Sitting of 18 November 1996

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  NATIONAL HERITAGE

    Southern Arts
    Mr. Faber: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what will be the outturn costs for funding of Southern Arts in 1996–97. [28331]
    The Minister of State, Department of National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat): The forecast outturn costs of Southern Arts in 1996–97 are £4,306,000.
    Mr. Faber: In view of that generous figure, can my hon. Friend explain why Southern Arts has this year seen fit to slash the core funding that it makes available to the Athenaeum theatre in Warminster in my constituency? Is he aware that this popular local theatre is now in something of a quandary in that, if it puts on the popular theatre that people want to see, it loses funding on artistic criteria grounds, but if it puts on the politically correct claptrap that Southern Arts wants it to put on, no one comes to see its productions? Does my hon. Friend agree that the Athenaeum is precisely the kind of popular, small, local theatre that we should be doing more to support? Will he draw this case to the attention of the Arts Council?
    Mr. Sproat: I know from our discussions of the keen interest that my hon. Friend takes in the Athenaeum theatre in Warminster. Given that the Arts Council provides some 82 per cent. of Southern Arts' funding, I shall draw Southern Arts' activities to the attention of the chairman of the Arts Council.

    Millennium Projects
    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what forecasts she has made of expenditure on millennium projects for each year until 2000. [28341
    The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): The Millennium Commission currently has grant commitments totalling £721 million, and plans to spend more than £1 billion on capital projects. The commission expects to offer a £200 million grant to the millennium exhibition and to allocate £200 million to millennium awards to individuals.
    678
    Annual expenditure is led by the progress of projects, with lottery income determining expenditure levels. The commission expects cash outgoings to rise to around £100 million this year, £350 million in 1997–98 and £450 million in 1998–99.
    Mr. Corbyn: Is not the Secretary of State a bit alarmed by the volume of expenditure going on a number of millennium projects that cannot be said to be of much long-term value or any social benefit? I am thinking of projects such as the ludicrous ferris wheel that it is proposed to build across the river from here. Does she think that it would be better if, as a nation heading into the 21st century, we set the real objective of ensuring that every homeless person had a roof over his head and that there was no longer a housing shortage? People who are desperate for a roof over their head, or somewhere decent to bring up their children, are not excited by the idea of 2,000 ft high office blocks, a ferris wheel or exhibition centres. Does she think that we should be considering this country's social needs as a priority and an indication of how we want to live in the next century?
    Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we should use lottery money cautiously and sensibly with a view to the long term. I note that his constituency has already received about £2.25 million in 22 awards for worthwhile and exciting projects such as a law centre and schemes to help young and disadvantaged people and to provide child care.
    I and the Millennium Commission regard the marking of the millennium as a moment of great importance, when we should be making a statement about our achievements, abilities and potential as we move into the next century. I am delighted that, only the other day, my shadow was commending the millennium exhibition and the great opportunity that it would provide for Britain.
    Mr. Jessel: Is not the millennium exhibition of great social value, in that it will generate jobs for 5,000 people, regenerate a deprived area of inner London and attract a large number of tourists to Britain, whose spending generates a massive amount of employment? Will not people be absolutely astonished if we get to the millennium and there is no great central national exhibition to mark it?
    Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend is right. The Greenwich exhibition offers the prospect of an enormous regeneration project, creating a huge number of jobs. The Labour party cannot be trusted on any aspect of the lottery. Its Front-Bench spokesmen did not support the National Lottery etc. Bill on Second Reading. The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) said that it would lead to a great threat to jobs. The Henley centre recently said that, overall, the lottery would result in 110,000 new jobs, with 28,000 created this year alone.
    Mr. Raynsford: Does the Secretary of State agree that, with just over three years to go before the start of the millennium year, there is no time to waste if we are to make a success of the exhibition? Like everyone who has seen the models and plans, she will know that the exhibition has the potential to be a hugely exciting showcase for all that is good in Britain in 2000 and a worthy successor to the great exhibition of 1851 and the

    679
    1951 festival of Britain. If that potential is to be realised, it is essential that there should be no prevarication or delay and that the Secretary of State and the Deputy Prime Minister, who is also involved, should give an absolute commitment to delivering it in time and on budget.
    Mrs. Bottomley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman; he is right to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, who has played an important part. Tribute should also be paid to Simon Jenkins, the chairman of the exhibition committee, and to the member of the committee nominated by the Leader of the Opposition.
    The exhibition is an exciting prospect. I was delighted that my opposite number, the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), said only the other day:
    "The millennium exhibition is a huge opportunity for attracting foreign visitors to Britain. This is the ideal chance … to show that they can provide the same level of service within the UK as they do for people travelling overseas."
    I have further encouraging news for the hon. Gentleman. Last Friday, the Highways Agency announced that the last two contracts for the M11-Al2 link road had been awarded, ensuring that that piece of transport infrastructure will be in place. I travelled on the Jubilee line extension from Stratford to North Greenwich the other day—
    Mr. Tony Banks: You did not tell me.
    Mrs. Bottomley: In parenthesis, I apologise to the hon. Gentleman.
    There is progress with English Partnerships, and further sponsorship proposals are coming through. I recognise that hon. Members want to bring all uncertainty to an end. The Millennium Commission shares that wish. I hope that the final aspects will have been resolved before our meeting on 11 December.
    Mr. Dicks: What is the difference between one day and another and one date and another? Is not the whole millennium thing a load of nonsense? I never thought that I would come to say this, but for once in my political life I agree with the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn).
    Mrs. Bottomley: It is said that a kind of millennium fever is inclined to take over communities, making them believe that pigs may fly. Having heard my hon. Friend's comments, I am beginning to think that it may have affected the House. It seems to me that, in times of uncertainty and turbulence, the millennium offers this country and the planet the opportunity for a moment of regeneration and renewal to bind communities together. That is the spirit that the Millennium Commission has sought to pursue. Overall, it is widely welcomed.
    Dr. Moonie: May I point out to the Secretary of State that my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) and I voted in favour of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993? It does not become her to suggest otherwise.
    The Labour party has always supported the concept of the millennium exhibition at Greenwich, and will continue to do so. Given the failure of the Deputy Prime Minister
    680
    to secure one signed cheque from the private sector to help meet the cost of the exhibition, the continuing arguments about ownership of the site, the rumours of rapidly escalating costs and the absence to date of a board of directors for the project, will the Secretary of State assure the House that the exhibition will be completed on time and within budget? If she cannot give that assurance, when can we expect a full statement on the subject?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman recalls that he was not a Front-Bench spokesman at the time of the Second Reading of the National Lottery etc. Bill.
    On the hon. Gentleman's serious point, he is absolutely right to say that there can be no question of anyone signing a blank cheque for the millennium exhibition. It is precisely that point that Barry Hartop, the chief executive of the proposed operating company under the chairmanship of Bob Ayling, is examining prior to the Millennium Commission meeting on 11 December. Neither the Millennium Commission nor, for all the elements of the exhibition that turn to us for support, the Government will be prepared to sign a blank cheque.
    I welcome the Labour party's constructive approach. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that his party's nominee, Michael Montagu, is a member of the commission. I appreciate the number of informal discussions that have taken place throughout the process. The exhibition is a magnificent project, and no magnificent project anywhere in the world is completed without some difficulty and some anxiety as the deadline is approached. I am confident that we are keeping to the appropriate timetable and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, I have made it clear that I am happy for information to be given to the Labour party on a number of matters of detail. I have no wish for the exhibition to become the subject of party political disagreement.

    Arts Sponsorship
    Mr. Colvin: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment she has made of her Department's initiatives to boost private sector sponsorship of the arts. [2836]
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Since its inception in 1984, the Government's pairing scheme for the arts has brought more than £110 million of new money into the arts. Earlier this year, I announced improvements to the scheme aimed at encouraging longer-term partnerships between businesses and arts organisations and projects which increase access to the arts. Indications so far are that the new rules are proving popular with arts organisations and businesses alike.
    Mr. Colvin: My right hon. Friend has clearly acknowledged the outstanding success of the business sponsorship pairing scheme. Will she take this opportunity to congratulate the Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts, which administers the scheme? Does my right hon. Friend have the measure of the Chancellor? When we hear the Budget statement next week, shall we see a continuation and, if possible, an extension of the business sponsorship pairing scheme?
    Does my right hon. Friend agree that Hillier's gardens and arboretum, which she saw on Saturday in my constituency and which form a heritage project drawing

    681
    in money from all sources—Government money, local government money, business sponsorship money, private funding and, we hope soon, lottery money—are a good example of how multiple sourcing for the arts and the heritage is probably the way forward?
    Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend is quite right to praise the pairing scheme and the work of ABSA. It has been a formidable success, added to now by the massive increase in funding for the arts through the national lottery and support from central Government and local government. We now see a renaissance and excitement in the arts which was rarely seen in previous years.
    My hon. Friend also commended the Sir Harold Hillier gardens, which are an enormously exciting opportunity for further funds from the lottery heritage fund. I cannot, of course, comment on the application, but I can see the great opportunity for investing in the natural environment. Another local project, the Bursledon windmill, is a wonderful example of the industrial and rural heritage, both of which stand to benefit from our tremendous national lottery.

    Millennium Celebration
    Mr. Alison: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what consideration is being given to emphasising the Christian character of the millennium celebration. [12837]
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The Government recognise that the millennium marks the 2,000th anniversary of the birth of Christ. I have spoken with the Archbishop of Canterbury about how this can best be reflected in a national celebration of the millennium. My Department has set up a millennium co-ordinating group on which the Churches are represented. The Millennium Commission has funded a number of projects reflecting the Christian character of the millennium, including grants for church bells and bell towers and for church floodlighting. The beginning of the third millennium will be a time of renewal and celebration for people of all faiths and for those with none.
    Mr. Alison: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that encouraging answer. Does she recall that our forebears at the time of the previous millennium started to build our great cathedrals as a fitting landmark of the Christian heritage? Does she agree that a modern equivalent landmark might be the millennium Christian village project, of which the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms) and I have given her details?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I did indeed meet the team and I was enormously impressed by the millennium Christian village project. Involving young people in promoting spiritual renewal and regeneration is extremely important at this special time. My right hon. Friend will also be aware of the recent announcement by English Heritage and the National Heritage Memorial Fund of an additional £20 million a year to invest in the built heritage of our churches. I welcome the document on ecclesiastical heritage issued today by the Church of England. Our churches form part of the fabric of our villages, towns and
    682
    communities and it is important that we invest in their built heritage as well as the spiritual renewal of our country.
    Mr. Dalyell: Rather than investing in grandiose projects, would it not be best to concentrate much-needed money on the simple restoration needs of mediaeval churches? The Secretary of State need go no further than the crypt of the House of the Commons to see the deterioration that is being caused—perhaps through water ingress—to such unusual pieces of religious art as the picture of Judas Iscariot? Should we not look to our own House of Commons as an example of what should be done by way of restoration?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I shall certainly look into the matter. Having opened the Houses of Parliament art exhibition this morning, I believe that our House is in order in that regard, thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin). However, the hon. Gentleman is right to refer to the many small projects that should be funded. So far, 104 churches have received lottery funding amounting to £10.3 million. There are many other projects. For example, some 400 churches are involved in a floodlighting scheme, and there are also schemes for church bells. As the hon. Gentleman said, small schemes as well as large ones should be part of the tapestry of provision.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: May I refer my right hon. Friend to the initiative that the Archbishop of Canterbury launched this morning, to which she referred? Will she give a firm pledge that not only extra lottery money, but more money from the Government, whose real responsibility it is, will go towards the restoration and maintenance of our historic churches? There can be no fitter way of commemorating the millennium than ensuring their survival through the next century.
    Mrs. Bottomley: I shall note the comments by my hon. Friend, who has been extremely constructive in helping us to make considerable progress in easing access to and understanding of schemes for churches and cathedrals. Substantially more money is spent on those projects, although a high standard of conservation practice is required. Investment in our churches is one of the most worthwhile heritage projects that we can support.
    Mr. Tony Banks: I am not averse to crucifying a few Tories to celebrate the millennium or, indeed, feeding them to the lions, but will the Secretary of State bear in mind that we live in a multi-faith society? According to the Jewish calendar, this year is 5757, according to the Islamic calendar it is 1417, according to the Indian Hindu calendar it is 2054, and according to the Bengali Hindu calendar it is 1403. [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] Of course I am; I could not remember all those dates. In those circumstances, we could be in permanent millennium mode. The only thing that would put me off—and upset the country—is the thought that the right hon. Lady would be in charge of the celebrations.
    Mrs. Bottomley: I am disappointed to hear the hon. Gentleman being so uncharacteristically ungentlemanly. I am a Conservative and Britain is a Christian country. It is a Christian millennium. Having said that, I accept that we

    683
    live in a multi-faith society, and I am pleased that the Millennium Commission and other distributing bodies have been supporting projects from a range of faiths. For example, the Millennium Commission is looking sympathetically at an exciting project supported by the Hindu community in Preston, and other similar ventures.

    Sport in Schools
    Mr. Congdon: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps she is taking in respect of competitive sport in schools; and if she will make a statement. [2838]
    Mr. Sproat: The Government are determined to restore competitive team games to the heart of school life. It is a crucial element of our overall strategy for sport, which ranges from revived sport in schools, through sport scholarships for top athletes, to the British academy of sport.
    Mr. Congdon: I warmly welcome the Government's strategy of trying to get competitive sports back into schools, and particularly welcome the announcement of the proposal to give scholarships to athletes as young as 11. Will my hon. Friend also encourage initiatives such as that being undertaken at Ashburton high school in my constituency, where a feasibility study is being carried out into providing dual use sports facilities for the school?
    Mr. Sproat: I know of the project at Ashburton high school from previous discussions with my hon. Friend, and I congratulate him on the vigour with which he supports it. I shall gladly draw the attention of the Sports Council to what he says about that excellent project.

    Tourism
    Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what proposals she has to encourage overseas visitors to London to visit the regions and countries within the United Kingdom; and if she will make a statement. [28391]
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: We want overseas visitors to benefit from travel to the countries and regions of the United Kingdom. The image of London is still Britain's best known image abroad, and it is of great benefit to the whole country. The focus London initiative, to which we have allocated an additional £4 million of public money over the past year, highlights the great diversity Britain offers and the ease of access from London. Last year alone, the British Tourist Authority's British travel centre in London gave help and advice on travelling outside the capital to nearly half a million overseas visitors.
    Mr. McAvoy: I accept what the Secretary of State says about the attractions of London; I have no quarrel with it. Is she aware, however, that half the overseas visitors to the United Kingdom visit only London? Surely that is an unacceptable imbalance, bearing in mind the tourist attractions of the regions of England, Northern Ireland, Wales and, of course, Scotland. If she accepts that principle, should she not be trying to do more than she has stated to get people out of London and the south-east to other parts of the country? That would help to reverse
    684
    some of the drain of defeated Scottish Tory Members of Parliament—who have taken the low road to England to get seats—such as her Minister of State.
    Mrs. Bottomley: Since he represents the wonderful city of Glasgow, the hon. Gentleman is only too well aware of its huge tourism potential. If I may make a domestic comment, when I spoke to my mother last night, she said that she had just returned from a three-day stay in Glasgow during which she saw the Burrell collection and visited other wonderful museums. I shall do my best to promote Glasgow, as well as other cities.
    The British travel centre works extremely effectively to ensure that those who register inquiries are encouraged to visit cities throughout the United Kingdom. From my point of view, whether such cities are in England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland is of little significance. We have wonderful cities and countryside and should take the opportunity of the best tourism growth for 20 years to promote not only our capital city but the entire country.
    Mr. Mans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one way to discourage visitors from going to her county of Surrey is to list various buildings on the former aerospace site at Farnborough, which would mean that the air show would leave this country for Berlin and that the full potential for aerospace heritage on that site could not be commemorated as we approach the end of the first century of aerospace activities?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I congratulate my hon. Friend on being a great champion of his cause, and ingenious in finding ways of addressing it in various settings. As the constituency Member of Parliament, I am well aware of the excitement, prosperity and jobs that the Farnborough air show brings to the area. I am also aware of the responsibilities of the Department of National Heritage for proper behaviour with regard to listing. We are consulting on the heritage Green Paper, and this matter is one of the types of consideration that we are addressing. I shall certainly bear in mind my hon. Friend's comments.
    Mr. Pendry: The Secretary of State talks of producing a tourism strategy document next year; surely she is aware of our strategic document, "Breaking New Ground", which was launched to great acclaim at the world travel market last week, following wide consultation. In the document, we spell out measures to ensure that overseas visitors are attracted to Britain in greater number in future. Those measures include positive proposals to improve the standards of hotel accommodation, the quality of service and the introduction of a new development of tourism Bill. Instead of undertaking a costly and time-consuming exercise, surely the Secretary of State should join the tourism industry, including Richard Branson, the Granada and Tussaud groups, the Tourism Society and many others who welcomed our document, and get a move on and implement those proposals.
    Mrs. Bottomley: I wondered whether the hon. Gentleman would have the gall to mention his document, which sank without trace. I commend more the remarks of the director-general of the Confederation of British Industry, who congratulated the Department of National Heritage on all we are doing to recognise the importance

    685
    of tourism. The real point about the hon. Gentleman's document is that it is a recipe for regulation, bureaucracy and cost. That is the old-fashioned cocktail that the Labour party always believes in. All the tourism industry wanted was the Labour party to say that it would fight against the minimum wage, the social chapter and the 48-hour week, which are likely to cost £100 million and affect 15 per cent. of the industry. That is what the industry wanted, and it is what the Labour party has singularly failed to deliver.

    Screen Violence
    Mr. Bernard Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what recent representations she has received concerning violence on television and in films. [2840]
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: My Department has received 65 letters about screen violence during the past three months. I shall meet the chairmen of the BBC, the Independent Television Commission and the Broadcasting Standards Council again shortly to consider how they are responding, and might respond further, to the public's concern on the issue, which, as I have often made clear, I share.
    Mr. Jenkin: I thank my right hon. Friend for her initiatives on the matter. Does she agree that there is no doubt that the constant screening of television violence permeates society and affects people's behaviour, especially that of the more vulnerable children in society? Will she disregard such bits of propaganda as the survey produced by Sheffield university, which purports to have produced an analysis showing a reduction in the depiction of violence on television? We all know that it is not so much the timing and content of violence as the insidious nature of portrayals of violence that causes so much concern and damage to society.
    Mrs. Bottomley: I totally endorse my hon. Friend's comments. The problem is not only the number of violent incidents, which has fallen, but the quality of their portrayal and how powerful they are in influencing behaviour. I congratulate my hon. Friend on the way in which he pursues the cause—representing, as I know he does, the National Viewers and Listeners Association, whose headquarters are in his area. We must be determined to achieve further progress, and that is the message that I shall reinforce to the regulators. I shall congratulate them on some encouraging signs so far, but tell them that the people of Britain will not be satisfied until they see that commitment translated into practice.
    Mr. Maxton: Will the Secretary of state and all Conservative Members who are so concerned about violence in society, instead of worrying about Violence on television, take the first active Step this evening by voting for a total ban on handguns?
    Mrs. Bottomley: The position on that matter is clear. I hoped that the hon. Gentleman was going to say that we should be worried not only about what we see on our television screens, but about what young people do with their time. That is one of the reasons we have been so anxious to change the lottery rules to enable more
    686
    investment in sport, training and coaching. Later this week, the Arts Council will make announcements about arts for everyone, to encourage our young people to be involved in worthwhile activities. I am pleased that we are able to fund initiatives to take that forward.
    Mr. Simon Coombs: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the fact that the BBC has recently published new producers' guidelines on such issues as sex and violence on television?
    As most young children are now so computer-literate that they can decode the V-chip with the greatest of ease, does my right hon. Friend agree that the main responsibility for keeping children away from violence on television lies with parents?
    Mrs. Bottomley: Parents undoubtedly have a key responsibility. The worrying development of children having televisions in their own rooms means that they can watch television in an isolated way, and I would suggest that, in such cases, the messages of violence are more powerful. I congratulate the BBC on its statement of promises and on its revised producers' guidelines; the House will watch with great care to ensure that they are translated into action.
    I share my hon. Friend's concerns about the V-chip. We must learn from Canada's experience and ensure that it works in practice. My Department is examining the V-chip, but I suggest—as does my hon. Friend—that it will not be a substitute for parental responsibility.

    National Lottery (Derbyshire)
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list all payments from the national lottery awarded in Derbyshire. [12841]
    Mr. Sproat: To date, the national lottery distributing bodies have made a total of 112 awards worth a total of £7,105,070 to projects in Derbyshire. A full reply will be published in the Official Report.
    Mr. Skinner: That is quite remarkable, because when my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) wanted to find out from the Government the ranking of constituencies in terms of awards, he was told that he could not have the information as it would involve disproportionate cost. He then went to the Library and, for £15, was able to find out that the three local Labour constituencies—Chesterfield, North-East Derbyshire and Bolsover—were in the lowest 10 per cent. of all the constituencies in Britain. Is it not remarkable that the Secretary of State—who we cannot stop yacking on television about "spreading good news"—refuses to provide real information that is uncomfortable for the Government? There is one law for the friends of the Secretary of State down here, and another for Labour constituencies in the north.
    Mr. Sproat: I have apologised in writing to the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) for the Department misunderstanding his question, and I very gladly apologise to him again now. Derbyshire has not done so badly. Of the 101 counties in the United Kingdom, it is ranked 52nd, which is not too bad. If the

    687
    hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) wants some more lottery projects in his constituency, perhaps he will do some more work to get them.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my hon. Friend agree—[Interruption.]—if he can hear me over the barracking—that many counties have done extremely well out of the lottery, but that others were perhaps slow off the mark in deciding to apply for lottery funding because their Members of Parliament were against the lottery distributing money to so many good causes?
    Mr. Sproat: There are many reasons why different constituencies and counties get more or fewer projects. The distributing bodies have been told by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that they must take account of geographical distribution, but they are not allowed to solicit projects and are bound to consider each on its merits, which means that there will be a difference in spread around the country.

    Channel 4
    Mr. Whittingdale: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is her policy for the future funding of Channel 4; and if she will make a statement. [2843]
    Mr. Sproat: The Government's policy on Channel 4 funding remains as set out during the passage of the Broadcasting Act 1996—to remove mandatory payments to the reserve immediately and to reduce the liability for payments to channel 3 in two stages in 1998 and 1999.
    Mr. Whittingdale: Will my hon. Friend congratulate Channel 4 on its success in avoiding recourse to the safety net and on making a profit last year of £128 million? Does that not demonstrate that it is possible for Channel 4 to meet its remit and to operate commercially? Will he therefore consider its privatisation at the first opportunity?
    Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend makes a good point about the profits of Channel 4, on which I congratulate the company. I well remember his brief, yet powerful, speech on 18 June in favour of the privatisation of Channel 4. The Government have made no decision about privatising the channel, but we keep all options under review.
    Mr. Chris Davies: Will the Minister go further and rule out any prospect of privatising Channel 4? Does he accept that the quality and diversity of broadcasting offered by the 35 television channels in New York compare poorly with that offered by the four channels here? The public service obligation is an important principle and it should be maintained.
    Mr. Sproat: I have no doubt that the Government will take full account of what happens in New York and in Channel 4 when considering all the options.
    Dr. Moonie: A suspicious man might consider that there was some significance in the fact that the hon. Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Whittingdale), who asked the main question, and the Minister are wearing the same old school tie; fortunately, the Minister did not see his way to going quite as far as
    688
    some of us might have feared. We join him in welcoming the increased funds available to Channel 4, which will immediately be channelled into programming. What discussions has he had with Channel 4 about the routes through which the funding will go? Will he state his support for the principle of Channel 4 as it was set up—as a publicly funded and operated channel, catering for minority tastes and interests?
    Mr. Sproat: We have had discussions with Channel 4 about rejigging the funding formula, and will have further discussions as seem appropriate. As far as privatisation is concerned, I will support the Government line.

    Tourism
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what measures she plans to take to improve the competitiveness of the tourism industry. [2844]
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Following the recent launch of my Department's latest report in the "Competing with the Best" series, we are working with the industry on an action plan to improve the quality of tourism's most important resource—its people. We are co-operating with local government and the tourist boards on the follow-up to the recent conference on tourism and the planning system. My Department and the tourist boards are now working with the recently established industry forum to draw up a new strategy for tourism, which I plan to publish early next year.
    Mr. Hughes: Let me make it clear that if my old school had a tie, this would not be it.
    Mr. Boateng: Chip on your shoulder.
    Mr. Hughes: Fifteen-love.
    Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be foolish indeed to harm an industry that employs more than 1.5 million people and contributes more than £38 million to the gross national product by introducing the measures proposed in the social chapter—a minimum wage and a 48-hour week? Is not the real message to anyone living in a town that depends so much on tourism that a Labour Government would not only damage wealth but would rob the area of jobs?
    Mrs. Bottomley: Whether or not my hon. Friend went to the right school, he certainly makes the right point about protecting tourism. The minimum wage, the social chapter and the working time directive all present major threats to an industry that relies on a flexible work force. That is the key message that comes over time and again. Ramon Pajares of the Savoy Group said:
    "What I want from Government is the freedom to run my business."
    That is the message from Alton Towers and the British Hospitality Association. Time and again, leaders in the industry, who are creating the jobs that are necessary for future generations, say that they do not want the regulation, interference and burdens that are the only recipe offered by the Labour party. The other day,

    689
    Sir Terence Conran said that London was the culinary centre of the world. The Labour party's recipe would be poison to the industry.
    Mr. Alan Howarth: Does the Secretary of State accept that, if our tourism industry is to be fully competitive, visitors must be able to inform themselves of the history of the areas in which they find themselves? Does she agree that the "Victoria County History" is one of the great undertakings of British scholarship? Is she aware, however, that in many counties the project is limping along or is in abeyance for lack of funds? Will she ensure, therefore, that the National Heritage Bill is amended to make it clear that the "Victoria County History" will be eligible to receive lottery funds distributed by the national heritage memorial fund?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point and will examine it in detail. We have been modifying heritage legislation to ensure that, as with arts and sport, we can fund education, access, participation and young people, as well as old buildings and the support structure. I will certainly consider that matter.

    Midweek Lottery Draw
    Mr. Spring: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment she has made of the impact on betting turnover of the second weekly national lottery draw. [2845]
    Mr. Sproat: No such assessment has been made. It was for the Director General of the National Lottery to decide whether to allow a midweek draw, and the impact of the draw on betting turnover was not a consideration that he was able to take into account.
    Mr. Spring: My hon. Friend will know of my commitment to the national lottery, but is he aware of its impact on betting turnover, with job losses and betting shop closures? Is he further aware of the impact of the anomaly in this country whereby punters can bet on the Irish lottery but not on our own? All that is having a severe effect on the viability of the horseracing industry, because the prize money is now wholly uncompetitive by international standards.
    Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point about the racing industry, which has an excellent champion in him. The Home Office is considering whether more deregulatory measures could be introduced to help the gaming industry.

  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

    Legal Aid
    Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what consultation he has had with the Law Society on the setting of priorities for legal aid support. [2863]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Gary Streeter): The Lord Chancellor and I have met the president and other members of the
    690
    Law Society on several occasions in the past few months to discuss legal aid. We expect to have regular discussions as the reforms progress. I will soon start a programme of visits to local law societies to talk to practitioners about the reforms and how they will be implemented.
    Mr. O'Brien: Does not the Law Society want a legal aid system that offers advice and assistance to people who pay their taxes? The way in which civil cases are attended to is a scandal. It cannot be right for people of modest means who work and pay taxes to be denied access to the legal system. People on pensions, who make contributions to legal aid, have to pay extra because of the length of time that it takes for cases to come to court. When will the Government make the system fairer and speed up the process of legal aid cases coming to court?
    Mr. Streeter: The hon. Gentleman makes an important and interesting point; it is vital that we speed up access to justice, and that is one reason why the Government are implementing the Woolf reforms, which will make that access not only simpler and faster but cheaper. I am grateful to him for voicing support for our legal aid reforms; we are in discussion with the Law Society about them and it is perfectly proper and natural for the society to speak up for its members, but the Government will not be deflected from introducing the reforms at the earliest opportunity, to create a justice system of which we can all be proud.
    Sir Dudley Smith: Is my hon. Friend aware that far too many people who are not entitled to it still get legal aid, especially the self-employed and those whom I would call wheeler-dealers, who have a great facility for pulling the wool over the eyes of officials and getting recompense for not only criminal but civil matters, as the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) said? That causes great resentment among those who feel that they should be entitled.
    Mr. Streeter: My hon. Friend is quite right: too many weak, trivial and undeserving cases still slip through the net, which is why the Government are introducing radical reform. Tinkering with the system is not enough: we must control the budget, determine our national priorities and improve the merits test. We will do all those things, and we look forward to receiving the support of Opposition Members.

    Woolf Report
    Mr. Llwyd: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the current position with regard to the evaluation of the Woolf report; and if he will make a statement. [2864]
    Mr. Streeter: On 31 October, I placed in the Library a copy of the Lord Chancellor's strategy for implementing Lord Woolf s recommendations. It proposes that the major elements of the reforms—the fast track, the multitrack and the new cost regime—will be in place by October 1998. The new civil procedure rules to underpin the changes will also be in place in time for implementation.
    Mr. Llwyd: I thank the Minister for that answer. Can he please assure me that there will be no further cuts in

    691
    the availability of services in county court centres and trial centres in Wales? I have in mind in particular the Welsh language provision that is available in several county court centres; at present, we are on minimum cover, and any further cuts would be extremely damaging.
    Mr. Streeter: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. It is not expected that our reforms to civil procedures will threaten county courts in Wales. I assure him that the Woolf reforms will build on the proposals for Welsh language provision in the civil justice system. He has probably already seen the literature, not only in English but in Welsh, that my Department has produced on alternative dispute resolution.
    Sir Donald Thompson: Many small magistrates courts in market towns have disappeared, which has taken away a cadre of solicitors that was important to those towns. Will the Woolf report be used to re-establish some of those local centres?
    Mr. Streeter: My hon. Friend is a champion of the interests of his constituents—now as he always has been. The Woolf reforms do not touch on the provision of magistrates courts. Decisions to close them are a matter for local magistrates courts committees, which always take soundings and enter into extensive consultation before taking any such decision.
    Mr. Boateng: When will the Minister make public the costings of the Woolf report? What resources are to be applied to meeting its resource implications? Does he recognise that in the county courts, which will have to play a major part in its implementation, staff are being laid off and that there is widespread concern among district and county court judges? How can the country take his protestations seriously when ordinary people such as those mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) are not getting the justice to which they are entitled?
    Mr. Streeter: I hope that the hon. Gentleman feels better now that he has got that off his chest. Every time he speaks, he appears to commit the Labour party to yet more spending. He may be assured that we will commit the resources necessary to implement the Woolf reforms. I also look to him to support the Civil Procedure Bill in due course.

    Weymouth Land Registry
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a progress report on the rebuilding work at Weymouth land registry; and how many people are planned to be employed there in the forthcoming year. [2865]
    Mr. Streeter: The new offices for Weymouth district land registry are in the final stages of construction and are on target and within budget. The main building was completed and occupied in July 1996; ancillary works are scheduled for completion by February 1997. The Weymouth district land registry employs 454 people and there are no plans to increase that number. The new building at Weymouth was necessary to replace temporary accommodation and not to facilitate expansion.
    Mr. Bruce: May I put on record my thanks and that of my constituents for the investment made by the
    692
    Government in continuing to have the land registry and for ensuring that our excellent headquarters has been provided? How much money has been invested in the new headquarters? Is there any sign that house sales are starting to move and that the volume of registrations going through the land registry is increasing?
    Mr. Streeter: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, whose efforts helped to bring about that building programme. He will be pleased to learn that we have so far spent more than £7.8 million on the project, which is continuing. There is clear evidence from land registry data of improvement in the housing market. The volume of registrations is increasing this year by more than 6 per cent. and there has been an average rise of 5 per cent. in prices over the first three quarters of 1996. That is good news for home owners and for the economy.

    Departmental Accountability
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what new proposals he has to improve the accountability to Parliament of his Department. [2866]
    Mr. Streeter: The Lord Chancellor's Department is, and will remain, properly accountable to Parliament through its Ministers. The Government's response to the Public Service Select Committee's report on ministerial accountability and responsibility was published on 7 November.
    Mr. Flynn: How is the Lord Chancellor accountable for the magistrates court changes? He said that he wanted to make them by consensus and the Minister said that he had taken wide soundings. Does he realise that those soundings have not included hon. Members? In one part of Wales, which occupies a quarter of the land mass of Wales, there will be only four courts left. My hon. Friend the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) had to write in to get his copy of the report. Is it not wrong that the House should not be fully consulted on changes that will reduce the service provided by magistrates courts throughout Wales?
    Mr. Streeter: As I have said, the closure of magistrates courts is a matter for magistrates courts committees, which are made up of lay justices in each community. When a decision is made to close a magistrates court, there is, however, a right of appeal by the local paying authority. We get involved at that stage. I have already seen members of the hon. Gentleman's party and other Members representing the Principality who are concerned about the closure of magistrates courts in their constituencies. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to avail himself of the same facility, I will be delighted to see him—my door is always open.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the much improved accountability between his Department and Members of Parliament that I have witnessed in the past few years. In particular, I congratulate him on his Department's willingness to meet hon. Members to discuss not only constituency problems but wider ones. Problems of law are extremely complicated, and would my hon. Friend please bear in mind that the more his Department

    693
    can circulate its proposals and thoughts on any particular issue in "Dear colleague" letters or any other form, the clearer we will be about the future of the legal system and the more able to support it from both sides of the House?
    Mr. Streeter: I am grateful for my hon. and learned Friend's kind words about our attempts to communicate and consult with Members of the House. We will of course continue to do that. We are always particularly keen to learn from hon. Members who have relevant experience, and my hon. and learned Friend comes into that category.

    Departmental Agencies
    Mr. Barnes: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many representations he received in the last parliamentary Session from hon. Members that were forwarded for answer to the agencies attached to his Department. [2868]
    Mr. Streeter: In the last parliamentary Session, 642 representations from hon. Members were forwarded for answer to the agencies for which the Lord Chancellor is responsible.
    Mr. Barnes: Quite correctly, Members of Parliament are not allowed to approach the courts, as that would represent interference in the operation of law and order. Traditionally they could approach the Lord Chancellor, but now in hundreds of cases it seems that many of our queries are being passed to the Court Service. Surely that suggests that that is one area at least in which the agency arrangements go too far. Our constituents expect us to be able to approach the top—the Lord Chancellor—in connection with court cases and get a response from him.
    Mr. Streeter: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. There has been no change in ministerial accountability and responsibility to the House. In my opinion, it is quite correct that letters about specific court cases should be sent by the person with the day-to-day management responsibility—the chief executive of the Court Service. The hon. Gentleman has been a Member for nine years and surely he knows by now that, if he is unhappy with a response from the agencies, he can contact Ministers at any time. Once again I find myself saying to a Labour Member that my door is always open.
    Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Would my hon. Friend agree to accept representations on the activities of judges? Is he aware of increasing concern in the House that judges are getting involved in political matters in judgments where they seem to be making up the law as they go along? Is he aware of a recent case in which a judge appeared on a television programme to campaign against my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary's legislation? Does he agree that that is beyond the remit of a judge, who should be answerable to Parliament through the laws that we pass?
    Mr. Streeter: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his timing. He makes an important point, because it is for Members of the House to legislate and it is for the judiciary to implement the law of the land. However, we welcome a lively debate, including the involvement of members of the judiciary, and we do not seek to stifle
    694
    debate within our party, as, sadly, Labour Members have done in their own party in the past three years.

    Law Centres
    Mr. Booth: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has for the future of law centres. [2870]
    Mr. Streeter: I have no specific plans on the future of law centres, which are independent and are funded from a variety of sources. On legal aid, it will be open to centres to bid for contracts of the kind proposed in the recent White Paper, "Striking the Balance", to provide legal services in their areas of expertise.
    Mr. Booth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that helpful reply. Before I ask my question, I should declare an interest because I used to give regular free legal advice at a free legal advice centre. May I ask the Minister to commend the work of free legal advice centres and law centres, to do all he can to expand their work and to receive representations as to how that might be achieved?
    Mr. Streeter: My hon. Friend is quite right to say that law centres are an important part of the provision of legal advice in this country, but we do not propose to expand dramatically the number of law centres in this country, as the Labour party proposes to do. That would take millions of pounds away from high-street and family solicitors and would be a further charge on the taxpayer. We have no plans to introduce such a policy.

    Legal Aid
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what recent representations he has received about legal aid. [2871]
    Mr. Streeter: I frequently receive representation on this matter from professional bodies and associations, pressure groups, advice services, individual solicitors and advocates and members of the public. I have been pleased with the level of public support for our White Paper proposals.
    Mr. Marshall: May I suggest to my hon. Friend that he reads The Mail on Sunday and the article by Mr. Peter Dobbie, which highlighted a case that is funded through legal aid in which the litigants and the defendants seem to be citizens of a country other than the United Kingdom and are not appearing in court themselves? Does he realise that a raft of money is being wasted on legal aid and that most of us believe that the legal aid system is out of all financial control? The sooner his reforms come into effect, the better.
    Mr. Streeter: No Sunday is complete without The Mail on Sunday and, of course, there has been a spate of recent cases reported in the newspapers confirming that we are on the right track with our White Paper proposals; that there are still too many weak, trivial and undeserving cases being provided with legal aid in this country; and that a budget of £1.4 billion, which is rising at a rate of 10 per cent. per annum, is far too high. My hon. Friend is right to make the point that we must proceed with our legal aid reforms, and that is what we are doing.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I raise a point of order that is really a question about the moral or actual authority of you as Speaker in requiring the Government to make a statement before and not after British troops are irrevocably committed to a certain situation?
Since last Thursday, there has been a dramatic change in the circumstances in Zaire. I can understand that the Government may not have wanted to make a statement today and that they may have wanted to withhold a statement until such time as Brigadier Jonathan Thompson and his colleagues in the reconnaissance group return and report; but could we have some kind of undertaking that the House of Commons will be consulted after Brigadier Thompson has returned, but before there is any final decision to commit British forces to a situation about which—as became clear on Thursday—many hon. Members on both sides of the House are extremely anxious?
Furthermore, should not there have been some statement on the allegations that a British firm was involved in arms exports, absolutely transgressing every regulation that the House has laid down?
Madam Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman and the House know, I have no authority to compel a Minister to come to the Dispatch Box and to make a statement, but I am as keen to have information on this matter as any other hon. Member. I understand that the reconnaissance force will not be returning until either very late tonight or the early hours of tomorrow morning. I should have thought it right, proper and sensible that a thorough debriefing takes place and a report is made before a statement—an accurate statement—is made to the House. Hon. Members can be assured that I shall watch the matter very carefully—in fact, hour by hour.
Mr. David Shaw: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be aware that there are very strict rules on access by strangers to the House of Commons. Are there no rules on access to the House of Commons that would prevent strange millionaires from turning up at the Leader of the Opposition's office with thousands of pounds in brown paper envelopes and leaving those brown paper envelopes in that office?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman paints a very colourful and hypothetical picture.
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On Friday, the management of the Benefits Agency announced the wholesale closure of agency offices in Wales. Those wholesale closures will lead to agency office staff losing their jobs and the public losing their service. Do you know whether the Secretary of State for Social Security has made an application to make a statement to the House? If not, what pressure can be exerted to prevail upon him to make such a statement?
Madam Speaker: No Minister has let me know that he or she is seeking to make a statement on the matter. The hon. Gentleman might try to make use of the Order
696
Paper, or submit a private notice question or make an application under Standing Order No. 20 for my consideration. The hon. Gentleman is a senior parliamentarian who has been in the House for a long time, and he must know how to make use of the Order Paper by now.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I should be grateful if you could study the Official Report of Friday's sitting in the House when there were clear signs that Back-Bench Conservative Members were being directly briefed by civil servants who were present. As you know, that is contrary to our normal rules. Under normal circumstances I would not choose to raise the subject with you on the Floor of the House, but as Ministers were asked for an explanation during that Sitting and none was forthcoming, I hope that you will take a little time to consider what happened and perhaps rule on it at a future date.
Madam Speaker: I was not aware of what took place on Friday—it has just been drawn to my attention. My deputy dealt with the matter at the time, but I shall study the Hansard report carefully and make inquiries. I call Mr. Cohen.
Mr. Harry Cohen rose—
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn rose—
Madam Speaker: I called Mr. Cohen. He is small in stature, but he packs a lot of personality.
Mr. Cohen: I am lost for words, Madam Speaker—[HON. MEMBERS: "Good!"] But not that lost for words.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) raised a point of order in which he referred to the news that a company, Mil-Tec, supplied arms to Rwanda and considerably worsened the conflict two years ago—surely the House should consider that issue. I hear what you said, Madam Speaker, about the fact that you could not order Ministers to make statements on issues of such importance, but Customs and Excise has made a peculiar statement in response to today's news about the breach of the United Nations embargo and of United Kingdom law. It said that it might consider investigating the subject if it was appropriate. Surely the House can call officials to the Bar of the House so that we can question them on important matters. Is there a procedure under which we can call Customs and Excise officers to the Bar of the House to ask them properly to investigate the breach of the United Nations embargo?
Madam Speaker: I do not think that we need to proceed in that way. The House, particularly the Treasury Front-Bench team, are well aware of the feelings of the House on the matter.
Mr. Corbyn: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. While the House understands the reply that you gave my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), there is enormous public concern about the issue of illegal arms sales to the desperate conflict in Rwanda and eastern Zaire and the allegations that those arms have been exported to Zaire illegally, via offshore islands around this country, under the cloak of secrecy.

697
Although we are awaiting a statement on the deployment of British troops, you will understand that many people are frightened about the immorality of the arms trade and the use of those arms to kill thousands of innocent people in a desperate conflict that needs a resolution. Surely we have a part to play if we have allowed arms from this country to go to that area.
Madam Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will use his own Front Bench and the usual channels in order to press the Government for a statement. That is what he is seeking on that matter.

Firearms (Amendment) Bill [Money]
Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Firearms (Amendment) Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any administrative expenses incurred by the Secretary of State which are attributable to that Act;

(2) the payment out of money so provided of any sums required by the Secretary of State for paying compensation in respect of—

(a) property which is surrendered or forfeited under that Act; or

(b) any other loss which may be incurred as a result of that Act; and

(3) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any sums received under that Act by the Secretary of State.—[Mr. Howard.]

