head teachers and their staff. They deserve no less, and I believe it will work for them.
6.12 p.m.
Lord Birkett: My Lords, we are all indebted to the noble Earl for introducing this subject, which he framed as a very deliberate question to the Government; namely, what plans do they have for moral education? I hope that the Government will encourage a constant debate on morals in every part of schools and in every subject.
I took a great deal of comfort from the right reverend Prelate's remarks. There is a moral dimension to almost every subject that one can think of, certainly in the sciences, the arts and in politics; nowadays too in sport and in business. History is as much a history of moral debate on an international or national scale as it is about anything else. Nowadays, geography and natural history have a huge moral element attached to them because of our concern for the environment.
If that sounds like a list of GCSE subjects or a list of career opportunities, it is not an accident. I believe that unless the morality of our behaviour is argued in all those forums, we miss the point of moral education.
I hope the Government will not introduce an inflexible and fixed code or charter, mostly because I do not believe that it is possible but also because I believe very strongly in the famous dictum of Francis Bacon: If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts, but if he will be content to begin with doubts, he shall end in certainties.
Despite everything that the noble Earl said about marriage and what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said, which is absolutely incontrovertible, about bullying, stealing and cheating, I do not believe that from any religion or any social chapter one can find a fixed and final set of precepts. It is difficult to know how to define morality in the first place but it is interesting that Jeremy Bentham, when he produced the famous phrase, "The greatest happiness of the greatest number", meant it not only as the foundation of legislation but as the foundation of morals.
I do not believe that the longest consultation in living memory will produce consensus. I know that the noble Earl is not fond of consensus as the only way forward, but I do not believe that trying to find consensus means that morals have to be swept under the carpet; nor do I believe that they have to be set upon it as tablets of stone. I believe that they should be daily invoked, daily discussed and daily debated. What that will do in schools is teach our schoolchildren what other people think and feel. I believe that that is a genuine moral dimension in education.
6.16 p.m.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Earl, Lord Longford, secured this debate this evening on a topic which is of crucial importance to the future well-being of our society. Perhaps we used to take it for granted that schools were all about moral as well as intellectual, social and physical education. But recent events where disruptive pupils have almost held schools to ransom have shown us that times have changed.
Years ago, too, I do not believe that there would have been much debate about what moral values should be taught in schools. But in our diverse society today we have had to have a national forum, drawing people from all corners of education and beyond, to draw up a statement of those values.
I have looked at the statement of values published two weeks ago by the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority and it is hard to disagree with what it contains. Are we not all in favour of valuing truth and human rights, valuing other people for themselves and valuing the natural world as a source of wonder and inspiration? But the questions that I should like to pose are these: does the statement go far enough and what specifically should Church schools be doing in the realm of moral education?
We have to recognise that schools will only ever be part of the jigsaw in the education of young people in moral values. Perhaps much more important is the home and the family and the message that they convey. I am therefore disappointed that the statement itself seems to me to be very weak in its comments on marriage and family life. It is as though the authors were anxious not to offend people. But surely we must give children values and ideals towards which to aspire. I therefore support the addition to the statement, proposed by five members of the forum, which is much more specific about the commitment to marriage and the dangers of sexual relationships outside marriage.
My second concern is the role of Church schools in promoting moral education. While a national statement of values may be somewhat bland because of the range of interests involved, there is no excuse for the Churches to be bland. The Lord Jesus was never vague or woolly. He was both clear and compassionate. Unfortunately, clarity and compassion are sometimes lacking today. Many Church schools are a shining light in upholding Christian values and being very specific about them, but others, sadly, are not. I urge all Church schools to maintain an unflinching but compassionate biblical approach. They do not need to be embarrassed by this; it is their role as Church schools.
There is one other topic I should like to mention: that is, the relationship between "belief" and "behaviour". In short, what we believe determines how we behave. That was mentioned effectively by the right reverend Prelate in his interesting speech. He talked about moral values and their relationship to religious beliefs. I believe that what he was trying to convey was exactly what I am talking about now.