3.39 pm
Sir Terence Higgins: I am glad to have an opportunity to speak briefly about the money resolution—an opportunity that we would not have had if the motion had been taken immediately after the Bill's Second Reading last week. I declare an interest as president of the Worthing and West Sussex shooting club, an office which I have held—totally unremunerated—for many years.
It is very important that we should debate the money resolution, because it has a significant impact on the scope for amendments that may follow. I shall therefore concentrate on the money resolution.
I make one point by way of background. In my view, although we must all have great sympathy for the victims of the Dunblane massacre, these proposals are unlikely to have a significant impact in reducing the probability of a similar tragedy occurring in future. Indeed, in my view, the proposal may prove to be counter-productive because, if I read the Cullen report correctly, the problem is not so much the current law as the way in which it has been administered; the resignation of a senior police officer bears witness to that.
If we are to drive these matters underground, and if there still are fanatical gun maniacs—I fear that there may be—they may find it more attractive to buy weapons illegally than buying them under the previous arrangements, so we may receive no warning whatsoever of a tragedy similar to that which occurred in Dunblane, whereas, reflecting on the history, perhaps we should have taken more careful note of warnings that were given in the case of Hamilton.
At all events, we shall seriously affect many of our constituents, who engage in what has always been regarded as a perfectly reputable and sensible sport. That being so, the House should pay close attention to compensating those who suffer as a result of the legislation, whatever view one may take on the overall issue.
I very much welcome, therefore, the change that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has made in the money resolution, but I want to be sure that I have understood it correctly. When we debated the matter last week, it was clear that compensation would he provided for those who were giving up firearms that would become illegal under the legislation. My right hon. and learned Friend went further; he said that he

699
Understood the points that were made about equipment, which may be very expensive and which would no longer be of any use to its owners. But several of my right hon. and hon. Friends, as well as Opposition Members, strongly emphasised the case of those who, as a result of the legislation, will lose their jobs or suffer severe financial strain, perhaps having mortgaged their homes to set up in business or establish a shooting range or whatever.
If I understand the amended resolution correctly, under clause 2(b) it would now be possible to move amendments to cover
"any other loss which may be incurred as a result of"
the Act—that is, over and above property which is surrendered or forfeited under the Act. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary can confirm that that is so, and that it will now be possible to move amendments, for example to clause 11, which would enable us to make provision to compensate people in all the circumstances that I have described.
This is a matter of very great importance because, as I understand it, it would affect not only the amendments that could be moved in the House but those that could be moved in the other place—and no doubt their Lordships also will wish to debate those matters. I should be grateful if my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary would confirm what I have just described.
Mr. Robert Key: Is it my right hon. Friend's understanding that the money resolution implies that the Government would be prepared to pay compensation for loss of trade—this is a crucial point—rather than just for guns?
Sir Terence Higgins: As I understand it, the resolution covers any loss, other than guns and property forfeited, which may be incurred under the Bill. It is an important point if we are to deal fairly with those affected by the Bill. However, it will have a significant effect on public expenditure. No doubt we will want to debate that when we reach the appropriate clauses.
I find it surprising that, apparently, Treasury Ministers in the Cabinet must have agreed to the proposals, which are potentially very expensive. As a number of hon. Members pointed out in our debate last week, the money could be better spent on other things—for example, the police. We need to be clear about the position. In particular, we must take note of the fact that, if the Government were simply to accept the Cullen recommendations—which, in my view, would be equally effective, in that equipment would be dismantled and the parts kept in separate places—the cost of the Bill would be significantly less than it is currently likely to be. It is important that the Treasury should carefully consider whether the Government's view that they should go beyond Cullen was the most appropriate decision in the circumstances.
Sir Donald Thompson: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way so generously. Does he
700
agree that it is important that we get a clear statement? The Bill is going through at a rapid pace and it will be impossible to unpick.
Sir Terence Higgins: I agree very much with my hon. Friend. The whole matter has been rushed—indeed, we will reach the guillotine motion a little later. I do not understand why it is necessary to legislate in such haste.
I want to make a final point on the narrow issue of compensation. I am worried about the provision of clause 11, which states that compensation will be in accordance
"with a scheme made by him"—
that is, the Home Secretary. Surely in legislation of this sort any scheme involving large sums of public money—it has been conceded already that it is more than £100 million—should be subject to a resolution of the House. It is extraordinary that the Home Secretary should propose—I might almost say, presume—to spend public money on a scheme made by him rather than one approved by the House.
Having said that, all those on either side of the basic argument about firearms control should welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's proposals—but we want an assurance that, if we wish to amend the Bill during its later stages in the way that I have suggested, that will be possible.
3.47 pm
Mr. Jack Straw: As I made clear in the Second Reading debate last Tuesday, it is appropriate that compensation should be paid to those private individuals who have to give up their weapons, which, until the Bill becomes law, they have held lawfully under arrangements previously agreed by Parliament. We therefore support the money resolution.
Whether the Government's proposed scheme for an 80 per cent. ban on handguns goes through, or the alternative 100 per cent. ban—which we support—it is that huge majority of decent, law-abiding handgun owners who will be seriously affected by the Bill. Their sense of grievance, which we all understand, would be all the greater if no compensation were to be offered.
Of course, no compensation of any sort was offered when a previous Home Secretary—the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd)—made his original proposals in the December 1987 White Paper, "Firearms Act 1968: Proposals for Reform", which followed the atrocity at Hungerford. In that White Paper the Government were emphatic in what they said:
"We have concluded that as a matter of principle it is undesirable and unjust to require the taxpayer at large to pay for the removal from the public domain of weapons which are an acknowledged threat to life."
Significantly, the White Paper went on state:
"Although there will be no market for prohibited weapons in this country, authorised dealers will still be able to export them abroad, and owners will be able to recover some of the value in this way."
Given today's revelations in The Times about a wholly unacceptable arms trade between British-based companies and rebel forces in Rwanda, I think that we can all appreciate the fact that a payment by the Government would be far preferable to allowing 160,000 to 200,000 handguns to be sent abroad to who knows where.
Sir Jerry Wiggin: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the compensation situation in 1988,

701
and, to the Opposition's credit, in Committee on the Firearms (Amendment) Bill that year, they insisted during the debate on the sittings motion that proper compensation was payable. May I take it from what he said that he will support the proposition that compensation should be paid to anyone who is affected by the Bill—to include dealers, manufacturers and others—whom the Home Secretary has said he will not compensate?
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Yes—in the same way as the Government compensated miners.
Mr. Straw: I was planning to deal with that point. I said that we support the money resolution and, as I said in last Tuesday's debate, that we are willing to consider proposals other than those currently on the table. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand if I do not offer him a blank cheque before I see the proposition.
The point about the possible export of weapons that are handed in is very important. As I said, one of the many defects in the original proposal by the right hon. Member for Witney in December 1987 was that he said that former rifle owners could receive compensation by selling their weapons abroad. I think that all hon. Members believe that that is unacceptable. After the Bill becomes law, at least 160,000, and perhaps 200,000, weapons will be surrendered on payment of compensation to the police and the Government.
I should be grateful if the Secretary of State would give us an undertaking that the weapons surrendered will be destroyed or that they will not be exported by the Government without the clearest guarantees about the acceptability of the end user. In no circumstances, however, should those weapons be used for internal or external repression. I hope that he will give those undertakings in his reply.
Mr. Michael Colvin: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) made a sedentary intervention about compensation paid to miners who lost their jobs in the rundown of the coal industry. Does the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) agree that if dealers, who currently will receive no compensation, were to receive anything like the compensation paid to miners, they would be more than satisfied? Does he also agree that the figure of £25 million to £50 million provided in the resolution is lamentably short of what will be required if one considers the valuation of firearms and of pistol shooters' equipment—which, luckily, is now being included in the compensation terms provided for by the Home Office?
Mr. Straw: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me for a moment, I shall deal with the first issue that he mentioned. On his second point, I look forward to hearing any details that the Secretary of State may offer about the calculations.
I am glad to see the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) in the Chamber. During the debate on the Loyal Address, he mentioned the
"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. 285, c. 1350.]
As I said last week when he was not in the Chamber, we are very glad to have his full support for the European convention on human rights. I should tell him that the
702
rights that he feels he has under the convention—which of course has nothing to do with the European Union—would be far easier to adjudicate upon if the European convention were incorporated into British law. After the next election, when we endeavour to do just that, I hope that we will have his full support.
As the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) pointed out, in the end the right hon. Member for Witney did agree a compensation scheme, although the right hon. and learned Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), who was then his Minister of State, went out of his way to say that it was not to be seen as a precedent.
I mention this background because, although I certainly understand the sense of grievance among many handgun owners, they are now, under this money resolution, likely to be treated in a relatively generous way compared with others in a similar position. It is worth our bearing in mind the fact that many people whose private property is specifically affected by decisions agreed or approved by the House are not compensated at all. That is simply a fact.
Turner and Newall traded in asbestos and had no interest in running anything other than a lawful trade. It was discovered that the product was causing injury and death and it was decided that the firm could no longer produce it, but, as far as I know, it received no compensation. Nor did the manufacturers of foam-filled furniture, which turned out to be inflammable and therefore dangerous. Nor do the manufacturers of drugs that may have passed various tests and are thus approved but which are subsequently taken off the market.
Very different principles apply to the compensating of private individuals and the compensating of businesses. If we decide to compensate whole businesses, it will have huge implications for the public purse—implications that the House needs to consider other than during a debate on firearms.
Mr. Barry Sheerman: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to mention the danger of underestimating the enormous possible cost of compensating too widely or too generously. Is he aware that there is an even better parallel for non-compensation—the plight of the many British beef farmers who have been pushed to near-bankruptcy? Government action has almost destroyed the industry in which some of my constituents work.
Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend makes an important point.
Even where the private interest of constituents is directly affected by a decision made or approved by the House—for example, a decision on a road scheme—sthere is not necessarily a direct right to compensation. I have two such cases in my constituency at the moment. One involves individuals living close to the M65. The Department of Transport entirely accepts that the value of their homes has been reduced by more than 15 per cent. but they are to receive no compensation. The other involves the owners of a public house whose trade was reduced to virtually nothing because of a road scheme which meant that no one could reach the public house for six months. They, too, are to receive no compensation whatever.
We are today considering the compensation payable to the holders of guns. Eighteen months ago, the House was considering the far more serious Government proposals

703
to cut compensation to the victims of criminal injuries, including those injured by guns. It is a very great shame that the Tory Back Benchers who are so vocal in calling for more compensation for the owners of guns were wholly silent in May last year when we were discussing compensation for the victims of users of guns. Had they been as vocal then as they are today, a far better scheme for compensating the victims of gun injuries and deaths might have been agreed by the House.
3.58 pm
Sir Hector Monro: I should like to add a few words to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) said, but I must first point out that the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) is wholly wrong. The Government have—rightly—provided about £500 million to help farmers and the meat trade as a whole. I am glad that farmers have received that income.
As for the money resolution, I want to put a few suggestions to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State to try to ease the pain felt by many pistol and revolver shooters relative to the valuation of their weapons. Will he give us his thoughts on how the scheme will proceed? Should the Bill become an Act at the end of the year or in January, will everyone have to take all their weapons to a police station on that very day? I suspect that the police stations would be swamped with weapons. We cannot have people queuing down the street with firearms waiting to hand them in.
Are the police to take the details at that stage? When will the valuation take place? Who will do the valuation? The valuation of arms and weapons is a specialised business. It is important to have some idea of how the valuation is to be carried out. If it takes place some months after the handing-in date, will the owner of the weapons be allowed to be present at the time of the valuation and discuss it with whoever is doing the valuation?
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins), I am glad that the Government have had second thoughts about the money resolution. It now seems that they will be a little more helpful to those who have to hand in their weapons. However, bearing in mind the fact that one reads in the papers of guns being valued at an average of £400, has my right hon. and learned Friend allowed for sufficient money? That average figure may be on the high side, although some weapons, particularly the rare and valuable ones, will inevitably be worth a great deal more.
I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will also think about gun clubs. I am thinking not of commercial rifle and pistol clubs which try to make money, but of those many private clubs at which members have scraped money together to make a secure shooting range. They may have only a dozen or 20 members, who shoot only occasionally. They will feel that all their efforts are wasted and will receive no compensation for the significant amount of money that they will lose.
We may cover the issue in more detail when we consider the specific provisions of the Bill, but will my right hon. and learned Friend give a little more information on Olympic and Commonwealth games weapons and their valuation? I went to the
704
Commonwealth games in Victoria, in British Columbia, and saw immaculately run ranges and high-quality pistol and rifle shooting. Has my right hon. and learned Friend given second thoughts to the Commonwealth games? I appreciate that only .22 pistols are used in the Olympics, but the Commonwealth games has always featured larger calibre pistols as well as .22 pistols and airguns. The Bill might make the shooting competitions at the Manchester Commonwealth games impossible. Those who have international shooting weapons will want to know where they stand on valuation.
All in all, I am glad that my right hon. and learned Friend has listened to those of us who have talked to him about valuation. I hope that he will be able to give us more information when he winds up, so that we can tell those hundreds of people who have written to us how things will work out.
4.2 pm
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I should like to follow the lead given by the right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins), who opened this debate on the money resolution, which has raised some significant issues. I, too, start by acknowledging the fact that the Government have paid attention to the criticisms levelled at the original money resolution. We are grateful for that, because it gives us a chance to discuss some of the issues that we had feared we would not be able to raise.
I am bewildered by the comments of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) on the effects on businesses and those who do not count as individuals. In my constituency—I know that this will be mirrored in the constituencies of many hon. Members on both sides—there are manufacturers with small, specialist and highly developed businesses. Many have big export potential, but many also produce rifles, handguns and handgun barrels—a particular concern in my constituency—for the domestic market. Businesses big and small, as well as dealers, and those who have erected ranges suitable for handguns, have expended large sums on the facilities that they required for the previously legitimate activities of gun clubs. They will all find themselves out of pocket as a result of the Bill.
I have also had some pretty robust representations from people who have invested heavily in putting equipment into their homes for the security of their handguns. All those different categories should be considered properly in Committee. The Government are wrong if, as I understand it, they are setting their face against providing adequate and sensible compensation for companies, individuals, clubs and others who will be indirectly affected and who may suffer a significant loss or who may lose their livelihood as a result of the Bill.
Some individuals will still be able to hold .22 handguns, but they will be worth less. They will suffer loss as a result of the Bill, and they should be given fairer consideration as well.
I should like the Government to confirm the amounts quoted in the explanatory memorandum, which mentions sums of £25 million to £50 million. Those figures are, of course, not part of the legislation and are not prescriptive. They are current estimates and I should like the Government to confirm that if, as a result of further deliberation and better consideration, the House or the

705
Committee decides that the compensation schemes must he extended and that the finance necessary to pay for them must be increased, that decision will not be constrained by the fact that the explanatory memorandum refers to the financial effects as being between £25 million and £50 million.
I share the views expressed by other hon. Members. The financial effects are an extremely important part of the Bill. The Government's changes have been welcome as far as they go, but they do not yet go far enough. I and the majority of my colleagues want the compensation regime to be extended far beyond individuals so that it embraces anyone who has, directly or indirectly, suffered capital or revenue loss as a result of the Bill.
4.7 pm
Sir Jerry Wiggin: I have little to add to what I said last week in opposing the Second Reading of the Bill. I strongly agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) that generous compensation will help to allay the deep feeling of injustice that law-abiding people who enjoy shooting, under licence of the law, feel at having their sport prohibited by Act of Parliament.
Not the least of my objections to the Bill is the speed with which it is being indecently dragged through the House. We shall debate the timetable on the next motion; I will confine my remarks to the money resolution. Very strong protests were made last week about the narrowness of the money resolution, which, as originally drafted, would have precluded proper debate of those whose livelihoods, businesses, investment and wealth are associated with the sport of shooting.
I appeal to Labour Members to show a sense of justice. I did not get a satisfactory answer from the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). Whether they are in favour of handguns or not, do hon. Members believe that it is right for us to take away people's money, people's investments and people's livelihoods by Act of Parliament without fair compensation?
I welcome strongly my right hon. and learned Friend's response to our criticism and I am grateful to him for tabling a much wider money resolution so that we can debate the issues in Committee.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On the narrow point of fair compensation, who will carry out the assessment of compensation? The right hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) made a valid point: there are compensators and compensators, and valuers and valuers.
Sir Jerry Wiggin: If the hon. Gentleman reads the Bill with care, he will find that the matter is covered by clause 11. I share his view and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries that a proper arrangement that is seen to be fair and transparent should be established.
Although there is much talk about such matters, on the most recent occasion, total compensation amounted to a mere £625,000. However, I understand that there are still some outstanding cases, so one views with considerable suspicion the attitude of the Treasury to such matters.
In common justice, the House must not oppress individuals by passing laws that deprive them of their livelihoods without offering proper compensation. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will deal with that point in his reply to the debate.
4.10 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): For the avoidance of doubt, let me begin by taking the opportunity to declare that I hold a shotgun certificate.
The money resolution replaces that which was tabled with the Bill and which would have limited debate on compensation matters to the provisions in clause 11. Clause 11 requires the Government to establish a scheme to make payments to persons who surrender firearms to a chief officer of police when the possession of those firearms will become unlawful by virtue of the provisions of clause 1.
As I announced on Second Reading, since the Bill was published the Government have received further legal advice as to their obligation to pay compensation. It was made clear to us not only that we had an obligation to pay for handguns that would become unlawful, but that our obligations would extend to firearms certificate holders who owned accessories that had no other use except in connection with those guns. In those circumstances, it is clear that the owner will have lost all the essential fruits of ownership of such accessories and must be compensated. It was clear that the money resolution would have to be revised to accommodate such accessories, so we did not move the earlier resolution.
The revised resolution before the House will allow the Government to pay compensation for accessories as well as guns. It will also allow hon. Members to raise wider questions on compensation that they believe should be the subject of debate.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: My right hon. and learned Friend talks about the Government's obligation to pay compensation. Under our constitution there is no written obligation to do anything other than as a result of those constraints that we have allowed to be imposed on us by the European convention on human rights. Is my right hon. and learned Friend saying that he concedes that, if compensation is not paid according to the criteria of that convention, the Government and whoever succeeds them will be at risk of having claims brought against them in that court?
Mr. Howard: Clearly, it will be open to anyone to bring a case to that court. My hon. Friend is entirely right in assuming that, when I referred to obligations to pay compensation, I had in mind the provisions of the convention and the way in which they are likely to be interpreted. So I agree with my hon. Friend.
Sir Cranley Onslow: Am I right to assume that the reworded money resolution would enable my right hon. and learned Friend to establish a scheme at least as generous as that provided by the Australian Government?
Mr. Howard: I hesitate to give a simple and categorical answer to that question because I do not pretend to have any expertise in respect of the Australian scheme. I have made some preliminary inquiries about the scope of that scheme, which lead me to believe that the answer to my right hon. Friend's question is yes.

707
However, I hope that he will not hold me to the details of that if further examination proves the truth to be somewhat different.
Mr. Christopher Gill: For the avoidance of doubt, will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that what he has already told the House allows us at some future stage to bring forward the prospect of compensating clubs, retailers, wholesalers and manufacturers for their consequential losses?
Mr. Howard: Amendments to that effect would be in order. As my hon. Friend will be aware, I have previously indicated what the Government's view would be and I shall proceed to explain it in a little further detail in due course. The answer to his question is yes: amendments to that effect would be in order—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I hate to correct the Home Secretary but it is not for him to decide whether amendments are in order. It is for him to decide whether to accept amendments that are in order.
Mr. Howard: I unreservedly apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and entirely accept that rebuke. The Government's purpose in tabling this revised money resolution is to ease the path of the Chair towards finding such amendments within the Bill's scope and in order.
Mr. John Greenway: Subject to the view of the Chair, is it my right hon. and learned Friend's opinion that this new money resolution would allow the House to debate an amendment to compensate the owners of .22 calibre pistols, who will have to surrender and forfeit their pistols because they do not have access to secure gun-club premises?
Mr. Howard: Subject to any rulings from the Chair, I believe that such an amendment would be in order.
I am well aware from representations that have been made to me both in the House and outside of hon. Members' concerns on the matter. It is right, therefore, that there should be an opportunity to raise those concerns in Committee and on Report, and the resolution will allow that.
Mr. George Foulkes: As the Home Secretary knows, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) made it clear that we support the money resolution. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree, however, that our sympathy would be strained if the Sportsman's Association of Great Britain continued to distribute leaflets such as the one that it distributed at Eglinton hunt in Ayrshire this weekend, which describes the Dunblane parents as
"a noisy hysterical group of social terrorists"?
The owners of handguns and the association will lose the sympathy of the Opposition and other hon. Members as a result of such leaflets.
Mr. Howard: I prefer not to comment on leaflets that I have not seen, and I have not seen the leaflet to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
708
I do not believe that it would be right at the moment to go into the substance of all the questions that could be raised—and, indeed, have to some extent been raised—by my hon. Friends. There will be ample opportunity to debate those matters extensively at the appropriate moment. I indicated the Government's position on this question on Second Reading. Although that position has not changed, I am confident that the money resolution will enable the Chair to permit full debates to take place.
Mr. Tony Marlow: This new money resolution has obviously been decided at the very highest level and the Treasury has obviously been involved. In contingency terms, will my right hon. and learned Friend tell the House roughly how much it is likely to cost?
Mr. Howard: I cannot do that because the money resolution as such does not actually cost any money. As I have been endeavouring to explain, the money resolution makes it easier for the Chair to permit amendments to be tabled which, subject to the will of the House, will have the effect of deciding what compensation provisions ultimately find their way into the Bill. The money resolution as such does no more than permit debate to take place. The original money resolution was restricted in that context; this one is wider in that context.
Mr. Thomas Graham: Will the Home Secretary give us a categorical assurance that if we support him tonight, the confiscated guns will not be sent to the killing fields in Africa?
Mr. Howard: That matter is not covered by the money resolution and it can be extensively debated in due course. If it is appropriate to give any assurances at that stage, those assurances can be given, but that will be the moment to deal with the matter and not now.
Mr. Straw: On that point, will the Home Secretary accept that it would provoke grave concern on both sides of the House if the weapons for which compensation was paid were to find their way into the general arms trade? It is incumbent on the Government to ensure that strict licensing regulations and arms export licences apply to any weapons that are sold which have been the subject of compensation.
Mr. Howard: I can see that there are important questions to be discussed and debated in that area, but it is not appropriate to rush to conclusions about them this afternoon and I do not intend to do so.
The position on the Government's attitude to compensation has not changed since the Second Reading debate, but the money resolution before the House will allow Madam Speaker to permit a full debate to take place, both about those who will be obliged to surrender property as a result of the Bill and about those who will suffer other losses.
4.20 pm
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I am grateful that the Home Secretary sat down just four minutes before time is up, because that gives me a few

709
minutes to pose a series of questions. On the Select Committee on Home Affairs, I was against the retention of guns, but I have listened carefully in the past few months to the representations made to me. I understand those who are sportsmen and their need for sporting facilities and—although I will vote for a total gun ban later today—I understand the position of those who will support the Government in the retention of .22s but would also like to retain other guns.
I have always believed in the fundamental principle that one cannot confiscate without proper compensation. Therefore, I seek assurances from the Home Secretary because, if we end up with total confiscation, which is what we want, or partial confiscation, as in the Bill, it is not only the people who own guns who will lose. For example, the members of several little gun clubs, including some in my constituency—one in particular is owned and run by its members—have used their personal moneys to invest and develop their personal facilities. They have a right to compensation.
A fundamental principle lies behind the right to compensation and, far too often, the Government have taken over assets without proper compensation. Back in 1974, to take an extreme example, the Government took over the water boards, and local authorities were not properly compensated. At this stage in the 20th century, we have surely reached the point at which we properly compensate a person who, through no fault of his own, loses an asset because the state has decided that that is in the best public interest.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), I will support the money resolution, but I hope that we will not look narrowly at the question of compensation. It is not only the guns and their accessories that matter, but the facilities and those who run them. In many cases, they will be put out of business and they
710
also have a right to compensation. I do not include the manufacturers, because they will have other outlets for their products, and the arms trade, regrettably, will continue.
I ask the Home Secretary not to be narrow-minded when he considers the matter, and to consider the generality not the particular. I hope that he will bring a sense of justice to bear on the question of compensation for those ordinary citizens who will lose not only their rights to what they consider to be a sport, but their rights to their assets and their pleasure, because the House decides that handguns should cease to exist in the greater interest and for the greater good. They should be compensated in total, not through the farce of 80 per cent. compensation.
Somebody mentioned earlier the European convention on human rights, which states—
It being three-quarters of an hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 50A(1)(b) (Money resolutions and Ways and Means resolutions in connection with Bills).
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Firearms (Amendment) Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any administrative expenses incurred by the Secretary of State which are attributable to that Act;

(2) the payment out of money so provided of any sums required by the Secretary of State for paying compensation in respect of—

(a) property which is surrendered or forfeited under that Act; or

(b) any other loss which may be incurred as a result of that Act; and

(3) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any sums received under that Act by the Secretary of State.

Firearms (Amendment) Bill (Allocation of Time)
4.24 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:—

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE
1.—(1 ) The proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall be completed in two allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on the second of those days.

(2) On the first allotted day—

(a) proceedings on any amendments to Clause No. 1 which may be selected and which would amend that Clause at any place before the words "a small-calibre pistol" at line 16 of page 1 of the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of proceedings on the first such amendment;

(b) proceedings on any amendments to Clause No. 1 which may be selected and which would leave out the words "a small-calibre pistol" at line 16 of page I of the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the first such amendment;

(c) proceedings on any other amendments to Clause No. I which may be selected shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of proceedings on the first such amendment; and

(d) the remaining proceedings on Clause No. I shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement

(3) No motion as to the order in which proceedings are to be considered in the Committee shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown and the Question on any such motion shall be put forthwith.

(4) When the Order of the Day is read for the House to resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill, the Speaker shall leave the Chair without putting any Question and the House shall resolve itself into a Committee forthwith whether or not notice of an Instruction to the Committee has been given; and Standing Order No. 64 (Committee of whole House on bill) shall not apply.

(5) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings to which this paragraph applies on the first allotted day.

(6) Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to the proceedings to which this paragraph applies.

STANDING COMMITTEE
2.—(I) The Standing Committee to which the remainder of the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill not later than 28th November.
(2) Proceedings at a sitting of the Standing Committee on 28th November may continue until Ten o'clock whether or not the House is adjourned before that time, and if the House is adjourned before those proceedings have been brought to a conclusion, the Standing Committee shall report the Bill to the House on 29th November.

REPORT
3.—(I) The proceedings on consideration shall be completed in one allotted day and shall be brought to a conclusion at midnight.
(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings.

THIRD READING
4.—(1) The proceedings on Third Reading shall be completed in one allotted day and shall he brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement.
(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings.

BUSINESS COMMITTEE
5.—(l) For the purposes of Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on consideration of the Bill such part of the allotted day as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.
(2) The Business Committee shall report to the House its Resolution as to the proceedings on consideration, not later than the fourth day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.
(3) Any Resolution of the Business Committee may be varied by a further Report of the Committee under Standing Order No. 80, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (2) and whether or not that Resolution has been agreed to by the House.
(4) No Motion shall be made as to the order in which proceedings on consideration are taken, but the Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in that order.

PROCEDURE IN STANDING COMMITTEE
6.—(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee, the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until those proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.
(2) No Motion shall be made in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a Minister of the Crown, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who moves, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.
(3) No Motion shall be made as to the order in which proceedings are to be considered in the Standing Committee, but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in that order.

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS IN COMMITTEE
7. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill, the Chairman shall report such of the Bill's provisions as were committed (or re-committed) to that Committee to the House without putting any Question.
DILATORY MOTIONS
8. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of proceedings on, the Bill shall be made in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
EXTRA TIME
9. If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) stands over from an earlier day, paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.
PRIVATE BUSINESS
10. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

PROCEDURE AT TIME FOR CONCLUSION OF PROCEEDINGS
11. For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or the Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any 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 new Schedule which has been read a second time, whether before the time so appointed or in pursuance of paragraph (a), the Question that the Clause or Schedule, or the Clause or Schedule as amended, be added to the Bill);

(c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper, whether in the name of a Minister of the Crown or not, which is moved or made by a Minister of the Crown;

(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and on a motion so made for a new Clause or new Schedule, the Chairman or the Speaker shall put only the Question that the. Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
12.—(1) Proceedings under paragraph 11 of this Order shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
(2) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;

(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

(3) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

SUPPLEMENTAL ORDERS
13.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made in the House by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced.
(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings.
(3) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

SAVING
14. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall—

(a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution; or

714

(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

RECOMMITTAL
15.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of, recommittal.
(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and the Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

INTERPRETATION
16. In this Order—
"allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day, provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day, or is set down for consideration on that day;
"Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;
"the Bill" means the Firearms (Amendment) Bill;
"Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.
The Bill takes forward the Government's response to the dreadful events that took place eight months ago at Dunblane primary school. Last week, the House gave a Second Reading to the Bill. Later today, we will begin the detailed debate here on the Floor of the House of the first five clauses, concerning the banning of high-calibre handguns.
It is the duty of this House to give the highest priority to those matters that directly affect the safety and protection of the public. If ever there was such a matter, it is this Bill. Because of the importance of its subject matter, the House has agreed that its first five clauses should be considered by a Committee of the whole House. The allocation of time order allows two days for this, and provides that the proceedings shall be brought to a conclusion at 10 o'clock on the second day.
Hon. Members from all parties have an interest in these provisions, and the order that we are discussing allows a very full debate on them. The order allows six hours in total for the debates on clause 1. That is a substantial amount of time, and I am confident that it will enable hon. Members on both sides of the House to make their points effectively.
Within that period, the order allows three hours for discussion on any amendments which may be selected and which would leave out the words "a small calibre pistol" at line 16 of page 1 of the Bill. Such an amendment—in the name of a number of hon. Members—has been tabled, and is supported by Opposition Front Benchers.
If that amendment were accepted, it would amend the Bill so as to introduce an almost complete ban on handguns of all calibers, rather than confining the ban to handguns above .22 inch calibre, as the Government propose. This is an important matter. It is the central issue of the disagreement between the Government and Opposition Front Benchers, and it is right that it should

715
be fully debated on the Floor of the House. We believe that it is right that a substantial time should be allowed for that part of the debate.
The order would thereafter allow one hour for any further amendments on clause 1, and an hour for the debate on the question as to whether the Clause should stand part of the Bill. The order goes on to propose that the Standing Committee considering the Bill should report the Bill not later than 28 November, or 29 November in the event that proceedings in Standing Committee continue on 28 November after the House has adjourned.
The order provides for the proceedings on Report to be completed in one day and brought to a conclusion at midnight. It similarly provides that the proceedings on Third Reading shall be completed in one day and brought to a conclusion after three hours. The Government believe that the order will provide the opportunity for a full and detailed scrutiny of this legislation, while ensuring that it is dealt with with the urgency that this important subject requires.
4.27 pm
Mr. Jack Straw: Between March 1974 and April 1979, 12 Bills were subject to guillotine motions, and I believe that each one was opposed by the then Conservative Opposition. Between May 1979 and the end of 1995, 59 Bills have been subject to guillotine motions, and each one, I believe, has been opposed by the Labour Opposition.
Last Tuesday, the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling)—who I am sorry is not in his place—stood up, admirably, for Back-Benchers' rights, and he was entirely correct to do so. Some of us remember that, between 1979 and 1983, the right hon. Gentleman was the Patronage Secretary and Chief Whip to the Government. During that period, he ensured the passage of 13 guillotine motions—one more than during the entire period of the previous Labour Government.
This motion is, as it were, the exception to the rule—for we support it. We gave clear undertakings that we would facilitate the passage through Parliament of firearms legislation, and we believe that this motion is necessary to ensure that the measure reaches the statute book by Christmas, or soon thereafter. If there is a Division, my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself will vote with the Government in the Aye Lobby. That vote, if it takes place, will be a whipped vote, not least because we think it essential that the House reaches a conclusion today on the key issue of a total or partial ban on handguns.
As far as the official Opposition are concerned, however, all the divisions on the merits of gun control will be free votes. I have listened with great care to Ministers trying to explain why a free vote on caning is justified, while a free vote on gun control is not. I must tell the Home Secretary and the Minister of State that the more I hear their arguments, the less I think of them. This is an issue that should be informed not by party belief or ideology but by the conscience and judgment of hon. Members on both sides of the House.
The only serious argument for the Government's decision to impose a whipped vote is the one that they cannot deploy in public—they know that on a free vote a
716
clear majority would be in favour of a total ban on the use of handguns. By insisting on a whipped vote, the Government display remarkably little confidence in their own arguments. We want to get the timetable motion through as quickly as possible, so that, whatever happens in the Lobbies tonight, the public will be able to see who has in practice won the argument about the case for a total ban.
During the brief debate on the money resolution, some Conservative Members charged that today's debates were taking place in haste.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: They are.
Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman says that they are, but we would not have agreed to a timetable motion in these unusual circumstances, in which the Opposition have co-operated with the Government in tabling the motion, if we thought that the matter were being dealt with in haste. The parents of Dunblane and the public could rightly criticise the House, not for dealing with the issue in haste, but for dealing with it too slowly. The atrocity in Dunblane took place on 13 March 1996. Lord Cullen's inquiry was established on 21 March 1996 and sat for 26 days from 29 May until 10 July, giving full consideration to a great many of the issues before the House.
Mr. Tony Marlow: We are not implementing Cullen.
Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman is right. As has been pointed out in previous debates, Lord Cullen said in the body of his report that he was making recommendations that should be considered by the House, and that it was exclusively for the Government and Parliament to decide what gun controls should be introduced. It was never suggested that the House would delegate its clear responsibilities for determining the laws of the land to an inquiry under Lord Cullen or any other distinguished or learned gentleman.
Sir Jim Spicer: My recollection of the debate and discussion that took place when Lord Cullen was invited to set up the inquiry is that there was general agreement on both sides of the House that no one would move until the inquiry had reported. Somewhere along the line, someone—the Opposition parties in particular—lost sight of that agreement, and came out with a decision in advance of the proposals.
Mr. Straw: I dealt with that point at some length in the debate last Tuesday. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and I put our evidence to Lord Cullen as a result of our discussions with the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Home Secretary. We gave our evidence saying, for example, that there should be a total ban on handguns. We made that absolutely clear, but we also said that we would reserve our final judgment until we had seen the results of Lord Cullen's inquiry, which is exactly what we did.
The fact that such advice was not followed by the six Conservative Members of the Select Committee on Home Affairs remains a matter of the deepest regret to my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself. As the minutes made

717
clear, they had before them a resolution moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin)—a member of that Committee—to the effect that the Committee should not produce a report until after Lord Cullen had produced his report. I am sorry to say that, for their own reasons, the six Conservative members of the Select Committee decided to produce the report prematurely; partly as a result, a huge outcry arose against the recommendations, and the existing support for a total ban was increased.
Lord Cullen's inquiry reported to the Secretary of State for Scotland on 30 September. Since then, the report's recommendations and the issue of a total ban have been the subject of discussion in the House on three occasions—two statements on the inquiry on 16 October, the debate on the Loyal Address on 28 October and the debate on Second Reading on 7 November—and now there is today's debate. It could therefore not possibly be argued that the House has proceeded in haste on the issue.
Sometimes parallels are drawn, in a form of special pleading as to why the Government should not come to a conclusion, with the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. Anyone who was in the House when that legislation was—it is true—pushed forward in panic, will know that there is no parallel whatever with the process of decision making that led to that Act and the process that led to the Bill and the alternative propositions that we are discussing today. The Dangerous Dogs Act was introduced in haste, without a proper inquiry, and we have all lived to rue the day.
Mr. Budgen: And with a guillotine.
Mr. Straw: The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West says, "And with unity." The one thing that is guaranteed, not least by his presence, is that there will not be unity on the issue, and there is no suggestion that there should be.
We are completely unapologetic for our support for the guillotine. We believe that, eight months after the atrocity in Dunblane on 13 March, we owe it to the victims and their relatives and friends to bring to a conclusion the crucial issue of whether there should be a total or a partial ban on handguns. If we do that this evening, it will not be a second too soon.
4.36 pm
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: The whole House knows that this guillotine is bad and even disgraceful. The proper use of the guillotine occurs when there have been excessive speeches or filibustering and when the sense of the House is that the legitimate opposition to a measure has gone too far and has ceased to have any support from outside; we then reluctantly proceed to curtail the debate.
This is the worst sort of guillotine, because it is an agreed guillotine; the House runs the risk of banding together as some form of lynch mob, taking away without proper consideration the rights of a significant and honourable minority.
When hon. Members say that we must act for the sake of the parents of Dunblane, I am reminded of our discussions about capital punishment; all of us who are opposed to capital punishment have had from time to time to deal with people whose relatives have been killed and
718
who say, with great force, "Oh, but if only we'd had capital punishment, my daughter's murderer would have been deterred."
On such occasions, our duty as legislators is to say, "Well, I'm sure you believe that, but as a matter of fact we don't think that the evidence about deterrence is as strong as you suggest." In the same way, we as a House are surely entitled to say to the parents of Dunblane, "We understand your feelings; we share your grief; but we wonder whether the solution that you put forward is going to have the effect that you so much hope for."
It is important, as we talk about doing something for the parents of Dunblane, to remember one central fact: 96 per cent. of the crimes committed with firearms are committed with unlicensed weapons, upon which the Bill will have no effect whatever.
Mr. Terry Dicks: The logic of my hon. Friend's argument worries me. We will not stop trying to get rid of illegal weapons while we are getting rid of legal ones. The two go hand in hand. Crack cocaine is available only illegally; does he suggest that we should make that lawful?
Mr. Budgen: That is entirely different. My point is that this legislation is directed towards the 4 per cent. of offences that are committed with legally held handguns. We are proposing expensive, cumbersome legislation, which is said to be demanded by the Dunblane parents—
Mr. John Garrett: How will a guillotine motion prevent anyone from making such points?
Mr. Budgen: Hon. Members always believe that the whole nation must have been listening to our excellent speeches, especially if it is their own speech, and that it has heard the arguments. That is not so. Most people outside the House are uninterested in the great issues.
Mr. Garrett: How does the guillotine affect that?
Mr. Budgen: I shall explain. It is by repetition, by argument and by demonstrating that there are people who hold a contrary view with as much force as those who hold the other view that we begin to understand that, in our grief or anger, we may be mistaken. The legislation tries to reduce the 4 per cent. of crimes that are committed by people with legally held handguns. It is reasonable to carry out our survey of the matter slowly, not least because of the money.
Money is important. Somewhere, no doubt, a gentleman aged 85 with a defective heart will be visiting his general practitioner's surgery to ask for a heart transplant. He may have with him five relatives who also demand it for him. The doctor will have to tell the old man, politely and diplomatically, that the cost of a heart transplant is not justified for a man of 85. It will be difficult, but it is one of the jobs that a GP has sometimes to discharge. It is not unreasonable for the House sometimes to have to tell people such as the Dunblane parents that, while we understand their anguish, we wonder whether their proposal would have the excellent effect that they want it to have.

719
The money is important, because everyone knows that the House feels uncomfortable about the legislation. That view is not held only by Conservative Members but by many Opposition Members who have in their urban areas patriotic people who have been encouraged by successive Governments to have gun clubs. They have regarded them as being like the Territorial Army.
Those people are suddenly being regarded as bad citizens—dangerous people or awful nutters, who might do something such as Thomas Hamilton did. They resent that. What is our collective will going to be? Unless we go slowly and try to restore our sense of balance, and that of the country, we will say, "Okay, we have done these people a frightful injustice, but let's throw a lot of taxpayers' money at it."
Mr. Tam Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman mentions the taxpayers' money. What does he think the volume of compensation that will be asked for is likely to be? I have heard the figure of £1.2 billion being thrown around. That may seem staggering, but, given the antique value of many of the guns, it is perhaps not an exaggeration. The Home Secretary was reluctant to name a figure, which I can understand. What is the hon. Gentleman's figure?
Mr. Budgen: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point. I asked in the House some time ago how much the compensation would be. I had a document from one of the shooting organisations that put the figure at between £500 million and £1 billion. The hon. Gentleman will remember that the original money resolution suggested that the cost would be between £on and £n. The money resolution has now been widened enormously.
One has only to listen to this debate for five minutes to discover hon. Members who find that it is not convenient to tell the parents of Dunblane that what they want will not achieve their legitimate objectives; that it is uncomfortable and unpleasant to have to tell them that we disagree; and who therefore say, "Let's throw a bit of public money at this." I am not averse to throwing public money about in small quantities, but this case will involve very large quantities.
Paragraph 2(b) of the amended money resolution refers to
"any other loss which may be incurred as a result of that Act".
That could easily be £ion; it could easily be more. Before we consider whether that is a sensible way to reduce the 4 per cent. of crimes that are committed with licensed weapons, we should ask how £million might be used elsewhere.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Not under this guillotine motion.
Mr. Budgen: These are all points that can be raised during the course of these agreed proceedings, which will be rushed through with the agreement of the House and of the Front-Bench spokesmen, and, most of all, with the Opposition abandoning their traditional role of ensuring proper debate.
720
In the unlikely event of there being a Labour Government after next May, the Opposition will find themselves in an extraordinary position. Labour has said that there will be no extra money for the national health service and not much extra for education. It is anxious to be the party of fierce controls on public expenditure, so that there is no risk that it might be accused of intending to stick up taxation on smart people from Islington or people who earn a hundred grand a year at the Bar, and so that the middle class can be reassured.
However, the Opposition are conniving at something that may cost £500 million. The Government have agreed to give £500 million extra funding to the health service to stave off crisis; £500 million on £64 billion is quite a bit of money. We will end up with an enormous bill for this legislation.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, you might say that this is wide of the mark, but it is not. We need to discuss the Bill slowly, so that, when Ministers or the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner) are asked why Wolverhampton hospital cannot have another maternity unit, they can say that it is because we have allocated the money to reduce, possibly, the 4 per cent. incidence of firearms crimes that are committed with licensed guns. That is why we need to debate the issue slowly.
On this occasion, the Opposition have joined the lynch mob. They have abandoned their traditional role of ensuring proper debate and proper discussion. That is a disgrace. There is no doubt that there is nothing more tyrannical than an agreed House of Commons.
When my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary next has a row with the courts or finds that the House of Lords is cutting up rough with him, and we wonder in a detached way why it is that we have, as a nation, allowed ourselves to be subject to the indignity of the supervisory control of the European convention on human rights—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is experienced beyond belief on the European convention on human rights, but I do not believe that it has much to do with the guillotine.
Mr. Budgen: No, with the greatest respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is extremely relevant to the consideration of this agreed guillotine. Why is it that the British nation is prepared to deny the sovereignty of our Parliament? It is because, from time to time, our Parliament acts as a lynch mob. That is what we are doing today. Why is it that the courts are eroding our sovereignty? Why is it that the doctrine of judicial review has been so extended? It is because lawyers and judges say that Government after Government have eroded the power of the House of Commons, and with it the rights and dignities of those who send us to this place.
We deny ourselves our most important duty if we do not give this legislation the careful scrutiny that it certainly demands.
4.51 pm
Mr. David Winnick: Unlike the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), I believe that the House of Commons is carrying out its rightful duty, and I hope that it will come to a rightful conclusion at the end of our debate.

721
I have no disagreement with those hon. Members who are opposed to the legislation and who obviously do not want the guillotine motion to be carried. Their opposition is a perfectly legitimate parliamentary weapon, because if one is not in favour of the principles of certain legislation, one is not likely to be in favour of the guillotine.
Those hon. Members, mainly on the Conservative Benches, who do not want to see a ban on handguns, be it according to the Government's proposals or what we would propose, will oppose the motion. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said, they will act as I have done on most occasions, when I opposed guillotine motions for the simple reason that I opposed the relevant Government legislation.
I do not believe that the House is acting in haste—if anything, my criticism is that we have acted too slowly. I did not want an inquiry to be held after the terrible massacre of 16 children and their teacher on 13 March. I believed that the Government had a duty to act immediately after the tragedy at Dunblane.
That inquiry took place, and now, eight months and five days after one of the greatest tragedies to occur in our country—the deliberate killing of 16 young children and their teacher—the House of Commons is at long last debating the relevant legislation. I therefore cannot accept for one moment that we are legislating in haste, or that our approach is too hurried. I believe that we have a duty and a responsibility as the House of Commons to deal with a problem that should have been dealt with by legislation after the massacre at Hungerford in 1987.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West made much of compensation, and almost seemed to make a joking matter of the amount of money that might be paid out. I ask the House, what about compensation for those parents who lost their children and the husband and family of the teacher who was killed at Dunblane? It is not a matter of money. I accept that compensation might be paid to the gun owners, but, at the end of the clay, the question for the House is what action we can take to try to prevent another Dunblane.
Of course I must accept that, should the Government's proposals be accepted, or should a total ban on handguns be agreed, as I would like, there is no guarantee that another Dunblane will not occur, any more than there was a guarantee that another Hungerford would not take place. But I believe that there is less chance of such a tragedy occurring again if the desired legislation is passed. That legislation should be passed as quickly as possible, especially after all the delay that has already occurred.
The Government believe that a ban on 80 per cent. of handguns is sufficient, but I do not agree. If one is going to legislate, why not go the full hog? Why not take action along the lines that most people in the country want? Let there be no doubt that most people want a total ban on handguns, as shown in survey after survey. That is why I believe that action is necessary, and why the guillotine is quite justified.
Certain people are campaigning in favour of handguns. I can understand the anxiety of those who have been involved in a perfectly legitimate sporting activity. Shooting does not happen to be a hobby of mine, and I imagine that it is not a hobby for most of my right hon. and hon. Friends, but I accept that, up to now, it has been a perfectly legitimate one and within the law.
722
I certainly have no sympathy, however, with the smears that have been made, even of the parents who lost their children. I have referred to those tactics during previous Home Office questions, and my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) quoted them today. How can those Conservative Members who support the views of the gun lobby possibly not find those tactics as offensive as I do? I believe that they do.
Sir Jerry Wiggin: The British Shooting Sports Council, which has briefed me and my hon. Friends, has absolutely nothing to do with the organisation that has recently sprung up, and for reasons that I do not understand. I am perfectly happy to dissociate the shooters who are represented by Conservative Members from that organisation.
I must tell the hon. Gentleman, however, that the law-abiding shooting fraternity, to which he has just referred, has been subject to a co-ordinated press campaign that has reviled the motives of those who enjoy shooting, as though there was something evil in the very possession of a gun. I hope that he will have some sympathy for the disquiet and injustice felt by law-abiding people who go about their law-abiding business.
Mr. Winnick: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says. I have never been involved in any smear campaign against those who have practised a legitimate sporting activity, but the massacre at Hungerford in 1987 changed my mind about guns. I confess that I had not thought a ban necessary before that. If I must indulge in some self-criticism, perhaps I should have been more active in asking questions then, although I am sure that it would not have resulted in anything along the lines that I would have liked. I did not continue the campaign that many of us started for all handguns to be banned. If we had done so, perhaps we could now speak with a clearer conscience.
I have to say that, while I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman said in disassociating himself and those of his hon. Friends who share his views from the sort of smear attack that I mentioned, those attacks were nevertheless deeply offensive—especially those directed against the very people who lost their loved ones on 13 March. The debate will be much better if such smears and innuendoes are avoided.
After the guillotine motion is out of the way, I hope that my hon. Friends' amendment will be carried; even if it is not, however, we shall at least have made some substantial progress. Banning 80 per cent. of handguns is undoubtedly a step in the right direction. It will be welcomed in the country, even though there is an overwhelming majority, which extends far beyond Scotland, for a total ban on handguns. That is why it is so necessary that the legislation is debated and the House of Commons reaches a conclusion as quickly as possible.
5.1 pm
Mr. Michael Alison: I am—stemporarily, I hope—ambivalent about the motion. I am certain that the time allocated to debate the money resolution, which finished at about 4.30 pm, was inadequate to provide opportunities to debate the compensation aspect of the Bill. I hope that I shall be able to stay in order by telling my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary that there is a possible conundrum relating to compensation

723
that might be so difficult for the clever chaps at the Home Office to work out that we will need to use all the time allocated for consideration of the Bill to understand it. That is why I shall make brief reference to the compensation problem that I would have raised, had there been time during the debate on the money resolution.
The problem relates to a firm in my constituency run by Mr. Tim Hannam, which is an important manufacturer and retailer of small arms and weapons. Among other things, it acts as a storage facility for the local police forces in West and North Yorkshire. It is also a manufacturing firm that is engaged in export, retail, wholesale and imports and it has a turnover of about £1.2 million a year.
One of the firm's problems is that it suffers from a substantial debtors' liability: bad debts have begun to accumulate because debts to the firm are chiefly owed by the sorts of gun shops and ranges that specialise in handguns, and their cash flow has suddenly seized up as a result of the Dunblane disaster and the Bill. My constituent's business therefore faces a growing volume of bad debts.
My point for the Home Secretary—one that I might have to make over an extended period, although I hope that that will not be necessary—sis that, in considering amendments to the money resolution or to clause 11, I hope that he will be sensitive to the fact that bad debts become a liability in need of compensation for companies with a big turnover, such as my constituent's. Does the compensation have to be paid to the businesses that owe money to my constituent, which debts my constituent then has to claim from them, or does the fact of the bad debt on my constituent's annual accounts itself justify his being—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but it seems to me that he is straying into areas where he should not stray. We are considering the timetable motion and he must relate his remarks more closely to that.
Mr. Alison: I feared precisely that rebuke, Madam Deputy Speaker, which is why I was trying to tell my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary that the conundrum of whether compensation for debts will be given directly to the firm that is owed the bad debt or to the business that owes the debt is the sort that could be debated interminably. That is why I am raising the matter in connection with the timetable motion. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will recognise that that feature will require considerable consideration when we debate clause I, and that he will allow me to put my concern on the record at this point in the proceedings.
5.5 pm
Mr. Martin O'Neill: Like the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), my memory of guillotine debates goes back only to 1979. I am not sure whether I have even spoken in one—I have certainly never spoken in favour of a guillotine motion, nor have I voted in favour of one, as I shall do this evening.
There is always some dubiety about whether guillotines are desirable. Speaking as one who has opposed legislation in Committee, I know that there is always the
724
danger that, under a guillotine, one will have to give up time on matters on which one would like to speak and that Opposition Members will end up having surrendered to the Government the only weapon available to them—the weapon of time—because people filibuster too long on the early parts of a Bill. In some respects, this guillotine is perhaps too generous in some respects, but we have a fair amount of time to consider clause 1, which is the significant part of the Bill.
In response to remarks about panicking and rushing, it must be admitted that there was perhaps a degree of panic after 13 March, but it cannot be said that there was a sense of rushing following Hungerford, which occurred some 10 years ago. It is clear that, had we done our job better in the 1980s and had we been bold and effective enough in our consideration of licensing procedures, we might not have had to debate this Bill today.
It is rich for the opposition to the guillotine to take refuge in their opposition to judicial review. If we look at the sad story of Deputy Chief Constable McMurdo, we find that one of his major concerns was that any appeal or attempt at some form of judicial review would have failed. I speak as a Member of Parliament whose constituency is covered by Central Scotland police and who knows Douglas McMurdo. I feel that he has been made a scapegoat, because he worked within a structure that was not adequate to the requirements of the time.
The Bill is not only about guns but about the licensing of those who hold guns.
Mr. David Mellor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. O'Neill: Let me take my speech a little further and then I shall give way.
The Bill is about the licensing procedures for the holding of guns. Current legislation is defective and requires our attention.
Mr. Mellor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to raise a matter that has puzzled me. Although it was undoubtedly right for Mr. McMurdo to do what he did, why did the matter stop there? Why has the justice of the peace, who, according to Lord Cullen, barely knew Thomas Hamilton, apparently escaped any blame and not felt the necessity to resign from any post?
Mr. O'Neill: I think that the justice of the peace considered that his position differed somewhat from Mr. McMurdo's. There are often occasions on which we, as Members of Parliament, are asked to sign pieces of paper—for example, for people who want passports or documents witnessed—and we do so on the basis that the individual concerned is a constituent with whom we have a nodding acquaintance. We do not always know such people as well as perhaps we should.
That was not the case with Mr. McMurdo, who knew about Hamilton and did not feel confident that the law would back him if he chose to refuse the licence. One can consider that issue, as we shall do in Committee. I hope that the right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) will be able to take time from his broadcasting duties to participate in the Committee and discuss the subject at length.

725
We got it wrong after Hungerford and we now have a chance to make some reparation. I speak unashamedly about the Dunblane connection; a matter of days after the tragedy, the woman who launched the Snowdrop campaign, came to my office asking me how to organise a petition. I said that she should ensure that the words were correct, as Parliament would refuse the petition if they were not, and we got it sorted out. We thought that the petition might attract 5,000 or 10,000 signatures; in the event, it attracted three quarters of a million signatures. It was a simple expression of the country's feeling. People say that it was emotional and that it was done in the heat of the moment, but even in June and July, after the petition had been presented, copies were still being signed. There is still a feeling in the country that something has to be done.
The gun lobby says that, in the main, its members are law-abiding citizens—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I fear that the hon. Gentleman is falling into the same trap as the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison). He must relate his remarks to the allocation of time, not the issues, important though they are.
Mr. O'Neill: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I accepted an intervention and was diverted from my course. I accept that speed is of the essence.
Great emphasis has been placed on the international sporting dimension. Future competitors in the Commonwealth games in New Zealand in 1998 are beginning their rigorous and lengthy preparations. The House would not be fair to the sport if it did not make the position crystal clear on opportunities for training and preparation—the individuals involved have to make the correct arrangements. 1 have heard that the measure may stymie competitive handgun shooting—if so, it is a risk that we must take.
Speed is of the essence; we have delayed for too long. It is important that we sort out the arrangements, in relation not just to the type of guns, but—I stress the importance of time in this context—to licensing. As we speak, the police are having to process licences under what we now consider to be defective arrangements. It is essential that we ensure that the police are able to do their job, that sportsmen understand the limitations that the legislation will impose on their activities, that the level of compensation is understood and that people can make the appropriate security arrangements. Those matters must be dealt with urgently, which is why the Opposition are prepared to support the guillotine motion and why there has been a fair degree of consensus nationally that something must be done.
Although the measures do not go as far as the Opposition would have liked, we recognise that the Government are offering us the opportunity to correct something that we should have got right after Hungerford—it is now more than 10 years later and we cannot delay any longer. I therefore support the guillotine motion.
5.13 pm
Sir Jerry Wiggin: I find myself in a dilemma over the motion, as I have consistently voted in favour of guillotine motions. I feel strongly that
726
guillotine motions should be passed automatically as, in my experience, the guillotine process often results in endless wasted hours on both sides of the House in debating clause 1, followed by far too rapid consideration of the Bill's details. I once promoted a guillotine motion on a private Member's Bill, which was unusual.
The Firearms (Amendment) Bill has been introduced in haste. The Firearms Consultative Committee, which was established under the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 to give expert advice to the Home Office, was not consulted until after the Bill had been published—a negation of the intention behind establishing that committee. There has been no time for consultation with the various interests as represented by the British Shooting Sports Council, of which I have declared my interest as a vice-chairman and former chairman.
I am sad that it is necessary to produce such complex legislation. Even today, we shall learn of the intricacies of the firearms laws, which I fully confess I shall never fully understand. It is better to introduce such measures in consultation with experts, and I am sorry that we will not do so on this occasion. Under the timetable motion, we shall, however, give full consideration to clause 1 today and to other clauses tomorrow. The Bill's Standing Committee stage will be rapid, and I prefer to begin to discuss the matters that concern us.
We are having today's debate because the Government, doubtless with the connivance of the usual channels—I cannot believe that the motion would have appeared on the Order Paper without such connivance—tabled a new sort of guillotine motion. That motion had escaped the eagle gaze of my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling). I am sure that he would prefer to be here today, but he is abroad on NATO business on behalf of the nation and the House. He spotted that the new procedure was to be nodded through and felt that we should not adopt such rules without a proper debate. He therefore, correctly, shouted, "Object," which is why we are now discussing a full guillotine motion.
I am torn between my defence of the opposition to the Bill and my desire to see it properly debated—I would certainly not wish to oppose the motion. My message to those on the Front Benches is not to try that trick again. Other hon. Members should beware when those on both Front Benches connive, as it is usually to the nation's disadvantage.
5.16 pm
Mr. Tony Marlow: I can understand why the legislation is now before the House. After the searing, desperate, mind-numbing events of Dunblane, anyone would feel that something should be done urgently and that a solution was vital. But the legislation is no solution: it will not stop a future Hamilton. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) said, the vast majority of crimes carried out with firearms involve firearms that the measure will not ban or illegally held firearms. A potential Thomas Hamilton will continue to acquire weapons—the difference is that, in future, he will acquire them illegally and without the knowledge of—or giving notice to—the authorities.
In my limited experience, there are two circumstances in which the House is asked to introduce a guillotine: either there has been a manifesto commitment on a

727
measure that is supremely controversial in the House and the Opposition seek to overturn the will of the people as expressed in an election; or the Government are embarrassed. I have never known a Government to be as embarrassed over a measure that they have introduced in the House as this Government are over the Bill.
There are 321 Conservative Members of Parliament. Last week, 215 Conservative Members of Parliament voted for the Bill's Second Reading, which means that 106 Conservative Members voted against Second Reading, abstained or were paired—that would have been a small minority. There was a three-line Whip on a measure that the Government said was urgent and had to be dealt with quickly. In my 17 years in the House, I have not known a rebellion of such strength in the Government party—and the vast majority of Conservatives going through the Lobby on this supremely un-Conservative measure went through holding their political noses.
This is rushed legislation, and if one rushes legislation one is in grave danger of introducing mistaken legislation. This is mistaken legislation. As far as the House is concerned, we are here because we are here because we are here. What should we do? Delay is the enemy of bad legislation, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the only way to delay this legislation is to vote against the guillotine.
I should like to say to my hon. Friends who are Conservatives that we have heard from the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) that, in all his time in Parliament, this uniquely is the only time that the Opposition have sought to support a guillotine motion. Surely that should give them some cause for thought. Those of my right hon. Friends and hon. Friends who support this Government, this wise Government—in most circumstances, quite rightly—should give them the opportunity to think again, to withdraw this legislation, to go out to consultation, to introduce proper legislation, properly digested, that may well achieve some of the ambitions and objectives that the Government seek to achieve through this measure.
We are all privileged to be members of this House, members of this legislature of the United Kingdom. We should be very jealous in our regard as to what this legislature does. We should not pass bad legislation, and the first thing we can do is to block this guillotine and block this measure.
We may or may not do that, but what we do in this House is reflected in the other place, and if we start the struggle on behalf of the Government, on behalf of the House, on behalf of Parliament, against bad legislation, I can assure the House that the other place will follow our example.
5.21 pm
Mr. David Wilshire: I will not detain the House for more than a minute or two, because I am conscious that it wants to get on to the substance of the debate.
I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) a distrust of guillotines that have cross-party support. I believe them to be deeply damaging to parliamentary democracy, and I see a very big difference between an opposed guillotine and an unopposed guillotine. I am very nervous of the principle of what we are about to do.
728
I should far rather have dealt with the main business without a guillotine, waited to see whether there was a filibuster and dealt with it as and when it happened, because I do not believe that there would have been one, and it would have been a better sign to the country that we could dispose of the business without having to use these procedures.
I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West that there is more than one way of responding positively to the bereaved parents. As I said on Second Reading, I believe that backing Lord Cullen and his proposals is the right way to proceed. But—and it is a big but—drawing on my experience as a bereaved parent, I believe that taking a speedy final decision one way or the other will be part of the healing process, even if that decision is not the one that the parents want.
I hope very much, therefore, that I shall not damage the reputation of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) when I say that I agree with what he said. He was right when he said, "Let's take a decision tonight." I wish only that it was without a guillotine, especially one that has the Labour party's support.
5.23 pm
Sir Dudley Smith: I shall be extremely brief.
I am of the school of people who believe that guillotines are usually satisfactory for Bills and debates because they ensure greater focus, and on this occasion I believe that the time that is being made available for us is reasonably generous, but I wish to speak because I hope that, under the provisions of the timetable, we shall have the opportunity to debate one or two very important side issues that crucially affect the livelihoods of many people.
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison), I wanted to raise my point on the money resolution, but there was not time for many hon. Members to speak on that. I hope that there will be time to discuss the largest civilian shooting range in the United Kingdom—Wedgnock range at Warwick. Hon. Members probably suppose that the largest shooting range is Bisley, but that is a forces range.
I hope that time will be available during our proceedings, although perhaps not today or tomorrow, to take into account the fact that there is a real danger that that range will have to close because it is extremely reliant on small arms usage by clubs, individuals and organisations. It is part of this country's shooting heritage. It is used by the police and other people. I am advised that there is a very real danger that, once the Bill becomes law, it will go out of existence. I hope that I can leave that point with Ministers.
5.25 pm
Mr. Straw: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to make some closing remarks.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) said that there was nothing more tyrannical than an agreed House of Commons, as though that were something that happened almost every day. Whatever other accusation may be made against the Secretary of State, the one that he is a pushover when it comes to agreeing with the Opposition is not one that lies against him—or, I suggest to him, the reverse.

729
I do not believe that there is anything tyrannical about a House of Commons agreeing on an issue on which it is agreed. The public expect us to agree about a measure such as this. I am glad that there is a substantial measure of agreement between the parties on the need to bring the Bill before the House today and resolve some of its principal parts, and on the need for there to be much increased control of guns, even if there is disagreement about the extent of that control.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West made what I considered to be a very intemperate and misplaced remark, comparing the House of Commons to a lynch mob. There may be occasions when that type of metaphor could appropriately be used, but I do not believe that such language is acceptable in a serious debate on gun control in the wake of the terrible circumstances of 13 March.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Some Conservative Members spoke about delaying tactics. We should emphasise the fact that this is a matter of considerable urgency. I remind my hon. Friend that when the Dublin Parliament, the Dail, enacted the Firearms Act 1971 in response to the increasing troubles in the Six Counties, it did so with similar urgency. That Firearms Act is not altogether unlike the Bill before us.
Mr. Straw: I know that to be true. In the south of Ireland there remains a substantial problem of illegal firearms, but the Dail enacted legislation on legal firearms very swiftly, and no compensation was paid. There was a total ban on all handguns.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West asserted that the European convention on human rights challenged our sovereignty. We, as a Parliament, voluntarily agreed to sign the European convention on human rights in, I believe, 1951. The Conservative Government have extended the rights of individuals to petition before the European Court, and at any stage Parliament can decide to withdraw from that convention.
The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) would have preferred to discuss this business without a guillotine—a widely shared view—but it became clear to both sides of the House that that was unlikely to be possible. We would have had a very disorderly debate on a key issue without a guillotine.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman rose—
Mr. Straw: I am always delighted to give way to the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman).
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I am two paragraphs behind the hon. Gentleman. I wonder whether he agrees that the European convention on human rights, which was merely signed and never went through the House, would have gone through in quite the way that it did if it had been thoroughly debated. It would have been a little less woolly.
Mr. Straw: I am afraid that I was not in the House in 1951, although the hon. Lady may have been—
730
[Interruption.] The hon. Lady and I have a special relationship. I bow to her superior knowledge on all occasions. I believe that the convention was debated—
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: No.
Mr. Straw: If the hon. Lady says that it was not, I accept that. However, it would have been open to her or any other hon. Member, at any stage during the past 17 years, to raise the issue of the convention if it was as dreadful an instrument as has been suggested. It would have been open to the Government to propose withdrawal from it: neither circumstance has arisen.
The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) said that he had never seen a rebellion of such magnitude as apparently occurred on Second Reading of this Bill. On his count, on a three-line Whip 214 Conservative Members voted in favour of Second Reading. His memory must be very short. He may like to know that on Second Reading of the Crime (Sentences) Bill only a week previously, the Home Secretary could muster less than half of the parliamentary Conservative party—just 149 Members—to support his Bill.
Mr. Marlow rose—
Mr. Straw: I know that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about that, but he should take it up with the Home Secretary.
It is not unheard of—although it is unusual—for the Opposition to support a guillotine motion. We believe that it is appropriate in this case because it is important that the House should now proceed to debate the key issue of whether there should be a total or a partial ban on handguns.
5.31 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Ann Widdecombe): In accordance with the spirit of the motion, I will make an extremely short speech.
Many important issues were raised that will fall to be addressed when we consider the issues substantively during further stages of the Bill. I want to respond to only two points. First, my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) suggested that the Firearms Consultative Committee did not have an opportunity to consider our proposals before the Bill was published. In fact, it considered its response to our proposed response on 23 October, before the Bill was published. It gave us advice on that basis. Since then, the committee has considered the Bill on two occasions and we have accepted a number of its suggestions.
Secondly, I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) that it is not true that guillotines are applied only when there has already been substantial or excessive debate. There is nothing unique about proposing a timetable motion before discussion of various stages of a Bill.
We have allocated a generous amount of time. I reject the Opposition's contention that we have acted too slowly.
Mr. Peter Brooke: Having failed to catch the Chair's eye, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for giving way.

731
Will she give me an assurance that during the Standing Committee—which will have only a limited amount of time—adequate time will be made available to consider the interests of those who shoot competitively at county and national level and are anxious about the wording of the Bill beyond clause 5?
Miss Widdecombe: Within the time constraints available to us, we will consider all matters that are raised and selected by the Chairman of the Committee for debate. I very much hope that, during the various stages of the Bill, there will be an opportunity to consider the interests of all those who are affected by the Bill, in whatever way.
Before the very helpful intervention by my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), I rejected the Opposition's contention that we have moved too slowly. This is an important issue that required coherent, sensible and balanced responses from us. I believe that we have now brought those together in this Bill. I recommend the timetable motion to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:—

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE
1.—The proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall be completed in two allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on the second of those days.
(2) On the first allotted day—

(a) proceedings on any amendments to Clause No. 1 which may be selected and which would amend that Clause at any place before the words -a small-calibre pistol" at line 16 of page 1 of the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of proceedings on the first such amendment;

(b) proceedings on any amendments to Clause No. 1 which may be selected and which would leave out the words "a small-calibre pistol" at line 16 of page 1 of the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the first such amendment;

(c) proceedings on any other amendments to Clause No. I which may be selected shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of proceedings on the first such amendment; and

(d) the remaining proceedings on Clause No. 1 shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.

(3) No motion as to the order in which proceedings are to be considered in the Committee shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown and the Question on any such motion shall be put forthwith.
(4) When the Order of the Day is read for the House to resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill, the Speaker shall leave the Chair without putting any Question and the House shall resolve itself into a Committee forthwith whether or not notice of an Instruction to the Committee has been given; and Standing Order No. 64 (Committee of whole House on bill) shall not apply.
(5) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings to which this paragraph applies on the first allotted day.
(6) Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to the proceedings to which this paragraph applies.

STANDING COMMITTEE
2.—(l) The Standing Committee to which the remainder of the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill not later than 28th November.
(2) Proceedings at a sitting of the Standing Committee on 28th November may continue until Ten o'clock whether or not the House is adjourned before that time, and if the House is adjourned before those proceedings have been brought to a conclusion, the Standing Committee shall report the Bill to the House on 29th November.

REPORT
3.—(l) The proceedings on consideration shall be completed in one allotted day and shall be brought to a conclusion at midnight.
(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings.

THIRD READING
4.—(1) The proceedings on Third Reading shall be completed in one allotted day and shall be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement.
(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings.

BUSINESS COMMITTEE
5.—(1) For the purposes of Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on consideration of the Bill such part of the allotted day as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.
(2) The Business Committee shall report to the House its Resolution as to the proceedings on consideration, not later than the fourth day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.
(3) Any Resolution of the Business Committee may be varied by a further Report of the Committee under Standing Order No. 80, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (2) and whether or not that Resolution has been agreed to by the House.
(4) No Motion shall be made as to the order in which proceedings on consideration are taken, but the Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in that order.

PROCEDURE IN STANDING COMMITTEE
6.—(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee, the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until those proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.
(2) No Motion shall be made in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a Minister of the Crown, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who moves, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.
(3) No Motion shall be made as to the order in which proceedings are to be considered in the Standing Committee, but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in that order.

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS IN COMMITTEE
7. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill, the Chairman shall report such of the Bill's provisions as were committed (or re-committed) to that Committee to the House without putting any Question.
DILATORY MOTIONS
8. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of proceedings on, the Bill shall be made in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

EXTRA TIME
9. If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment

733
of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) stands over from an earlier day, paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

PRIVATE BUSINESS
10. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

PROCEDURE AT TIME FOR CONCLUSION OF PROCEEDINGS
11. For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or the Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any 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 new Schedule which has been read a second time, whether before the time so appointed or in pursuance of paragraph (a), the Question that the Clause or Schedule, or the Clause or Schedule as amended, be added to the Bill);

(c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper, whether in the name of a Minister of the Crown or not, which is moved or made by a Minister of the Crown;

(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and on a motion so made for a new Clause or new Schedule, the Chairman or the Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
12.—(l) Proceedings under paragraph 11 of this Order shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
(2) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;

(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

(3) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

SUPPLEMENTAL ORDERS
13.—(l) The proceedings on any Motion made in the House by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced.
(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings.
(3) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

SAVING
14. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall—

(a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution; or

(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

RECOMMITTAL
15.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of, recommittal.
(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and the Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

INTERPRETATION
16. In this Order—
"allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day, provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day, or is set down for consideration on that day;
"Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;
"the Bill" means the Firearms (Amendment) Bill;
"Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.

Orders of the Day

  Firearms (Amendment) Bill
  [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.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [DAME JANET FOOKES in the Chair]

Clause 1

  EXTENSION S.5 OF THE FIREARMS ACT 1968 TO PROHIBIT CERTAIN SMALL FIREARMS
  5.35 pm
  Sir Jerry Wiggin: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 1, line 15, after `weapon' insert
  '(including those powered by carbon dioxide)'.
  This is a minor amendment which has long been recommended by the Firearms Consultative Committee. That committee was told some time ago that it could not have this modest concession until there was major legislation. I am very hopeful that my pleas will fall on receptive ears. It is ridiculous that a weapon powered by air pressure can be used without a certificate while an identical weapon powered by carbon dioxide will be confined to section 5. It is so clearly an historical breach of detail that I hope that the Government will accept the amendment.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Ann Widdecombe): There is, indeed, a case for exempting low-powered carbon dioxide handguns from the general prohibition because they are no more dangerous than the low-powered airguns that are currently exempted. Not unnaturally, as the clause is concerned with handguns only, the amendment deals with carbon dioxide handguns and not long-barrelled guns. We intend to table an amendment to ensure that all forms of low-powered carbon dioxide weapons are treated in the same way as low-powered airguns. On the basis of that undertaking, I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw his amendment.
  Sir Jerry Wiggin: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Sir Jerry Wiggin: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 1, line 16, after 'apply', insert
  `, a firearm which is incapable of holding more than one cartridge'.
  The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Janet Fookes): With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 7, in page 2, line 6, after second `pistol', insert
  'which is capable of holding more than one cartridge and'.
  Sir Jerry Wiggin: Amendment No. 6 would exclude single-shot pistols from section 5. It covers both .22 and
  736
  higher calibres. There are a number of different types, but the guns are few in number. Some would be banned because they fall outside other provisions of the Bill, such as the limitation on length. Among the higher-calibre, single-shot weapons there are perhaps a few hundred in use. These guns do not feature in the Olympic games, but are an important part of the Commonwealth games and all international matches. It is a sport at which Britain excels. We have won 19 medals at the last three Commonwealth games, including seven golds.
  At no time did Lord Cullen suggest that a ban on single-shot guns was appropriate. He made a very clear distinction between multi-shot and single-shot guns and made no recommendation for the further control of single-shot guns. Of course, a single-shot gun is an infinitely less lethal weapon than an ordinary shotgun, for example.
  Amendment No. 7 alters the definition of small-calibre pistols so that it will exclude only single-shot .22 calibre pistols from the Bill's provisions. I fully accept that if this amendment were to be acceptable, a new paving amendment in subsection 2 would be required at the Report stage.
  Fewer than 5 per cent. of .22s are single shot pistols. They are used for Olympic discipline free-pistol shooting, which is the most prestigious—the crème de la crème—Olympic shooting event. The .22 single-shot pistol is used at both the top and the bottom ends of shooting. They are used by elite Olympic shooters, who use carefully honed and expensive guns, and by beginners, who often start out with a single-shot .22.
  The question is clear: is a single-shot weapon really so lethal that it should be banned, or are not we going too far in our endeavour to make apparent concessions to public safety? I say "apparent concessions" because the matter was debated at considerable length last week.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Howard): My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare has summarised the effect of the amendments. They would exempt single-shot pistols from the general prohibition, effectively limiting the ban to multi-shot guns. They would particularly allow single-shot handguns to continue to be kept at home.
  I cannot invite hon. Members to support the amendments. The Government believe that there is no place for handguns in the home. As is self-evident, even a single-shot handgun can be used to kill, and they are very easy to carry and to conceal.
  Mr. John Redwood: In framing his reply to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare, will my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State go beyond the question of whether such guns should be kept at home to answer the burden of the point made by my hon. Friend—that we would like to keep the Commonwealth games in this country and our competitors to be able to take part in them? Will my right hon. and learned Friend suggest other amendments to the Bill that would enable that to happen in a safe manner?
  Mr. Howard: I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare was concentrating more on the Olympic than the Commonwealth games. We do not ban

  737
  any of the weapons that are used in Olympic competition. In the Bill, we ban some of the weapons that are used in the Commonwealth games, but they are used in only one of the competitions in those games. All Olympic competitions use .22 calibre weapons, and all but one Commonwealth competition use .22 calibre weapons.
  I made the Government's position clear on this matter last week. It is possible for the holder of my office to authorise that element of the Commonwealth games that is not a .22 calibre competition to take place at Manchester. It is true, however, that the Bill's effect would be that no British competitor would be able to practice in this country for that element—it is one element only—of the Commonwealth games. As I explained last week, it is true that that is a consequence of the Bill's provisions.
  The purpose of amendment Nos 6 and 7 is to allow people to keep handguns in the home. We do not believe that the public can be given the protection they need and deserve if handguns continue to be kept at home. That is why I invite the Committee to reject them.
  Mr. Doug Henderson: In the spirit of this debate, I am pleased to agree with the comments made by the Secretary of State. I also agree that high-calibre single-shot pistols are extremely lethal—as has been demonstrated by evidence presented to many hon. Members over the past few weeks and months. I am sure that such evidence will continue to be produced during the remainder of this week. If one accepts that we must take action to outlaw pistol shooting in shooting clubs, it would be unacceptable to allow the type of exception provided for in amendment No. 6. The type of weapon we are talking about is particularly lethal. It may not be as lethal as the multi-shot pistol, but it has the ability to kill very quickly.
  5.45 pm
  There is another reason why I hope that the Committee will not accept amendment No. 6. I believe that he and his colleagues are trying to pick apart the Bill. If one examines amendment Nos 6 and 7, and subsequent amendments, one will notice an attempt to exclude various categories of weapons from the provisions of the Bill. The effect would be that the Bill would prohibit only Magnum pistols and perhaps some pistols smaller than .32, which are used for vermin control, and that all others would be acceptable. That would run a coach and horses through the Bill and would not accord with the will of the vast majority of hon. Members.
  Although people have a right to enjoy their sport, we should weigh that privilege against the risk that guns will be used as they were in Dunblane. I take part in many sports and on most occasions I support the sporting world and some of its arguments, but I do not believe that one can argue that the rights and privileges of the sportsperson should take precedence over the very real risk to the population. That is why I do not believe that the House should accept amendment No. 6 or some of the other amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wigging).
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I do not intend to speak for long, and I do not intend to intervene regularly. I should, however, like to mention one matter.
  738
  The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) mentioned the wish of the overwhelming majority of hon. Members. It is quite true that all hon. Members are deeply saddened and appalled by what happened in Dunblane—there is not a cigarette paper of difference between any of us on that—but there is considerable unease, not only on the Conservative Benches but on both sides of the House, about the tone and content of this legislation. I should not like the debate to end without my right hon. and learned Friend being aware that I share that unease.
  Rarely is panic legislation good legislation. Although Thomas Hamilton acted in an unspeakable manner with the weapons that he legally possessed, he is—as one of my correspondents said to me this morning—having his revenge in this legislation, which will penalise many law-abiding citizens who have never comtemplated and would never contemplate doing wrong.
  Thomas Hamilton could have inflicted equal damage if he had run amok with a motor car. He could have inflicted damage with a variety of weapons and implements, as could any other evil man or madman—and I believe that Thomas Hamilton was the former. It is incumbent on all hon. Members, however great our sympathy for those who have suffered—I hope that no one's sympathy is greater than mine—to realise that we have a duty to try to distance ourselves and to be objective in what we are trying to do and in the legislation that we frame. I do not believe that this legislation will enhance Parliament's reputation, or that it is really serving our country's interests.
  Mr. James Couchman: I should like to share with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary a point made by one of my constituents who shoots regularly, who is an elderly and extremely responsible citizen. He said that the shooting club to which he belongs, which uses .22 weapons, uses the Territorial Army Volunteer Reserve range in Gillingham to enjoy the sport. One of the problems that they foresee is that the TAVR range in Gillingham may not want to have secure storage for their weapons on the premises on which they shoot. That could be a problem across the country. I certainly agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary in his opposition to making exceptions to the secure storage provisions. If many of the shooters who would be allowed to continue their sport with their weapons find themselves precluded because the TAVR, for example, will not allow storage to be constructed, there will be a justifiable outcry. Such people will be deprived of their sport by default rather than by the Bill.
  Amendment negatived.
  Sir Jerry Wiggin: I beg to move amendment No. 17,in page 1, line 16, after 'apply', insert 'a permitted centre-fire pistol'.
  The Second Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following: Amendment No. 19, in page 2, line 7, at end add—
  `(1B) In this Act "permitted centre-fire pistol" means a pistol chambered for .32 or smaller centre-fire cartridges and suitable for participation in competitions shot in accordance with the rules of the Union Internationale de Tir.'.

  739
  Amendment No. 18, in page 2, line 7, at end add—
  (1B) In this Act "permitted centre-fire pistol" means a pistol chambered for .32 or smaller centre-fire cartridges'.
  Amendment No. 30, in page 2, line 7, at end add—
  '(1B) In this Act "permitted centre-fire pistol" means a pistol chambered for .32 or .38 special or smaller centre-fire cartridges.'.
  New clause 7—Centre-fire competition pistols—
  The authority of the Secretary of State is not required by virtue of subsection (1) (aba) of section 5 of the 1968 Act for a person to have in his possession, or to purchase or acquire, or to sell or transfer a firearm if he is authorised by a firearm certificate to have in his possession, or to purchase or acquire a pistol chambered for .32 or smaller centre-fire cartridges for use in competitions shot in accordance with the rules of the Union Internationale de Tir.
  Sir Jerry Wiggin: In response to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), I see the matter from his point of view in so far as later amendments are germane to this debate, and it would have been easier to talk about exceptions once the next question had been resolved. As long as the Labour party remains opposed to all handguns, I expect no sympathy from Opposition Members.
  If we are to be allowed to keep any handguns—the reasons can be well argued, and will become apparent in the next debate—it is not unreasonable that we should seek to spread as widely as possible the range of handguns used for international competition purposes, which are very unlikely to be selected even by a maniac, because, being single-shot, they are quite unsuitable for death and destruction. They are suitable for shooting at targets, which is what they are designed to do and what they are used for. The single-shot .22, which we have just been debating, is the type of gun that an individual could manufacture. It is often a labour of love to put together such specialist and highly accurate single-shot guns.
  I am sorry that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has seen fit to draw the line where he has. This group of amendments, Miss Fookes, seeks to extend the lower limit to .32 and smaller calibre pistols. Such guns do not use a conventional cartridge of the type that one would expect. They use what are known as wadcutter cartridges, and are generally known as the .32 wadcutters. The name derives from the fact that the cartridge is designed especially to be fired at cardboard. The blunt-nosed bullet does not expand on impact, and cuts a cleaner hole in a cardboard target—like a flying paper punch—making the measurement more accurate.
  These pistols are used in the majority of Commonwealth games shooting events, as well as other international competitions. In the previous three Commonwealth games, British competitors won three medals, including one gold, in the .32 centre-fire event. A Briton also won a silver medal in the 1995 Commonwealth shooting championships. I should like to argue with my right hon. and learned Friend about the calibre, muzzle speed and impact of such guns, but, in some respects, that may be an argument against his position on a subsequent amendment.
  The fact is that we are talking about low-power, target-shooting handguns that are not designed for killing. They are designed to fire 25 metres, and for competition.
  Mr. Henderson: I had a meeting with representatives of the Metropolitan Police, who told me that any gun
  740
  could kill anyone. Did the hon. Gentleman taken such background advice into account when framing his comments?
  Sir Jerry Wiggin: Of course any gun can kill anyone, and so can any knife. If one pursued that argument, it would be logical to say that there should be no guns at all, but I do not think that the Opposition Front Benchers, even in their wildest moments, have said that.
  The amendment is an attempt to define a line which we believe can be reasonably argued, which can be backed by Cullen's report, and which is in Britain's best national interests in shooting competitions. I commend it to the Committee.
  I owe you a personal apology, Dame Janet, because I fear that I have been addressing you incorrectly. It was mere forgetfulness, and I hope that you will accept my apology at face value.
  The Second Deputy Chairman: That is quite all right, Mr. Wiggin!
  Mr. Richard Burden: I was hoping to make an intervention, but the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) got a little hard of hearing and then sat down. I shall therefore make my point by way of a short speech.
  The hon. Member may be surprised to know that I had some sympathy with his previous attempt to exempt single-shot weapons. Secure storage of single-shot handguns may be practicable, but the matter was not pressed to a vote.
  The amendment that we are debating deals with exempting pistols that are meant purely for sport. There is a great difference between a pistol that is intended to be used for sporting purposes but which is still capable of rapid fire and which can cause a great deal of damage to or kill or maim many people one after the other, and a sporting pistol used purely for that purpose, which is capable only of a single shot. Certainly it can still kill, but the risk is less. If it were securely stored, it would raise different issues.
  Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will later clarify whether this group of amendments would exempt only single-shot pistols, which is the type that he referred to, or whether it would also exempt multi-shot pistols for sporting purposes.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: Will the Home Secretary clarify what he said about the Commonwealth games and competitive shooting? He made it clear that, under the Bill as drafted—without this or other amendments—no British competitor could practise for the Commonwealth games. However, unless I misheard him, he seemed to imply that the games could be held with this category of event included. I do not understand how he can base that argument on the Bill as drafted.
  Sir Anthony Durant: I am seriously worried about the effect that the Bill might have on our sporting chances at the Olympic and Commonwealth games. People who participate in shooting events take their sport seriously and are reasonable people. Anything we do that damages our chances in this sport should be examined.