What we believe is of the utmost importance and that is well illustrated by the Welsh revival at the beginning of this century. In the last three months of 1904,

915
80,000 souls were converted to Christianity. There were also astonishing results in terms of society; drunkenness was almost non-existent; crime largely ceased; debts were paid back; houses were blessed; children were clothed and fed; bitterness at work turned into praise; football matches turned into prayer meetings and the police force in one town, having no work to do because there was no crime anywhere to be found, gathered themselves together into a famous male voice choir and went wherever they were invited.
My message is simple. We should have as clear a statement of values as possible, especially on marriage and family life. And Church schools should not be afraid to go further and be specifically Christian in their approach.
6.21 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I should like to say something in relation to the reference by the noble Lord, Lord Ashbourne, to Church schools in the context of Christ Church, Spitalfields, in which there is not one single Christian child; it is entirely peopled by practising Bangladeshi Moslems. I suspect the Church of England may have a problem in that regard.
We have no alternative but to transmit moral values; all education transmits values. We can therefore transfer what we believe to be good values or random values. The question is what values we transfer and how we can effectively transfer them.
I was privileged to have a long talk at lunchtime today with Dr. Nicholas Tate—the poor man responsible for generating this statement of values. A number of misunderstandings have been promulgated by the popular press. First, it is only a consultation document; secondly, it is a consensus which only contains the issues unanimously agreed by the entire group of 150 people. It is now open to consultation. It will be revised and be subject to a further discussion both with the group and with others and it will then be brought back to Parliament.
The Jewish faith gave us the Ten Commandments. Those were things we should not do. Christianity gave us just two things that we should do; that is, we should love God and love one another, complemented by attitudes which again are entirely positive. It is therefore extremely encouraging that the values which Dr. Nicholas Tate and his merry men produced are expressed in positive terms. Each statement starts with the words, "We value".
Having said that, I agree that it is a pretty weak collection of objectives. It says virtually nothing about love, beauty, courage, self-discipline and self-sacrifice. I hope that those values will be included at a later stage and it may interest the House if I mention three or four amendments which I intend to propose. I was not discouraged from proposing them during my lunchtime meeting today.
I shall suggest that we learn to show courage in adversity; to be thankful for all that is good and beautiful; to try to recognise and appreciate beauty in all its forms and create beauty so far as we are able; and to learn to give and receive unselfish love appropriate
916
to each relationship. In another area I shall suggest that forgiveness should be brought in. Any code of values which does not include the possibility of forgiveness is a terrible and frightening thing.
I turn now to how we should deliver those values in the classroom. Again, I must defend the School Curriculum Assessment Authority. It is my understanding that it is not the authority's intention that there should be lessons in morality and it is certainly not the intention that children should learn those values by heart. That was one of the dotty ideas proposed in some of the tabloids. If they were presented as just chalk and talk, it would be a total disaster. It would lead to yawning all the way home or a mobbing of the teacher.
Those values can permeate through every subject in the curriculum if teachers are encouraged and shown how to do it, even maths and football. Sister Judith, to whom the noble Baroness, Lady Young, referred, told us how a football coach said to her, "It's nothing to do with me". She said, "Wait a minute, what are you there for?". "I am there to teach them how to win football games", said the teacher. Sister Janet said, "Are you sure that's all you're there for?". Then he began to think about all the tremendously important lessons that could be taught in competitive team games.
The teachers need help and training. Can the Minister say whether the Teacher Training Agency will ensure that there is sufficient training in these areas of competence, both in terms of initial training and in-service training? There are elements in the moral curriculum which will have to be delivered in a more specific way rather than being part of the normal curriculum. I refer, for example, to sex and drugs education, education in relationships and communication, preparation for parenthood and the needs of children, citizenship and other knowledge and skills that young people need to prepare them for adult life.