  741
  I am honoured to be taking over the southern region of the Sports Aid Foundation, which raises money to help young people to participate in sport. I am worried that, if the amendment is rejected, we shall be damaging our nation's sporting interests. I should be grateful if my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary would bear that in mind.
  Mr. Rod Richards: I support the amendment, for all the reasons outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin). I voted for the amendment that would have prevented Second Reading. I believe that, despite our feelings about what happened in Dunblane, the House is not capable of legislating against evil.
  I want to exemplify my concern at the stance adopted by the Opposition to this group of amendments by drawing attention to on of the many letters that I have received from my constituents—and, indeed, from other people.
  6 pm
  With your permission, Dame Janet, I should like to quote a passage or two from a letter from my constituent, Gary Tomkins, exemplifying the fundamental conceptual flaw in the Bill. He says:
  "In 1989 at the age of 22 I had a very severe industrial accident which left me with a damaged spine and a totally paralysed right arm and hand. Before my accident I had been a very active and fit person but could not continue my hobbies. I was a martial arts instructor and had taken part in competitions all over the country. My accident was in February 1989 and I was due to take part in the European championships in Belgium in the May of '89. I had trained hard and was expected to be very highly placed. I also could not continue my football or climbing. A close friend asked if I would like to go to Llandudno Pistol Club with him and I started to go as a probationary member. I became a full member in 1994. It is not an overstatement to say it changed my life. I go three times a week and it is a hobby I have pursued to a very high standard. I have recently been asked to shoot for my country. It is now my one and only hobby that my disability does not affect as it is not a contact sport. Myself and three other members of the pistol club travel all over Britain shooting at different competitions. I hold nine target pistols, five centrefire and four rimfire for shooting all the different disciplines I shoot."
  My constituent then writes of his upset at the dreadful events in Dunblane. He says:
  "After Dunblane I found it hard to shoot but thought 'why not, I have done nothing wrong.' Competition shooting is one of the safest sports and enjoyed by people from all walks of life and all sections of society."
  He concludes:
  "The target shooters I have spoken to on the subject feel that we are being 'tarred with the same brush' as Thomas Hamilton. We do not understand why the sport of Target Shooting is to be practically wiped out because of the actions of one evil individual. It is not possible in any way to legislate against an unsound mind … I am just asking for the right to continue with the sport that I care so much about and which helped me to come to terms with the loss of my other activities."
  That letter puts it better than I could. The amendments are sound, and I shall support them.
  Mr. Thomas Graham: I can well understand the viewpoint of the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards). Not long ago, one of my constituents was shot and murdered with a gun. As far as I am concerned, guns are made to
  742
  kill people, and it is time we took them out of the system and out of society to ensure that folk can live in peace and harmony at home, without fear of someone possessing a gun.
  I am unequivocally opposed to handguns being kept at home. Many innocent people such as me fear them. It is time that we put ourselves right and stopped these guns being used. I can understand the quest for sport. We all enjoy sport. However, after what we have seen in Dunblane and Hungerford, it is time for the House to act to ensure that no one—and I mean no one—in this country, except representatives of the law and our armed forces, has the right to own pistols. God forgive us if we allow this to continue.
  Mr. Bill Walker: I had not intended to speak, but I cannot let what the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) has just said go unchallenged. He should realise that a skean-dhu in the hands of a madman is a lethal weapon.
  Weapons are lethal only if people intend to use them in an evil way. Our debates should concentrate on the problem. The problem at Dunblane was an evil individual. No amount of legislation will remove evil people from society.
  Mr. Henderson: I do not want to labour my comments on these amendments, because I have little to add to what I said on the previous amendments. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) is again seeking to insert a long list of exemptions to make the provisions of the Bill inadequate.
  The hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) got to the point of the sports issue. He said that competition shooting was one of the safest sports. Hamilton was a member of two shooting clubs—one in Callender and one in Clyde valley. I am pretty sure that those clubs take part in competitive shooting. We cannot say that competition shooting was safe for the 17 people who died at Dunblane or for their environment. That is the central issue.
  As I said on the previous amendments, it is a privilege to take part in sports. Other shooting sports opportunities are available to those who want to take part, including rifle shooting, shotgun shooting for game, and clay pigeon shooting with shotguns. Shooting sports based on pistols have been shown to be dangerous. That is why I hope that the House does not accept the amendments.
  Mr. Howard: I begin by associating myself with the apologies of my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin). I earlier fell into the same error as that into which he had fallen, and I apologise.
  The amendments would exempt centre-fire handguns from the general prohibition, particularly those of .32 calibre or smaller, with amendment 30 also exempting those of .38 calibre. We have given a great deal of consideration to the distinction between the lower .22 rim-fire calibre and higher calibres, and I cannot invite the Committee to accept the amendments.
  It is true that there are serious competitive target shooting events at higher calibres. However, .32 and .38 handguns take conventional centre-fire ammunition. Although, for competition shooting, they may use low-powered ammunition for the purposes of accuracy,

  743
  they are equally capable of using much more powerful ammunition. There is no distinction between the power of those guns and that of other high-calibre handguns. Handguns such as pocket pistols chambered for .32 rounds are often used in crime.
  In contrast, the power of a .22 calibre rim-fire handgun is limited by the nature of the ammunition that it uses. As the table in paragraph 9.49 of Lord Cullen's report shows, a .22 calibre round is four to six times less powerful than a high-calibre round.
  The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) asked about the Commonwealth games. I should make it clear that the amendments would have no impact on the Olympic games, in which pistols of .22 calibre only are used. The amendments would permit exemptions for higher-calibre guns.
  The right hon. Gentleman asked how it would be possible for the Commonwealth games to take place with a full complement of events. I understand that one of the five pistol shooting events in the Commonwealth games is for pistols of a higher calibre than .22. The other four events are for .22 calibre guns. I have authority under section 5 of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1968 to enable that event to take place in Manchester in 2002 if the organisers of the Commonwealth games wish it. Nothing in the Bill would take away that authority.
  Mr. Edward Leigh: Will British sportsmen be able to participate in the Commonwealth games using that class of gun?
  Mr. Howard: As I have indicated in the past, British competitors will not be able to practise in this country for that event. I believe that the authority I am able to give under section 5 of the 1968 Act would enable people to take part in the competition.
  We all listened with great interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards), who read out a moving letter from one of his constituents, for whom target shooting was an important part of life. Many of us can sympathise with that constituent's views. Indeed, it is because we believe that it is possible to give the public the protection they need and deserve while allowing those in the position of my hon. Friend's constituent to continue some limited shooting, that the Government have taken their position, and will invite the Committee later this evening to reject amendment No.1.
  I entirely accept that, as a result of the Bill, my hon. Friend's constituent will not be able to carry on with all the kinds of shooting in which he presently engages. That is true, but he will be able to continue to shoot .22 pistols. I very much hope that, in that way, he will continue to derive the satisfaction that he currently gets from shooting, which was fully explained in the letter my hon. Friend read out. I believe that the Bill will enable my hon. Friend's constituent and many others like him to continue with their legitimate activity, while giving the public the protection they need and deserve by dealing with higher-calibre guns.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I have a correspondent who is not dissimilar from the one quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards). Why
  744
  would the public be at greater risk if the two people we are talking about and others like them were allowed to keep their weapons in secure and registered gun club premises? I have always felt that handguns should not be kept at home, but should be kept in clubs. Why would the public be at greater risk if those people, many of them handicapped and unable to use other weapons such as shotguns and rifles, kept their weapons in secure and licensed gun club premises?
  Mr. Howard: We will deal with that precise point in due course, because some of the later amendments deal with the generality of higher-calibre weapons. The answer to my hon. Friend's point is that higher-calibre weapons are much more powerful.
  I said that, if one looks at the very helpful table at paragraph 9.49 of Lord Cullen's report, one sees clearly that a .22 calibre round is four to six times less powerful than a high-calibre round. Higher-calibre guns are more attractive to criminals and are more often used by criminals. They would make the clubs a much more attractive target for criminals.
  I accept that, at the end of the day, there is a difficult matter of judgment. However, there are a number of reasons why we have come to the conclusion that the appropriate place at which to draw the line is the .22 calibre. That enables .22 calibre shooting but not higher calibre shooting to continue.
  Dr. John Gilbert: I have a lot of sympathy with the Home Secretary's point. However, I am not clear about his remarks on the Commonwealth games. If I understand him correctly, it would be in order for a British citizen to practise with a larger calibre pistol abroad, but not in this country, and to compete in the games. Will that citizen be allowed to bring the higher-calibre pistol into the country, and what will he do with it when the games are over?
  Mr. Howard: Clearly, if I or the holder of my office gives authority in 2002 for that event to take place—I repeat that that is one out of the five shooting events in the Commonwealth games, and that the other four events are .22 events—it will be necessary for arrangements to be made for the guns used in that event to be made available to the competitors. In the course of making those arrangements, which would have to be studied with considerable care in the context of the authority given, it would be possible for those weapons to be made available for the purpose of the competition to all the competitors in that event. That is the answer to the point raised by the right hon. Member for Dudley, East (Dr. Gilbert).
  Mr. Leigh: I must press my right hon. and learned Friend on this point. There is a logical absurdity here. Surely my right hon. and learned Friend, with his inquiring and highly intelligent mind, can see that.
  We are now saying to British sportsmen that they can use guns but not practise with them. It is like saying to my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe) that he can run the 100 metres but that he cannot practise it. The whole thing is absurd, and it got even more absurd when my right hon. and learned Friend answered the right hon. Member for Dudley, East (Dr. Gilbert). Where will the guns be stored? World-class

  745
  sportsmen will want to use their own guns. They cannot win at that level with somebody else's gun. The whole thing is absurd. I beg my right hon. and learned Friend to reconsider.
  6.15 pm
  Mr. Howard: I do not accept the premise behind my hon. Friend's question. We have justified our position on the grounds that I have explained. We think that the right place to draw the line is at .22 calibre. We do not think that higher-calibre weapons ought to be permitted in this country.
  I have been asked whether, exceptionally, notwithstanding the general position in relation to higher-calibre weapons, if the holder of my office were asked by the organisers of the Manchester Commonwealth games to permit that one event to take place as part of those games in 2002, it would be possible to make arrangements for that. The answer is yes; it would be possible to make arrangements for that event to continue. Of course, that does not lie very easily with the generality of the Bill; I entirely accept that.
  It is not the intention that, when the Bill is enacted, higher-calibre weapons should be used. But if it is the desire of the organisers of the Commonwealth games, on that one occasion and for that one event, for special arrangements to be made, special arrangements could be made, as I have explained to the right hon. Member for Dudley, East and my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh).
  I have sought to explain to the Committee the reasons why I do not believe that the amendments should be accepted. They would allow higher-calibre weapons to be available and to be used. Although, as I have said, it is true that higher-calibre weapons have a competitive use, they are capable of using much more powerful ammunition, and they are indistinguishable from .32 handguns, which are frequently used in crime. For those reasons, I invite the Committee to reject the amendments.
  Sir Jerry Wiggin: I am not an expert on the .32 wadcutter, but I understand that there are a number of competition weapons that are chambered precisely and only for a type of ammunition that is, in effect, a disc for marking a target. No criminal with any skill would contemplate the use of such a weapon or such a bullet—if I can call it that, because it is not a bullet—for criminal purposes.
  The advice that my hon. and learned Friend has received on velocity and so on is incorrect. Many higher-calibre weapons have a smaller net power than some .22s. I should like to go into the matter in greater detail, perhaps in correspondence.
  Mr. Graham: My sister-in-law has been held up in a shop five or six times in her life. What happened was that a guy came in and held a gun at her. Does the hon. Gentleman think that my sister-in-law asked, "Is that a .22?" Does he think that the criminal cared? For goodness' sake!
  Sir Jerry Wiggin: The hon. Gentleman is making the mistake of confusing legally held guns with illegally held guns. There is nothing in favour of illegal weapons. We
  746
  condemn illegal weapons as much as anyone. I doubt that the person who held up the hon. Gentleman's sister-in-law was carrying a legally held firearm.
  I shall seek to put my right hon. and learned Friend right on the technical points. I shall not press the amendment to a vote tonight, in the hope that, if we can produce the necessary technical evidence, he will give the matter further consideration. We are talking only about target shooting, and I believe that we can allay many of his fears. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 16, leave out 'a small-calibre pistol'.
  The Second Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following: No. 15, in page 1, line 16, leave out 'small-calibre pistol' and insert
  `firearm which can be dismantled'.
  No. 2, in page 2, line 4, leave out subsection (6).
  No. 16, in page 2, line 6, leave out from 'Act' to end of line 7 and insert
  "firearm which can be dismantled" means a firearm which may be readily dismantled into at least two separate components in such a way as to disable it from being fired.'.
  Mr. Hughes: I greatly admire the way in which the issue has been handled. Ever since the Dunblane shooting, the Government and Opposition parties have worked together and treated the subject as a non-party matter on which the House of Commons could not legislate in a hurry. Lord Cullen did a remarkable job. One of his most important recommendations was to impose a timetable on the House that included time to reflect. As the debate progressed and the issues unfolded, the Government made the right decision to consider the recommendations in the Cullen report and propose what action the House should take. It is a matter for the House of Commons to decide public policy and not for a judge, no matter how eminent he may be.
  The difference between myself, the Opposition and the Government is relatively small. The Government consider that it is safe to allow .22 or smaller calibre weapons to be kept in gun clubs and that all other handguns should be banned. What is the basis for that judgment? Why do the Government believe that there is a difference between .22 handguns and larger weapons?
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has advanced two arguments. First, he said that he did not wish to disrupt Olympic sport. That is a logical contention, but I wonder how much water it holds when we have been told by the shooting lobby that most of the sport will be destroyed, as will Britain's participation in some of the competitions in the Commonwealth games. If the Government are prepared to take the matter that far—and they are right to do so—the next logical step would be to ban .22 handguns as well.
  Secondly, my right hon. and learned Friend claims that, if larger handguns are held in gun clubs under the new stringent conditions, gun clubs will become a more attractive target for criminals. If .22 handguns are the only guns being held in gun clubs, surely they will be a target

  747
  for criminals. As the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) said, when his sister-in-law was held up, she did not know what calibre of gun was being used.
  I have also had a gun pointed at me in Beirut by a very insistent man who wanted me to hand over a videotape. I said, "Take as many videotapes as you like." I did not stop to ask him what calibre gun he was carrying. Therefore, those two arguments do not stand up.
  There is a third possible argument: presumably, there is a significant difference between the effect of .22 pistols and that of larger handguns. I have taken advice from experts on guns. They do not necessarily agree with me, but agreed to assist the debate. They tell me that the shock of being hit by a bullet from a .22 gun is considerably less and that many more bullets would have to be pumped into someone to cause death. I understand that, but a .22 weapon can still be lethal, as the Cullen report tells us. The umbrella organisation for the shooters tells us that a .22 gun can be just as lethal as a larger weapon and that in some circumstances it can be more dangerous because it is quicker to change magazines on a smaller handgun.
  The Government assert that their restrictions will be enough to ensure that .22 weapons never get into general circulation. However, in the Cullen report the umbrella organisation for the shooters stated its view that no system of certification or regulation can be foolproof. In other words, no system will stop someone saying that he is going to a target shooting competition, taking his guns out and doing whatever he wants with them.
  Smaller handguns are used to commit many atrocities. They are the chosen weapon of Mossad, the Special Air Services and the professional assassins. Robert Kennedy and Yitzhak Rabin were killed with .22 weapons and Ronald Reagan was nearly killed with one. The Evening Standard reported that last night
  "A mother found her four children shot dead in their beds in North Carolina with a .22-calibre handgun, the type of weapon that the Government is refusing to ban".
  Mr. Terry Dicks: My hon. Friend has tried to apply logic to the Government's policy, and that was an error. Is it not true that the policy was cobbled together simply to keep the Cabinet intact? That is why it is so illogical and cannot be explained in a way that the average man in the street can understand.
  Mr. Hughes: I am in favour of keeping the Cabinet together and I hope that it will continue to govern us after the general election. In good government, any decision is a matter of compromise. I was coming to my hon. Friend's point.
  Mr. Richards: My hon. Friend makes great issue of the difference between the effectiveness of a .22 handgun and that of a higher-calibre weapon. If a Member on the Opposition Front Bench were to shoot at my hon. Friend with a .22 handgun, it would be something of a fluke were he to be killed. However, if a Member on the Opposition Front Bench were to fire at him with a 9 mm Browning, my hon. Friend would end up on the same Bench as me—much further back.
  Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but I was referring to people who hone their skills in gun clubs
  748
  and know the effect of the guns. Someone armed with a .22 weapon who is intent on committing an atrocity will know exactly how close he must be to his victims. Therefore, a tragedy such as Dunblane could happen again.
  I have already stated my view that there should be a free vote on the issue, because of my stance and that of other hon. Members, particularly my hon. Friends. Otherwise, can there be any logic in the Government having taken a non-political approach to the issue?
  Mr. Bill Walker: It was not the Government, but the Opposition, who made the issue political.
  Mr. Hughes: I absolutely reject that contention. Those arguments are used merely to slur the good names of the people who run the Snowdrop campaign, who have not tried to make it a political issue.
  The judgment on whether there should be a three-line Whip is wrong. I think that it is wrong because, plainly, from the beginning, all the signals from the Government were that the issue was non-party political. Members of Parliament were therefore entitled—indeed, in my judgment, had a duty—to find out the facts, talk to the shooting fraternity and those people who wanted to ban handguns, visit gun clubs, as I and I am sure many hon. Members did, and make up their own minds on how they should vote on the issue when it eventually came to the Floor of the House. That is what I did, and that is why I take the view that I do.
  In this and other debates, it has become normal courtesy for people, whatever their view, especially those who do not want to ban any handguns, to say how much sympathy they have for the parents of the Dunblane children and the husband of Gwen Mayor. I do not believe that I have any more or any less sympathy than anybody else. In fact, I think that the words are used not to express sympathy but to excuse the way in which those people are thinking and say that the people who were involved in Dunblane and the people who lost relatives are perhaps over-emotional; although we should listen to what they say, we have to understand that perhaps they are not being as balanced as they should be.
  I reject that view entirely. That is not the view of the people of Dunblane. They have looked at the issues. They do not think that their relatives can be brought back, but they recognise that if we leave handguns in the hands of private citizens, as, regrettably, the Government's proposals would, we run the risk that once again a tragedy could be caused by legally held weapons. I think that the House should recognise that that is so and not have a further atrocity or the possibility of one on its conscience.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. George Robertson: I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) on his speech, on his courage in following his judgment and his conscience and on resisting whatever strong-arm tactics have been used by his party managers. That stands well for him.
  This debate involves a moment of critical decision for the House of Commons.
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes: For the sake of clarity, I ought to say that there have been no strong-arm tactics employed by the Whips or by my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench. They have been extremely courteous and logical in their approach to me.
  Mr. Howard: The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) should withdraw his comment.
  Mr. Robertson: Of course I withdraw the comment. The hon. Member for Harrow, West was a Whip, and if he says that there has been no pressure put on hon. Members, that is good. I hope, therefore, that what I am going to say will be all the more relevant for that.
  In paragraph 1.13 of his report, Lord Cullen said:
  "I point out that the ultimate decision raises a number of matters of policy which are peculiarly for the Government and Parliament to decide. For that reason I direct my recommendation to what should be considered."
  This evening, the House of Commons has to make its own decision; it has to come to its own judgment. I hope that if there is no restraint—that what the hon. Member for Harrow, West says, to which the Government Front-Bench team nods animatedly, is correct—Conservative Members will suffer no penalty if, having listened to the debate, they come to a different conclusion from the one that, as has been indicated to the press, the Government have drawn.
  In many ways, Parliament itself is on trial tonight. If we were to leave a loophole in the firearms law big enough for another mass murderer, another Michael Ryan or Thomas Hamilton, to walk through, we would never be forgiven or deserve to be forgiven by the populace. Today, in another continent, another country, another culture—America—four children were shot dead by their father using a .22 weapon. The children died, and they make a horrifying point for us at the beginning of this debate.
  I suggest that we should start by being brutally truthful with ourselves. I ask hon. Members this question: if a mad, crazed, suicidal gunman with 743 rounds of ammunition had come into the Chamber, killed 17 Members of Parliament and gravely injured 15 others and then shot himself within a matter of minutes, would we have waited eight months to discuss a partial ban on the very instrument that killed so many legislators of this land? No; whatever the Home Secretary says, the answer to that is known in the House of Commons and outside.
  Sir Michael Marshall: I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument, but he is realistic and must surely accept that there is no way in which we can close all loopholes. We would have to ban all guns. The sawn-off shotgun has been seen over the years as the criminal's friend. Surely the hon. Gentleman should give up the idea that we can close all loopholes against lunacy.
  Mr. Robertson: I hesitate before calling the hon. Gentleman complacent, but I have to make the point to him that Thomas Hamilton and Michael Ryan were in a category of killers who took the lives of more people than the total of practically all other homicides in the country in a year, and did so using legally held handguns. If a 100 per cent. ban had been in place and the loophole closed, neither of them would have been able to de what
  750
  they did. A balance of risks is involved. The Government have gone beyond the Cullen recommendation because they believe that the balance of risks determined it. I am suggesting that the Government's limit of 80 per cent. is not enough and that we should simply close the loophole by a 100 per cent. ban.
  Mr. Howard: A few moments ago, the hon. Gentleman made an absolutely outrageous suggestion, which demeans him and the House of Commons. I want to give him the opportunity to withdraw it. He alleged that, if what had happened at Dunblane had happened in this House, we would not have waited eight months before legislating. Did not the shadow Home Secretary, his hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), and the whole Labour party accept from the outset that the right course would be to set up the Cullen inquiry, wait for its report and then legislate speedily in response to that report, which is precisely what the Government have done? Will the hon. Gentleman now withdraw his outrageous remark?
  Mr. Robertson: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman would listen to me, he would realise that I am not accusing him. I am taking responsibility for all of us. Yes, of course, we waited eight months; we waited for Cullen to respond. I am questioning whether, if such an incident had happened in Parliament, we would still be talking about a partial ban on the guns. What if the instrument of death used at Dunblane primary school on 13 March had been a .22 weapon? What if it had been a Revolter .22 with eight-shot magazines? Would we still be considering a partial ban on the weapon that caused that atrocity or could have caused an atrocity in this House? I think that we know the obvious answer.
  Mr. Richards rose—
  Mr. Robertson: Many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-East (Mr. Richards), have asked whether, somehow, the .22 is different from the .32 or the Magnums that some people have at present. Eileen Harrild was the gym teacher at Dunblane primary school. She is in the House of Commons and what she has said today should be a salutary reminder to all of us. She did not know whether Thomas Hamilton had a 9 mm Browning or a .22 weapon in that gymnasium. All she knew was that he killed with it.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman meant to say what he did to the Committee, but it is quite important that he puts the position on the record. Surely he is not for a moment suggesting that the reaction of the House of Commons to the murder of 16 children and their teacher would be any different if a crime had been committed in the House involving 17 Members of Parliament. Surely the House would react to such an atrocity, wherever it happened, in the same way, by looking at the facts and forming a balanced and proper response. It is important that the hon. Gentleman should make that clear.
  Mr. Robertson: The right hon. Gentleman and I have stood side by side during the whole episode and I do not regret that for a moment, but we have arrived at a different

  751
  conclusion at this stage and that is the point that I make solemnly and seriously to the Committee. After all that time, all that consideration and all the evidence that has been collected, it is not right that we should concern ourselves with a partial ban on that sort of weapon. If the events had been closer to the House, the partialness of the ban would be the issue, as it is today.
  The decision is a matter of judgment. We saw so much on that day and we have seen so much since then, but we see a difference of judgment before the Committee tonight. The amendment on which we will vote is not in the name of the Labour party; it is first in the name of three right hon. and hon. Conservative Members and it has support across the Committee. The point has been made repeatedly, but why will the Government not allow—
  Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we have stood side by side on this issue, and I am grateful for the way in which he has done that, but it is important that he should make it clear that the House of Commons is not treating the events of Dunblane any less seriously than it would treat the events had they taken place in the House. That is what he appeared to say and it is important that he should make it clear that the House of Commons is treating the events of Dunblane as seriously as if they had happened anywhere else. We may disagree on the appropriate response, but it is wrong to suggest that the response would have been different if those events had happened here in Westminster and not in my constituency.
  Mr. Robertson: I make the point to the right hon. Gentleman that the issue is a question of judgment, and I am not the only one who makes that suggestion. Yes, we decided collectively that the Cullen inquiry would be set up and that we would wait to see the results before we came to a considered conclusion, but there is now a serious difference between us. It is a small difference, but it is a fundamental. I do not personally believe that, had the events taken place here or had the gun that was used in Dunblane primary school been a .22 weapon, we would now be considering a partial ban that would continue to allow 20,000 .22 calibre pistols, half of them semi-automatic, to remain in legal circulation. That is my judgment and I believe it is shared by many other hon. Members.
  Mr. Richards rose—
  Mr. Dicks rose—
  Mr. Robertson: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks).
  Mr. Dicks: At the time the hon. Gentleman, my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition went to Dunblane, soon after the tragedy, the implication was—I may be wrong—that everybody would do all that could be done to ensure that such events would not happen again. I am disappointed that that has not happened and that is why we have a partial ban and not the complete ban that the hon. Gentleman and I want.
  Mr. Robertson: In the ideal world, we would all have followed the same route together and we would have
  752
  come to exactly the same conclusions, but we do not live in an ideal world. The hon. Gentleman's party is not ideal, because his colleagues do not agree with his courageous view. There is an honest difference of opinion and the House of Commons has an opportunity to consider what action will be taken.
  Mr. Richards rose—
  Mr. Robertson: This is a brief debate and I have to make some progress. I have given way generously up to now and I may come to the hon. Gentleman later.
  The issue before us is that guns kill and handguns kill more easily, more quickly and with devastating effect. The .22 guns are as lethal as the higher-calibre guns that will be outlawed here tonight. I say in all seriousness—this is not a political point—that there is genuine dismay and concern in the country that there is a whipped vote on one side of the Committee but a free vote on the other. It is right to ask again and again how the Government can announce only some eight days ago that they will allow a free vote on an issue such as corporal punishment in English schools, but can maintain that it is unreasonable that Tory Members of Parliament should be allowed to follow their consciences this evening on this, of all important issues.
  Over the past 17 years, the Government have allowed free votes on Sunday trading and abortion and will now allow one on caning. Of course, we always allow a free vote on Members' pay, but we are told—perhaps because the Government believe that the vote might go against them tonight—that Tory Members of Parliament are to bury their consciences and follow the considered line of the Government. It is a sad and dismal commentary on the Government's sense of priorities that they have chosen to give no discretion to Conservative Members, and I congratulate those who have chosen to break ranks.
  6.45 pm
  The President of the Board of Trade was on "Any Questions" last Friday night with my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell). The question why there would be no free vote was posed by a puzzled audience in Troon and the right hon. Gentleman said that it was traditional that free votes be allowed when great life issues were to be determined; he quoted abortion and capital punishment. If leaving a loophole in handgun law that allows 20,000 .22 pistols to be kept—half of which are semi-automatics—is not a great life issue, the right hon. Gentleman should go to the cemeteries of Dunblane and Hungerford and ask himself the question again.
  I plead with Conservative Members and hon. Gentlemen in other parties to consider tonight the effectiveness and the security of the law that we are about to enact over the next couple of months. I hope that they will let their judgment, and not that of the Whips, determine the way in which they will vote. The debate is about more than just the technicalities of gun clubs, the disassembly of weapons, the transport regulations between clubs or even the quantum of compensation. It is a defining moment for what sort of society we want today. Is there a gun culture in this country? Should we be worried about a gun culture developing? Lord Cullen, in paragraph 9.44, said that high-calibre guns

  753
  "are not target guns in the true and original sense, but courses … have been evolved for them which make use of their greater power and other characteristics, as well as calling for agility and quick thinking on the part of the shooter. This has led to the growth of combat shooting. It has led some shooters to don the trappings of combat, such as holsters and camouflage clothing. It has caused others"—
  I emphasise this point—
  "to feel uneasy about what appears to be the use of guns as symbols of personal power."
  Those are chilling words from Lord Cullen. He is not just talking about Magnums and 9 mm Brownings, but about the handgun culture that seems to be growing and that disturbs many people who are involved in legitimate shooting sports. Those words should resonate with all of us.
  A gentleman from Elstree in Hertfordshire sent me a copy of a letter that he had sent to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington last week. Although the hon. Gentleman may not have noticed the letter, I took time to read what is an angry arid almost incoherent letter from Mr. David M. Proctor, the owner of the Elstree forge, which supplies
  "quality forged ironwork to customer's requirements".
  Mr. Proctor is a member of the shooting lobby and his letter is filled with dots and exclamation marks. We all know about such letters. He says:
  "However … we had to deal it and not take our spite and pity out on the rest of the nation or … a selected minority. If you are looking for blame … Thomas Hamilton is first in line … !! Second in line is the issuing authority for his gun license. Third in line are the people of Dunblane for not co-operating with the police to bring the 'bastard' to trial … before he went wild, instead of pelting him with eggs, flour etc, and taunting him.!!!!! Talk about kicking a dog and 'not' expecting it to bite!!."
  Mr. Proctor continues:
  "You would like a 'TOTAL' ban on handguns (pistols) … ??? fair enough … this is your view and opinion. For my part … pistol shooting is now 'dead' in the water … so … to mess about with a .22 cal rimfire … is of no interest to me, although I do own a .22 cal pistol as well as 9 mm etc. to 'just' shoot .22 is to as 'just' eat carrots and peas and nothing else … !! sorry … not interested … But … why then are you going to allow me to keep at home my .22 cal self-loading multi-shot … rapid fire rifle … ??? I can kill you just as easily with that, indeed, I could set myself up and 'snipe' you from a safe distance with it … !!!"
  That is a licensed holder of three handguns and one .22 rifle offering his considered view to a Member of Parliament who chooses to support the amendment.
  Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman has treated the Committee to two quotations, the second from a letter that was based on the assumption that .22 guns could be kept at home. Does he realise that no .22 handgun—or any other handgun—can be kept at home under the Government's proposals?
  More important, the hon. Gentleman read out most of a paragraph from Lord Cullen's report, in which he talked about handgun shooting assuming the trappings of power. Does he concede that the first sentence of that paragraph reads as follows:
  "Over the last 20 years there has been a considerable expansion in the use of larger calibre and high capacity handguns"?
  The paragraph that he read to the Committee was not about .22 handguns but about the handguns that the Government are proposing to ban. Why was he trying to mislead the Committee by quoting that paragraph?
  Mr. Robertson: I do not know whether the Home Secretary breaches the rules of order, nor do I care, but I
  754
  think that he underestimates the degree to which people are worried about the gun culture. Of course the rise of the high-calibre handgun has led to certain things, but is he telling us that he does not believe that people will trade down to other weapons of death? I have shown him a brochure that I received from the secretary of the Clyde Valley pistol club, who came to lobby me and spoke against the Bill. One weapon in that brochure can be used with an eight-shot magazine. The gun culture, if it exists, will not stop because we take out some of the larger-calibre weapons.
  The Home Secretary said that I read out the letter in the context of weapons at home. The gentleman who wrote this amazing letter—the third piece of correspondence that I have received from him—will still have his .22 rifle at home, a weapon that he is using to make an almost explicit threat to a Conservative Member of Parliament. Until the Bill becomes law, that man will continue to have his two 9 mm Browning weapons and his .22 pistol in his home. I state that not as a debating point, but because we must deal with what is going on in this country.
  Mr. Richards: In his remarks a few moments ago, the hon. Gentleman made the highly offensive comment that hon. Members might somehow regard themselves as being more important or worthy than the children killed at Dunblane. Will he withdraw that remark?
  Mr. Robertson: I do not see why the hon. Gentleman wishes to get away from the issues to which other hon. Members want to move.
  Handguns are special. The Government have conceded that, as has Lord Cullen. Because they accept that point, the Government have gone beyond Lord Cullen's recommendations. The critical issue today is whether we can make our society safer simply by banning the higher-calibre guns, or whether it remains unsafe, for exactly the same reasons that the Government have put forward, to leave 20,000 .22 guns—the figure at the moment, but there is a potential for even more if the compensation is used to trade down—in legal circulation.
  Sir Jerry Wiggin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Robertson: No, I am coming to the end of my remarks. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman hopes to catch your eye, Sir Geoffrey.
  Thomas Hamilton took 473 rounds to Dunblane primary school on 13 March. He shot 106 bullets, causing 58 wounds of which no less than 26 would have been individually fatal. He killed 17 human beings—16 of them tiny children, the other being their dedicated teacher—and he then killed himself. He did all that within three minutes of unimaginable horror. This was not a random slaughter; this was not a madman picking up for the first time a killing instrument and spraying out shots with it. This was a creature of real evil who used the skills that he gained at the gun clubs. He was the model of what Lord Cullen said was the unease that we now express about those in the combat and gun cultures.
  Those children and Gwen Mayor were not killed or murdered, but were executed in an orgy of directed and precise violence by a suicidal maniac using the only instruments—rapid-fire pistols—that could have done the

  755
  deed in that time, and simultaneously ended his own life. There could be no discrimination between the methods and the weapons that he used on that day, and we should not allow ourselves to place an artificial distinction between one set of these instruments of death and another set that we are prepared to continue in legitimate use.
  A full ban on handguns will prevent another of these atrocities—which have happened twice within the last 10 years in our country—at the hands of maniacs using legally held guns. A full ban, as the Police Federation and the Police Superintendents Association of England and Wales have said, will be the only administrative means of implementing a policy of minimised risk in this area. A full ban is what the Committee should be voting on if we are serious about minimising the risks that face us.
  There were snowdrops growing in Dunblane on that awful day in March this year. That is why the grassroots campaign—with hardly any money, but with conviction and common-sense arguments on its side—set out to make sure that no similar tragedy could affect any other small community in this country. The snowdrops will be back in bloom in March next year and the memories, which are still so fresh to so many people, will flood back to remind us and the world of what happened so close to us.
  We must make the balance between a sport and whether it continues to exist, and human life and public safety. If we leave loopholes that we could have closed, if we maintain a risk that we could have avoided, if we have not done all that we could have done to prevent another atrocity, if we make a mistake, if we compromise here in this Parliament, others will pay the price. Are we capable of living with that responsibility?
  Mr. David Mellor: I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in this important debate. During the Second Reading debate, I felt an emotion about my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary that I never thought I would feel in the context of this matter—I felt sorry for him, as he found himself assailed from both sides of the argument. Having regard to the strength of feeling among some of my hon. Friends that the measure that he proposes goes too far, it is only right, before I suggest that he should certainly go further, to recognise that if, as I hope, the measure proceeds to the statute book—with or without this amendment—largely unamended by others, it will be a significant step forward in enhancing public safety and ridding Britain of the danger of falling victim to a gun culture as part of our ready importation of American values into our way of life.
  I deeply regret that, for the first time in 17 years—perhaps it shows what a craven, snivelling thing I have been for most of my career in the House—I shall vote against my party on a three-line Whip. It is fair to say that no Whip has approached me. I wish I could add for colour that some huge effort had been made to persuade me to change my mind, but the Whips Office has treated the matter as one of complete indifference. Nevertheless, I resent the fact that I am being offered a free vote in a couple of weeks on the vital question of whether little Johnny should be spanked for sticking his tongue out at teacher, while I am not being offered a free vote on what is literally a matter of life and death. I do not see the logic of that and, with the greatest of respect to those who
  756
  decide these matters, I do not see the benefit to the Government. If they win tonight—maybe they will—it will be said that they did so only because they imposed a three-line Whip. They will be seen to have won the vote but lost the argument—a pyrrhic victory indeed.
  7 pm
  The outstanding and deeply moving occasion when the two party leaders, accompanied by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and his opposite number, the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), appeared at Dunblane was a proper sign of solidarity by the political system to mark what we all know will be a lasting stain on the history of this nation: the slaughter of 16 innocents and a teacher in Dunblane by someone whom we collectively—society—permitted to be the holder of licensed handguns. Before we hear too many other references to the unquestionably serious, but separate, issue of illegal firearms, I remind the House that Lord Cullen found as a fact that it was profoundly unlikely that Hamilton would have obtained a weapon from the illegal market had we prevented him from having a legal firearm.
  Against that background, I do not understand what is so precious about the compromise that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, with his typical eloquence and attractive imperviousness to any contrary opinion—the latter is a great asset in a lawyer, but a more questionable one in a politician—is suggesting with his customary vigour. This is not a carefully considered decision by the Government, but a decision forced on them by legitimate debate within their ranks between those such as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who no doubt took one view, and those who took another. The compromise does not reflect the views of Lord Cullen.
  At least I agree with the Government that, whatever the merits of asking Lord Cullen to do something, the policy on handguns is nothing to do with the judge. Indeed, there was no spectacle more ridiculous than the Government, having accused hon. Members such as me of knee-jerk reactions when we called for changes to be made, scuttling off to brief the press that they would not accept Lord Cullen's remarks unless they went in a certain direction, and before he had even delivered the report. If I were Lord Cullen, I would feel slightly ill used.
  Sir Mark Lennox-Boyd: Does my right hon. and learned Friend think that it was wrong to appoint Lord Cullen to conduct the inquiry?
  Mr. Mellor: Yes, and I have said so from day one, as my hon. Friend would have known had he been active in the debate. That is my view and it may be eccentric, but it is one that I hold strongly. Judges are there to deal with the law and politicians and Members of Parliament are there to make policy. Otherwise, why bother to have a Government at all? Let us have a standing committee of the judiciary to tell us how to deal with such complex issues. Sometimes I think that they could have it, and damn good riddance to them, frankly.
  The Government compromise is not some carefully selected piece of ground, but a piece to which they have been dragged by the pressure of events. I find it difficult to know why they are so attached to a compromise that

  757
  has no merit beyond the undoubted skill with which it has managed to alienate almost every party to the debate. It is extraordinary that the people who have said how unworkable and hopeless are the Government's propositions are the very people whom the Government are striving officiously to save from the ineptitude of their campaigning—the gun lobby. Why be more Catholic than the Pope on this issue? I am in some doubt as to why that should be the case.
  I should have thought it self-evident that Lord Cullen—whose use in considering the evidence is in quite a different quarter from the question whether he can help us on issues of policy—points in paragraphs 9.42 and 9.43 to the deadly nature of the .22, particularly rapid-action .22s. I have seen the advertisements that the hon. Member for Hamilton cited. As a consequence of the Government's proposals, people will trade down to .22s and the evidence clearly shows that rapid-fire .22s are capable of inflicting just as much damage as Thomas Hamilton inflicted with an altogether more powerful pistol.
  Mr. Leigh: My right hon. and learned Friend and I are on opposite sides on this question, but we may agree on this point. Does he accept that the compromise is rather disingenuous because it conveys the impression that sportsmen will continue to be able to use .22 pistols in large numbers, but by the Government's own admission most gun clubs will be closed down, so there will not be 20,000 guns in circulation anyway?
  Mr. Mellor: I would be more reassured about the Government's proposals if I thought that that was likely to be the case, but I think it most unlikely. Some of the people who are engaged with such single-minded intensity in these activities, as some people are, will carry on. They will simply modify the weapons they use, and they will use the compensation, which I accept that they should be offered, to trade down. Before we know it, the 20 per cent. of handguns that remain will swell and we will not have struck a blow to the heart of handgun culture in our society, as I want us to do.
  Mr. Elliot Morley: Is not the crux of the argument the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) about the balance of risk or risk assessment? I began by supporting the Government in the sense that I thought that retaining .22s would pose a low risk. The people in the gun lobby who have contacted me have persuaded me about the dangers of .22s. If the logic is that, for the public good, handguns should be banned, the same logic must apply to .22 handguns or to none at all.
  Mr. Mellor: I agree. I cannot think why on earth the Government are so desperate to save some of these people from themselves.
  The point that emerges with complete clarity from paragraph 9.44 of Lord Cullen's report, which the hon. Member for Hamilton quoted, is that the quiet British sport of target shooting has in recent years been infiltrated by people who shoot for reasons quite different from a desire to participate in the Olympic games. One of the lamentable side effects of the culture of violence spread by American entertainment in this country is some people's desire to play some part in the activities depicted on screen in their fantasies. Why else should people feel
  758
  the need to dress up in combat clothing and, instead of shooting at a boring old circle on a target a long distance away, shoot at human forms using combat ammunition?
  Of course the overwhelming majority of people who hold licences are to be trusted and would never do what Thomas Hamilton did, but we must ask ourselves how we are to weed out those who are playing a part in a traditional British sport and those who possess their guns as some sort of boost to a fragile ego and who are acting out some bizarre fantasy, whether at their gun club or in their home.
  Mr. Denis MacShane: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Mellor: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will bear with me so that I can develop this point and then I will be finished. To my mind, although only perhaps to mine, this is the heart of the matter—others may not agree.
  I was initially attracted to the idea, and I would be prepared to accept drawing a line at .22 weapons, if I thought that the system of vetting, which at present rejects 0.5 per cent. of applicants—when is a vetting system not a vetting system? When it lets 99.5 per cent. through—could ensure that the wrong 'uns were weeded out; but I doubt that.
  The doctors have discovered the truth. The Home Affairs Select Committee, in a last desperate attempt to get the gun lobby off the hook, suggested that doctors should be wheeled in to certify people as fit; the doctors knew that they were being handed a poisoned chalice and would have none of it, so they voted against it. One of the principal mechanisms that, it was being suggested, would have obviated the need to ban a further category of weapons, went out of the window because professional people cannot be forced to do a job against their will.
  I mentioned earlier the justice of the peace who hardly knew Hamilton but signed his certificate not once but twice. He gave a lengthy explanation to the Cullen inquiry, saying that he felt that it was his public duty to sign the application. Frankly, I am amazed that more attention has not focused on his role. If it was right for the assistant chief constable to resign, I can hardly feel reassured by the fact that that gentleman is still sitting on the Bench.
  If we legislate to protect handguns, and if we accept that the number of handguns in the legitimate category will continue to increase, we must accept that the entire credibility of the legislation will turn on those such as that JP, who lack the moral courage to refuse to give a reference. The fact that we are introducing a positive vetting system, that people will have to establish their fitness and a reference will have to be provided is not, in my judgment, a sufficient safeguard to protect us against future Dunblanes.
  What should most engage our attention is the fact that we muffed it after Hungerford, because the victims' relatives—I do not criticise them for it—did not campaign for Parliament to take a certain view, and the Government made tough proposals that, late at night, in our usual way, were watered down. Most of us—we are all guilty, as the psychiatrists say—were elsewhere when the various lobbies were doing their work. As a consequence, despite the fact that half Michael Ryan's victims were killed by

  759
  a licensed handgun, we restricted the categories of weapon to be removed, so Thomas Hamilton was able to use just such a weapon to kill the youngsters of Dunblane.
  Those who do not vote for a total ban tonight should ask themselves how Parliament will be able to look the electorate in the eye if someone else creeps out of the woodwork through the latest little loophole that we have left, and does something awful. It is a dreadful fact that, as far as the public are concerned, we have run out of road.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
  Mr. Mellor: If I may, I will first finish my point.
  We have run out of road, and there is no doubt about how the public would vote on the issue tonight. If we leave a loophole and trust the very people who let us down before, we will not have made adequate redress for the ghastly tragedy that hit the community of Dunblane in March.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: What happens if a farmer, who legitimately owns a shotgun, runs amok with it and kills six children in a school? Do we then ban all shotguns?
  Mr. Mellor: We would have to consider that situation when we came to it—and I hope that we never will. If I were a licensed shotgun holder I would pray to every god that I recognised that that would never happen, because if it did the spotlight might shift. However, my concern is with the reality of today, in which, once again, we are creating a loophole that can be exploited.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I accept that Dunblane and Hungerford were both carried out with licensed firearms, but would not the House be better served by concentrating on the Metropolitan police survey showing that 96 per cent. of all firearms crimes involved unlicensed weapons?
  Mr. Mellor: I have two points to make in reply. First, that may be a spurious figure; the Cullen report shows that its provenance is dubious. Secondly, the fact that we have a problem with illegal firearms is not an escape route for those who do not want to be properly rigorous with the conditions that we—in a society that is not the United States and does not recognise any right to bear arms—impose to deal with our problem with legal firearms, now that it has been thrust in front of us in a way that even the most thick-headed and insensitive of us cannot ignore.
  The tragedy of Dunblane will not go away; it is a continuing stain on our national conscience. I have done my best, with whatever logic is at my disposal, and drawing on my experience in the Home Office, to ask myself whether we can possibly justify the maintenance of legally held handguns in our society. The answer that I reach—at least in my version of logic—is that we cannot.
  7.15 pm
  I want to say something that might strike some people as emotional. I had never visited Dunblane before March; I knew nothing of it. Over the past months it has been a
  760
  privilege for me to come to know some of the people of Dunblane, some of the bereaved parents and those who have worked with them in the Snowdrop campaign. I congratulate that campaign on the measured manner in which it has insisted that the issue will not go away and that the House will have to address it with both sides—not just the well-organised lobby, but the public interest—being represented.
  I must tell my right hon. and hon. Friends that it was not our finest hour when we appeared to make an enemy of two women, both of whom—do not forget that we are talking Scotland here—voted Conservative in the general election. Ann Pearston made a wonderful speech at the Labour party conference; she would have made an equally wonderful speech at ours, had she been invited to do so, and it is not her fault that our rules do not allow such an event. There is no party political plot behind the Snowdrop campaign.
  Anyone with any power of imagination must know how ghastly it must be to have a five-year-old child who goes off to school one day only to be blown away by a thing such as Hamilton that we, collectively, permitted to have a handgun. It cannot be easy for people with such an experience to come out from their vale of tears and appear on the media, exposing themselves and their families to all the scrutiny.
  I have been deeply moved by my meetings with those people. I do not want those who take a more detached view to say that I am simply being emotional, but I want to tell the House what one bereaved father said to me. He said, "If I am able to secure a complete ban on handguns, I think I can put all this behind me, but if we do not achieve a complete ban, I do not think I shall ever be able to get over it."
  That is not the only reason for making a change, but if we accept that we, collectively, bear responsibility for the state of the law and that we cannot merely say that it was a stupid policeman's fault that a known misfit such as Hamilton had a handgun certificate and could keep a small arsenal at home, we must acknowledge that we owe the victims and their families some redress.
  I believe in logic, but let us never be embarrassed in a society such as ours to display emotion at such moments. Logic and emotion irresistibly build up to the fact that, after two massacres in less than 10 years—when 10 years ago we would have assumed that incidents like the Texas university massacre could not happen here—we are fully justified in saying, away with handguns. For heaven's sake, let us take that step tonight.
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: We have heard three powerful speeches, all on the same side of the argument, on the amendment so ably moved by the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes). I wish to add a fourth.
  I disagree slightly with the right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), who said that the Bill, even if the amendment were not made, would none the less be an improvement on the present law.
  The Bill is unfinished business. If it is not amended, it will have to be revisited for the reason to which both the hon. Member for Harrow, West and the right hon. and learned Member for Putney alluded: that the compromise that has been struck is illogical and unsustainable. That has been compounded by the fact that the Government