The moral code will need the kind of interactive delivery to be found in discussion groups, videos, groups of specialists going into schools—perhaps in some cases medical professionals—and sometimes young people one or two years older than the pupils in the class going in to tell them of their experiences as single mothers or whatever it may be. Can the Minister say whether the Teacher Training Agency is gearing itself up to ensure that specialist teachers who deliver that kind of interactive teaching will be available in the future?
6.27 p.m.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I too, congratulate the noble Earl on allowing us to debate this important topic. Most of us who have taught in schools believe that we have a duty to impart moral values; but we need considerable help. The reason is that the roots of our present moral problems lie deep in the past. Since the turn of the century—some would say before that—it has increasingly been felt that individualism combined with the removal of restrictions on an individual's self-realisation should govern the thinking of all society. So far as possible each person should be judged by his own values and not be restricted by objective standards. That has been the philosophy of the past 100 years.

917
Many areas of creativity in art, music, literature and other fields flourished in this climate; a climate which emphasised individual self-expression rather than subordination to the accepted patterns of the past. But we are debating this matter tonight because the picture is much less happy in the sphere of morality. Traditional morality—that is, the morality followed for centuries in the past—required that for the best working of society restrictions should be placed on people's freedom to express themselves as they wished. Hence the traditional emphasis on stable marriages, restrictions on divorce and much more. Many of these restrictions were relaxed as the move for individual freedom grew ever stronger. Paradoxically, we demanded and received more freedom just as more effective methods of contraception demanded more responsibility than had ever been demanded of our ancestors. The ideal now was that self-discipline rather than fear should govern human behaviour.
The problem is that most of us are neither naturally good nor very responsible. I would dare to suggest that even those of us who are debating moral values so enthusiastically are often reluctant to restrict ourselves when we desire some end. We human beings have a fatal faculty that we can always convince ourselves that what we want is best for everyone else. Hence the expansion of divorce and the break-up of the family.
It is in this atmosphere that schools and teachers have to do their work. Their capacity to do this is further reduced by the weakening of religion and the fact that there has never been in English schools a tradition of civic morality, apart from religion, such as existed in America and France and still has some roots there today. This is the dilemma that faced those people in the National Forum for Values in Education and the Community. I share the view of the noble Earl and of my noble friend Lady Young that what is proposed is rather bland and vague—a tonic but lacking much gin. It represents a start but has a long way to go.
The real issue is what we can do to help. Let me first say as a Christian priest what role I think the Churches can play, even though only a minority attend their services. While I accept that the essence of the gospel is concerned with compassion and forgiveness, I feel it is crucial that the Churches place stronger emphasis on the traditional morality put forward in scripture and tradition, a point eloquently expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and the noble Lord, Lord Ashbourne. This can be of great assistance to teachers trying to support moral values in the classroom.
I speak as a person who was a teacher for 40 years. Sometimes I feel that compassion for the sinner has taken precedence over traditional moral teaching. Jesus forgave the woman taken in adultery but told her to sin no more. The Churches must remember that they are not just the leaven in the lump but the light on the hill. I say with some trepidation to the right reverend Prelate—we were at the same college, so we learnt the same creed—that, while I share his deep hatred of poverty and unemployment and think that they are evils which should be eliminated from our society, we tread on very dangerous ground when we emphasise the sociological
918
grounds for the collapse of morality. My experience on the Parole Board for five years showed me that it was not poverty—though the people I saw were often very poor—but most definitely the break-up of the family that caused the situation in which they found themselves.
Finally, we as legislators have a duty when we make laws. We have to draw the balance between the award of greater freedom and the needs of social cohesion. That is particularly true of any laws concerning the family. Over the past two or three decades the aim for greater freedom has tended to prevail. Morality and social structures are very easily broken and very hard to rebuild. We have a lot of rebuilding to do. This document is a start, but much more needs to be done.
6.35 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, in the four minutes which convention allows me there is no time for courtesies and only sufficient to pursue one point. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, in a notable contribution, urged the Teacher Training Agency to expedite the production of specialist teachers. I would ask that that urgency be extended wider, because morality is not taught by specialists; it is given in example by generalists.
The way of inculcating good behaviour in schools is to get a good behaviour policy adopted by the whole school. That means not only the academic staff but the domestic staff, the janitor and so on; and not only the teachers but the pupils. I shall not bore the House on a subject on which I wrote a report for the Government in 1988 but I would point out that such a policy works dramatically. However, it depends on being done by people who know how to do it and know what they believe. That brings me to the teacher training colleges and their recruitment and training policies.
If one is to ask teachers to teach something that requires moral fibre, one has to recruit to the teaching profession people who have moral fibre. One has to inquire what they believe and what they stand for and ensure that this shows through in every lesson, in the playground and in the bus queue; indeed, in the pub, talking to the children's parents. That calls not merely for dedication but vocation. The framework which one gives to the school must be good. Goodness consists of love. Everything we have said focuses down onto the golden rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you, which is very close to loving your neighbour as yourself. There is not a great gap between the Christian and the Moslem faiths in this. I believe that dedicated Christian teachers will infect Moslems as good Moslems will infect Christians—with a recognition that love is central to the proper conduct of human life on this troubled planet.
I conclude by thanking my noble friend Lady Young for pointing out that good behaviour is simple. It is about easy things. The choice may be difficult but the distinction is easy. Stealing is wrong; lying is wrong; telling the truth is right. One can build off these little blocks—which all start with the simple block: love your neighbour as yourself—into a great cloud of sophistry. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, was thinking of

919
the sixth form and how it might be developed there. But throughout a school career children should be taught the difference between right and wrong by people who act it out in their lives and believe in it. That is what I would address to the Teacher Training Agency.
6.38 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, when we discuss a subject such as morality I am always astounded by the fact that we manage to be so close together but still have such fundamental differences in the way we approach it. Often it is the case that what I would regard as the smaller personifications of a moral code are what we find ourselves arguing about. Indeed, the emphasis that has been placed on marriage is something by which I am always a little frightened, for the simple reason that it seems to imply that a marriage ceremony makes a person better at raising children.
In the past women often stayed with men because they were financially tied to them. They endured domestic violence and other forms of abuse inside the home because of an economic restriction. That is a fact. It often took place within marriage. Indeed, it was the norm. If we take that kind of activity into account, we should look twice at bringing down any one part of our social code as an iron rule. We must always look at what went with it.
The ideal of two parents in a loving relationship, giving support to a child, is probably as good as it is going to be for bringing up a child. But it does not always work. When one emphasizes this approach in a society where large numbers of the population do not go in for that kind of relationship, one is immediately alienating the audience. If someone is told, "This is the way you should live" and they do not, one has immediately said to that person, "You are wrong". If someone said that in this Chamber, we would immediately feel our hackles rise. We would want to know why we were being challenged and criticised in that manner. If a child is placed in the kind of situation where its home environment is being attacked fundamentally one is creating a position of resistance, not just to that message but to all messages within schools. In all education one must try to open up the child's mind. Indeed, to learn anything everybody's mind must be open to receive information and ideas. I do not believe that many people disagree with that. I hope that there are none. Unless one can attract people to listen, one is not going to succeed.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, made one of the most practical and sensible contributions I have heard in this Chamber for a good while in saying that one has to make things relevant to the people involved and to address the problems which have to be faced. It is also true that moral choice colours virtually every type of lesson. The historical process is probably the best example. Every time a decision is made, a war fought or social change introduced in our system, it is generally justified in moral terms. Often, according to my standpoint, it has been necessary to dig very hard to find a moral standpoint to justify the decisions taken. People morally justified slavery for thousands of years. Very few of us would do that now.