  761
  have not allowed a free vote. The Government should have used the now established machinery of allowing the House to consider several options with a free vote. That would have given us a much better chance of getting the real view of the Committee and securing legislation that would have stood the test of time. If the Bill passes unamended, it will not stand the test of time. If there is a change of Government in the next sixth months, I think that the House will be reconsidering the matter shortly after the next general election.
  The Cullen report was a valuable and proper way for the Government to respond to what happened. It made a substantial contribution to informing the debate. Reading it opened a vista for me in respect of the background to and circumstances of the gun clubs and other interested groups. I was taken aback at the extent to which handguns are being used—and being used more and more. The hon. Member for Harrow, West mentioned the developing atmosphere and culture described in the Cullen report. That was something new and worrying to me. For that reason alone, the report was a useful contribution to the debate.
  The decision facing the House is, as the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) said, a basic balance of judgment. As a Liberal with both a small "I" and a capital "L", I hate banning anything. We must have clear ideas and justifications before we ban something. In debating the money resolution, we mentioned an important part of the balance of the argument. I make no apology for returning to the importance of the necessary fairness of proper compensation for those who will be deprived of the ability to shoot handguns if the Bill is passed and the amendment accepted.
  It is not only a question of the loss to individuals or of the ancillary and storage equipment or of the .22 guns that will be rendered virtually useless by the compromise that the Government have decided to recommend. I was surprised, nay amazed, that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) made it clear that Labour believes that companies, firms or clubs that lose money as a direct or indirect result of the legislation should not be considered for compensation. That is regrettable; indeed, it is incomprehensible. During the Bill's passage, we must give more attention to provisions on museum, research and other historically notable weapons.
  Having listened to the argument and way in which the amendment was moved by the hon. Member for Harrow, West, I have concluded that we must take action to eradicate handgun culture. That does not mean only legally held weapons. Attempts to deal with illegally held weapons as well as legally held ones are not mutually exclusive. As part of the fairness to the people who are being deprived of the ability to use handguns by the legislation, we owe it to them to say that best endeavours and urgent action will be taken; that no stones will be left unturned in trying to deal with the unacceptably high number of illegally held weapons as part and parcel of this process. If we were able to tell those people that we had achieved some success in doing that, they would be more reconciled to the loss that they are being forced to sustain by the legislation. I do not know why the Government do not actively consider a permanent amnesty, whether or not a bounty is involved, for illegally held handguns. I am surprised that they have not used the debate to make sensible suggestions on that.
  762
  Having considered the balance of probabilities and examined the options available, a vital element in making me decide that the amendment should be passed is the size of the guns. Clause 1 talks about firearms with an overall length of less than 60 cm or with a barrel length of less than 30 cm. The uniqueness of such handguns is their concealability. It is impossible to make provisions to deal with outrages such as Dunblane if there are lethal weapons that small. Of course, there are difficulties with other sorts of firearms, and no doubt we shall discuss rifles and so on in the future.
  The concealability of small weapons makes them difficult to guard against with proper security provisions in schools or elsewhere. The right hon. and learned Member for Putney mentioned the environment that gives people the ability to practise with such weapons to develop a skill that can be used with devastating results. We must consider those factors, together with the potential loopholes in the registration and certification process and those in respect of mental illness, about which no one can make secure and certain guarantees. The balance of risk, when one considers all those matters, must be against its remaining possible for people to use legally registered handguns.
  The risk of a repetition of an incident with a legally held gun is an intolerable prospect. Even if, as an individual, I were willing to allow people to use handguns for sporting and other pursuits, as a legislator it is unconscionable to vote against the amendment. Who can say that another legally held handgun will not cause death? As a legislator, that is an impossible position for me and I cannot contemplate it. The only way in which we can guarantee that legally held handguns will never again be used in such incidents is to ban them. That is what I propose to vote for and what I recommend to the Committee.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) said that he was the fourth contributor in a row to take the same line. I shall be the first to take a rather different one. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) made a most powerful and eloquent speech. No one who heard it could fail to have been moved by it. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) spoke with fervour, eloquence and great persuasive power in moving the amendment. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) introduced some of the subjects that he did, but I realise that he must feel personally involved, living as he does in Dunblane. There is no reason why any hon. Member should ever have to apologise for being emotional when we debate such issues.
  I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney on two things at least. Compromises are untidy and generally unsatisfactory. I agree also that free votes are desirable in situations such as this. Since I entered the House, I have tried to treat every vote as a free one, though it has not got me very far. There are occasions when the Whips should be off in every sense, and this is one of them.
  I do not want to take up too much of the House's time, so I shall address some, but not all, of the points raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney in his fine speech. When he was courteous enough, as he always is, to allow me to intervene, I asked him a

  763
  question about a farmer with a shotgun. He responded by saying, "Well, yes, perhaps we would have to look at that example." That revealed the irrefutable logic—[Interruption.]—I wish that the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) would be quiet—at the base of the campaign.
  7.30 pm
  Of course every firearm is potentially dangerous. Every weapon can be used to maim and, in most cases, to kill. I have a shotgun licence, and I have a shotgun. Many people in this country legitimately use shotguns and rifles for country sports. The vast majority of those who own such weapons are law-abiding, sensible and sober citizens. The same is true of most people who indulge in shooting with handguns as a sport. To draw upon the phrase used by my right hon. and learned Friend, we have to weed out others by deciding who should own and use such guns. He is quite right to say that there is shared guilt if anyone like a Ryan or a Hamilton is allowed to possess weapons.
  I have long felt that there should be at least two signatures to countersign any application for any licence or certificate. I still believe that to be the case. I believe that it would be ideal if one of those signatures were that of a medical practitioner, although I take the point that my right hon. and learned Friend made in his speech.
  As I understand the Bill, there will still be a requirement for one signature for an application for a shotgun licence. As the possessor of such a licence, I say to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary that there should be two, because there have been examples of farmers turning shotguns on members of their family and killing people. We can all think of such examples. There was a particularly terrible case in Wales about 18 months ago—I note that the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) nods in agreement.
  I believe strongly that there should be a closer vetting process. I also believe strongly, however, that our country would be the poorer if all legitimate country sports were outlawed. To treat those who engage in legitimate sports as though they were all potential criminals does no service to society.
  As I said in an earlier brief intervention, I believe that there is a duty incumbent upon the Committee to seek to be objective. That is not to say that we cannot understand and share the emotions expressed, or feel the shame, distress and all the other emotions that we experienced on that terrible March day, which none of us will ever forget. When we are legislating, however, we must seek to be objective. Unless we are to say that because guns can kill no one shall ever legally own one again, we must look at what we intend to allow.
  There should be a tighter vetting process for all firearms, including those used for legitimate country sporting purposes. I accept, of course, that handguns are easier to conceal and can be more devastating in their effect. I believe that all handguns should be held in legally registered, tightly secured premises. If those who wish to operate those premises cannot meet the stringent requirements that society has a right that Parliament should demand, well, tough luck—they should close those premises.
  764
  I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney about certain other matters. For example, I believe that it is obscene to have targets of the human form. It is appalling for people to dress up in combat rig and behave Rambo-fashion. I would weed those people out. I would make everyone who currently holds a licence or a certificate reapply. I would be tough. I would not seek, however, to brand all legitimate sportsmen as potential criminals.
  Mr. David Winnick: Who does?
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Those who are in favour of a total ban on handguns, I fear.
  I believe that it is extremely important that we do not brand all those engaged in country sports as potential criminals.
  Mr. Winnick: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is usually the last hon. Member to distort the argument. Will he therefore accept that those who want a total ban on handguns, and who will vote accordingly, would not for one moment take the view of which he has just accused us? I believe that I speak for colleagues on both sides of the House on that. We do not believe that those who are engaged in such sporting activities are potential criminals. I believe nothing of the kind and it does not strengthen the hon. Gentleman's argument to accuse us of something of which we certainly are not guilty.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I was not accusing the hon. Gentleman or those who take that line. I am sure that that is not their intention, but that is the effect. That is the difference.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney and the four preceding contributors in the debate said that we cannot risk another Dunblane, and that we do not know who might commit such a crime. My solution is at least as logical as that of my right hon. and learned Friend. I call for the strongest vetting procedure and the most careful supervision. I would insist that every handgun be kept in secure and proper premises, but we should not outlaw a sport or penalise those who derive perfectly legitimate pleasure from it.
  As has been said, one must recognise that many of those who engage in sports with handguns are themselves severely handicapped. It is the one thing that they can do, as was attested to in a moving letter that was read out earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards).
  I believe that the Bill is an untidy compromise, but I will support the Government because it goes some way towards achieving a position of common sense and objectivity. Much as I admired the eloquence of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney, and much as I found his speech compelling, I cannot agree with him, for one reason above all else, which was contained in his answer to my intervention: where do we stop if we have further examples of crimes committed in the way that I suggested?
  As the Bill makes rapid progress through the House, which it rightly should, I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will give some further

  765
  thought and consideration to the points on vetting that I have raised. I appreciate that they are not appropriate for a full debate now, but they are not unimportant.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: I shall speak to amendments Nos. 15 and 16, but I recognise that we are currently debating amendment No. 1, which brings us to the nub of this highly emotive argument.
  We have heard the paranoid reaction of gun clubs and the supporters of gun sports, who feel that they are a threatened and persecuted minority. We have heard powerful and emotive speeches from the right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) and from my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson). It is right that we should share the emotions of the people of Dunblane, but it is also right that we, as Members of Parliament, should approach this difficult legislation, not in an emotional state of mind, but in a rational one.
  My argument is that the proposals in amendments Nos. 15 and 16, which further the principle of dismantling weapons as a means of control, are a far more rational and effective way of achieving our objective. After all, we began to approach the situation rationally by appointing Lord Cullen to conduct an inquiry. That is a proper way of proceeding, and we should have done it after Hungerford. The right hon. and learned Member for Putney might have criticised the appointment of a judge, but an inquiry is, in itself, a rational process.
  Lord Cullen himself suggested dismantlement in his conclusions. He said:
  "I am satisfied that of all the measures which stop short of a ban"—
  he did not propose a ban—
  "the one which is open to the least objection on the ground of practicability is the temporary dismantling of self-loading pistols".
  That is Lord Cullen's suggestion, so it is right that we should consider it more seriously than we have done up to now. That is why I am proposing dismantling in my amendments, and why I shall continue to pursue the principle. It is also right that the Government should deal seriously with the proposal, which they have not done so far.
  The Government's reply to Lord Cullen's suggestion was a little disingenuous—I hope that the Home Secretary will forgive me for saying so. It was an inadequate reply. I sensed that they were on weak ground from their approach to the same issue last week on Second Reading, especially when the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), refused to take any interventions on that point. She recognised that she was on weak ground.
  In their reply, the Government dealt with a subsidiary part of Lord Cullen's argument. Lord Cullen said:
  "In exceptional cases it"—
  dismantlement—
  "would not be practicable for some pistols and some revolvers. The exact extent to which that would be the case is a matter of detail. The solution to it, short of banning such handguns, would be to require barrel blocks".
  The Government concentrated their reply on the practicability—or, in their view, impracticability—of barrel blocks and did not deal with the substantive issue.
  Mr. Howard indicated dissent.
  Mr. Mitchell: The Secretary of State shakes his head, but all that was said on the substantive issue was that not all handguns could be dismantled. That is not exactly true.
  766
  I am not a gun enthusiast and I know nothing about guns, but I want us to approach the issue rationally and calmly. In fact, 95 per cent. or more of handguns can be dismantled.
  Mr. Howard indicated dissent.
  Mr. Mitchell: If the Secretary of State knows otherwise, why does he not tell us what proportion of handguns, and what specific makes, cannot be dismantled? If we can achieve the effective control we want through the principle of dismantling, we have a responsibility to do so. If the Government do not accept that method, I want to know why not. They must express, defend and justify their approach better than they have until now.
  The Government rested their case on the fact certain handguns cannot be dismantled, but such weapons form a minute proportion of the range of handguns available. Amendment No. 15 covers that issue by proposing that any handgun that cannot be dismantled should be banned. If dismantling is to be the principle of control, it is easy and straightforward to ban those handguns that cannot be dismantled and so fit into that control system; having done that, we can then provide for the dismantling of all other handguns. It is an extremely simple, straightforward, effective and logical method of control.
  The Government have not explained their case adequately, which makes me believe that they are acting according to some principle other than rational consideration in respect of the Bill. I still cannot understand why we cannot legislate to ensure that part of a gun should be kept at a gun club and part—inevitably the smaller part, which is the cylinder in a pistol and the slide in a revolver—should be taken home, so that the two parts can only be reunited and so make a working handgun in the club, under supervision and in licensed and controlled conditions. That would achieve all that we want to achieve. Our aim is to prevent access to and the use of handguns outside clubs—to prevent another Dunblane—and we would achieve that by legislating for the principle of dismantling.
  7.45 pm
  Sir Terence Higgins: Is it not true that that would be safer than having large accumulations of guns in one place? My right hon. and learned Friend argues that people would buy duplicate slides or cylinders to fit in their guns, but, if they are prepared to go to such lengths, they will probably buy illegal weapons anyway. Will the hon. Gentleman also bear in mind the fact that the pure solution put forward by Cullen is a great deal cheaper in terms of compensation?
  Mr. Mitchell: I shall bear that point in mind—it certainly would be cheaper. The right hon. Gentleman makes the valid point that control by dismantling would prevent the storage of piles of whole weapons at gun clubs, which might be subject to burglary, ram-raiding or some other form of theft. If the dismantling proposal is accepted, any thief—whether stealing from the club or from the home of a gun owner—would find only useless parts of guns. If the argument is that owners will purchase duplicate parts, that can easily be prevented through an effective and properly administered licensing system. All the arguments point toward dismantling.

  767
  If the principle of dismantling were embodied in legislation, to carry a complete gun outside would, in itself, be an offence; that would make it easier to control illegal guns—an issue that the Government have not addressed. Any gun that was outside in a whole and working condition would be illegal, and could be dealt with effectively and, I hope, powerfully.
  Mr. Robert Banks: The hon. Gentleman must know that the Government took evidence from the Forensic Science Service to justify their criticism of Cullen's proposal of dismantling weapons as a means of solving the problem. The letter from the Forensic Science Service is in the Library. It says that the small screw that is the retaining part for the side plate of a common revolver could easily be lost or disfigured, and that a special screwdriver with an accurately ground tip would be required to remove or replace it.
  Such problems can easily be overcome—anyone with any sense would keep a spare retaining screw and would have an appropriate screwdriver—but is not the real point that it would be perfectly feasible to allow weapons that can be dismantled to be licensed, and to permit them to be fired in clubs when the two parts are put together? It is as simple as that.
  Mr. Mitchell: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. When I saw that point in the Government's reply, I thought that, if that was the level of argument that the Government were to use to put their case, it was pathetic—to cite the possible loss of small screws is to debase logical and rational debate.
  What is proposed by dismantling is more effective, in that it prevents access to complete and working handguns outside clubs; and it is less draconian, in that it allows the sport to continue and guns to be used in controlled conditions. Although the right hon. and learned Member for Putney showed some distaste for gun clubs as the embodiment of the gun culture, I have to say to him that the gun culture is independent of gun clubs, and we cannot deal with it through legislation. We have to use education, effective control of violence on television, and other means of mobilising society against the gun culture.
  Dismantling as a means of control would allow a legitimate sport to continue. If we can allow the sport to continue while preventing access to working guns outside, we should do so. The onus should be on allowing those people to continue enjoying their sport if possible while avoiding tragedies such as Dunblane.
  As the right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) said, the proposal is less expensive. I do not know what the compensation bill will be as a result of the measure. It could be as high as £100 million, and if we accept tonight the principle of banning all guns—.22 calibre and less—it will be even more substantial. We could avoid that huge and unknown expense by taking a much more rational approach. If we rush into legislation without considering it properly, it will be messy.
  I have a problem, as amendment No. 1 appears before my amendment. We have tried to get round that problem, but have not succeeded, so we shall vote on amendment
  768
  No. 1. What shall I do about amendment No. 1 when I want to vote for my amendment No. 15, to which we may well have to return?
  Mr. Alex Salmond: It is a quandary.
  Mr. Mitchell: Yes, it is.
  I cannot avoid the cynical thought that the Government are hoping to limit the compensation bill by limiting the ban on handguns to weapons over .22 on the grounds that, if they do that, the .22 weapons and the gun clubs will wither on the vine.
  I have talked to members of Grimsby gun and pistol club, who share my suspicion. Membership of that club has decreased, and it has had to take out large overdrafts. Like other gun clubs, it will have to meet stringent and extremely expensive safety requirements at a time when membership is falling, which will give it financial problems.
  If the Government can get rid of most of the .22s and the gun clubs through the provisions outlined in the Bill, they will not have to pay compensation. That may be a cynical thought, but one has such thoughts about the Government from time to time. I hate having to say that, and it is cruel to the Government, but that will almost certainly be one of the consequences of the legislation. I am in a quandary over how to vote on amendment No. 1, particularly if I take a cynical view about what the Government are doing.
  I do not wish to continue that argument now, as I shall make my own decision. But surely we should have looked longer and harder at the effective and rational way of achieving the objective we all want.
  The method would be a little more difficult to administer than a complete ban, but, if we did not introduce a complete ban, but approached the problem via dismantling weapons, we could make huge financial savings. We can achieve our objective—an effective ban on working handguns outside gun clubs—through dismantling. The principle of dismantling allows us to achieve our aim more cheaply, effectively and rationally, while allowing the sport to continue more effectively. We should adopt that approach.
  Sir Mark Lennox-Boyd: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), as I wish to support him. First, however, I shall say a few words about emotion.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) made a powerful argument, with great passion and eloquence. My hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) correctly said that we must allow emotion to enter such debates—I fully understand that it would be an insult to those involved in the terrible tragedy that we are discussing were we not to allow emotion to enter our debates—but, ultimately, a rational decision has to be made.
  The most powerful emotion must come from the bereaved parents, but we are dealing with another sort of emotion—with a minority interest that is severely threatened by the Government's proposals. Although the level of deprivation is ridiculously small in comparison with that of the parents of the Dunblane children, there is a level of deprivation involved.

  769
  When I visited Morecambe rifle and pistol club in my constituency in July, one or two of its members were very near to tears at the tragedy of Dunblane and the horror of the experience that the nation had been through. One or two members were terribly emotional at the threat to what they rightly regarded as a perfectly legitimate sporting interest—they described to me the skills involved. It was not my first visit to the rifle club; I had made an earlier visit a few years before. I have been in contact with it for a number of years, as one of its members is articulate and keeps in touch with me.
  I was frank with the club members, and told them that I would support Lord Cullen's recommendations, on which I thought the Government would base their legislative proposals. The members were reasonably accepting of my view; some of them felt that I should act in accordance with my conscience, but I said that we appointed judges of distinction to give us guidance, and that we should follow Lord Cullen's recommendations. The meeting ended on that note, and I believe that the people I saw were reluctantly willing to accept Lord Cullen's conclusions. However, they feel unhappy about the measures that the Government have decided to introduce following Lord Cullen's report.
  One reason that they felt that what I was saying in July was probably good advice was that I had received from my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, a letter containing the magic words. It said that the Government would have to
  "strike the right balance between the legitimate rights of shooters and public safety".
  We all know that that comment does not have a precise meaning, but it is slightly loaded: it talks about the legitimate rights of shooters when a large measure of their sporting activity would not be made illegal. My disappointment at the Government's proposals—I have so far been loyal to the Government when voting—is that, as the hon. Member for Great Grimsby said, they did not accept Lord Cullen's recommendations.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney feels that Lord Cullen should never have been appointed, but he concedes that the report was right in evaluating the evidence—we both agree on that. Those who feel that Lord Cullen's report should have been limited to the evidence are stretching my imagination. I cannot believe that a man of Lord Cullen's distinction could be expected to evaluate the evidence and not come up with a conclusion.
  In addition, when strong feelings are expressed by those who have suffered terrible tragedy, the purpose of appointing someone of Lord Cullen's distinction to make recommendations is to get behind the emotional pressure and try to see the arguments on which rational decisions will ultimately be based. I am sure that all those associated with the Dunblane inquiry would, as we do, pay the highest tribute to Lord Cullen for the way in which he has conducted the proceedings. The Government rightly appointed Lord Cullen to make recommendations in order to get behind the emotions. I am sad that those recommendations have not been followed.
  The hon. Member for Great Grimsby spoke about dismantlement of weapons. As he said, the Government's answer to his proposal is that it is feasible to dismantle some weapons but not a practical proposition for others. The first question that one must ask when that argument
  770
  is deployed is, "What are the numbers? How many weapons is it feasible to dismantle, and how many weapons is it not?"
  As it happens, I wrote to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary on the very day that he made his statement, to ask that question. I know that he has been burdened with work, and I have not yet received a reply—
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: Nor have I.
  8 pm
  Sir Mark Lennox-Boyd: Nor has the hon. Member for Great Grimsby.
  The House is entitled to a statistical explanation of that very important fact tonight, as are those of my constituents who attend the Morecambe rifle and pistol club. If the Government were to say, "Some weapons can be dismantled, so we shall allow their use under stringent controls in gun clubs, but we are afraid that the others, which cannot be dismantled, must be destroyed," at least that would be a rational position.
  We must not allow the issue of dismantlement of weapons to be clouded by the issue of the barrel lock that does not really work. I am not pursuing that; I do not have enough technical knowledge of the subject. I do know, however, that, if one dismantles a weapon and puts one piece in one place and another piece in another, one cannot use it, unless—this is the Government's argument—one feels that the missing part, the slide assembly or the cylinder, could be manufactured or acquired.
  The answer to that argument—I am entitled to a careful explanation if I am wrong—is, "Yes, but one would be breaking the law. If one had that part surreptitiously without disclosing it on one's licence or seeking permission to have it, one would be breaking the law." Once again we are back in a position where we are talking of people who would be already breaking the law, as it would be if it were as the hon. Member for Grimsby has advocated in amendment No. 15.
  That is not a powerful argument against amendment No. 15; nor is it a powerful argument to say that people could, once again, legally manufacture weapon parts in their homes and go out and use them as horrible weapons of terror. First, it is very difficult to manufacture the parts of a weapon; one needs to be highly skilled. Secondly, there are many much easier methods of obtaining those horrible weapons of violence that may be used in such a way, if that is the intention of the perpetrator of such a crime.
  Of course the Government are entitled to reject Lord Cullen's recommendations, but when a Government establish an inquiry by a such a distinguished man and experienced judge, it is essential, if the supporters of that Government are to be carried with consent, that the arguments for rejecting the recommendations advanced by that judge are completely sound, completely logical and impossible to doubt.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary must address those points very carefully when he replies, and he must convince those of us who have doubts—at least among Conservative Members, and the hon. Member for Great Grimsby—that we are wrong.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: I am having some interesting new experiences this evening. First, I agreed with every word of the speech by the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes), and I applaud the manner in which he introduced amendment No. 1, which I am supporting tonight. Secondly, I almost supported a guillotine motion for the first time in my parliamentary career. I was saved from that by the fact that it was not pressed to a vote.
  Although I can see the reason for time-saving this evening and support it, I am disappointed that the debate will not be extended because I believe that, as the debate is talked through, the fragility of the botched compromise at the heart of the Government's position is becoming increasingly clear.
  I have sat through the debate. The kindest, friendliest thing that has been said about the Government's position is that it is a "weak compromise"—and those were the words of the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), who intends to support the Government in the Lobby tonight.
  There are two inherent contradictions at the heart of what the Government have to say. The first has been mentioned tonight, and that is the question of the distinction that the Government are seeking to make between .22 calibre handguns and higher-calibre weapons. That distinction in terms of deadly force of weapons is unsustainable, and the Government must know it.
  The headline in tonight's Glasgow Evening Times reads: ".22 Maniac Kills Four Children"—the case that was mentioned by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson). It reads:
  "Today's shooting victims—a 16 year-old girl and her three brothers aged 10, 13 and 14 were found in their beds in Carolina."
  The PA copy continues:
  "A .22 caliber handgun was found at the home, WYFF-TV in Greenville Carolina reported."
  On the very day that the Government are trying to sustain the difference in terms of deadly effect between .22 calibre handguns and higher-calibre handguns, we hear of an atrocity, the extent of which, even in a gun culture such as the United States of America, is unusual, committed by a .22 calibre weapon.
  The Home Secretary is correct that a .22 weapon does not have the same force as a higher-calibre weapon, but it is accurate and deadly. The statistics prove it, and the evidence of cases such as today's tragedy in the United States proves it. The distinction is unsustainable, and the Home Secretary must know it.
  The second troubling aspect of the Government's position is gun club storage. To me there are only two logical positions. Either one believes that a gun club can be totally secure, in which case any calibre of weapons could be used on gun club premises, or, like me, having seen the evidence presented to Lord Cullen—not least by the gun lobby—one believes that premises cannot be made secure, in which case no calibre of handgun should be used on those premises. It is one or the other. The Government are trying to have it both ways.
  We see the differences between the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland. On the day that the Cullen report was released, we had a private meeting—I thank the Home Secretary for that, as I did at the time—in which the differences between those two
  772
  Ministers were exposed. The Secretary of State for Scotland told us that, effectively, the measure would mean the end of gun clubs—that very few, if any, gun clubs could meet those strenuous conditions. A few seconds later, the Home Secretary said that new gun clubs could meet the conditions and come into existence. The Secretary of State for Scotland regards this legislation as a way to erase gun clubs and the Home Secretary openly says that new gun clubs meeting these stipulations could come into existence.
  One cannot simultaneously argue for the eradication of gun clubs and the resuscitation of new gun clubs. The Government are trying to have it both ways in a botched compromise between the two lead Ministers supporting the legislation.
  I believe that all right hon. and hon. Members are trying to do the right thing. They have thought about this issue for months. I claim no moral superiority over any other Members of the House; I believe that we are all trying to do the right thing.
  Earlier, we were asked how we would respond if another tragedy were to take place. No one can give any guarantees, regardless of what we do; I accept that. We must all try to choose the least dangerous option. There are no guarantees. But let us suppose that the Government had their way, and afterwards an atrocity was committed using .22 weapons—either someone had taken them out of a gun club or someone had practised and gained expertise by using them in a gun club. In that context, how would hon. Members feel?
  Some people on my side of the argument would argue, "We did our best," but even we would share in our collective responsibility as a legislature. We would feel that perhaps we had not done enough.
  Looking at the record after Hungerford, I feel that I did not do enough to argue the case. I am sure that many other hon. Members, if they are honest, will share that opinion. There are those who genuinely and in principle believe that a ban on handguns is not the way forward. They might be able to live with their consciences because we all have to live with our mistakes, even if other people die through our mistakes. But what about those hon. Members who believe that a handgun ban is the right way forward, but will be dragooned, encouraged or helped into the Lobby by the imposition of a three-line Whip? If an atrocity were to happen, how could those people carry that burden? I do not think that they could. It underlines the argument why this issue, of all issues, should be openly one of conscience.
  I want to say something about the position of Northern Ireland Members. I do not think that any two societies could have a closer relationship than Scotland and Northern Ireland—they are the "blood of our blood and the bone of our bone". I am certain that it is the settled position in Scotland that there should be a handgun ban. That settled position has come about not just from the emotion after Dunblane; it has hardened in the arguments over time.
  We hope that Northern Ireland Members will find it in their hearts and consciences to vote with us. We would understand if, because this is not Northern Ireland legislation, they felt that it was not their place to intervene. However, feeling as we do in Scotland, we would take it ill if they were to vote against us, given the close relationship between our two societies.

  773
  I want to make a final plea for a free vote. I understand that, at a private meeting with the Dunblane relatives last Thursday, the Prime Minister gave the impression that if he were to change his mind and allow a free vote there would be political embarrassment. I can assure the Prime Minister that we—and, I am sure, the Labour Front Bench—would not take advantage of any such change of mind. I accept that there would be a momentary political embarrassment for a Prime Minister and a Home Secretary who changed their minds on such an issue at such a time. However, that momentary embarrassment would be as nothing compared with the real political damage that will be done if the Government win the vote but people believe that they have won it unfairly.
  The right hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) said that he had the great privilege of meeting the Dunblane parents, the Snowdrop petitioners and others during the past few weeks. I endorse his remarks. It has been a privilege for myself and other hon. Members to meet people of such calibre. They are decent people putting their arguments not with hype or emotion, but with enormous authority. Of course, we should not automatically do what they say because they have suffered a huge personal tragedy, no matter how much we feel for them, but their arguments do come with authority and clarity.
  One of the Dunblane parents said something on television last Thursday that struck me and which I hope will strike other hon. Members. Les Morton said that if there was a free vote in this place, the relatives and the other campaigners would feel that they had placed their case before us and would accept a judgment made in good conscience—but what they would find impossible to accept would be the knowledge that there was a majority in this House in favour of a handgun ban, but that that majority view could not be expressed because of the imposition of a three-line Whip and the strictures of the Government.
  I suggest to the Home Secretary that that is real political damage. If the Government win the vote tonight through the use of what will be seen as a disreputable and unfair tactic, this issue will haunt the Conservative party up to and through the general election campaign.
  Mr. Hugh Dykes: I am grateful to be called, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Because the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) were extremely comprehensive, I can be brief. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West for tabling the amendment.
  I am also grateful to be called directly after the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), who referred to the absence of a free vote. It is one of the most disturbing features of this debate. Perhaps I could be justifiably accused of being naive, but I remain very surprised that, having had time to reconsider, the Government's final decision is not for a free vote. I am sure that no one in the House would criticise the Government for a change of mind, which would be hugely and universally welcomed in this House, in the other place—which has been closely observing our debates—and in the whole country.
  774
  8.15 pm
  Parliament is going through one of the periods in history when the esteem in which it is held is very low; when the public are increasingly mystified, frustrated and turned off by the antics at Question Time, especially Prime Minister's questions, with the massive trading of insults that masquerades as constructive party politics; and when all the parts of the syndrome of this place are going through a very bad patch indeed.
  Yet, on the most primordial subject of all, the future safety of our national population, and in trying, in the limited way open to us, to make amends—it is the correct phrase when referring to the Dunblane tragedy—as we cannot make amends intrinsically for that dreadful, unspeakable, horrendous tragedy, we are not doing those things that we should do as a combined, united Parliament. I am sure that there would be an enormous majority in favour of doing them were it not for pressure from the Conservative Whips—and so we, as a House of Commons, are failing in our central duty. That is a solemn mistake, and I very much regret that the Government are making it.
  The Government may be making this mistake for reasons that I can guess and understand. It is an automatic, characteristic response of our close and disciplined party system that matters must be tightly whipped. I guess that it was a hard-discussed, hard-fought Cabinet decision, with the bold prospect of going beyond some of the excellent recommendations in the Cullen report. I am not enthusiastic about some of the other recommendations in the report, but I will not go into detail on that now. I guess that, after that fierce and prolonged Cabinet discussion, the Secretary of State for Scotland took the Cabinet beyond the Cullen suggestions.
  I applaud and congratulate the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland, other Ministers, members of the Cabinet and members of the Government, as well as the team in the Home Office, on what they have achieved and recommended. I hope that my colleagues in the Government do not misunderstand my remarks. They come from sadness and a certain amount of naivety, rather than a wilful hostility to what is being proposed. Anyone who said that this is not one of the most agonising decisions made by this place, in a long time, on human and social policy would be very mistaken.
  Mr. Rupert Allason: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Dykes: I will, but I am watching the clock so that others may speak.
  Mr. Allason: If this is such an agonising decision, has my hon. Friend any evidence to support his apparent belief that hon. Members on either or both sides of the House are being bullied into voting against their consciences?
  Mr. Dykes: I wish that I had not given way, as valuable minutes have been wasted. However, I must allow my hon. Friend the right to intervene. He misunderstands what I have been saying. I pay tribute to the Whips in this case for having left us alone. It is the totality of the effort coming from this place that really matters.

  775
  As I said during the statement on the Government's response to Cullen, it is a primordial matter of human survival and the future of human society. There is an urgent, overwhelming need for this Government, this House of Commons and this Parliament to turn back the incipient, menacing gun culture that is beginning to get a grip on our society. I pay tribute to the sincerity of the arguments of many of my distinguished hon. Friends, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin). It is all very well when we receive deputations, delegations, letters and phone calls from extremely respectable members of the shooting fraternity—I would call them the shootocracy—but that is not the whole picture. There have been disturbing manifestations of what some of those other people are like, which have been mentioned in this debate.
  There is not a fine line between very gentlemanly or gentlewomanly sporting clubs—in which very pristine, black and white targets are set up—and a United Kingdom in which the only manifestations of human behaviour are the national lottery, Nintendo and mugging. An alternative establishment is getting a grip on our society, some of which is related to underworld activity. I am sure that officials in the Home Office, the Metropolitan police and other organisations are closely watching those activities.
  I think that I am entitled to be a constructive legislator on this issue because of a fear—I do not think that it is an irrational fear—that I developed before the Dunblane tragedy, although that is the provenance of this legislation. In 1980, I visited an open-air gun club in the hills of the Los Angeles forest, outside Los Angeles, where I saw the terrifying United States gun culture at work. Absolutely crazy people were members of it, and they were able to go into a shop in an ordinary way to buy a gun. We are a long way from that situation, but we know that people here are beginning to perceive that that establishment is getting a grip on our society. It is our job to turn it back.
  One must therefore acknowledge that the Government are doing that which the House overwhelming welcomes. I supported the Bill with some constructive pleasure on Second Reading because the Government are going beyond Cullen. They are also reducing the legalistic and bureaucratic complexities of the Cullen recommendations. I recommend that course.
  On 28 October 1996, the Gun Control Network sent a letter to hon. Members. I pay great tribute to the work done by the network, which was set up after the Dunblane tragedy, and all the people associated with it, particularly the component representing Dunblane parents and their friends and neighbours. Like other hon. Members, I can pay no finer tribute than to the way in which the parents have handled themselves since the tragedy by plunging in and producing some excellent suggestions. It would have been easy for them to switch off and say, "We want nothing to do with this now. The tragedy is so enormous and unspeakable that we disengage ourselves from it and leave it to other people."
  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West for the way in which he has liaised with the Gun Control Network. The fact that two hon. Members from Harrow have tabled amendment No. 1 is entirely a coincidence—should anyone irrationally think that something peculiar is happening in Harrow or with Harrow gun clubs.
  776
  I sympathise with genuine, honest and decent shooters, particularly those of many years standing. It is very interesting, however, that the former military personnel with whom I have spoken are overwhelmingly in favour of a total ban. Elderly veterans who have been at the real, brutal front of the fighting in past wars are most fiercely in favour of a total ban. No proposals are perfect, and there will always be the dangers presented by exceptions. As we know, the Bill is not an attack on shotguns and rifles.
  In its letter, the Gun Control Network stated:
  "to allow .22 calibre weapons will inevitably offer shooters the prospect of further exceptions as time passes and the memory of Dunblane fades."
  Is it possible for us to contemplate the memory of that dreadful day fading? It is awful to think that we live in such a violent world—with such violence on television and in arcades, where youths play violent video games that violence becomes a routine part of our culture. I do not want to accept that that will happen.
  The letter continues:
  "The matter will be a constant source of conflict over technical and logistical detail. Manufacturers will be seeking fully to exploit the exceptions"—
  which they are very quick to do. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) mentioned in his speech the brochure on the convertibility of ordinary .22s.
  The letter continues by stating that manufacturers
  "may even design new models to bypass the ban. There will also be continual dispute over the transport of guns from club to club for competition purposes."
  I thank the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), who is no longer in the Chamber, for not mentioning Europe in his speech—that was ingenious. His proposals for dismantling are immensely bureaucratic and complex, and they would be a nightmare to implement.
  So the Government are going a great distance to please the overwhelming majority of hon. Members. But they are not going far enough if they do not offer a free vote—which would provide the combined authority of all hon. Members, so that people would have the true expression and know exactly where we stand.
  With all due respect, I cannot agree with my 35 colleagues who, in their demarche, rebelled against the Government's proposals in the vote on the Bill's Second Reading. I cannot accept that pistol shooting is a conventional sport in the normal sense. I am sorry to sound like a spoil sport, but it is not a conventional sport as we understand the term, and I do not believe that it should be encouraged to be so. If people wish to switch to different types of firearms to get round the legislation, they can do so. Many people combine pistol shooting and rifle shooting, and no hon. Member is proposing a central attack on traditional rural shooting.
  We have a solemn duty to perform today. Even at this late stage—although it may be too much to ask—the Government could relax their instructions so that we can obtain a stronger combined result. I think that this issue is the same as other matters of conscience, when there have been free votes on Government Bills. There are plenty of precedents for that, and I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend and his colleagues will think again about it on this extremely important occasion.
  Mr. Sam Galbraith: As the result of considered judgment over a considerable

  777
  period I support the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes). Like the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), I think that that is the settled view and position of the Scottish people, and I find it inconceivable that it is not also the settled view in the rest of the country.
  I considered the Government's view that perhaps we should make exemptions for .22 weapons. Before giving that view undue consideration, however, I was immediately dissuaded by the gun lobby from accepting it. In my meetings with representatives of the lobby, they told me that, for various reasons, it would be inconsistent and illogical to retain such provision in the legislation, and that we should therefore not entertain retaining it.
  Arguments have been made by those who wish to retain guns in our society. The arguments are spurious, and they muddy the water. The first argument is that crime is committed by using illegally held guns, and we have been told that only 4 per cent. of crimes are committed by legally held handguns. There is no evidence to support that contention. The 4 per cent. figure came from a small study conducted by an inspector in London, which was based only on recovered guns. The conclusions go no further. The opinion of the Select Committee that investigated the matter was that there are no reliable statistics. The Government have no statistics, and nor does the Home Office. We should therefore not accept the statistic.
  The case that crime is committed by illegally held handguns is not relevant to the matter that we are now debating. We are not talking about criminals using guns in a threatening manner to achieve some other purpose, such as to rob a bank. We are talking about a possible mass murder by a person who uses a legally held handgun to murder many people. That is the issue, and the statistic on illegally held handguns is not necessarily relevant.
  We have heard about vetting as a possible means of dealing with the issue, rather than banning all handguns. Vetting will be carried out by humans, and humans are fallible. It is not possible to close the loophole through vetting. Thomas Hamilton would never have been diagnosed as unfit and unsuitable to own a handgun or as having anything wrong with him on medical or other grounds. He would easily have passed all the established criteria. That option is not open to us.
  Sir Wyn Roberts: Surely the evidence of Cullen is that Hamilton was severely criticised, certainly by one police officer who recommended that his firearms certificate should not be renewed.
  8.30 pm
  Mr. Galbraith: Most of the observations about Hamilton and his mental state were made after the event. Taking the event into account, one could make judgments about what was wrong; they could not be made before, and that was the problem in the Hamilton case.
  Another argument that is often advanced and which I have heard frequently today is, "Why bother? There are no guarantees. We cannot legislate against evil. We cannot guarantee that this will never happen again." However, no one is asking us to legislate against evil; that would be foolish. No one is asking us to give guarantees; it is not possible to do so. All that we are being asked to do is reduce the possibility of such an event happening again. The only way to do that is to ban all handguns.
  778
  The decision that we have to make is where to draw the line. The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) said that to take that argument to its logical conclusion means banning all rifles and handguns. Logic is an analytical process that deals in abstracts and can be taken to certain conclusions, but as human beings we make reasoned judgments that intervene in that logical process. Our reasoned judgments form various barriers—they might be physiological, physical or geographical—that we have to insert into the logical process. It is my reasoned judgment that we should ban all handguns and go further than the Secretary of State.
  I say that for a number of reasons. What will happen if we continue to allow .22 handguns to be available? There are three possibilities. First, we could retain the status quo. That is unlikely, because we are undergoing such a seismic change. Secondly, the number of gun clubs could decrease as .22s are often used as a starting point—numbers would fall and we might get a de facto ban. If that is the hope, let us be honest and state that in the legislation. The third and most likely outcome, however, is that individuals will trade down and the number of .22s will increase. Members of the gun lobby tell me that the .22 is the assassin's weapon and that, if they wanted to kill someone, they would use one. If the number of .22s is to increase, we must ensure that we have a ban in place. It is our duty to consider that at this stage.
  I conclude on an emotional note. I am not ashamed to say that emotion has a part to play. I have three young daughters aged seven, five and three, and when I look at pictures of primary 1 at Dunblane I see pictures of other folks' young daughters. I was present when the House debated the firearms legislation following the Hungerford massacre. We failed—I failed —because we did not take the interest in it that we should have. We saw what we regarded as an internal dispute between the gun lobby and what the Government were trying to do. We failed to push the matter further, and we cannot let that happen again. I do not wish to fail this time, and I therefore ask hon. Members to vote in favour of the amendment.
  Mr. Bill Walker: So that no one is in any doubt, I should say that I shall vote for the Government's proposals, not because of the three-line Whip but because they strike the best balance in the circumstances. However, I am not claiming that I am completely happy, because I am very rarely entirely happy with the legislation we pass.
  I put on record the fact that the parents of Dunblane and the people involved in the Snowdrop campaign who have been to the House and whom we met in Scotland have behaved with admirable restraint in the circumstances. While I was talking to them, I wondered whether I would be as balanced and restrained as they were if the same had happened to my children.
  Earlier this evening we heard comments about people dressing and the type of targets used. It made me think that my generation never dressed up, and I wondered why. Then I realised —it was because we did not need to. After all, what with the second world war, Palestine, Korea, Malaya, Cyprus, Aden and Kenya millions of guns were available to national service men and, of course, the men were dressed up anyway. I thought that that may have been part of the reason-the fact that my generation dressed up for real.