920
The SCAA document was almost bound to deal with such situations in general terms because if one does not want to alienate people by giving them absolutes, which may conflict with their views, one is bound to deal in general terms. It is virtually impossible to suggest otherwise. Recently, one society did go in for preaching moral absolutes. In the Soviet Union and its satellite states everyone at school and university was taught and examined in various works of Marx. The universities regarded it as a fudged exam. One was taught certain things and asked certain questions to which certain answers were given. A pass mark was then given. That extreme example is still a long way off. However, we should remember it because the moment one writes down something that has to be there it is written in stone. It will either be ignored or got round because it does not move with you. It is just left behind. Beliefs put in a moral context through examinations are not taken on and will always be left behind.
This is a subject where one needs either a couple of weeks to talk about it properly or a few minutes to make a couple of points. I hope that we can agree that we have far more ground for agreement than we have for disagreement on this subject. We must try to avoid building up disagreement leading to insurmountable obstacles because if we do we merely create a great deal of noise and achieve absolutely nothing.
6.44 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, your Lordships may recall the actress Joyce Grenfell and her cabaret sketch in which she played an infant schoolteacher with an imaginary class of schoolchildren in front of her. In the middle of talking to them she would suddenly stop and say, "George, … don't do that". We never learnt what it was that George was doing, but we could make a pretty educated guess.
Teachers, every day, in every school, are teaching moral behaviour just like that. They make clear what is acceptable to them and what is not; children learn how far they can go; the teacher establishes control. So I am glad we have heard no nonsense tonight about "the nationwide breakdown of discipline in our schools" and we have had no rabid slavering about bringing back the cane and the taws. All over the civilised world those days are gone.
In a small percentage of British schools there are serious problems of discipline. Flogging will not solve them; nor does the perpetual presence of cameras at the school gates do very much good. The one thing you can say for the cameramen is that they are never late for school.
I will admit one exception to that. Your Lordships may have seen on television last week a film surreptitiously shot of one class at The Ridings School, Halifax, when the teacher and children had no idea they were being filmed. The class was utterly out of control and the teacher powerless. Things should never have been allowed to get like that, of course. But once they have, there is nothing you can do. Exclusions of children, changes of staff and a new start are the only solution possible and that is probably true for Lincoln Cathedral as well.

921
One thing I believe we may confidently say and we have said it: morality cannot be taught as a school subject. It must be the acceptable, pervasive ethos of a school and not a discrete part of any syllabus. If that be so, it seems logical that if the Christian moral code, based on the Ten Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount and Christ's command that thou shalt love the Lord thy God and thy neighbour as thyself, is unfortunately no longer universally conceded in this country as the rock on which moral behaviour in school should be founded, then an attempt should be made to find what moral values command the greatest consensus and could act as some sort of alternative.
So we have the first report of the national forum. It fell on pretty stony ground when the Secretary of State found it wanting on the matter of marriage and the media in general gave it a pretty hostile reception. Even such a serious and distinguished journalist as Simon Jenkins found much of it meaningless and preferred the light on our path to be provided by the Ten Commandments, the Boy Scout's Honour and the Highway Code. Children, he said, need practical guidance: they want to be told what to do.
The national forum report fails because it does not even attempt to tell anyone what to do. You cannot learn it; you cannot teach it; and you cannot apply it in any meaningful way. It is not relevant to school life. It is easy and sad to say that and difficult to suggest better solutions. There are no easy answers, but there is much good practice available.
For example, in one primary school it is the practice to declare from time to time that this is one pupil's special day. Every child gets one. The teacher writes on the board, "Today is Clare's day, Mohammed's day or Charlie's day. "We like Clare because … " Then the children write down one reason why they like Clare. "She knows good games" or "She doesn't bully me" or whatever. These are collected up and given to Clare as a positive contribution to her self-esteem and an assertion of her value to others. That is a practical application of what the national forum says on page 3 of its report:
"Tell others they are valued".
But that is a special way of doing it. It has been going on all over the place for ages and ages.