  779
  Then I thought again. I thought about my interests. My family have horses and would never dream of riding without being properly dressed up and equipped. My own interests are flying and gliding. Everyone I know who flies and glides—even those who fly the most modern light aircraft—seems to get dressed up in keeping with the activity being pursued. The modern fashion seems to be to get dressed up anyway.
  When I was a young lad, I was a tennis player—I was not very good, only moderate —and I always thought that people who got dressed up and looked like tennis players could not play at all. Perhaps one should see the current fashion for dressing up in that light.
  The worry that we are debating involves mainly illegally held guns and the fact that more people die because of such guns than was the case 20 or 30 years ago. I remind hon. Members of the days when there were literally millions of weapons available when service men took them home.
  I have been convinced for many years that one cannot legislate to eliminate evil. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) spoke about 22 deaths in one of the Carolinas. I have been reading this week about children who have been stabbed to death in this country. Has anyone else read about them? I was reminded that the skean-dhu, if improperly used, is a lethal weapon. I am concerned that it should continue to be worn in public and would be worried if people were saying that it should be banned because, in the hands of an evil individual, it could be a lethal weapon.
  This debate is much more important than many others. We are trying to strike a balance. I do not want United Kingdom competitors to be disadvantaged in an Olympic sport, whether or not that sport is one in which I indulge. We regularly win world championships in gliding. I know that hideous accidents and ghastly deaths occur in that sport. Of course I realise that there are differences between weapons that can be used for legal purposes and others such as aeroplanes, cars and gliders, which can be just as lethal in the wrong hands.
  Mr. O'Neill: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that, under the restrictions that will be imposed by the legislation that he is supporting, individuals who compete at the highest levels consider that it would be most unlikely that they could retain the capabilities that they have? He is arguing for the worst of all worlds, in which competitors would have the right to shoot but would not be capable of reaching the levels that they were previously able to achieve. That would be the height of frustration for those individuals. It would be much simpler to do away with all .22s on that basis if the hon. Gentleman is arguing from the point of view of sportsmen.
  Mr. Walker: Was the hon. Gentleman present when I started my speech? He could not have been listening to what I said, or perhaps he did not hear what I said. Let me make my position clear. I said that I was not completely happy with the Bill. I would have settled for Lord Cullen's proposals. I do not believe that one should
  780
  automatically ban all guns just because a judgment has been made that other guns should be removed and banned. I am trying to make a case—
  Mr. O'Neill rose—
  Mr. Walker: Will the hon. Gentleman just listen?
  I believe that banning should be the last resort for almost any activity. One has to live in a society of balance, in which individuals pursue the activities that they wish to pursue, provided society accepts those activities on balance.
  Hon. Members have talked about the balance of opinion in Scotland. Views in my constituency are very divided and I am sure that the situation is the same in every other constituency. Opinion is not united. In fact, the balance of letters that I have received runs at about eight to one against a total ban. I understand that many of those who have written have been motivated by a feeling that they will be disadvantaged. I accept that that is a good reason for people to write. Equally, I accept that those who are not motivated may not write.
  I do not understand how anyone can make the claims that we have heard about views in Scotland. I do not make such claims about my constituency, where views are very divided. I think that my constituency is probably typical of large rural constituencies.
  We have to consider the lessons of Lord Cullen's report. I believe that his proposals would have been less expensive. Hon. Members will not be surprised to learn that that appeals to me. I have always felt that we should watch public expenditure carefully. My personal view is that the compensation package will grow and grow.
  I would prefer to give careful consideration to the failure of the weeding-out system. Everyone knows that Hamilton should have been found out. When the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) reads his speech, I think that he will regret some of his comments. I remind him that Lord Cullen recognised that some categories of people should not hold weapons. The letter that the hon. Member for Hamilton read out was a threatening letter. Anyone who writes threatening letters should not have a gun licence: it is as simple as that. If we approach the situation logically—as I hope we shall—we must conclude that that letter is evidence of why that man should not have his gun licence renewed. I think that the gun fraternity would agree.
  I gather that my right hon. and learned Friend wants to speak. I shall therefore do what no other pressures have persuaded me to do and comply with the Government's wish for me to sit down.
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: I support the amendment. I am completely unapologetic about saying that my overwhelming reason for supporting a total ban on handguns is emotional. I am not ashamed of that. Emotion is a valuable human asset that differentiates us from lower species. Logic also dictates that it is rational to support a total ban. The simple truth is that the events of Hungerford and Dunblane would not have happened if a total ban had been in place.
  As a parent and grandparent. I have tried many times to imagine the pain and anguish felt by the parents of the slaughtered children of Dunblane. I have failed, because

  781
  even in my worst nightmares it is not possible for me to contemplate the pain that they must have gone through and must still be going through. I can say only that I felt any sympathy of mine to be inadequate. However, I can add my voice and my vote to support their aims. I can choose between a person's right to pursue a sport and a child's life. As the right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) said in his eloquent speech, how will we all feel if it happens again? I do not think that I could live with it if I did not vote for a complete ban tonight.
  8.45 pm
  To be honest, I have never liked guns or any culture that supports them. I do not like anything that promotes guns. I believe that the growth in the popularity of gun clubs has supported that culture. I have never bought guns for my children or my grandchildren and shooting is the last sport that I would watch at any level. I associate guns with killing people.
  Mr. Winnick: If we have any feeling of guilt—my hon. Friend should have no individual feelings of guilt—should it not be a collective guilt among all of us who were here in 1987? It was primarily the Government who did not act, but we did not put sufficient pressure on them after the massacre at Hungerford. That is all the more reason why so many of us are determined not to repeat the same weakness and the same mistake now.
  Mrs. Mahon: I believe that nothing other than a total ban on handguns will move us away from the gun culture. It is a small step, and we have a long way to go.
  The measure is no reflection on the integrity of the majority of people who engage in this so-called sport. Of course the majority of them have nothing to do with the likes of Thomas Hamilton, but they would not be deprived of anything much if we diverted the country from the gun culture. That in itself is sufficient reason to support a ban. A different kind of society would be an incredible prize to pass on to the next generation.
  The majority of my constituents want a total ban. Together with a Labour councillor from Calder Valley, Councillor McCafferty, I have been collecting signatures for a petition since July. We have collected thousands of signatures from people who believe that there should be a total ban on handguns. I have had just a handful of letters putting the case for guns— that is the absolute truth.
  I am asking hon. Members to look into their hearts and to look at the unbearable sadness reflected in the eyes of the Dunblane parents every time we see them on the television. I have not met them, but I have felt their sadness from the television screens. Hon. Members must ask themselves whether they have the right to refuse a total ban. Our feelings and sympathies are inadequate. Tonight we can bond in common humanity with those parents by supporting the ban and trying to ensure that such an event never happens again.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am pleased to be able to follow the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon). While I believe her speech to have been entirely sincere, I profoundly disagree with her because I believe that legislation should be made on the basis of logic and sound judgment.
  782
  The amendments are about what should and should not be included in the Bill. I accept that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has a difficult and delicate balance to strike. However, I have one or two points for him to consider.
  In logic, if one is to ban high-calibre pistols, one should also ban low-calibre .22 rimfire single-shot pistols. However, having fired many calibres of pistol in my life, I can tell my right hon. and learned Friend that there is all the difference in the world between a higher-calibre, centrefire pistol and a smaller-calibre, rimfire .22 pistol. The lethality and the accuracy of aim make all the difference in the world. If we intend to act in a reasonable way, we should allow some people who wish to enjoy a perfectly legitimate and safe sport to continue to use lower power and far less lethal pistols.
  I am glad that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has chosen the balance that he has, but I want to return to what I said last Tuesday. Can my right hon. and learned Friend clarify for us how the Government are justified in going beyond Lord Cullen's recommendations? Here I centre on the amendments. If the Government believe that it is not practical for pistols to be dismantled, please will they tell my constituents and all gun-using folk why? All the expert advice I have received states that most pistols can be dismantled relatively easily. If they cannot be, we should legislate on the basis that they must be dismantled and make the gun manufacturers manufacture pistols that can be dismantled easily.
  For years, all the advice on shotguns and firearms has been that one should separate the bits of the guns. That applies even to shotguns and firearms that are held legitimately in people's homes. The police ask owners what arrangements are being made to separate the bits of their guns—the bolt, the fore-end of the shotgun or whatever. The advice is to separate the bits so that, if a burglar steals part of the gun, it is useless. That is a completely practical and sensible way in which to deal with the matter.
  I am wholly in favour of banning handguns from private homes. That would be a sensible measure, and it is outlined in the Bill. Cullen comes up with lots of recommendations on how to tighten security at gun clubs and checks on those who go to them. If a criminal broke into a gun club, he would not know what make and calibre of pistol were there. The idea of his being able to come up with replica bits is far-fetched. To ban handguns from private homes would be a sensible way forward, but if my right hon. and learned Friend and the Government feel that that is not a sensible way forward, they have an obligation to my constituents to spell out in clear language why.
  As I made clear in my speech last week, if we intend to ban 160,000 weapons, the cost, even on an average of £300 each, will be £48 million. On an average of £500 each, the cost will be £80 million, not including compensation for associated equipment and everything else. Under the money resolution, we are now making provision for other compensation. I take that to mean that gunsmiths and others will be compensated for loss of trade.

  783
  Certain groups and gunsmiths who are well organised will be able to put in their claims with alacrity. I want to make sure that the individual who has one pistol that is banned will be adequately compensated. I believe that—
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I was just about to come to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). I believe that his remarks are entirely irrelevant. Who will do the valuation, on what basis will the valuation be done and how soon after the guns have been handed in will the compensation be paid?
  Mr. Dalyell: I know nothing about the valuation of guns, but I suspect that the hon. Gentleman does. I am told that the value of some pistols is not £300, but £5,000 or £10,000.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has made that point; he is absolutely correct. Some of the very latest pistols, which are almost totally plastic, can have a value running into thousands of pounds. The keenest pistol shots have been rushing out to buy the latest pistols not because of a macho culture but simply because they are more accurate than the ordinary metal pistol. People have been rushing out to buy them to improve the accuracy of their sport.
  We are making it illegal for individuals to hold a whole class of handguns. Sadly, that class of handguns will be legal in many countries of the European Union. Already, some of those weapons are finding their way to the European Union because of people's fear that they will not be adequately compensated. Although what is happening is perfectly legal at the moment, it would be perfectly illegal once the Bill has been enacted for those guns to come back into this country. However, mark my words, Dame Janet, it will happen. We are laying an impossible task on the Customs and Excise and the courts because it will not be possible to keep out all illegally held guns. That will represent an on-going expense and difficulty of which we must be aware if it legislates in that respect.
  Mr. Howard: We have had a distinguished debate, marked by high-quality speeches on both sides of the Chamber. I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) that none of us should be embarrassed by emotion in approaching this topic. The emotions it has aroused have been deep and intense, and they have touched us all. None of us needs to make any apology for having opened up our minds and our hearts to those emotions, but at the end of the day, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Sir M. Lennox-Boyd) and by many other hon. Members, each of us has to come to a rational decision. We have to exercise our judgment; I entirely accept that, in the end, the attitude that one takes and where one draws the line are matters of judgment.
  We have to exercise our judgment in a way that we can defend rationally. That is the consideration that has influenced the Government as they have sought to
  784
  discharge this weighty responsibility. We have tried to put the protection of the public uppermost; that has been our first priority. However, it has always been my belief that, if it is possible to provide the public with the protection they need and deserve while allowing some limited legitimate shooting activity to continue, it is the Government's duty to take that course and to come to a conclusion that permits that result.
  Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 would introduce a total ban. Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 would have a quite different effect, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). The amendments themselves, as has been the case with every contribution to the debate, have exemplified the difference in approach and view expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber.
  Before turning to the amendments that encompass a total ban, I shall deal with amendments Nos. 15 and 16 and explain the Government's position on the dismantling of weapons. There are a number of reasons why we believe that such an approach would not be viable.
  First, we accept that there are many varieties of handgun that can readily be dismantled, but there are others for which it is a much more difficult operation. Lord Cullen records at paragraph 9.89 of his report that the British Shooting Sports Council drew his attention to the difficulties of dismantling and the evidence given to the Home Affairs Committee, including by the police. That assessment is confirmed by the advice that we received from the Forensic Science Service that, if certain classes of highly tuned competition pistols were dismantled regularly, their accuracy would be significantly damaged.
  As the amendments exempt from the ban only guns that can readily be dismantled, they would have the effect of banning many low-calibre, highly specialised competition pistols. Therefore, they would have the unfortunate effect of preventing much of the British participation in international shooting competitions that would remain possible under the Bill.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: The Home Secretary is over-egging the pudding somewhat, as he has not given us the numbers, the proportion or the class of weapon that should be in that category.
  9 pm
  Mr. Howard: It is difficult to be precise about proportions and I make no apology for that. Paragraph 9.89 of the Cullen report shows some of the considerable difficulties that arise.
  Our second reservation concerns security. As I explained on Second Reading, Lord Cullen envisaged that the frame of the gun—the main part with the trigger mechanism, the butt and the barrel—would remain in the possession of the owner and that the club secretary would keep the part that had been removed—typically, the slide of a semi-automatic or the cylinder of a revolver. That approach has the fundamental flaw that, to put it mildly, it would not be difficult for a gun owner to keep an illicit spare at home. That would enable him to reactivate the gun at any time. It is perfectly true that, in doing so, he would be breaking the law, but he would be unlikely to be discovered until it was too late. We cannot ignore that factor.

  785
  It is true that we are envisaging illegal behaviour, whereas the main thrust of the Bill is to deal with the problems that have arisen in respect of the legal use of handguns, but we cannot adopt such a rigid approach to that distinction that we can afford to ignore a risk simply because that risk would arise from illicit, illegal activity.
  Mr. Mitchell: I argued that such behaviour could be controlled by the licensing system. Even if the Home Secretary does not accept that, there is no need to do it in the way that Lord Cullen suggested. The heavier, more important part of the gun could be kept at the club and the cylinder or slide taken home. That would be much more sensible.
  Mr. Howard: That was not the option recommended by Lord Cullen, who no doubt had a reason for making his recommendation. However, I do not believe for a moment that the variant on that option that the hon. Gentleman now advances would avoid the difficulty that I have identified. The hon. Gentleman has to face up to it, as we have sought to do, and that is the reason for our approach to Lord Cullen's proposals.
  The essence of amendments Nos. 15 and 16 is to permit high-calibre handguns to be exempted from the ban. Many hon. Members have argued that, if gun clubs can be made safe for .22 guns, they can be made safe for higher-calibre weapons. The question of calibre is important and I should like to spend a few moments on it so that the Government's position is fully understood.
  As Lord Cullen pointed out, high-calibre handguns are not target guns in the true and original sense. They have been developed from military and police models. Most of the competitions in which they are used are quite different from those of traditional target shooting: they are based around quasi-military and police scenarios, often using targets representing human figures. The power of the gun and the ammunition used are essential features of many of those competitions.
  The huge growth in such shooting in recent years—to which Lord Cullen referred in paragraph 9.44 of his report—
  "has led to the growth of combat shooting. It has led some shooters to don the trappings of combat, such as holsters and camouflage clothing. It has caused others to feel uneasy about what appears to be the use of guns as symbols of personal power."
  Contrary to the implication posed by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), Lord Cullen was not talking about .22 calibre pistols in that passage of his report. He was talking about the higher-calibre handguns, which the Government propose to ban. We share the unease described by Lord Cullen at that point in his report.
  Mr. Mellor: It is obvious that, if someone is looking for a symbol of power, he will go for the biggest gun on the market. What basis, apart from mere surmise, does my right hon. and learned Friend have for saying that people will not, in the context of an arrangement where only .22 pistols are available, transfer their affections to such things?
  Mr. Howard: One has to look at the stringent security arrangements that we intend to put in place. I think that that is the answer to my right hon. and learned Friend's
  786
  question. One is able to distinguish—not solely for the reason that I have just been explaining, because as I said, there are other reasons too, to which I am about to come. The reason that I have given is one—but not the only—basis for a distinction, which the Government think it is important to maintain and which is at the heart of our approach.
  Mr. George Robertson rose—
  Mr. Salmond rose—
  Mr. Howard: The hon. Member for Hamilton was wanting to get to his feet first, so I shall give way to him.
  Mr. Robertson: The style, the shape and indeed the function of .22 semi-automatics—many people in the country and, I believe, in the House of Commons do not know that the Bill will legitimise semi-automatic .22 weapons—can be easily replicated for those who will be denied the larger-calibre guns. Has the Home Secretary's Department conducted any research since the announcement of the partial ban into what sort of trading is done? I was told by an eminent criminologist to whom I spoke this evening that the grey market trading of larger-calibre guns for .22 guns is already increasing at an alarming rate. The culture that Lord Cullen described in relation to higher-calibre guns is easily transferable to the new .22 weapons, which are featured in the publication that I showed the Home Secretary earlier.
  Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman has made a completely unsupported assertion. Lord Cullen identified clearly in his report the trappings associated with the use of high-calibre weapons. The hon. Gentleman may make assertions about what might happen if some of those people—there may well be some—who use higher-calibre weapons wish to transfer to .22 weapons. My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) read out was a very moving letter from a disabled constituent of his, who described the part that legitimate shooting plays in his life. I very much hope that my hon. Friend's constituent will transfer to .22 calibre shooting if that is not the kind of shooting in which he engages at present—it was not clear from his letter—so that, as a disabled person who derives legitimate satisfaction from that activity, he is able to continue to engage in that legitimate activity. That is one of the reasons why the Government have approached this matter in the way we have.
  Mr. Salmond: Can we be absolutely correct on this? The Home Secretary not only admitted that, under his proposals, it would be quite possible for people to take the compensation money and buy new .22 semi-automatic handguns, but seemed to suggest that, in some cases, he would welcome that process. Would he really welcome people taking compensation money to buy new handguns?
  Mr. Howard: I am saying that it is perfectly possible that that will happen; if it does and people want to continue to participate in what, when the Bill becomes law, will be a perfectly legitimate activity, of course they should be perfectly entitled to do that. They will have to carry out that activity under strict and stringent secure arrangements, which will be set up under the provisions

  787
  in the Bill. Those arrangements will put that activity on a completely different footing from that on which it takes place at the moment.
  Two other reasons support the distinction that we make. First, high-calibre guns are particularly attractive to criminals and their storage in gun clubs in large numbers. whether dismantled or in one piece, would make gun clubs more attractive targets for theft. The second reason relates to the far greater power that those weapons have. The table in paragraph 9.49 of Lord Cullen's report, confirmed and corroborated a few moments ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) from his personal experience, shows that a high-calibre handgun is four to six times more powerful than a .22 pistol. It uses a much larger bullet that travels with greater momentum and, unlike a .22 rimfire cartridge, the power of a high-calibre cartridge can be boosted by people who make up their ammunition at home, as do the majority of handgun shooters.
  Mr. Jack Straw: We have all read paragraph 9.49, which indeed shows that the higher-calibre weapons are more powerful than lower-calibre .22 weapons, but is not the Home Secretary confusing the issue of power with whether the weapons are lethal? In paragraph 9.49, Lord Cullen says:
  "It should not be supposed that .22 rimfire cannot be as lethal as other ammunition … The BSSC pointed out ….22 cartridges would be as lethal as 9 mm."
  Is not the point that, although .22 weapons are less powerful than higher-calibre weapons, they are just as lethal as higher-calibre weapons?
  Mr. Howard: They are not just as lethal, although of course they can kill. The difference in the power is a very important factor, and, for all those reasons, we believe that the distinction at the heart of the Bill is viable and tenable.
  I now turn to amendments Nos. 1 and 2. As I said at the outset, the Government's first priority is public safety. We are committed to doing whatever is needed to give the public the greater protection that they need and deserve in the aftermath of the dreadful events at Dunblane. The question for Parliament is whether that protection can be provided while allowing some legitimate use of handguns to continue. If the answer is yes, as I believe it is, the Government have a duty to act accordingly.
  There are several reasons why we take that view. First, if there were to be a complete ban, there is a real danger that target shooting would take place outside the law, completely unregulated and not subject to any supervision or security. That would lead to a lessening of the protection of the public and is not a state of affairs that we should lightly contemplate. That is a serious argument that cannot be dismissed.
  To all those hon. Members who take a different view on the complete ban and who have said to those of us who do not share that view, "How could you look yourselves in the face if, on some future occasion, some other awful event were to take place?"—with the implicit assumption that such an event would be a consequence of our failure to impose a total ban in this legislation—I say, "How could they look themselves in the face if that
  788
  dreadful event were the outcome of driving this activity beyond the bounds of the law?" That could happen, as was acknowledged by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw).
  Mr. O'Neill rose—
  Mr. Howard: I do not have time to give way.
  One cannot avoid or shrink from that serious point.
  Secondly, we should recognise that the shooting of .22 pistols has had an honourable place in Olympic competition since the early days of the modern Olympic games. It is a legitimate activity that is enjoyed by tens of thousands of law-abiding citizens. If we can allow it to continue and still give the public the extra protection that they deserve, we should do so.
  We intend that .22 rimfire pistols should be used only under the most stringent conditions in licensed gun clubs. No one would be able to shoot with a .22 pistol until he had been judged fit to do so and had obtained a firearms certificate. The clubs in which the pistols would be kept would have to meet rigorous security criteria and satisfy the police that they were run by people of good character. No gun would be allowed to removed from a club, except on a police permit. When outside the club, the guns would normally have to be transported by a third party who was authorised by the police as suitable for the task.
  9.15 pm
  Some people have questioned whether pistol clubs can be made properly secure. The answer is that they can, but I accept that it will cost money and it will take time. I acknowledge that the Government's proposals will bear heavily on many decent law-abiding citizens who own handguns and use them for the purpose of sport, and I very much regret that. But our proposals will allow continued British participation in four of the five international target shooting disciplines run under the rules of the International Shooting Union, which include the Commonwealth games. British target shooters will be able to participate also in all the disciplines in the Olympic games that involve only .22 pistols.
  Before we finally vote on this issue, let us all remember the clear and unambiguous judgment of Lord Cullen on this central question, which can be found in paragraph 9.113 of his report. The paragraph states:
  "I do not consider that the banning of handguns for target shooting or the banning of shooting clubs would be justified."
  As I said at the outset of my remarks, amendments Nos. 15 and 16 would increase the extent to which those who at present own and use handguns would be allowed to continue to do so. Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 would impose a complete ban. I believe that the right course is that set out in the Bill, which would provide this country with some of the toughest gun controls in the world. They would be likely to reduce the handguns held in this country by 80 per cent. but would allow some legitimate target shooting to continue. I urge the Committee to reject the amendment.
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes: My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has made three assertions in replying to the debate. First, he asserted that the banning of all handguns would drive target shooting underground,

  789
  but I have not heard any police officer suggest that that would happen anywhere in the country. I have heard no one other than my right hon. and learned Friend suggest that that would happen. Secondly, my right hon. and learned Friend asserted that .22 guns were less effective. I say that that is an assertion, because it is not backed up in Lord Cullen's report or by the BSSC members who spoke for the shooters and were quoted in the Cullen report. Nor is it backed up by other arms experts quoted in the report.
  Thirdly, my right hon. and learned Friend asserted that the gun culture will not transfer. He is right in saying that, in paragraph 9.44, Lord Cullen was talking about the larger handguns and people who use them for macho purposes or as a demonstration of power. But the Gun Control Network has evidence from four police authorities and from the Police Superintendents Association of England and Wales that this is precisely what is happening already. The people whom they describe as maverick handgunners, who are prone to the sort of behaviour about which Lord Cullen talks, are likely to transfer and are doing so already. I do not think that my right hon. and learned Friend has been able to knock down the points that I made in opening the debate.
  I have evidence from my conversations with a number of Ministers and parliamentary private secretaries that, on a free vote tonight, they would vote for the banning of all handguns. How can the grieving parents of Dunblane leave the campaign here when they know that they would get their way on a free vote? One day, when the House is allowed a free vote on the matter, they will get their way.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 281, Noes 306.

  Division No. 15]

  [9.19 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Callaghan, Jim

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Ainger, Nick

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Allen, Graham

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Alton, David

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Cann, Jamie

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Carlile, Alex (Montgomery)

  Ashton, Joseph

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Austin-Walker, John

  Church, Ms Judith

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Clapham, Michael

  Barnes, Harry

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Barron, Kevin

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Battle, John

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Clelland, David

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Bell, Stuart

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Benn, Tony

  Cohen, Harry

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Benton, Joe

  Corbett, Robin

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Berry, Roger

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Betts, Clive

  Cousins, Jim

  Blair, Tony

  Cox, Tom

  Blunkett, David

  Cummings, John

  Boateng, Paul

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Bradley, Keith

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try SE)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Cunningham, Ms R (Perth Kinross)

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Burden, Richard

  Darling, Alistair

  Byers, Stephen

  Davidson, Ian

  Caborn, Richard

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C)

  790

  Davies, Chris (Littleborough)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jowell, Ms Tessa

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Keen, Alan

  Denham, John

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross C & S)

  Dewar, Donald

  Kennedy, Mrs Jane (Broadgreen)

  Dicks, Terry

  Khabra, Piara S

  Dixon, Don

  Kiffoyle, Peter

  Dobson, Frank

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)

  Dowd, Jim

  Lewis, Terry

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Dykes, Hugh

  Litherland, Robert

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Livingstone, Ken

  Eastham, Ken

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretfd)

  Etherington, Bill

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Fatchett, Derek

  McAllion, John

  Faulds, Andrew

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  McCartney, Ian (Makerfld)

  Flynn, Paul

  Macdonald, Calum

  Foster, Derek

  McFall, John

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  McKelvey, William

  Foulkes, George

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Fraser, John

  McLeish, Henry

  Fyfe, Mrs Maria

  McMaster, Gordon

  Galbraith, Sam

  McNamara, Kevin

  Galloway, George

  MacShane, Denis

  Garrett, John

  McWilliam, John

  Gerrard, Neil

  Madden, Max

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Godsiff, Roger

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Mallon, Seamus

  Gordon, Ms Mildred

  Mandelson, Peter

  Graham, Thomas

  Marek, Dr John

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Martlew, Eric

  Gunnell, John

  Maxton, John

  Hain, Peter

  Meacher, Michael

  Hall, Mike

  Meale, Alan

  Hanson, David

  Mellor, David

  Hardy, Peter

  Michael, Alun

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)

  Harvey, Nick

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Hattersley, Roy

  Milburn, Alan

  Henderson, Doug

  Miller, Andrew

  Hendron, Dr Joe

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Heppell, John

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Morley, Elliot

  Hinchliffe, David

  Morris, Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Home Robertson, John

  Morris, John (Aberavon)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Mowlam, Ms Marjorie

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Mudie, George

  Howarth, Alan (Stratfd-on-A)

  Mullin, Chris

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Murphy, Paul

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Oakes, Gordon

  Hoyle, Doug

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Hughes, Robert (Ab'd'n N)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Olner, Bill

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Orme, Stanley

  Hume, John

  Pearson, Ian

  Hutton, John

  Pendry, Tom

  Ingram, Adam

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)

  Pike, Peter L

  Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)

  Powell, Sir Raymond (Ogmore)

  Jamieson, David

  Prentice, Mrs B (Lewisham E)

  Jenkins, Brian D (SE Staffs)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & D'side)

  Prescott, John

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Primarolo, Ms Dawn

  Jones, Dr L (B'ham Selly Oak)

  Purchase, Ken

  791

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Stott, Roger

  Radice, Giles

  Strang, Dr Gavin

  Randall, Stuart

  Straw, Jack

  Raynsford, Nick

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Reid, Dr John

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Rendel, David

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Timms, Stephen

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Tipping, Paddy

  Rogers, Allan

  Touhig, Don

  Rooker, Jeff

  Trickett, Jon

  Rooney, Terry

  Turner, Dennis

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Tyler, Paul

  Rowlands, Ted

  Vaz, Keith

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Wallace, James

  Salmond, Alex

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Wareing, Robert N

  Sheldon, Robert

  Watson, Mike

  Shore, Peter

  Welsh, Andrew

  Simpson, Alan

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

  Smith, Chris (Islington S)

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Wilson, Brian

  Snape, Peter

  Winnick, David

  Soley, Clive

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Spearing, Nigel

  Worthington, Tony

  Spellar, John

  Wray, Jimmy

  Squire, Ms R (Dunfermline W)

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Steel, Sir David

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth and

  Stevenson, George

  Mr. Greg Pope.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Burt, Alistair

  Alexander, Richard

  Butcher, John

  Alison, Michael (Selby)

  Butler, Peter

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Butterfill, John

  Arness, David

  Carlisle, John (Luton N)

  Ancram, Michael

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Carrington, Matthew

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Atkins, Robert

  Channon, Paul

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Clappison, James

  Baker, Kenneth (Mole V)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochf'd)

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Baldry, Tony

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Colvin, Michael

  Batiste, Spencer

  Congdon, David

  Bellingham, Hanry

  Conway, Derek

  Bendall, Vivian

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Biffen, John

  Cope, Sir John

  Body, Sir Richard

  Corrnack, Sir Patrick

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Couchman, James

  Booth, Hartley

  Cran, James

  Boswell, Tom

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Curry, David

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Davies,Quentin (Stamf'd)

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Bowis, John

  Day, Stephen

  Boyson, Sir Rhodes

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Devlin, Tim

  Brazier, Julian

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Brooke, Peter

  Dover, Den

  Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Dunn, Bob

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Eggar, Tim

  Burns, Simon

  Elletson, Harold

  792

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Kynoch, George

  Evennett, David

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Faber, David

  Lamont, Norman

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lang, Ian

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Legg, Barry

  Forman, Nigel

  Leigh, Edward

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)

  Forth, Eric

  Lidington, David

  Fowler, Sir Norman

  Lilley, Peter

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Lloyd, Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Lord, Michael

  Freeman, Roger

  Luff, Peter

  French, Douglas

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Fry, Sir Peter

  McCrea, Rev William

  Gale, Roger

  MacGregor, John

  Gallie, Phil

  MacKay, Andrew

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Maclean, David

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Garnier, Edward

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Gill, Christopher

  Madel, Sir David

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Major, John

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Malone, Gerald

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa.

  Mans, Keith

  Gorst, Sir John

  Marland, Paul

  Grant, Sir Anthony (SW Cambs)

  Marlow, Tony

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Gummer, John

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Hague, William

  Merchant, Piers

  Hamilton, Sir Archibald

  Mills, lain

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Hannam, Sir John

  Molyneaux, Sir James

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Harris, David

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hawkins, Nick

  Needham, Richard

  Hawksley, Warren

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hayes, Jerry

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Heald, Oliver

  Newton, Tony

  Heath, Sir Edward

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Norris, Steve

  Hendry, Charles

  Onslow, Sir Cranley

  Heseltine, Michael

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hicks, Sir Robert

  Ottaway, Richard

  Higgins, Sir Terence

  Page, Richard

  Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)

  Paice, James

  Horam, John

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Howard, Michael

  Patten, John

  Howell, David (Guildf'd)

  Pattie, Sir Geoffrey

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Pawsey, James

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensb'ne)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hunter, Andrew

  Pickles, Eric

  Hurd, Douglas

  Porter, David

  Jack, Michael

  Portillo, Michael

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Jessel, Toby

  Redwood, John

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Renton, Tim

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Richards, Rod

  Jones, Robert B (W Herts)

  Riddick, Graham

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Key, Robert

  Robathan, Andrew

  King, Tom

  Roberts, Sir Wyn

  Kirkhope, Timothy

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

  Knapman, Roger

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  793

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Thomason, Roy

  Rowe, Andrew

  Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)

  Rumbold, Dame Angela

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Ryder, Richard

  Thomton, Sir Malcolm

  Sackville, Tom

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Sainsbury, Sir Timothy

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Scott, Sir Nicholas

  Tracey, Richard

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Tredinnick, David

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Trend, Michael

  Shephard, Mrs Gillian

  Trotter, Neville

  Shepherd, Sir Colin (Heref'd)

  Twinn, Dr lan

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Sims, Sir Roger

  Waldegrave, William

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Walden, George

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfld)

  Waller, Gary

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Ward, John

  Soames, Nicholas

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Waterson, Nigel

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Watts, John

  Spicer, Sir Jim (W Dorset)

  Wells, Bowen

  Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Whitney, Ray

  Spring, Richard

  Whittingdale, John

  Sproat, lain

  Widdecombe, Miss Ann

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Stanley, Sir John

  Wilkinson, John

  Steen, Anthony

  Willetts, David

  Stephen, Michael

  Wilshire, David

  Stern, Michael

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Gongleton)

  Stewart, Allan

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfld)

  Streeter, Gary

  Wolfson, Mark

  Sumberg, David

  Yeo, Tim

  Sweeney, Walter

  Young, Sir George

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Mr. Timothy Wood and

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Mr. Michael Bates.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Miss Widdecombe: I beg to move amendment No. 20, in clause 1, page 1, line 16, after 'pistol', insert a muzzle-loading gun'.
  The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following: Government amendments Nos. 21 to 23.
  New clause 1—Muzzle-loaders—
  `.The authority of the Secretary of State is not required by virtue of subsection (1)(aba) of section 5 of the 1968 Act for a person to have in his possession, or to purchase or acquire, or to sell or transfer, a firearm if he is authorised by a firearm certificate to have in his possession, or to purchase or acquire, a firearm and it is a firearm which can only be loaded from the muzzle end.'.
  New clause 2—Exemption of muzzle-loaders—
  `.The authority of the Secretary of State is not required by virtue of subsection (1) (aba) of section 5 of the 1968 Act for a person to have in his possession, or to purchase or acquire, or to sell or transfer, a firearm if he is authorised by a firearm certificate to have in his possession, or to purchase or acquire a firearm which is loaded at the muzzle end of each chamber or of the barrel and is designed to be used with black powder.'.
  Miss Widdecombe rose—
  The Chairman: Order. I ask hon. Members to leave quietly if they are going, or to sit quietly if they intend to listen.
  Miss Widdecombe: The intention of the amendments is to ensure that muzzle-loading pistols are not caught by the general prohibition that we are proposing.
  Sir Michael Spicer: Will my hon. Friend specify whether the terms of the amendment
  794
  will include reproduction muzzle-loaders, because the date of manufacture seems less important than the type of weapon? A tremendous number of people are engaged in the sport of muzzle-loading gun competitions, and reproduction muzzle-loaders are just as important as originals to them.
  Miss Widdecombe: I assure my hon. Friend that I shall give the definition of such weapons, including replicas, in due course.
  As I said, the intention of the amendments is to ensure that muzzle-loading pistols are not caught by the general prohibition that we are proposing. I should explain to the Committee precisely what is meant by a muzzle-loader and why we believe that they can be safely excluded from the ban. The definition of a muzzle-loader is given in our amendment No. 23, which states it is any gun
  "which is designed to be loaded at the muzzle end"—
  that is the end from which the bullet is fired "with a loose charge" and a ball "or other missile".
  Those guns are invariably either designs of guns that date from the 18th century or modern replicas of such guns. If they are genuinely old and are not fired they will be exempt anyway from all control by virtue of the general exemption for antiques, which is not changed by the Bill. If they are fired under the present law, they require a firearms certificate and our amendment would not change that.
  The example of a muzzle-loader that will be familiar to most people is a flintlock. Like all muzzle-loaders, it is prepared for firing by pouring loose gunpowder into the barrel, tamping it down and then dropping down a lead ball, which is held in place by a wad. That process may take as long as half a minute or more, and even then it is quite uncertain as to whether the gun will fire first time. Those guns, either originals dating from the Napoleonic wars or earlier, or replicas, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for South Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer), are fired by enthusiasts, who may fire their guns at targets or use blanks when firing them in historical re-enactments.
  Muzzle-loading weapons are not a danger to public safety. They take a long time to reload and they are hardly ever used in crime. We believe that they can safely be exempted from the general ban on handguns and from the requirement to keep them in clubs. People will still need a firearms certificate for those weapons, and the tighter regime for issuing firearms certificates, proposals for which are included in the Bill, such as requiring two referees, will apply to individuals who wish to hold a firearms certificate for muzzle-loading firearms.
  I urge the Committee to support the amendment. I also urge my hon. Friends who have proposed new clauses 1 and 2 to withdraw them on the basis that our amendments achieve the same objective. Indeed, the new clauses would keep muzzle-loaders within the general prohibition.
  Mr. Couchman: I should be grateful if my hon. Friend said something about the storage of muzzle-loaders. Will they be caught up in the exacting and onerous regulations that will apply to .22 pistols, for example?
  Miss Widdecombe: No. As my hon. Friend knows, .22 pistols are to be confined to secure clubs; those rules will not apply to muzzle-loaders.

  795
  Although my hon. Friend's new clauses seek to achieve the same ends, in fact they would not exempt muzzle-loaders from the prohibition—the new clauses would keep them within it, but allow them to be held on certificate. I hope that we have managed to demonstrate that muzzle-loaders are not a menace to public safety and that their exemption may safely be proposed.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: I should like to make some brief remarks. First, I am sorry that the wording of new clause 1 is not quite right, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for accepting the principle behind it.
  I have one simple point. We had an impassioned debate on the issue of a general ban and a decision was made a few minutes ago. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will now concentrate on making the legislation workable and sensible. Amendment. No. 20 is certainly an important contribution to that objective. On the other hand, my hon. Friend the Minister will realise that there are two other points relating to the amendment that we shall discuss shortly and that must be faced up to in the same way.
  The Government are anxious that guns should not be kept at home, but I hope that they realise that that objective could be secured by having the partial storage of weapons in clubs. That would save a great deal of unnecessary expenditure and would also remove a major security risk, which many of feel would arise if guns were to be stored in clubs.
  The next issue to be addressed is a sensible timetable. Whatever Act of Parliament we pass, we want to ensure that the timetable is sensible and appropriate in the circumstances.
  Finally, bearing in mind what the Government said about competitors, I hope that they realise that the present arrangements for notifying chief constables about the removal of guns for competition will be difficult to work out, especially in the case of individuals who engage in many competitions. In the Southend area, we have a splendid shot, Brent Smith, who has won two silver medals and a bronze medal at the Commonwealth games. He attends many competitive events and it seems rather ridiculous that he will have to go through the whole process of putting in an application to the police every time he wants to take part in a competition.
  In the circumstances, I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for accepting the principle of new clause 1. That is a major step forward. I hope that, in the same way, she will consider my other points to make sure that the Bill is a sensible and workable piece of legislation that will achieve the Government's objective without causing unnecessary distress and inconvenience.
  Sir Jerry Wiggin: I add my gratitude to that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor). I accept that the Government draftsman is likely to draft a better amendment than we are, but it says something about the speed with which the Bill was prepared that anyone should have included muzzle-loaders in the first place.
  The exemption will assist a large number of people who enjoy the hobby of muzzle-loader shooting. The weapons are extremely unlikely to be used in crime and many
  796
  thousands of people use blanks for re-enactments. People are having the guns manufactured for their own entertainment.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister of State and am happy not to press my new clause.
  9.45 pm
  Mr. Couchman: I am delighted to hear from my hon. Friend the Minister of State that muzzle-loaders will be exempt from the bans promulgated in the Bill. It will be important to my constituents who, almost every Sunday, re-enact Napoleonic battles at Fort Amherst. There are several historic spots within the Medway towns, including Fort Amherst, Upnor castle, the historic dockyard and Rochester castle, where there are regular re-enactments.
  The muzzle-loading guns have no potential for crime: they take a long time to load and most of the people who fire them use blanks and do not load the lead ball. Even if someone has a licence to own a muzzle-loader, they cannot buy ammunition for it. Muzzle-loaders are mostly used in public displays, for education and entertainment.
  I welcome the exemption, particularly as it includes replicas of historic guns, which were already exempt under the antique guns rule. The people of the Medway towns do not lie awake at night worrying that they are going to be taken apart by the flintlock pistols, horse pistols or cannons of the Medway re-enactment societies. The Chatham and Gillingham Volunteer Artillery', the Chasseurs de Cevennes, the 42nd Highlanders and the First Foot Guards will be eternally grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister of State.
  Mr. Dalyell: May we take it from the gist of the amendment that the Sealed Knot has nothing to worry about?
  Miss Widdecombe: Yes.
  Mr. Peter Griffiths: Will my hon. Friend the Minister of State accept the gratitude of those who use muzzle-loading firearms for sport, usually under the general title of black powder shooting? Will she also accept my personal gratitude for showing evidence of the Government's willingness to be flexible when sound cases were put to them during their discussions on this difficult subject? Strong emotions have been aroused and it has not always been recognised that the Government have been willing to listen. They have the gratitude of those serious shooters who have benefited from the amendments.
  Mr. Henderson: The hon. Member for Portsmouth. North (Mr. Griffiths) will be able to judge whether the Government have listened to hon. Members and others when we see the final report to the House after 28 November. The Opposition support the Government's amendments; we support the exemption of muzzle-loading guns, subject to the endorsement of the local consumer standards officers. The most likely danger from a muzzle-loading gun is that one might blow oneself up rather than anyone else. If the consumer standards officers are satisfied, I think that the Committee will be satisfied.
  Amendment agreed to.

  797
  Amendments made: No. 21, in page 1, line 20, at end insert—
  `(3A) In paragraph (ad) (smooth-bore revolver guns), for the words from "loaded" to the end there shall be substituted the words "a muzzle-loading gun".'
  No. 22, in page 1, line 21, leave out second 'subsection' and insert 'subsections'.— [Miss Widdecombe.]
  Sir Jerry Wiggin: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 1, line 22, after 'any', insert 'readily'.
  Some .22 rifles have detachable butt-stocks—there is one very popular one—and they could be regarded as short weapons if measured when the stock is detached. It is apparently impossible to use them when the butt is detached except in a test rig, and by inserting the word "readily" we feel that we would obtain our point. I hope that the Government will be able to accept this modest amendment.
  Miss Widdecombe: I am afraid that I must urge the Committee to resist the amendment. The effect of the amendment would be to clarify that butt-stocks should be disregarded in measuring length only if they are readily detachable. I regret that, after much thought, we have concluded that we cannot accept that definition. Adding a butt-stock to a handgun can change its essential characteristic and in some cases, in terms of aim, make it more closely resemble a rifle.
  The amendment gives rise to the further problem of what is meant by "detachable". Is it intended that it should include only butt-stocks which can be removed without the use of tools? Should it also include those which require a screwdriver to remove? It is true that some butt-stocks can be easily detached while others require more effort, but the point remains that, if a butt-stock can be removed at all, it should be disregarded for the purposes of measuring the overall length of the weapon.
  I regret that I must invite the Committee to reject the amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  Amendment made: No. 23, in clause 1, page 1, line 24, at end insert—
  '(9) Any reference in this section to a muzzle-loading gun is a reference to a gun which is designed to be loaded at the muzzle end of the barrel or chamber with a loose charge and a separate ball (or other missile):.—[Miss Widdecombe.]
  Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. Brooke: I shall be brief. The harbinger of my concerns was contained in my intervention in the speech of my hon. Friend the Minister of State earlier. My remarks were addressed, through you, Mr. Morris, to my hon. Friend, because the Government have indicated that part of their support for the .22 concession is to allow our participation in the Olympic games to continue.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary answered my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) wholly properly, but he did not give a complete answer to the question whether the Home Secretary realised that people had to practise with their own pistols. He was asked whether he understood that, to compete at county or national level—one is
  798
  necessary for the other—one needed to be able to train and practise with one's own pistol. He did not specifically answer that question, so I return to it.
  Do the Government realise that, at the highest level—county level leading to national —about 80 per cent. of one's training and practice occurs away from the club where one may do one's shooting, generally in one's home, on what the professionals call the kinasthetic element of the preparation? That will involve, at the highest level, at least two evenings a week in one's home.
  There are serious separate concerns about training weekends. At the highest level, one must attend a training weekend three weekends out of four. Those are not competitions allowed for in the Bill; they are a separate condition. Although I shall not press my hon. Friend for specific answers on those subjects tonight, I want to say that, in addition to the ones that I have mentioned, there are concerns about batch ammunition tested for one's own pistol, and about the movement of the pistol, especially travelling to international championships, which my hon. Friend will realise are a necessary qualification for the Olympics.
  There are six international championships between Olympics, and one must attend every one. It necessarily becomes a matter of concern how one is going to transport one's pistol to them.
  I shall write to my hon. Friend on these matters. All I ask for tonight is a stated recognition that a competitor at that level must practise and train with his own pistol, and that no other pistol would be any good for that purpose. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary did not answer the question when it was put to him earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle, but it is important that everyone is clear that the Government realises that that is the case.
  Mr. Dalyell: There have been frequent references to the costs of compensation during the past five hours, and I think that clause 1 stand part is the appropriate occasion to repeat that reference.
  Although various assertions have been made, the Government have said little or nothing. I ask for the Minister's attention, as I want to ask her a direct question. The Home Office must have some idea, in round figures, what compensation will be involved. I refuse to believe that the Treasury has not asked some questions. The figures vary from my estimate of £ 1.2 billion to £500 million from some Conservative Members to between £ 25 million and £50 million. What are the rough estimates of the Home Office?
  The question asked by the right hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) and repeated several times since is, who will do the valuing? Valuers can have vastly different ideas of what guns might fetch. Is it to be a market value or an antique value? In other areas, the discrepancies in valuations by the great auction houses are mind-boggling.
  Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: I would declare an interest if that were appropriate, having worked as a fine arts auctioneer. I am sure that the Government would be only too happy to avail themselves of the services, for nothing, of such experts, so that a proper value can be put on the firearms. In any case, the Government could recoup some of the costs by auctioning

  799
  some of the finer firearms, which otherwise would have to be destroyed, in those countries where there are no restrictions.
  Mr. Dalyell: If the hon. Gentleman is right, it is enormously significant that valuers are prepared to give their services free. In my experience, valuers do not come cheap. If they are prepared to give their services free—[Interruption.] Some of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues are shaking their knowledgeable heads. I suspect that it is highly unlikely that valuers would volunteer their services free.
  I want to put my question as succinctly as possible. What is Home Office thinking on the whole question of valuation? Are we talking about £1 billion-plus or £100 million-minus?
  Mr. Allason: I am grateful for being able to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. During the last few hours, several assertions have been made that I want to correct. The first and most damaging is that Thomas Hamilton had legally held handguns. It is perfectly clear to anyone who has read Lord Cullen's report that he duped the police over 20 years—in respect not only of the firearms he held, but of the ammunition.
  Lord Cullen is extremely critical of the way that the police supervised the issuing of firearms. Plenty of people—at least three—in Central Scotland police were perfectly aware of Hamilton's character, and they wrote reports showing that. Detective Sergeant Hughes analysed the man's personality as unstable and untrustworthy. The recommendation that he should not ever be granted a firearms certificate is there to be seen.
  The real problem is that those reports did not get into the criminal intelligence file. We now know that the officer in 1995 who was responsible for issuing the last renewal was wholly unaware of the existence of those documents, which are absolutely damning.
  My heart goes out to the Dunblane parents. It also goes out to the police officers who had to investigate Hamilton, who had very well-founded doubts about his stability and who wrote about those doubts—which were then completely overlooked by their more senior colleagues. I am not surprised that one senior officer resigned from that force. There should have been other resignations.
  Mr. Michael Colvin: My hon. Friend will have noticed that Mr. Hamilton's membership of a gun club has been mentioned several times. Does he agree that Hamilton's membership was exceedingly tenuous? He may, nominally, have been a member of the local gun club, but he never attended it or took part in any of its activities.
  10 pm
  Mr. Allason: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The police were consistently duped by Hamilton. He claimed to have participated in many competitions when he was challenged about the amount of ammunition that he was accumulating, but no checks were made. The fact is that he had not participated in any of the competitions.
  Mr. O'Neill: I have spoken to some of the people who were members of the gun clubs to which Hamilton
  800
  belonged, and one or two of them thought that he was the type of man who was sufficiently devious to be able to con most authorities. They would not claim to be either hostile or amicable to Hamilton, because they realised that he was a loner. They said that, because of his personality traits, he would be capable of misleading officers.
  I have much sympathy for the police who were involved at all levels in the case. I spoke at length with senior members of Central Scotland police, and I was convinced that dealing with Hamilton was a dreadful job. In Committee, we must try to establish a better method of licensing, so that we can ensure that such a tragedy never again occurs. Hamilton was a most devious and effective quasi-litigant, and I shall put it no more strongly than that.
  Mr. Allason: Although I accept the hon. Gentleman's point that Hamilton was devious, Detective Sergeant Hughes realised that fact, and his report was absolutely damning. Hamilton may have been able to dupe very many people, but he did not fool Detective Sergeant Hughes.
  Revocation is one of the key issues and difficulties—I am not judging the police after the event, because this is precisely what Lord Cullen's report states—that is perpetually at the back of police officers' minds. It had to be assumed that, if an applicant appealed and obtained a judicial review, the weight of evidence would be in his favour. One of the conclusions to which anyone reading the Cullen report would come is that there could be a straightforward way in which to amend the law to clarify the issue of revoking a firearms certificate and to make the judge's role crystal clear—whether it is administrative or judicial.
  There was confusion not only in English but in Scots law, and in the precedents. The situation was confusing, and I readily accept that the police felt that their hands were tied. They believed that, unless they had good, strong evidence that could be presented in court—the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) is right—a devious man such as Hamilton had everything going for him.
  My fear is that by, rejecting Lord Cullen's report—that is what the Government have done by rejecting its recommendations and going much further—we shall have disadvantaged many people who have been wholly legitimate firearms holders. I greatly regret the slurs made against legitimate firearms holders, who have made legitimate applications to the police and who have been able to demonstrate that they are fit and proper people to own a firearm.
  One constituent has had a firearms certificate for 27 years. He is not a strange man dressing up in combat uniform or firing at human figures. He and many friends have participated in a legitimate sport for 27 years, and he had every expectation of being able to continue doing so for a further 27 years.
  The House has persuaded the Government that there should be proper compensation for such an individual, but he pointed out to me that the ancillary equipment is sometimes more expensive than the weapon itself. I am glad that the Government have extended compensation to cover ancillary equipment. My constituent has £3,000-worth of loading equipment to make ammunition.

  801
  That is clearly a substantial investment, but what are we to say to the firearms dealer who has £9,000, £10,000 or £15,000-worth of security equipment in his house?
  The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The hon. Gentleman is drifting in and out of clause 1. There are many clauses on compensation and licensing. The hon. Gentleman must address his remarks exclusively to clause 1 stand part.
  Mr. Allason: I am grateful, Mr. Morris, for your guidance, forbearance and patience. I did not wish to repeat what I said on Second Reading.
  I think that the House made a terrible mistake shortly after the Hungerford incident. I urge the Committee not to allow clause 1 to stand part.
  Sir David Steel: I have some sympathy with the remarks of the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason).
  The right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) rightly said that one did not have to come from Dunblane to empathise with the parents of the tragic victims of Thomas Hamilton. As I said on another occasion, I was married in Dunblane cathedral, and I empathise with the people of Dunblane for that reason.
  I have no doubt that public and press opinion, especially in Scotland, is very much in favour of the complete ban on handguns that was narrowly voted down a few moments ago. Yet, like the hon. Member for Torbay, I have a considerable sense of unease about the way in which we are legislating in haste in the wake of this tragedy. Let us be clear about this: we are denying a lawful sport to a significant but perhaps not substantial minority of our population. That is always a dangerous and difficult road to trail.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Putney failed to answer one question put to him in an intervention: what would have happened if, instead of using a handgun, Thomas Hamilton had sawn off the barrels of a shotgun, cut down the butt, concealed it about his person, and then fired on the children? He could have caused just about the same damage. Would the House now solemnly be deciding to ban the possession of shotguns? That would be an unthinkable proposition for the management of the countryside. The passage of the Bill gives us something to be uneasy about.
  I was amazed that so many people took up stances before they could possibly have read the Cullen report. I did not come to my conclusions until I had taken the trouble to study it carefully over the weekend after publication. I have also met representatives of the shooting club in my constituency. You have rightly pointed out that compensation is an issue for later, Sir Michael, but I should like to say in passing that, in the past year, the club has spent £40,000—including £8,000 of public money from the Sports Council —on a legitimate sport.
  There is no way in which the club will qualify to be able to continue under the provisions of clause 1. There is no question of it being able to create the secure premises that the legislation will require. A club with 140 members, that has raised a lot of money for its attractive site north of Galashiels, is to go out of business.
  802
  I think also of the man in Peebles whom I have visited. He has a national—indeed, international—reputation as a repairer of all types of gun. His livelihood will cease. What about his children as Christmas approaches? That is what he asked me.
  We should be strongly aware, as the Bill passes through this House and the other place, that we are taking away people's livelihoods and people's pastimes—activities that have been legitimate hitherto.
  I voted for a complete ban, on the reasoning given by many pistol shooters in my constituency —it is not a universal view, but one expressed by many—that the Government scheme set out in clause 1 is expensive and unworkable. A total ban on handguns is a more honest and workable approach than trying to make a distinction between one type of handgun and another, which will leave the sport in such a situation that it will be possible only for the very rich to participate legally in future, I imagine.
  Like the hon. Member for Torbay, my gut feeling is that the Government would have done better to rest on the Cullen report, and then by all means put other alternatives to the House on a free vote, as my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) argued. Hon. Members would then have had the opportunity that many wished for, to vote for a ban or some form of partial ban.
  By the way in which the Bill has been divided in two, we are giving the public the impression that the important issue in the Cullen report was the banning of a certain type of handgun. It was not. The important parts of the report were about certification. Those issues have been sent upstairs to a Committee because they are not considered important enough for us to debate on the Floor of the House, but those issues are crucial.
  To pick up on what the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) said, a careful reading of the Cullen report leaves me with no doubt that Thomas Hamilton should never have had a firearms certificate. Though the deputy chief constable who was ultimately responsible and who did not follow up Sergeant Hughes's report has honourably resigned, Lord Cullen makes the important point that, under the law as it stands in Scotland—I assume that the same is true in England—he could have won his certificate back on appeal even if his application had been refused.
  We should be concentrating on aspects of the certification laws rather than on the mechanics of who owns a handgun. I do not want to stray out of order, but I am concerned that the Bill fails to improve even the laws on shotgun certification. As a Member of Parliament, I have great anxiety about signing shotgun certificates as though they were passport applications —they are treated in the same way. If we stuck more closely to Cullen's recommendations, we would not vote for the clause.
  This is a difficult issue. I suppose that clause 1 will be passed. I do not know whether we are allowed to come back to it on Report, but I believe that the other place should have another careful look at it.
  Mr. Mike Gapes: I had not intended to speak in this debate, but I listened carefully to the earlier debate and I did not vote in the Division. I want to explain my position. I felt unhappy because an option was put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Great

  803
  Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on which, unfortunately, as a result of our procedures, it was not possible to vote. In those circumstances—
  The Chairman of Ways and Means: Order. It was perfectly possible to have a vote. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) chose not to move his amendment.
  10.15 pm
  Mr. Gapes: That is true, Mr. Morris. However, it was not my amendment.
  The way in which the whole issue has been handled in the past few months is symptomatic of the way in which politics generally are dealt with. The mass media seize on an issue, which then becomes an issue of prominence to which politicians are expected to have instant solutions. They are expected to do something immediately to deal with the problem. The next week, the media seize on another issue and their attention switches somewhere else.
  The media attention today—this is also true of the debate last week—is far less than it was during the frenzy over the summer. The same is true of so many different issues. One of the difficulties when we take decisions that will have implications for the future is that if the Government decide to have a three-line Whip and if, as has just been suggested by the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), they do not then put forward the inquiry's recommendations as the basis on which amendments can be tabled and decided on by a free vote, they taint and distort the way in which the debate is conducted. That makes it difficult for those of us who might have had a slightly different position within any party to take an attitude that is slightly at variance. The way in which we structure the debates makes it difficult.
  I hope that we shall vote against clause stand part. I shall do so if I get the opportunity because I have had discussions with members of gun clubs in my constituency. The secretary of one gun club has said to me exactly what other hon. Members have said: "I would rather have a total ban with proper compensation than the Government's proposals." He feels that the Government are proposing a device to save themselves money and that it is likely that many of the clubs will be driven out of existence. A man said to me this morning: "I pay £65 a year to belong to a club. Once we have all the insurance, all the paraphernalia and all the extra resources, the membership fees will go up, so ordinary people like me will not be able to practise our sport. Only very wealthy people will be able to continue." Parliament needs to think about those ordinary people. They feel aggrieved that, although they are law-abiding, decent people, they are being labelled as mass murderers.
  Parliament has a duty when dealing with these matters to give people the decent compensation that they require for what they will have to give up. If the Bill is enacted as the Government wish, we should at least allow people
  804
  to continue with their sport in a properly regulated way, without the stigma that many of them feel they have today.
  Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend talks about decent compensation. Decent compensation is a huge sum that may approach £1 billion.
  Mr. Gapes: If so, Parliament will vote for it. Perhaps we should have given more consideration to the proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby, which presumably would have required less compensation.
  Earlier today I spoke to a man who feels bitterly aggrieved and worried that a minority of people who belong to gun clubs will feel that society has singled them out. I hope that will not produce unpleasant consequences. We shall have to be extremely careful to ensure that the legislation is monitored vigilantly so that those in possession of a legal weapon hand it in and that there is no underground conduit into the illegal arms market.
  We also have to address the gun culture by restricting violence on television—even in cartoons—and the war toys that popularise the Rambo mentality. That has nothing to do with individuals who practise their sport in a decent way, but it has a great deal to do with the society that creates such people as Thomas Hamilton.
  Mr. Leigh: Sadly, the vote that took place exactly an hour ago was a sham. It will be talked up by the popular press as a great historic vote, but it was nothing of the sort. It is in the interests of the Government to argue that we are preserving a sport and it is in the interests of the Opposition to argue that it is a disgraceful outcome that will result in 20,000 guns remaining in circulation. Neither is true. The 20,000 guns will have to be held under such strict supervision that most clubs—certainly all those in Lincolnshire —will have to close and people who wish to participate in the sport will have to travel at least 50 or 60 miles.
  It is a back-door prohibition of what was previously a legitimate and popular sport. It would have been far more honest if we had accepted that in the first place. Therefore, I deeply regret that we proceeded in that way. However, there is a chance to make some amends.
  I have just expressed a view that is popular among people in the shooting community, many of whom feel deeply aggrieved. I hope that in her reply my hon. Friend the Minister of State will reiterate that the Government do not intend to drive the sport out of business altogether and that, in framing the regulations, the Government will allow the maximum number of gun clubs to survive so that people who wish to pursue the sport with lower-calibre weapons can continue to do so.
  Mr. Henderson: I do not wish to prolong the debate unnecessarily. We had a useful three-hour debate on the substance of clause 1 so I do not propose to reiterate any of the arguments or respond to any points that were raised.
  Several hon. Members mentioned compensation. I know that you called them to order, Mr. Morris, and that you would call me to order if I were to dwell on it now, so I shall not do so. However, we shall discuss the issue in detail in Standing Committee and we may also return to it on Report, when it may be appropriate to address some of the points that have been raised tonight.
  Sir David Steel: The hon. Gentleman is technically correct, but all the parts of the Bill that deal with

  805
  compensation are to be discussed in Standing Committee. He may have the advantage of being a member of that Committee, but I do not.
  Mr. Henderson: That is true, but the right hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to comment on Report, and, if not then, perhaps on Third Reading.
  Mr. Dalyell: If my hon. Friend is a member of the Government after May—indeed, this applies to whoever is in power—it will be rather more than a matter of detail to discover that, with all the pressures for extra spending on education, on the health service and on training, there is apparently a commitment to pay a huge sum in compensation. That is why I am nagging for the fifth time this evening about the general nature of the compensation. I do not think that the figure of £1 billion would be very far out if it is to be decent compensation.
  Mr. Henderson: I had recognised a Linlithgow nag before my hon. Friend's most recent intervention. I know that he will press the Committee on that matter; we will have to deal with it Committee. As far as I am aware, the Government are not yet able to say what the sums will be, and I understand why that is so. There has to be a wide discussion on what has to be included in any compensation claims, and until the principles are established it would be very difficult to put a figure on the amount.
  If the Committee divides after this debate, Opposition Front Benchers will support clause 1, as amended. Clause 1 does not have the content that we would have wished and for many reasons, some of which have been mentioned in the debate, the Government's position has many contradictions that will be exposed. Indeed, the shooting lobby itself is saying that the Government's position is untenable. The Opposition's position was that the clean-cut way to deal with the matter was to ban all hand pistols except for the agreed exemptions for those used in slaughterhouses, for vets and so on.
  I believe that, overwhelmingly, the public want a total ban. Parliament is here not only to look at issues logically and objectively but—we hope—to recognise the strength of feeling in the country. I am in no doubt that people in Britain want fewer guns, so that the likelihood of them falling into the hands of maniacs or others is reduced. People in Britain believe that, in most circumstances, pistols should be banned. Having said that, there will be an expectation that we should proceed with the Bill in order to have further discussion. For that reason, Opposition Front Benchers will support what remains of clause 1.
  Miss Widdecombe: Once again, the Committee would probably welcome some brevity. I should, however, like to address one or two of the specific points that have been made, especially those made by my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), which concerned the need of people to train and practise.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South asked me to give an assurance that I recognised that people engaging in competitions needed to train and practise. Our provisions are very clear. There will be a complete ban on handguns of a higher calibre than.
  806
  22 rimfire. People who wish to continue to use those higher-calibre guns in competitions will not be able to do so in this country under the Bill's provisions. Those who are, for example, practising for the Olympics and four of the five Commonwealth games events for which .22 guns are used will be able to do so. My right hon. Friend is quite right that such people compete best—indeed, at the highest level it is essential—with their own weapons. That is why there is provision in the Bill for the movement of weapons from clubs for certain recognised purposes, which will of course include competition. We envisage that that movement would be effected by third parties.
  I am sure that further consideration will be given to the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South, but I wanted to address one or two of them because I am aware that he tried, without success, to speak in previous debates.
  Sir Jerry Wiggin: On the question of transport and third parties, I understand that it is envisaged that the third party will collect the pistols from point A to carry them to point B. We will have a ludicrous situation because a vehicle containing 50 or 60 such items will be more vulnerable than if licensed shooters were allowed to look after their own pistols.
  10.30 pm
  Miss Widdecombe: I understand that point and that is the sort of detail that will be discussed in Committee.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It is important.
  Miss Widdecombe: Yes, it is an important detail. There is much detail in the Bill, to which due attention will be paid during its various stages.
  I greatly admire the persistence of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). He should not have thought for one moment that I was not paying him attention, because I was faithfully writing down every question he asked. It is impossible to put a figure on compensation at present, for the simple reason that the figure that is estimated as being likely to be paid will depend on what we will compensate for. The position that we have taken is that we must compensate for any gun that is banned, whether it be held legally by an individual or by gun dealers as part of stocks.
  We will have to compensate at the market value on the day before the Home Secretary's statement. It is clear that if guns are part of collections, as I have said previously, that will have some effect on the market value of the individual guns concerned. To get to the horrendous figures that the hon. Gentleman quoted, one would have to do a lot more than compensate for banned guns, and that is where the problem arises. When people say that we must compensate for all loss, not just for the guns but for all associated accessories —whether interchangeable with other guns or not—and loss of business, then the figures for compensation are larger. When the precise proposals are put in Committee, it will be possible to give figures, although they will not be precise because this is not an exact science.
  Mr. Dalyell: I thank the Minister for the courtesy and, indeed, candour of her answer, but I must ask why the Government will pay compensation for stocks. If the

  807
  stocks of every gun dealer in the country will be the subject of compensation, we will be into astronomical figures.
  Miss Widdecombe: No, the hon. Gentleman misunderstands. We are talking only about only banned guns. We are not talking about stocks of guns that gun dealers may hold in which it will still be legal to trade. Compensation will be paid specifically for banned guns, and we made that clear earlier. There is nothing unusual about my candour, as the hon. Gentleman called it.
  I turn now to the speech of the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), who again said tonight that we were legislating in haste. During earlier stages of the Bill, I tried to repel suggestion after suggestion from other Opposition Members that we had been too slow. We had to give careful consideration to the measures so that we introduced balanced and coherent legislation. The right hon. Gentleman asked what would have happened had the weapon used been a sawn-off shotgun. Sawn-off shotguns are already illegal. He also made his own case when he pointed out that shotguns have a use, outside sport and leisure, for control in the countryside. That is why handguns that have direct uses—those used by vets, for example—have been exempted from our provisions in the same spirit.
  You have been very patient, Mr. Morris, and I am aware that I too have probably trespassed on issues that I should not have commented on directly, but they have been raised in the debate.
  Mr. Leigh: Before my hon. Friend finishes, will she deal briefly with my important point about the shooting community? Central Government, local government and the police authorities will have considerable latitude in how they implement the new regulations on the safety of gun clubs. Will she make it clear on behalf of the Government that their view is that the new law should be implemented in such a way that the maximum number of clubs are kept open so that people can pursue the sport of .22 calibre shooting?
  Miss Widdecombe: We will specify the conditions under which we require such guns to be kept and the security measures to be taken, and we will expect those to be enforced. We are not aiming to shut clubs or to keep clubs open. We are aiming to get the right conditions under which clubs may operate and to have them enforced. I support the clause, and I am grateful for the Opposition's support.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  To report progress and ask leave to sit again.— [Mr.Coe]
  Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.

PETITION

  University Funding
  10.35 pm
  Mr. Jim Cousins: Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will know that the city of Newcastle upon Tyne is home to two universities and is one of the country's greatest university cities. I was handed this petition at a campus meeting at which the unions and staff representatives were discussing the result of their ballot for a day of action tomorrow. A remarkable young lady called Jenny Toomey, a science student at the university, spontaneously organised the petition with a group of friends.
  The petition, from the students of the university of Newcastle upon Tyne, declares:
  that the current level of funding to higher education institutions has led to larger class sizes, diminished tutorial provision, a reduction in practical work, and demotivation of staff. This has seriously compromised the quality of education and the standard of the university degree. In addition, the removal of student support through the loss of grant provision and entitlement to benefits has deterred many people from lower income families from undertaking courses in higher education. This is unjust, divisive and a waste of national resource. Britain cannot afford to ignore the long term consequences of under-investment in its education system.
  The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to take account of the difficulties faced by students and by higher education institutions; to commit the Government to ensuring that British universities return to the high standards for which they were previously renowned; and to ensure that the funding councils are made open to public scrutiny, and that governing bodies of higher educational establishments be made accountable.
  The petition then extends to the House the traditional and historic courtesies of citizens exerting their right to petition.
  To lie upon the Table.

Fransware Nursing Home
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr.Coe.]
10.38 pm
Sir David Mitchell: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Bunts), for being here to reply to my plea. The subject is the appeals procedure relating to the closure of the Fransware nursing home, and it focuses on the actions of Hampshire county council social services department and of the local government ombudsman, who could not bring himself to investigate the county council's actions.
The appeal concerns a Mrs. Francis—a much respected member of Andover's community, who ran a rest or nursing home and who, to her total astonishment and that of the local community who knew her, to the astonishment of the county council's local area social services team and to the astonishment and disbelief of residents in her home and their relatives, was arrested at 8.45 am one morning and taken to Andover police station on a complaint that she had ill-treated her residents. She was released at 12.50 pm.
Immediately after her release, she was informed that Hampshire county council social services department, at county level, was making an immediate application to the magistrates to have the home closed on the ground of Mrs. Francis's physical and mental cruelty to patients. With only one hour and 10 minutes, Mrs. Francis found a local solicitor and briefed him for a 2 pm hearing in the magistrates court. The magistrates heard the case and, rightly, threw it out.
I must turn the clock back three months to January 1992, when Mrs. Francis took in a Mr. and Mrs. Earl—that is not their name, but I want to protect their family. Mr. Earl was known as a difficult and, some might say, plain cantankerous, old man. After some weeks, Mrs. Francis found that he disrupted the home so badly, upsetting other residents, that she gave him a month's notice. It should be noted that Mr. Earl did not want to leave. Indeed, he became very angry and objected strongly. On the evening before his departure, he told Mrs. Francis, "I'll get you for this."
I recognise that any county social services department would be in a quandary if it received notification from the police or any other source that patients, for whom II had a responsibility as the licensing authority, were allegedly being ill-treated. There have been too many cases in other parts of the country in which failure to act has rightly been criticised. I can understand Hampshire county council considering whether to withdraw the licence, but for goodness' sake, before taking such a drastic step, why did the council not inquire about the home from those who were really in the know?
For example, why did the council not say to the proprietor, "These charges have been made. What is it all about?" Why did the council not ask the relatives who were always popping in arid out to see patients, or even ask the local office, which would have told them,
"Whatever time of the day you went into Fransware, the atmosphere was always friendly and relaxed"?
This is a home where the local county social services department found
810
"relatives, social workers, district nurses and GPs were in and out all day long. If patients were ill treated surely someone would have noticed."
Having started on the road to closing the Fransware nursing home, however, there was no stopping the county council juggernaut. Aspects of the case would have made any reasonable person pause and think again. The relatives of nine out of the 10 residents wrote to condemn the county council's proposed action. The 10th resident had no relatives, but a local solicitor acted for her. On the closure of the home, he had so much confidence in Mrs. Francis that he asked her to look after his ward personally and privately.
I shall quote one of many similar letters. It was sent by Mrs. Byrne, who writes:
"My mother has been a resident in the home for about three years. She is senile, almost blind and totally incapable of looking after herself. My father lives in Andover and we both visit the home frequently. Never have we had cause to complain or in the slightest way to suspect that the treatment my mother is having is anything other than suitable, correct and caring. She is always clean and content and clearly well fed … We visited frequently, often when not expected and never found anything in the slightest untoward."
In spite of what one might have thought, the county council proceeded.
One of the charges was that Mrs. Francis had ill-treated one of the patients—a sprightly old lady, who was eager to give evidence that, far from treating her roughly as had been charged, Mrs. Francis had treated her "gently". The county might have paused when it noted that, following its own official inspections in 1989, 1990 and 1991, letters were sent to Mrs. Francis that were generally complimentary. The social services department took the matter to its social services sub-committee.
Mr. J. R. French, a well-respected local solicitor retained by Mrs. Francis, said:
"it is almost a foregone conclusion that the Council will succeed in its application before its own Social Services Sub-Committee … It is difficult to see what point there is in the Sub-Committee hearing unless the Council Director of Social Services is manifestly acting in bad faith (although in any event he will not be open to cross-examination)."
Interestingly, he continued:
"letters I have written to employees of the Department have been responded to by the Director, inviting me to make any contact with employees through him."
That sounds like an easy, unbiased way of getting information, does it not? He went on:
"The implication is that he would not consent to their involving themselves in Mrs. Francis' 'defence'."
The county sub-committee duly confirmed the case of the county social services. There are certain aspects worth noting. On 15 October 1992, the council made a decision against Mrs. Francis. I shall mention three of the grounds.
First, the council said:
"You have on occasions physically assaulted residents."
I can tell the House about that case. Mr. and Mrs. Earl were due to go to bed one evening, and the nurse who went to see them to bed came down to fetch Mrs. Francis, because a fight was in progress. Mrs. Francis went up and found that not only were the two having fisticuffs but Mrs. Earl was fouling her underwear. In that circumstance, Mrs. Francis had to do something physical to separate the contestants. It was alleged—I would not

811
be surprised at this—that she slapped Mrs. Earl to effect that separation. What the heck else she could have done, I do not know.
Secondly, Mrs. Francis was told:
"You have on occasions forced a resident to drink against her will."
She had been advised by the doctor that that resident should increase her consumption of liquids. Thirdly, she was told:
"You have subjected residents to a toileting routine that failed to give consideration to their needs, including their need for dignity, their wishes and feelings."
When incontinent old people do not go to the loo because they have dementia and cannot remember, what can one do other than have a routine to trot them through at the right time so that they are protected from wetting their underwear? Of course such things have to happen in the real world of people who are in advanced stages of old age and, in many cases, dementia.
Mrs. Francis appealed to the rest homes tribunal and the case was heard in March a year later. The first hearing took five days. The county council presented its case, and the witnesses were cross-examined by the council and by Mrs. Francis's solicitor. The five days did not give time for Mrs. Francis's case to be put at all. Accordingly, the tribunal adjourned until July. By then, Mrs. Francis was bust. The county had by its ill-considered actions destroyed her business, and negative equity in the premises polished it off.
The local government ombudsman wrote:
"Section 26(6)(a) of the Local Government Act 1974 prevents the Local Government Ombudsman from investigating any matter for which the person aggrieved has or had a right of appeal to a Tribunal, except if the Local Government Ombudsman is satisfied that it is not reasonable to expect the person to resort to it. In this case Mrs Francis resorted to her right of appeal to the Tribunal. I considered carefully your contention that Mrs Francis could not afford to complete the appeal and therefore it would be open me to investigate her complaint.
I am of the view that it would be wholly inappropriate to exercise discretion and pursue this case. That is because, even if 1 were to make enquiries, I would have no powers whatsoever to challenge the decision made by Hampshire County Council to de-register Mrs Francis. That power lies only with a Tribunal or the Courts. I therefore confirm that I see no grounds to change my predecessor's opinion that this complaint should not be pursued further."
That letter is from the local government ombudsman, over the signature of Mr. J. R. White, and dated April 1996. I appealed to the county council to give a fair hearing, but I did not get very far. The leader of the county council, Councillor Hancock, simply reasserted what had been said by the chief executive.
Finally, this August I had a letter from Mr. Stephen Adam of Hampshire county council that took broadly the same line as had Mr. Hancock. It stated:
"I appreciate your view that she"—
Mrs. Francis—
"had a full defence but could not afford to continue to be legally represented and thus had to withdraw; whilst we can never know whether this would have affected the ultimate outcome, the fact in law is that her withdrawal concluded the tribunal's proceedings and that by choosing"—
choosing is the word that was used; it made me choke—
812
"not to continue her appeal she had accepted that the case made against her had succeeded."
The poor woman has not had the opportunity to put one word of her case to the tribunal, because she ran out of funds as a result of the actions of the county council in bringing about her bankruptcy.
I raised the question of a reference so that Mrs. Francis could get other employment. The letter continued:
"In the event of any request being made to the Social Services Department for a reference … We would be bound to take the above circumstances into account."
In other words, having destroyed her business, Hampshire county council is pursuing its vendetta to the point of destroying her ability to earn a living by refusing her a reference.
A constituent of mine has had her business ruined by the county council's overreaction and has been brought to the door of bankruptcy. She is unable to put her case and has been told by the ombudsman and county council that she has had an opportunity to appeal when clearly she has not. Finally, she has been denied a reference for a job. I hope that the county council officials, the chief executive and leader of the county council and the ombudsman are thick-skinned enough to sleep easy in their beds. I have wrestled with the case for four and a half years and explored every avenue to get Mrs. Francis the opportunity to clear her name. I invite the Minister to consider the appeals procedure for those very good reasons.
10.52 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Simon Burns): I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir D. Mitchell) and congratulate him on securing a debate on a subject which is significant not only because of Mrs. Francis' important case but because of the whole question of the appeals procedures relating to the closure of Fransware nursing home. I recognise that it is an important issue. My hon. Friend has made clear his case that the Fransware rest home should not have been closed. It happened more than three years ago, and it would be wrong for me to try to go into the merits of the case brought against Mrs. Francis by Hampshire county council.
The Department of Health has no role in the quasi-judicial procedure prescribed in the Registered Homes Act 1984 except to the extent that it provides administrative support to the wholly independent registered homes tribunal. However, I agree that it is unfortunate that Mrs. Francis has not had an opportunity to present her side of the case and to defend her reputation and livelihood before the competent authorities. I understand her feelings about the way in which the procedures operated to produce this extremely unsatisfactory conclusion.
I hope that my hon. Friend will bear with me as I explain that the purpose of the Registered Homes Act 1984 and the enforcement mechanism that it provides is to ensure that people in residential care are safeguarded from harm. We cannot allow elderly, frail and often confused people to be given an inadequate level of care. The primary duty of the authorities that regulate homes is to protect vulnerable people. I suspect that no one would disagree with that. On the other hand, the home owner is also entitled to justice and fairness.

813
It might be helpful if I briefly explain the procedures to be followed if an authority wishes to deregister a home. The Registered Homes Act 1984 sets out a number of stages that seek to ensure that allegations of poor care are properly investigated and dealt with in accordance with the rules of justice. Home owners against whom such allegations are made can first make representations to members of the authority. If necessary, they can subsequently appeal to a registered homes tribunal and from there to the High Court on a point of law.
In this case the appeal to the tribunal was started but was subsequently stopped when Mrs. Francis withdrew the appeal before her side of the case was put. I shall explain later the circumstances behind that withdrawal.
I am told that, before the investigations made by the police in April 1992 into allegations of abuse of residents, the home had given the authorities no significant cause for concern. The local inspectors reported only relatively minor matters that did not affect the home's registration. Following their early investigation, the police reported their concerns to the authority, which correctly began its own investigations. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, the police subsequently dropped their case.
In this context, it is important to be clear that two related but different issues were being considered. The police would have been investigating possible crimes of assault, whereas the authority was investigating a civil matter as to whether the home could continue to be licensed. In each case the standard of proof is different. The police have to prove a matter beyond a reasonable doubt, while the authority needs to prove its case on a balance of probabilities.
At about the time of the police action the authority considered that there was sufficient evidence for it to apply to the magistrate for an emergency closure order. Such orders can be made under the 1984 Act in certain circumstances of serious risks to residents. As my hon. Friend rightly said, the magistrate threw out that application.
I understand that local media publicity about the action in the magistrates court brought forward a number of ex-members of staff and ex-residents of Fransware who wished to give evidence about care at the home. Clearly, it took time for the authority, Hampshire county council, to investigate those subsequent allegations and to put together its evidence. Thus, it took about three months from the authority's first proposal at the end of April 1992 to cancel the homes registration to complete those investigations in July 1992.
Mrs. Francis had said that she wished to exercise her legal right to represent her case orally to the authority. A hearing was fixed for August 1992, but I understand that it was delayed until October 1992 so that Mrs. Francis could be legally represented. The committee of the authority hearing those matters decided that the registration should be cancelled. Mrs. Francis then appealed to the wholly independent registered homes tribunal, which received notice of the appeal on 5 November 1992.
Following the agreement of the parties, the tribunal was fixed for 24 March 1993 and scheduled to sit for five days. In the event, I am told that those days were taken up entirely with hearing the evidence of the authority. I gather that that was partly because Mrs. Francis's counsel cross-examined the authority's witnesses in detail. Indeed,
814
the whole of the authority's evidence had not been heard at the end of the sitting. The tribunal had to adjourn and offered the parties dates at the end of March 1993 and early April. Unfortunately, the dates did not suit the legal representatives of either Mrs. Francis or the county council . The hearing was finally scheduled to resume on 22 July 1993.
Before the hearing resumed, Mrs. Francis had to withdraw; I understand that that was for financial reasons. That left the tribunal with no alternative but to find for the authority and the home subsequently closed.
It is true that that meant that the residents of the home and their relatives were unable to lend Mrs. Francis their support in the appeals process. To my mind, that is very unfortunate, and as I said earlier, I can appreciate how Mrs. Francis must feel. The merits of the arguments on both sides have not been properly judged. Sadly, I have no powers to intervene and it is not for me to judge whether the home should have been closed or not. I do appreciate Mrs. Francis's sense of grievance that the issue was never finally determined, and her bitterness is, in my view, justifiable.
I can, however, tell the House that we are well aware that the enforcement mechanisms in this area are felt by authorities and homeowners alike to be remote, cumbersome and expensive. That was pointed out to Tom Burgner, who conducted our review of social services regulations and inspections. He recommended a new system of local mediation which might prevent some cases from having to reach the tribunal stage, involving as that does senior lawyers on both sides, the rigours of a judicial system and great expense. We are not sure that such mediation is the answer, but we agree that the enforcement mechanism needs to be examined to ensure that it operates expeditiously and fairly to resolve disputes in the interest of all concerned. In the coming few months, we will be looking at the rules of the tribunal and other parts of the appeals system to see how it might be made to function better.
In the White Paper, "Striking the Balance", on the future of legal aid in England and Wales, the Government said that although they had decided not extend legal aid generally to more tribunals, they would consider doing so where any particular tribunal would work more cost effectively if legal aid paid for representation. Such an extension would be dependent on the cost control measures proposed in the White Paper being in place. If it is clear that cases such as that of Mrs. Francis are the norm rather than the exception, I will certainly raise the matter of the extension of legal aid to representation at the tribunal with my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, although sadly that will not help Mrs. Francis's case.
My hon. Friend also raised the possibility of the local government ombudsman investigating the actions of Hampshire county council in this case. I share my hon. Friend's concerns and was myself interested in the possible role of the ombudsman in determining Mrs. Francis' complaints. To that end, we have been in touch with the office of the ombudsman in the past day or so. I understand that its initial view is that, because Mrs. Francis has exercised her legal rights of appeal, there is nothing further that the ombudsman can do.
My hon. Friend may wish to pursue this matter further with the ombudsman to see whether the ombudsman will reconsider that opinion, in the light of all the facts and the

815
unusual circumstances involved in this case and given that the tribunal never reached a decision. Obviously, I can in no way prejudge, pre-empt or seek to persuade the local government ombudsman, who is totally independent, on this issue. As I said, my hon. Friend may wish to pursue the matter, but there is no guarantee that the ombudsman will change his view.
In conclusion, I understand Mrs. Francis's frustration at the fact that the procedures were never able to reach a logical conclusion and a decision on the case between
816
Mrs. Francis and Hampshire county council. It was through no fault of Mrs. Francis that the case ended as it did: she ran out of money so the tribunal was unable to conclude hearing the case and reaching a decision. As I have said, it is deeply frustrating and extremely unsatisfactory, and I have a great deal of sympathy for Mrs. Francis, who has suffered the cost, both financially and in terms of her personal well-being.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at four minutes past Eleven o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what funding has been made available under section 11 in each year since 1995; what funding provision has been made for(a) 1996–97 and (b) 1997–98; how many section 11 teachers are currently employed; and what estimate he has made of the number of section 11 teachers who will be employed in 1997–98; [4077]

  (2) what representations his Department has received regarding (a) delays in announcing the future of section 11 funding, (b) reductions in section 11 teachers and (c) the role of section 11 for raising achievement levels among pupils with English as a second language. [4076]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Not all the information requested is available.

  In 1995–96, Home Office expenditure-not including projects transferred to the single regeneration budget-under section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966 was £54 million. Current provision for 1996–97 is £58 million. The number of approved posts specifically designated as to be filled by qualified teachers is currently 3,750 in full-time equivalent terms.

  In recent months, we have received a substantial number of representations, in writing or by telephone, which sought information about the funding position from next April onwards, and urged that there should be no reduction in current levels of funding.

  On 13 November, Official Report, column 242, I announced that, despite other pressures on public expenditure, the current overall level of funding would be maintained until 31 August 1998. This will include projects originally approved under section 11 but at present funded under the single regeneration budget. Subject to a very small number of changes related to current projects for which alternative funding has already been secured, or which were not intended to be funded beyond next March, we would expect the number of approved posts to remain much the same.

  Television Licences
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been imprisoned in 1996 to date for defaulting on a fine arising from their non-payment of television licences; what was the figure for the same period in 1995; and what assessment he has made of the use of imprisonment in respect of television licence fee evaders. [2743]
  386
  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Dafydd Wigley, dated 18 November 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking, how many people have been imprisoned in 1996 to date for defaulting on a fine arising from their non-payment of television licences; for the figure for the same period in 1995; and for an assessment of the use of imprisonment in respect of television licence fee evaders.
  Provisional information for the period January to September 1996 shows that 262 people were received into prison for defaulting on a fine after conviction for using a television without a licence. This is against 599 received during the same period in 1995, indicating a significant drop in the use of imprisonment.

  Juvenile Criminal Justice System
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the juvenile criminal justice system. [2873]

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government have introduced a number of measures to improve the juvenile criminal justice system. These include strengthening the courts' powers for dealing with young offenders by increasing maximum sentence for youth custody for 15 to 17-year-olds, by introducing long periods of detention for 10 to 13-year-olds for serious offences and providing a new sentence for persistent 12 to 14-year-old offenders.

  New standards have been introduced for the supervision of young offenders in the community, as well as new criteria for cautioning. Amendments to the Crime (Sentences) Bill will pave the way for extending electronic monitoring of curfew orders to 10 to 15-year-olds, and giving youth courts the discretion to allow identification of juveniles convicted of an offence.

  In addition, the Government will be publishing shortly a Green Paper on preventing young people most at risk of offending from becoming involved in crime.

  Passport Checks
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department from which countries passengers arriving in the United Kingdom are asked for their passports in the walkway immediately upon leaving the aircraft. [4769]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Passengers from any country may be subject to checks by immigration officers stationed at the exit from the aircraft.

  Gambling Legislation
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which London borough councils in the docklands area he consulted before issuing his proposals published on 12 November for modifications of gambling legislation in selected areas in England and Wales; and what additional statutory provisions relating to defining the selected areas and specifying the regulations applying to them he plans when implementing these proposals. [4703]
  387
  Mr. Kirkhope
  Our first consultation paper on casinos, published in February 1996, did not propose casino permitted area status for docklands.

  We subsequently added them to the proposed list in our second consultation paper in the light of representations from the London borough of Tower Hamlets and other local interests.

  We have sought views on our fresh proposals from relevant local authorities including the London boroughs of Tower Hamlets and Newham, and have sent a copy to Southwark.

  We will reach final decisions on the choice of new permitted areas and the statutory provisions after the consultation period finishes on 31 January.

ENVIRONMENT

  EDS Ltd.
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many contracts his Department, agencies and associated bodies have had with EDS for each year since 1985; what was the value of each contract; if he will indicate for each contract(a) if it was completed, (b) what modifications were made at the request of (i) the company and (ii) the Department and (c) if work under contract is being undertaken in-house; and if he will make a statement on the number of job reductions in his Department arising from the contracting out of work by EDS. [3797]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My Department currently has no contracts with EDS. Information on contracts completed prior to 1995 together with full information on the Department's agencies and associated bodies is obtainable only at disproportionate cost.

  The following contracts were completed in 1995:

  Year of inception

  Contract value£

  Modifications

  1992

  358,000

  Three—one at the company's request and two at DOE's request

  1995

  30,000

  None

  1995

  6,000

  None

  No job reductions resulted as the contracts did not cover in-house tasks that were being outsourced.

  Marine Environmental Pollution
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the European Community directives relating to the requirement to carry out(a) environmental impact assessments and (b) environmental audits, applying to areas of the seabed between member states of the European Union in circumstances where states assess environmental contamination may have arisen in a specific location. [3834]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  There are no EC directives requiring either environmental impact assessment or environmental audit for the seabed between member states 388
  in the specific circumstances where member states assess that environmental contamination of that seabed may have occurred.

  European Union (Labour Conditions)
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the European Union member countries by order of(a) fatality rate of workers and (b) maximum working hours. [4110]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The latest available information is given in the following tables:

  (a) Fatality rates per 100,000 employees/self-employed

  Country

  Year

  Fatality rate

  Netherlands

  1991

  0·80

  Great Britain

  1993

  1·20

  Finland

  1993

  2·00

  Denmark

  1992

  2·50

  Germany1

  1992

  3·00

  Greece

  1992

  3·30

  Belgium

  1992

  3·60

  France1

  1993

  3·90

  Ireland

  1992

  4·00

  Spain1

  1993

  4·90

  Italy1

  1991

  5·70

  Portugal

  1992

  5·70

  Sources:

  HSE Study1 and Statistical Office of the European Commission.