Similarly, the same school has made a significant alteration to conventional school sports. There is a team race in which the children are divided into teams, but each team includes some children who are physically or mentally handicapped or otherwise likely to come in last, if at all, in any ordinary race. The winner of the new race is the team which gets all its members over the winning line first. So you have to work together, with the strongest helping the weakest, if your group is to succeed and win. Again, that is no isolated example.
I want to propose to Her Majesty's Government that they should take two simple initiatives. First, the DfEE should ask schools to submit examples of just how they instil moral values and commendable behaviour along the lines of the two examples I have just given. These could be collated in the department and a code of best
922
practice created from them to be distributed to all schools with the instruction, "Go and do thou likewise". Secondly, the DfEE could suggest that schools should appoint, wherever possible, some unpaid person to be called "the visitor", "the patron", "the president" or "the chancellor" whose sole concern shall be to promote the moral health of the school. In a church school he or she might be called the chaplain but in a "sink" school one might prefer the title "visitor" and invite an appropriately qualified footballer or manager to take the job, although Mr. Glenn Hoddle might be felt to be a better role model than, say, Mr. Vinnie Jones. Similarly, since morality spans religious divisions, I see no reason why an Imam or Rabbi should not act in this capacity for any state school. After all, the nation listens to Rabbi Lionel Blue and Indarjit Singh on Radio 4 week by week. They seem to have no difficulty in establishing morality there.
Finally, moral education depends upon morally motivated teachers. I began with one George and I end with another. Your Lordships will be aware that George Thomas, the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, was my teacher when I was eight. A morally motivated man if ever there was one. Once in the playground I saw the school bully beating up my friend who was half his size. Very stupidly, in blind fury I pitched in and was hitting hell out of that bully when Mr. Thomas stepped in and prised us apart. "Sir", I explained tearfully, "he was hitting my friend—and he's bigger than him". "Who do you think you are, boy", said Mr. Thomas sternly to me, "the British Empire?" Suddenly, I felt very proud. I have never forgotten it. That was moral education.
6.52 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, in the presence of the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, we on this side of the House feel that he did a very good job some years ago on his pupil, the noble Lord, Lord Morris.
I also start in the spirit of consensus—a spirit which has gone through much of this debate—by saying how much I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Morris, on two points that he made at the beginning of his speech. First, it is only a minority of schools that have the problems which have been highlighted at The Ridings school in Yorkshire and at Manton junior school in Nottingham. It is important to remember that most schools do a good job both educationally and morally and do well for their pupils. Secondly, I echo the noble Lord's words about the problems caused by unwarranted press and media intrusions, particularly in the case of The Ridings. I do not believe that they have assisted one iota in resolving the problems. Obviously, I shall look at the two ideas that the noble Lord put to me at the end of his speech. They are certainly worth some thought.
I begin by thanking the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for initiating the debate. It is one which, as he himself said, follows on from the debate introduced by the right reverend Prelate in the summer which was wound up by my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal. I also thank the noble Earl for giving me notice in advance of the kind of ideas that he would be putting before us this evening.

923
I believe that there is broad consensus on a number of key points. First, we all believe that the health of society depends crucially on its moral well-being. We share that view despite very different convictions and beliefs in what is broadly a Christian country, as we must all remember. Secondly, it is clear that parents have prime responsibility for bringing up their children. We recognise that many parents feel ill-equipped to take on that task. Thirdly, we acknowledge the importance of education and the education system in that role. But schools can do only so much to help parents, as I believe the right reverend Prelate and my noble friend Lord Ashbourne made clear. However, schools and governments have a clear role to play, but governments themselves cannot do everything. We must never believe that governments can do everything. My noble friend referred to the Temperance Movement some 50 years ago. I believe that that probably did far more to rid society of some of the worst evils of drink than any action by government either here or anywhere else.
Schools can help to ensure that children develop the moral and spiritual knowledge, the skills, understanding and attitudes that they will need, whether as adults, members of families or members of the wider community. In taking forward this work, schools should be able to bank on the support of parents and the wider community. That consensus was and remains the context for the work recently undertaken by SCAA's National Forum on Values for Education and the Community which has been referred to a good deal this evening. I stress to my noble friend Lady Carnegy that a similar review was conducted by the Scottish Consultative Council on the Curriculum. That is a matter which the Scottish Office will address.
However, tonight I speak in part as an English Minister on behalf of the Department for Education but in a wider role as a member of Her Majesty's Government. The publication of the forum's recommendations last month could not have been more timely, following on from the debate initiated by the most reverend Primate and chiming with the launch of Mrs. Lawrence's manifesto. I should make clear that the work began under Dr. Tate's initiative as early as last January.
I believe that the initial focus on pupils' moral development has been lost in some of the coverage in the press. A whole range of issues has been swept up into the media debate. We are in danger of losing sight of the wood for the trees. I should like to go back to the beginning and the role of the schools themselves. Essentially, there are three ways—I give them in no particular order—in which schools can engage in the moral development of their pupils: first, through the individual school ethos; secondly, through its curriculum; and, thirdly, through collective worship which, according to the statutory requirements, should be of a broadly Christian nature.
All schools are required to include in their prospectus a clear statement of their ethos and values. Parents can use this to help to decide which schools they wish their children to attend. They can also hold schools accountable if they do not live up to those statements. There is evidence that the most effective schools are characterised by a positive and purposeful ethos, built upon clear,
924
shared values. The development of a statement of shared values within the school can be a valuable learning experience for that school. I believe that the discussion of those values helps children to understand them and give their own commitment to them.
SCAA's forum has proposed a draft framework of core values that schools may use as a basis for developing their own values statement. The framework is intended to give schools a starting point. I make clear that it is not a moral code as set out by SCAA. Too many commentators have wrongly assumed that the framework is an attempt to define the content of moral education and have proceeded to criticise it, as some have done this evening, as being woolly and insubstantial. I do not believe that a more prescriptive framework would meet the intended purpose.
Incidentally, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State did not insist on the changes to the consultation document, as some in the press have alleged, to give greater prominence to family values. A small number of forum members called for a stronger statement than that which appeared in the draft framework. The consultation document referred to both statements, and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State was content with that.
On behalf of both Her Majesty's Government and myself, I stress the great commitment to the importance of married life. I speak as one who has been married for only 12 years. I am aware that the noble Earl, Lord Longford, can outdo me by a factor of five or more.
: Fifty-three!
Lord Henley: My Lords, mathematics was never my strong point. Let us agree upon four-and-a-half. I agree very much with what the noble Earl and my noble friend Lady Young said about the importance of the family in society.
I turn now to the curriculum. The 1988 Act set out as the central aim for the school curriculum that it should promote the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of pupils and of society and prepare pupils for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life. All schools should ensure that the moral dimension is clearly mapped out across the curriculum. I am grateful to all noble Lords who stressed that that should go the whole way across the curriculum and it was not just a matter for subjects such as science, geography or history. It should cover all matters, even sport—a subject which I spent most of my time attempting to avoid.
Like my noble friend Lord Elton, I believe that all teachers have a responsibility regardless of specialism, in the same way as all teachers should be concerned with children's reading and writing, for example. The two major vehicles for moral education within the curriculum are religious education and the range of topics embraced by personal, social and health education.
The Government remain committed to the statutory requirement for RE and the statutory provisions governing its content, which give due emphasis to Christianity while offering—this was something with

925
which most noble Lords agreed—the flexibility to meet local circumstances. That matter has been debated frequently in this House, and was raised by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, at Question Time as recently as last week.
The 1994 circular on RE and collective worship says that, in its view, locally agreed syllabuses should extend in a religious context to wider areas of morality. Those would include the way in which people's religious beliefs and practices affect their understanding of moral issues and the consequences that their behaviour has on family and society.
There is personal, social and health education, of which there are two particular elements—sex education and drugs education. They have an important focus on the moral debate. I can give an assurance that we have issued guidance on both matters, emphasising in the case of sex education the requirement that schools must have due regard to moral considerations and the value of family life.
The Government have also supported work under the badge of citizenship, designed to promote personal and social responsibility. That means respect for oneself, for others and for the law. It means playing a constructive role in the various groups and communities to which parents belong.
SCAA is not consulting just on the draft framework of core values; it is also seeking views on a range of other work intended to bring greater coherence to the moral, spiritual and cultural dimensions of the curriculum. That includes a full audit of existing provision and practice, and the preparation of guidance, including a programme of study setting out the essential elements which schools should teach. I must stress that in the end it will be Ministers who will take the final decisions in the light of SCAA's recommendations, taking full account of the outcome of that consultation.
926
We will not pursue consensus merely for the sake of consensus. I have always believed that a false consensus leading to some form of moral relativism is not always the right approach. The mere fact that only one soldier is in step does not necessarily always mean that he is the one who is out of step. It might be the others who are wrong. Whatever the outcome of that consultation and process, SCAA will ensure that it builds on existing best practice in our schools. I say again to my noble friend Lord Elton and the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, that that is a matter that we believe the Teacher Training Agency must address, although not particularly for the specialist teacher, but, as I believe my noble friend Lord Elton said, for all teachers teaching across the curriculum. As I said earlier, many schools already do excellent work both within the curriculum and through their wider ethos and values. In the very best schools, each reinforces the other.
The daily act of collective worship—the third element I mentioned earlier—can often provide the occasion when curriculum and ethos are wedded most closely together. I give the assurance to the noble Earl, because I know of his concern following his Question last week, that the Government remain committed to that daily collective act of worship in our schools.
For the Government at least this is most certainly not a knee-jerk reaction. The consultation exercise launched earlier this year by Dr. Tate is a first step, but we should remember that the former National Curriculum Council issued guidance on moral and spiritual development as long ago as 1993. We look forward to receiving SCAA's considered advice in February. I know that many of your Lordships will wish to seize your own opportunities to register your views not only through this debate but through other means as part of that process. I hope that the debate initiated this evening by the noble Earl can be seen as part of that process, and for that I thank him.
House adjourned at four minutes past seven o'clock.

  Anglo-Israeli Arms Sales Discussions
  Anglo-Israeli Arms Sales Discussions
  Mr. Sanar Yurdatapan
  Mr. Sanar Yurdatapan
  Overseas Aid Tying Policy
  Overseas Aid Tying Policy
  Liberia: Child Soldiers
  Liberia: Child Soldiers
  Turkey: Foreign Minister's Statements
  Turkey: Foreign Minister's Statements
  UN Official Records: Internet Availability
  UN Official Records: Internet Availability
  Arms Race in Outer Space: UN Resolution
  Arms Race in Outer Space: UN Resolution
  Outer Space Treaty
  Outer Space Treaty
  European Security Declaration
  European Security Declaration
  European Human Rights Convention
  European Human Rights Convention
  Dependent Territories: Banking Secrecy
  Dependent Territories: Banking Secrecy
  Tobacco Industry: EU Subsidisation
  Tobacco Industry: EU Subsidisation
  Property Advisers to the Civil Estate (PACE)
  Property Advisers to the Civil Estate (PACE)
  Childcare Facilities for Civil Servants
  Childcare Facilities for Civil Servants
  MoD Performance Report 1995–96
  MoD Performance Report 1995–96
  Organophosphate Products: Research
  Organophosphate Products: Research
  General Osteopathic Council
  General Osteopathic Council
  Guinness plc: Inspectors' Report
  Guinness plc: Inspectors' Report
  Homicides by Previously Convicted Murderers
  Homicides by Previously Convicted Murderers
  Closed Circuit Television and Crime Prevention
  Closed Circuit Television and Crime Prevention