  (b) Statutory maximum hours

  Country

  Statutory maximum hours

  UK

  None

  Denmark

  None

  France

  39.00

  Austria

  40.00

  Belgium

  40.00

  Finland

  40.00

  Greece

  40.00

  Luxembourg

  40.00

  Spain

  40.00

  Sweden

  40.00

  Portugal

  44.00

  Germany

  48.00

  Ireland

  48.00

  Italy

  48.00

  Netherlands

  48.00

  Source:

  Employment Observatory Tableau de Bord 1995, European Commission.

  Planning Appeals
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average current period taken for the consideration of planning appeals; and what assessment he has made of the manpower levels of the Planning Inspectorate. [4119]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Responsibility for the provision of information on performance on the processing of planning appeals has been delegated to the Planning Inspectorate under its chief executive Mr. Chris Shepley. The agency is therefore responding to the question.
  389
  Letter from J. Greenfield to Sir Dudley Smith, dated 15 November 1996:
  The Secretary of State for the Environment has asked me to reply to your Question about the time taken to process planning appeals and the assessment of manpower levels in the Inspectorate.
  Inspectors determine planning appeals by one of three procedures: written representations; hearing; and public inquiry. The time in weeks to determine 80 per cent of appeals by each procedure for the period 1 April to 30 September 1996 is shown in the table below:

  Procedure

  Time to determine 80 per cent. of appeals (weeks)

  Written representations

  25

  Hearing

  46

  Public inquiry

  56

  The agency has been set the target of achieving a significant improvement in performance handling planning appeals over the three years ending in March 1999. To achieve the level of performance required and keep abreast of the agency's other work, 33 inspectors were recruited in 1995 and a further 31 this year.

  Freedom of the Cities and Trust Councils Initiatives
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the documents published by his Department relating to the(a) freedom of the cities and (b) trust councils initiatives. [4121]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  There are no such documents.

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many official speeches he has made specifically on health and safety since his Department took over responsibilities of the Health and Safety Executive. [4122]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My right hon. Friend is responsible for a very wide range of subjects. He has addressed the launch of the Health and Safety Commission's noise at work campaign and a conference on inspection for health. As Minister with particular responsibility for health and safety at work, I have made a number of speeches on this subject and will continue to
  do so.

  Opencast Mining
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has made in respect of tighter environmental rules for opencasting to the European Commission; and if he will make a statement. [3915]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  None.

  Building Research Establishment
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 12 November,Official Report, column 104, on the Building Research Establishment, if he will list the criteria which were specified in April for the future operation of the Building Research Establishment. [4519]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  My right hon. Friend's 2 April statement did not specify criteria as such, but it made clear that BRE should remain a single entity in the private 390
  sector. This was because BRE offers a unique range of complementary skills and technologies, and fragmentation would both substantially increase costs to customers and reduce efficiency.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the bidders for the Building Research Establishment. [4570]

  Mr. Jones
  The competitive sale of BRE is being conducted on a two-stage basis. We shall first be considering indicative bids from parties who have pre-qualified as potential purchasers, and subsequently final bids from a short list of these. We shall be treating information about bids and bidders as commercially confidential until a preferred purchaser is identified early in 1997.

  Construction Skills Certification
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 12 November,Official Report, column 103, on construction skills certification, what plans he has to encourage the registration of building operatives under the construction skills certificate scheme. [4520]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State spoke at the launch of the scheme and we continue actively to support it.

  Hedgerows
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy not to seek to destroy or weaken the protection recently afforded to enclosure and hedgerows by the courts. [4104]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Government published draft regulations for the protection of important hedgerows on 21 October 1996. As I explained in the answer that I gave to the hon. Member on 15 October 1996,Official Report, column 844, these regulations will not override restrictions imposed by other enactments or agreements, including enclosure awards. I understand that a judgment is still awaited in respect of the protection afforded to enclosure hedgerows in the case referred to.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  EDS Ltd.
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Attorney-General how many contracts his Department, agencies and associated bodies have had with EDS for each year since 1985; what was the value of each contract; if he will indicate for each contract(a) if it was completed, (b) what modifications were made at the request of (i) the company and (ii) the Department and (c) if work under contract is being undertaken in-house; and if he will make a statement on the number of job reductions in his Department arising from the contracting out of work by EDS. [3817]

  The Attorney-General
  The Departments and agencies for which I am responsible have not entered into any contracts with Electronic Data Systems Ltd.

TREASURY

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what regulations his Department proposes to repeal by the end of 1996; if he proposes to conduct a compliance cost assessment on each regulation repealed; and what is the estimated cost of undertaking a compliance cost assessment to determine the advantages and disadvantages of each repeal; [1393]

  (2) 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. [2913]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 4 November 1996]: The Treasury has consulted on the following proposals for use of the deregulation order-making power. The timing of any reference to the Deregulation Committee will depend on various factors, including the outcome of consultation.
  Industrial Assurance Acts 1923 and 1948
  Trustee Investments Act 1961.

  In addition, the Chancellor's departments have completed consultation on the following measures, which are now subject to consideration by the Deregulation Committees of both Houses:
  Treasury
  Deregulation (Bills of Exchange) Order
  Office for National Statistics
  Deregulation (Validity of Civil Preliminaries to Marriage) Order.

  Since the effect in each of the above cases will be to reduce, rather than increase, compliance costs, a compliance cost assessment will not be required. Departments do, however, seek to estimate approximate savings wherever possible. 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 would be inappropriate for measures designed to reduce business burdens.

  Sterling
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what has been the change in the value of the pound sterling against(a) the deutschmark, (b) the French franc, (c) the ecu and (d)1 the US dollar since January 1996; and if he will make a statement on the impact on the economy of fluctuations in (a) to (d); [3985]

  (2) what measures he is taking to ensure a stable external value for sterling for export purposes. [3905]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Between 1 January 1996 and 12 November 1996, sterling has risen by(a)11 per cent. against the deutschmark, (b) 9 per cent. against the French franc, (c) 6 per cent. against the ecu and (d) 6 per cent. against the US dollar. The Government recognise the value of a stable exchange rate but do not have a target for sterling. The exchange rate is only one of many factors which must be taken into account in setting policy.

  Partnership and Closed Company Registrations
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) partnerships and (b) closed companies are registered with the Inland Revenue for tax purposes. [3904]

  Mr. Jack
  At the latest count, the Inland Revenue was dealing with approximately 650,000 partnerships, and an estimate of around 800,000 non-dormant close companies.

PRIME MINISTER

  European Summit
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received in relation to the location of the summit meeting during the next United Kingdom presidency of the Council of Ministers of the European Union. [4129]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Prime Minister when he estimates Her Majesty's Government will decide its preferred venue for the 1998 European Union summit. [4070]

  The Prime Minister
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has expressed support for Cardiff as a possible location for the June 1998 European Council. I am also aware of early-day motion 173 which also proposes Cardiff. An announcement will be made in due course.

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his response to the letter from Friendship across Frontiers, signed by the chairman, Riad El Taher, on 6 November, about the mortality rate of Iraqi children, and the UNICEF report. [4391]

  The Prime Minister
  So far as I am aware, my office has not yet received this letter.

  Tigris and Euphrates Valleys
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what response Her Majesty's Government have given to the Secretary General of the Arab League's representations about the humanitarian situation in the valleys of the Tigris and Euphrates. [4465]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 15 November 1996]: My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, discussed the humanitarian situation in Iraq during the Secretary General's visit to London in May 1996, and in Cairo in June 1996, raising in particular Saddam Hussein's indifference to the suffering of the Iraqi people. Saddam Hussein continues to delay implementation of UN Security Council resolution 986 by attempting to renegotiate issues already with the UN. Like the Arab League, we want SCR 986 implemented as soon as possible; it will bring much needed relief to millions of Iraqis.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Child Protection (Wars)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken to protect children in wars where the United Kingdom has an aid interest. [4263]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  The Government have provided considerable humanitarian aid in a careful and targeted way in many war situations overseas. Support for children's needs is a high priority in all cases, delivered through agencies like the Red Cross, UNICEF and specialists such as the Save the Children Fund and Children's Aid Direct. Projects have benefited health, nutrition, orphan care, education, deprived families and family reunification.

  Sudan
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the current need of the population of Sudan for international provision of basic foodstuffs for survival listed by area and broken down to show(a) Government-held (b) non-Government-held areas, and indicating if the delivery of such aid should be (i) via Khartoum, (ii) via east Africa or (iii) otherwise. [4659]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  In northern Sudan, serious food shortages have been reported this year in Darfur and Kordofan. The UK has provided £1.5 million to the Save the Children Fund and CARE UK for food aid, purchased within Sudan, to address needs in those areas. There are also reports of food shortages in Red Sea state. In southern Sudan, the World Food Programme predicts serious deficits over the next few months in Juba, Gogrial and parts of Jonglei state including Pochalla and Pibor.

  The World Food Programme report that food for outstanding deficit areas in Government and non-Government held areas may be available for purchase within Sudan. They have not yet established the requirement for external provision of food aid. Precise delivery arrangements will depend on the source of food aid and the relative costs of delivery options.

DEFENCE

  Surplus Ammunition
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what programme his Department has established to incinerate surplus ammunition; what sites are used; what environmental impact assessments have been conducted at each site; and what is the annual cost of the programme. [3926]

  Mr. Soames
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.
  394
  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Michael Meacher, dated 18 November 1996:
  I have been asked to reply to your question about the Ministry of Defence's programme to incinerate surplus ammunition. I am replying since the Ministry of Defence's programme is currently carried out by the Defence Evaluation & Research Agency (DERA) of which I am Chief Executive.
  DERA has developed a programme for disposing of surplus ammunition and explosives by incineration based at its site at Shoeburyness in Essex. This was in response to ratification of the 1989 Oslo Convention, which banned the dumping of surplus ammunition and explosives at sea, and also a result of a general desire to find a more environmentally friendly means of disposing of these materials.
  The Shoeburyness facility currently consists of two incinerators which have been developed over the past few years at a cost of about £5m. They employ a state of the art pollution control system which uses dry spun ceramic filtration and dry scrubbing to control gaseous emissions. All of the waste metals and most of the plastics generated by the system are recovered and recycled. Non recyclable solids are disposed of as controlled waste into a licensed land till site. The plant does not discharge any waste into water. The system has been licensed by the Environment Agency and they undertake regular surveys to monitor its operation. DERA has also introduced its own programme of regular environmental monitoring of the site.
  When fully operationally we anticipate that the incinerator system will be able to deal with up to 2000 tonnes of explosives and ammunition a year. Running costs are expected to be of the order of £600,000 a year. The system, which is known as Avocet, represents a considerable technical achievement and DERA is actively marketing it overseas with the aim of obtaining a return for the UK for our investment in this technology.

  Military Hospital Closures
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the military hospitals which have closed in the last 12 months; and what proportion of their work was carried out for the NHS. [3054]

  Mr. Soames
  This is a matter for the Defence Secondary Care Agency and I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ron Smith to Mr. Chris Smith, dated 18 November 1996:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence on the closure of service hospitals as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Defence Secondary Care Agency (DSCA).
  The DSCA was launched on 30 April this year. Since November 1995, the following three hospitals have closed:
  The Princess Mary's Hospital, Halton;
  The Princess Alexandra's, Royal Air Force Hospital, Wroughton;
  The Cambridge Military Hospital, Aldershot.
  The decision to close these hospitals arose from a combination of Options for Change and Front Line First recommendations. No Service hospitals have closed since the launch of this Agency.
  Although the responsibility for the treatment of civilian patients rests with the Department of Health, NHS patients have been, and continue to be treated at Service hospitals. This enables our medical personnel to undertake the varied mixture of cases which they require for training and professional development for front lines roles. The proportion of NHS patients seen at the closed hospitals varied from year to year and depended on the location of the hospital. However, in general NHS patients accounted for between 50% and 70% of the hospitals' total caseload.

  Tornado Aircraft
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions an overheated or failed cross-drive clutch has caused a fire in the rear fuselage of a Tornado aircraft. [2828]

  Mr. Soames
  In 16 years of Tornado operations there have been five confirmed cases of overheated or failed cross-drive clutches causing fires in the rear fuselages of RAF Tornado aircraft. These incidents all took place on the ground during routine engine running tests. The procedures for running Tornado engines on the ground have been reviewed and suitably amended.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if Tornado GR1 and F3 aircraft will be allowed to fly before modification 1670 has been made in respect of the recirculating cross-over valve. [2829]

  Mr. Soames
  Yes. When modification 1670 was designed, a safety analysis confirmed that the operation of both F3 and GR1 Tornado at pre-modification 1670 standard was safe.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the difference in cost between performing modification 1670 to Tornado GR1 and F3 aircraft by means of a contractors' working party as set out in his Department's contracts bulletin, volume 11, No. 2; and assuming sufficient manpower was available, undertaking such work with RAF personnel. [2831]

  Mr. Soames
  RAF manpower is used to embody aircraft modifications whenever appropriate. On this occasion, the circumstances were such that the use of a contractor's working party allowed the RAF to maximise aircraft availability to the front line. The final contract price is still under negotiation.

  Aircraft Maintenance
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions in the past two years a contractors' working party has been sought to carry out work on RAF aircraft because the RAF had insufficient manpower for the task. [2830]

  Mr. Soames
  The RAF has long used contractor's working parties as an effective means of undertaking specific tasks. A number of factors, including the complexity and specialised nature of the work, or the geographical location, can influence the final decision on whether to use a CWP.

  Tractors
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he made of the advantages of leasing the agricultural tractors required by his Department as set out in future purchase number LV2/DBG/03 in his Department's contracts bulletin, volume 11, No. 4. [2832]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The potential benefits of leasing agricultural tractors are being assessed as part of a wider study of the scope for using private finance to meet the requirement for some 4,000 mechanical handling vehicles.

  In the meantime, the continuing requirement for agricultural tractors will be met by purchase of vehicles through an enabling contract. This approach offers the
  396
  most cost-effective way of meeting the continuing requirement by ensuring that my Department is not committed to procuring specific quantities but purchase on an as needed basis.

  Bois de Mai Residence
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the selling price of the official service residence, Bois de Mai; when the residence was sold; when the residence was purchased and for what purchase price. [4069]

  Mr. Soames
  The sale of Bois de Mai was completed on 15 April 1996. The residence was sold unfurnished at close to the asking price of £1.565 million. The residence was originally purchased furnished in November 1992 at a cost of 120,000,000 Belgian francs, which equated to approximately £2.2 million at the then rate of exchange.

  Prisoners of War
  Sir Michael Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made by his Department in reviewing the pay deductions for British officer prisoners of war held by Germany and Italy during the period 1939 to 1945; and if he will make a statement. [4103]

  Mr. Soames
  The case for additional refunds for pay deductions from British officer prisoners of war held by the Italians and Germans during world war two was examined and rejected in the early 1980s. Submission of new evidence, however, led to a decision earlier this year to review the position. This work, which includes the related question of pay deduction from protected personnel, will be completed as soon as possible.

  Beef
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the country of origin of the beef served to British service personnel in Cyprus and Belize in the last year. [4472]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Beef for British service personnel serving in Cyprus and Belize is procured by local contract to achieve best value for money. Supplies to Cyprus are of southern Irish, French and New Zealand origin, while supplies to Belize are of American origin.

  Menwith Hill Station
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will arrange for right hon. and hon. Members to be given access to Menwith Hill station in North Yorkshire. [4581]

  Mr. Soames
  No. Access to RAF Menwith Hill by right hon. and hon. Members to receive briefings on the station facilities are generally not permitted on the grounds of disruption to the operational activities of the station and for security reasons.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many civilians have been invited during the past year to visit Menwith Hill station in North Yorkshire. [4582]
  397
  Mr. Soames
  Approximately 3,800 civilians have visited RAF Menwith Hill within the last year in connection with social and educational events or for local planning reasons. This includes visits by local authority representatives, sports teams, charities, local schools and clubs and those who attended the 4 July open day. Such visits are generally confined to weekends and evenings to ensure they do not impact on the operational activity of the station and access is limited purely to the domestic, recreational and other unrestricted areas of the base.

  Major General Prabowo
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to meet Major General Prabowo during his forthcoming visit to Britain. [4701]

  Mr. Soames
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence did not meet General Prabowo during his recent visit to the UK.

  Indonesian Special Forces
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what assistance he proposes to give to the Indonesian special forces to enable them to study at the royal college of defence studies; [4700]

  (2) what assistance he proposes to give to the Indonesian special forces to enable them to study at the royal college of defence studies. [4698]

  Mr. Soames
  In accordance with our long-standing practice, details of military assistance are confidential between Governments.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Comité Européen de Normalisation Electrotechnique
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the names of the members of the Comité Européen de Normalisation Electrotechnique. [4395]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The Comité Européen de Normalisation Electotechnique consists of the national standards organisations of the 17 countries of the European economic area and Switzerland. The United Kingdom member is the British electrotechnical committee, which forms an integral part of the British Standards Institution—an independent body incorporated under royal charter.

  British Citizens
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the legal protection covering British citizens working abroad; and what assessment he has made of the advantages of introducing protection in British law. [3775]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Government have not undertaken an assessment but are aware that different protections apply in other member states of the European Union and other countries. The Government are satisfied with the protections given to employees in this country.

  Space Research
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the level of support allocated to space research in each of the last 10 years at current prices. [4060]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 14 November 19961: The table gives the total UK civil space expenditure, which is co-ordinated by the British National Space Centre, in each of the last 10 years. The figures given are at 1995-96 prices.

  Financial year

  Total £ million

  1986–87

  179·08

  1987–88

  178·82

  1988–89

  188·21

  1989–90

  183·63

  1990–91

  180·75

  1991–92

  176,58

  1992–93

  182·32

  1993–94

  178·59

  1994–95

  199·05

  1995–96

  194·89

  Aerial Surveys
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what public funding is provided to Cambridge university in respect of aerial survey activities subsequently offered for sale to the private sector. [4163]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 15 November 1996]: I understand that the university's activity in this area is self-supporting and does not involve public funds.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the procedure for the tendering process by the Natural Environment Research Council for aerial surveys; and when it next intends to tender. [4162]

  Mr. Taylor
  [holding answer 15 November 1996]: The NERC airborne remote sensing facility bids on a responsive basis for work requiring the application of its unique set of airborne remote sensing systems. Typically there are approximately 10 such inquiries each year.

  The management of the Natural Environment Research Council's aircraft, including its maintenance and the provision of pilots and instrument operators, is contracted out on a five-year basis.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Environmental Auditing
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, if he will list the ways in which the Commission has(a) demonstrated by example and (b) promoted externally, the ability to improve efficiency and competitiveness through environmental auditing; and if he will make a statement. [4537]

  Mr. Beith
  All works executed by the Parliamentary Works Directorate are carried out with regard to energy efficiency and environmental impact. The design of the phase 2 new parliamentary building includes the Building
  399
  Research Establishment environmental assessment method and the building will have an exceptionally low energy usage.

  The Accommodation and Works Committee has approved projects to improve the energy efficiency of the Palace of Westminster including new boilers and a cooling plant. The Parliamentary Works Directorate operates an energy efficiency programme in accordance with the Department of the Environment Energy Efficiency Office guidelines and presents annual reports on savings achieved to Committee. Waste, including paper, arising on the parliamentary estate is recycled. Building work is commissioned using the Department of the Environment guidance on environmental considerations, and the standard specifications used for product selection and contract specification include environmental requirements. Building design and maintenance are carried out in accordance with the guidance issued by the central advisory unit of the Office of Public Service.

  Parliamentary Bookshop
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick upon Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, if he will list the companies which owe arrears to the parliamentary bookshop; and if he will make a statement. [4767]

  Mr. Beith
  The House of Commons Commission does not normally provide commercially confidential information about customers of the parliamentary bookshop. The accounts of all such companies are at present within their credit limits.

SCOTLAND

  Woodlands (Projects)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what further support his Department proposes to promote existing projects currently experimenting with the integration of woodland-based manufacturing economies with an increase in the planting of deciduous woodland; and if he will make a statement on his assessment of the advantages of supporting existing projects;; [3226]

  (2) what research his Department has (a) planned, (b) commissioned and (c) evaluated with regard to integrating proposals to increase deciduous woodland with the creation of woodland-based manufacturing economies; what financial commitments his Department has made in this area; and if he will make a statement. [3230]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The area of broadleaved woodland in Britain has increased dramatically since the introduction of our broadleaves policy. We recognise the need to ensure that suitable markets for hardwood are readily available to woodland owners. In our recent rural White Papers for Scotland, England and Wales, we outlined our commitments to promoting sustainable woodland management and developing new markets for hardwood products. The Forestry Commission is involved in a range of initiatives including highland birchwoods, Cumbria 400
  broadleaves and Coed Cymru, as well as the "WoodLots" marketing information service, all of which are very successful.

  We are supporting a number of research projects on broadleaves forest products, including the grading of British hardwoods for structural purposes, the bonding of lower value wood into laminated veneer lumber and improving the potential of wood for fuel. The Forestry Commission currently spends some £300,000 per annum on research on all types of forest products.

  Suicides
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of suicides among under-30s, broken down by gender, in Scotland for each year since 1985. [3832]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Deaths from suicide1, persons aged under 30 by gender, Scotland, 1985–952

  Both Sexes

  Males

  Females

  1985

  147

  116

  31

  1986

  163

  136

  27

  1987

  183

  139

  44

  1988

  202

  160

  42

  1989

  189

  143

  46

  1990

  215

  177

  38

  1991

  194

  153

  41

  1992

  252

  195

  57

  1993

  267

  219

  48

  1994

  232

  186

  46

  1995

  219

  176

  43

  1 World Health Organisation International Classification of Diseases (9th Revision) codes E950-E959 and E980-E989 (excl. E988.8).

  2 The table presents information on deaths registered in each year.

  Cancer Screening (Compensation Claims)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cases involving claims against the Argyll and Clyde health board in relation to the mismanagement of the cervical smear screening programme at the Inverclyde Royal hospital, Greenock, have now been settled; what was the average figure of compensation paid to the women concerned; how many cases are still outstanding; and if he will make a statement. [3716]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  A total of 12 cases involving claims against the Argyll and Clyde health board as a result of the mis-reading of cervical smear slides at the Inverclyde Royal hospital, Greenock, have now been settled. Negotiations are continuing to achieve a settlement in the remaining eight cases. Once all the claims have been settled, I will be in a position to give an indication of the total amount of the settlement made.

  This is being copied for information to the hon. Member for Renfrew West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham).

  Ambulance Service (Argyll and Clyde)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he had on(a) the installation of a computerised command and control radio system for the Argyll and Clyde health board catchment area and (b) the

  401
  construction of an ambulance station in Greenock, when he last met the chief executive of the Scottish ambulance service; and if he will make a statement. [3701]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend last met the Chief Executive of the Scottish Ambulance Service NHS trust on 18 October when he opened the service's new training college at Eddleston. The issues referred to by the hon. Member were not discussed, but I can confirm that a computerised command and control system came into use at Paisley ambulance control on 29 September 1996. Work on rolling out the new ambulance radio system into Argyll and Clyde is under way and the system is scheduled to be operational across the area by April 1998.

  A replacement ambulance station for Greenock is the top priority building scheme in the Scottish ambulance service's west region. Funds for this purpose have been reserved in the trust's provisional capital programme for 1997–98. Action is currently being taken to identify an appropriate site for the station.

  Arable Area Payments
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what area of land was set aside in Scotland in 1995–96 under the arable area scheme. [4227]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  Farmers in Scotland set aside 74,258 hectares of land under the 1995 arable area payments scheme.

  East Ayrshire Community Hospital
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the costs of the proposals from(a) the Ayrshire and Arran Community Healthcare NHS trust and (b) the preferred private finance initiative bidder, for the East Ayrshire community hospital, what further factors have to be taken into account before a decision is made; when he now expects to be able to announce his decision; and if he will make a statement. [4436]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Details of the negotiations between the trust and the preferred PFI bidder are covered by commercial confidentiality. The estimated capital value of the project if £8.6 million. A decision on the project will be announced shortly.

  NHS Trusts (Finance)
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how the £30 million for capital expenditure in the health service, announced on 9 October, was distributed among trusts; and which trusts have asked for it to be converted into revenue. [4702]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The £30 million of capital expenditure announced on 9 October has been distributed on a formula basis. This is a formula devised by the management executive which takes into account trust turnover, building depreciation and equipment depreciation.

  None of these funds will be transferred to revenue.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the latest estimates of the expenditure 402
  on external consultants, including management consultants, for each year since 1992, in 1996 prices, for his Department and its agencies; and what are the quantified annual cost savings which such expenditure has resulted in. [4062]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 14 November 1996]: The expenditure figures are as follows:

  Year

  Expenditure

  Expenditure in 1995–96 prices

  £

  £

  1992–93

  4,370,327

  4,686,979

  1993–94

  5,383,000

  5,635,351

  1994–95

  4,079,000

  4,177,677

  1995–96

  5,440,364

  5,440,364

  Not all of the results of consultancy projects lend themselves to measurement in identifiable savings, but major projects over this period can be summarised as:
  Work which assists the development of Government policy, especially by considering a range of strategic options. These projects include requirements such as a survey of the public's views and the benefits tend to be qualitative.
  Projects related to the development of new information technology systems. This work has helped the Department to meet its responsibilities while achieving significant reductions in staff numbers.
  Work which otherwise assists the implementation of Government policy in Scotland, especially where major changes in the way services are provided are involved. Consultancy assistance in support of the "Competing for Quality" initiative contributed to significant savings for the Department.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many complaints he has received regarding the performance of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration; and what plans he has to introduce legislation proposals to improve the complaints process. [3509]

  Mr. Freeman
  The parliamentary ombudsman is an independent Officer of the House and reports to the Select Committee chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey). I have occasionally received complaints only about the time taken by the parliamentary ombudsman to complete an investigation: this has not been a significant element of the correspondence handled by my Department, and the number of complaints has not been monitored. I have no plans to introduce legislative proposals on the complaints process.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  International Criminal Court
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what steps the British Government are taking to ensure that a date is set
  403
  for the holding of the plenipotentiary diplomatic conference on the establishment of an international criminal court during 1996; [4654]

  (2) what assessment he has made of (a) progress towards and (b) the timetable for the establishment of an international criminal court; and if he will make a statement. [4652]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  We are active participants in the process to consider the establishment of an international criminal court. We supported the recommendations of the preparatory committee that up to nine weeks were required for further preparatory work, and that a date for an international conference should be set in 1998. Progress made by the preparatory committee in 1997 will need to be reviewed by next year's general assembly.

  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has recently received regarding the establishment of an international criminal court. [4653]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  We have received representations about the establishment of an international criminal court from hon. Members, non-governmental organisations and members of the public.

  Major General Prabowo
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to meet Major General Prabowo during his forthcoming visit to Britain. [4737]

  Mr. Hanley
  I met General Prabowo on 12 November during his private visit to the UK to thank him on behalf of the British Government for securing the safe release of the four British Hostages in Irian Jaya.

HEALTH

  EDS
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many contracts his Department, agencies and associated bodies have had with EDS for each year since 1985; what was the value of each contract; if he will indicate for each contract(a) if it was completed, (b) what modifications were made at the request of (i) the company and (ii) the Department and (c) if work under contract is being undertaken in-house; and if he will make a statement on the number of job reductions in his Department arising from the contracting out of work by EDS. [3815]

  Mr. Horam
  Neither the Department of Health, nor its agencies and executive non-departmental public bodies have entered into contracts with Electronic Data Systems since 1985. Information on contracts in the Department's non-executive NDPBs and advisory bodies is not held centrally and can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Tattooing and Skin Piercing
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 5 November,Official Report, column 435, what are the current licensing requirements for skin piercing businesses. [3987]
  404
  Mr. Horam
  The current licensing requirements for skin piercing businesses in London and in the rest of England and Wales are described in section 3 of "Regulation of Skin Piercing: a Consultation Paper" issued jointly by the Department of Health and the Welsh Office on 3 October 1996. Copies are available in the Library.

  Adoption (Guatemala)
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the delays incurred by UK citizens waiting to adopt children from Guatemala. [4199]

  Mr. Burns
  I understand that some prospective adopters who made private arrangements to adopt children from Guatemala have been advised by the Guatemalan authorities that these are not acceptable and that only assessments approved by the United Kingdom Government will be accepted on behalf of United Kingdom citizens. This may have led to some delays in individual cases.

  Stroke Treatment
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) which health authorities have specialist acute stroke units; [3982]

  (2) what percentage of those who have had a stroke in each of the last three years for which figures are available were admitted to hospitals; [3980]

  (3) what percentage of those admitted to hospital for strokes in each of the last three years for which figures are available (a) died within one month of the original attack and (b) died within six months of the original attack. [3981]

  Mr. Horam
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which health authorities have specialist stroke rehabilitation units. [3983]

  Mr. Horam
  Health authorities commission appropriate specialist services for their communities in line with their local needs, resources and priorities. Information on what services each health authority commissions is not collected centrally.

  Depression
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures are being taken to reduce the cost of mental depression to the United Kingdom economy; and what assessment he has made of their effectiveness to date. [3894]

  Mr. Burns
  Mental illness is one of five key areas in "The Health of the Nation" strategy. The majority of depressive disorders are treated in primary care by general practitioners. We are taking action and promoting initiatives to improve the diagnosis and treatment of the condition in primary care. For example, we are working to develop GP training in the recognition and management of depression and to encourage audit of the management of the condition in primary care; in addition, we collaborated with the Royal College of General
  405
  Practitioners and the Royal College of Psychiatrists on the recent "defeat depression" campaign, which aimed to improve detection and prevention of the condition.

  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 16 October 1996,Official Report, column 759, if he will commission research into the impact of mental depression on the United Kingdom's economy; and if he will make a statement. [3896]

  Mr. Burns
  We are already undertaking a range of research into depression. For example, the Department's policy research programme has commissioned a number of studies into severe mental illness, many of which are related to depression. We expect to spend some £500,000 on these studies in 1996–97. In addition, we have made £2.4 million available over the next five years within the policy research programme's mental health research initiative. Many of the commissioned studies within the initiative relate to depression. Work currently being undertaken by the personal social services research unit under the policy research programme is looking at the economic impact of mental disorders, which include depression. The Medical Research Council, the main agency through which the Government support medical and clinical research, has a comprehensive portfolio of research on depressive illness. In particular, it funds a number of trials which examine different types of treatment and therapies for depression. Total funding for this research amounted to almost £0.9 million in 1994–95.

  Ambulance Response Times
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the maximum ambulance response times(a) in an emergency, (b) for discharge from hospital and (c) for an out-patient attendance. [3895]

  Mr. Horam
  At present all ambulance services in England are expected to respond to 50 per cent. of emergency calls within eight minutes. Urban ambulance services are expected to respond to 95 per cent. of emergency calls within 14 minutes and rural services within 19 minutes.

  There are no national standards of discharge or outpatient attendances but local standards may be included in individual contracts for patient transport services.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many special advisers are employed by his Department; and if he will list their names. [3932]

  Mr. Horam
  The Department of Health employs two special advisers, Mr. Tony Hockley and Mr. Tim Rycroft.

  Hip Replacement and Appointment Cost
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current average cost of(a) a hip replacement operation and (b) an out-patient's appointment in the NHS in England. [3934]

  Mr. Horam
  In 1994–95 the average cost in England of an out-patient attendance was £57.40. The information requested on hip replacement operations is not available centrally.

  MRSA
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance his Department has given trusts and health authorities to methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus. [3921]

  Mr. Horam
  The Department issued guidance to the national health service in September 1994 on the control of methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus and in March 1995 on the general control of infections in hospitals. In May 1996, the Department issued new guidance on the control of infection in residential and nursing homes and a leaflet "MRSA: what nursing and residential homes need to know". Copies of this guidance are in the Library.

  Children at Risk
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list, by local authority, the funds currently allocated by his Department to fund local authority services for children who are at risk. [3978]

  Mr. Burns
  The total provision made for English local authorities in respect of children's services (including services for children at risk) amounts in the current financial year to £1,754.7 million. This provision, however, is not hypothecated and it is for individual local authorities to determine their own spending priorities in the light of local needs. In addition, grants totalling £9.3 million are also available to local authorities in 1996–97 for services provided by guardians ad litem and for services provided to unaccompanied asylum-seeking children.

  European Health Ministers (Meetings)
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the dates on which European Health Ministers are to meet in the next six months and the subjects to be discussed. [4696]

  Mr. Malone
  The Health Council is due to meet in Luxembourg on 2 June 1997 under the forthcoming Dutch presidency of the European Union. The subjects to be discussed will not be agreed until nearer that date. No other formal meetings of European Community Health Ministers are currently planned during the next six months. European Health Ministers may attend the world health assembly in Geneva provisionally scheduled for 5 to 16 May 1997.

  Beef and Milk (Bacteria)
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what action the Government have taken to inform the public about the health effects of E. coli 0157:117 bacteria in beef and unpasteurised milk; [3712]

  (2) what information the Government have issued to health service providers concerning the public health effects of E. coli 0157:117 bacteria in beef and unpasteurised milk. [3714]

  Mr. Horam
  The Government act to improve food safety through a combination of legislation, codes of practice and advice, including leaflets. This is directed at the professions and the public, especially those in
  407
  Vulnerable groups. We attach great importance to the wide dissemination of information to ensure the importance of safe handling of food is understood by all. This information is relevant to all the organisms which cause food poisoning, including E. coli 0157.

  Thorough cooking of food will destroy these organisms and this is stressed in all the advice we give. Members of the vulnerable groups are also advised to avoid uncooked food which carries a high risk of contamination.

  The Chief Medical Officer has recommended that beefburgers should be cooked until the juices run clear and there are no pink bits inside. This advice was first given in 1991 and has been repeated since. We have recently revised the leaflet, "While you are pregnant: safe eating and how to avoid infection from food and from contact with animals" which gives advice on safe eating including raw meat and unpasteurised milk. This advice is repeated in the Health Education Authority's pregnancy book. The Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food have issued similar advice through their "Foodsense" leaflets. We have also published general guidance in "Food Handlers Fitness to Work: Guidance for Food Businesses, Enforcement Officers and Health Professionals". Copies of all these publications are in the Library.

  Clinical Trials
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what monitoring procedures his Department and the Medicines Control Agency follow to ensure that the conduct of phase 1 clinical trials is in compliance with good clinical practice guidelines. [3872]

  Mr. Malone
  In accordance with advice from the Medicines Commission, phase 1 clinical trials are self-regulated by the professional concerned. The Department and its Medicines Control Agency have no procedures to monitor the conduct of these trials.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what responsibility the Licensing Authority has for the conduct of phase 1 clinical trials in healthy volunteers. [3877]

  Mr. Horam
  Studies on healthy volunteers are not clinical trials within the definition of the Medicines Act 1968 and therefore are not subject to regulation by the licensing authority.

  In the United Kingdom, studies on healthy volunteers are self-regulated by the medical profession and pharmaceutical industry. The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry established a committee in 1969 to investigate and advise on medical experiments involving pharmaceutical company staff volunteers and published a set of guidelines in 1970 which were updated in 1984 and 1990. The Royal College of Physicians published a report, "Research on Healthy Volunteers", October 1986 which made a number of recommendations to those involved in conducting healthy volunteer studies.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what procedures(a) his Department, (b) the Licensing Authority and (c) the Medicines Control Agency follow to ensure safety of volunteers in phase 1 clinical trials; [3878]
  408
  (2) what procedures (a) his Department and (b) the Medicines Control Agency follow to ensure appropriate monitoring of ethics committees considering and approving phase 1 clinical trials. [3879]

  Mr. Horam
  Most phase 1 clinical trials are carried out for pharmaceutical companies. Under Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry guidelines they must first have obtained the approval of an independent research ethics committee. These guidelines require independent research ethics committees to prepare an annual report in accordance with recommendations from the Royal College of Physicians. Where, less commonly, it is proposed to undertake these trials in the national health service, the approval of a local research ethics committee must be obtained. The Department of Health issued guidance to the NHS on the operation of LRECs in 1991, HSG(91)5, copies of which were placed in the Library.

  Vaccinations
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress is being made in his Department's review of the vaccinations available on the NHS. [3873]

  Mr. Horam
  As with all policies, we review the arrangement for vaccines on an on-going basis. In particular we are considering the inconsistencies and ambiguities that have arisen in the arrangements for travel vaccines over the years as new vaccines have been developed and new recommendations for vaccine use have been implemented. The review of the current arrangements is an on-going one and any changes in policy will be communicated to those with an interest.

  Hepatitis B
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospitals in the United Kingdom undertake mandatory ante-natal screening for hepatitis B. [3874]

  Mr. Horam
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) on 22 July 1996,Official Report, column 118.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of the number of hepatitis B carriers in the United Kingdom. [3875]

  Mr. Horam
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Halifax (Ms. Mahon) on 12 July 1996,Official Report, column 559.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of hepatitis B carrier is accounted for by "at risk" groups. [3876]

  Mr. Horam
  There are no national data collected on the number of chronic carriers of hepatitis B that fall into "high risk" groups. The Public Health Laboratory Service communicable disease surveillance centre receives reports of acute hepatitis B infection through the voluntary confidential reporting by laboratories of confirmed cases. Information on risk exposure is available with approximately two thirds of these reports. For details, by former regional health authority for the three years
  409
  1993–95, I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) on 22 July 1996, Official Report, columns 120–21.

  Pensioners' Health Care Costs
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average cost per annum to public funds of the health care costs of(a) the average retirement pensioner and (b) a retirement pensioner in the last two years of their life; and what proportion (c) constitutes of an individual's life-time health care costs. [4381]

  Mr. Burns
  Figures showing the annual cost of the health care of retirement pensioners are not collected. However, hospital and community health services expenditure for people aged 65 and over was estimated at £,195 per person in 1994–95.

  Statistics on the cost to public funds of health care in the last two years of a retired person's life are not available.

  Statistical Information
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to publish the 1995 public health common data set(a) on disk and (b) in print. [4766]

  Mr. Horam
  The 1995 public health common data set containing data for 1994 was released last year on disk. The printed version was published in April 1996. Both versions have been placed in the Library.

  The 1996 public health common data set containing data for 1995 was sent to health authorities on 15 November 1996. The printed version will be published three months later. A set of the disks is being placed in the Library.

  Health Service White Paper
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what actions he proposes to take in respect of his White Paper on the health service published on 13 November, in respect of(a) legislation, (b) adjustment of methods on formulae relating to distribution of resources between health authorities and (c) recruitment and training of more doctors and nurses. [4550]

  Mr. Malone
  "A Service with Ambitions", the White Paper on the national health service published on 13 November, reaffirms the Government's commitment to the NHS on the basis of its founding principles. It launches three nationally-led development programmes on information, professional development and managing for quality in the NHS. These programmes will aim to refine and improve existing policies, ensuring they are part of a coherent strategy, and to identify ways of overcoming practical obstacles to progress.

  In addition to the publication of the White Paper, the Government will be introducing a Bill to take forward the proposals in "Choice and Opportunity" this Session, keeping the formulae used to inform the allocation of resources to health authorities under continual review, supporting medical work force planning, and supporting the commissioning of non-medical education and training
  410
  through consortia and regional education and development groups. Nurse training commissions are expected to rise 14 per cent. in 1996–97.

TRANSPORT

  Motorway Cleaning
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what is the total budget for cleaning motorways; and on what basis funds are allocated to the appropriate authorities; [4097]

  (2) what targets his Department has set the Highways Agency in respect of cleaning motorways. [4096]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. James Pawsey, dated 18 November 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent questions asking what is the total budget for cleaning motorways; on what basis funds are allocated to the appropriate authorities; and what targets the Highways Agency has been set in respect of cleaning motorways. I shall answer these in reverse order.
  The Agency has been set the target of cleaning litter from motorways to the standards set out in the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (the EPA). This legislation is based on the concept of four grades of cleanliness: A (no litter) to D (heavily littered). If the standard falls to grade C (widespread distribution of litter), the Agency is required to restore to grade A (for paved areas) or grade B (for grassed verges) within four weeks. If the standard falls to grade D, the Agency is required to restore the area to grade A or B, as appropriate, within one week.
  The Highways Agency delegates the management of motorway cleaning to its Maintaining Agents, most of whom are local highway authorities. They are required to work to the Agency's Code of Practice for Routine Maintenance. This advises that the standards set out in the EPA can best be achieved by a programme of routine litter scavenges. In previous years fund have been allocated to Maintaining Agents to enable them to take this proactive approach and to achieve high standards of cleanliness.

  M6 (Lighting)
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the motorway lighting on the M6 will be extended from its junction with the Ml to junction 3 of the M6. [4098]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. James Pawsey, dated 18 November 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent question about M6 motorway lighting between the M1/M6 Interchange and Junction 3.
  In my letter to you of 20 December 1995, I advised that we had no plans to light the M6 between these junctions.
  We have again reviewed the overnight safety record for this section of motorway over the last three years and the position remains the same. We cannot justify extending the existing lighting provision to this area.
  However, as I said in my last reply, all sections of the motorway and trunk road network are the subject of periodic review and factors could emerge at some stage in the future which may be significant and be such to justify the Agency taking a fresh look at the lighting need.

  Traffic Delays
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what reports he receives on a daily basis of expected and of unexpected traffic delays on national roads. [4358]

  Mr. Watts
  Monitoring the flow of traffic on the trunk network is an operational matter which is the responsibility of the Highways Agency. The Highways Agency provides the Secretary of State with reports of severe weather conditions and their impact on the trunk road network, and of major road accidents involving several fatalities, hazardous substances or serious structural damage.

  Additionally, the Secretary of State's private office staff have access to several sources of publicly available continuous traffic information.

  Road Maintenance
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much has been spent on capital maintenance on national roads in each of the past 10 years; and how much other money was available each year for national roads. [4359]

  Mr. Watts
  The following table shows actual expenditure on the capital maintenance of roads from 1986–87 to 1995–96. Also shown is the figure for other money budgeted for capital and current programme expenditure on national roads.

  £million

  Year

  Capital Maintenance Roads

  Other money budgeted for national roads

  1986–87

  180·6

  755·5

  1987–88

  213·3

  757·3

  1988–89

  129·4

  944·6

  1989–90

  240·4

  1,235·0

  1990–91

  288·7

  1,639·2

  1991–92

  306·6

  1,720·6

  1992–93

  364·5

  1,751·0

  1993–94

  404·3

  1,844·4

  1994–95

  402·2

  1,820·7

  1995–96

  309·7

  1,627·3

  Merchant Shipping (Deregulation)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to issue deregulation orders relating to the rates of pay for crew members aboard merchant ships. [4115]

  Mr. Bowis
  There are currently no plans to issue any deregulation orders in respect of seamen's rates of pay.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to issue deregulation orders relating to crew accommodation aboard merchant ships. [4114]

  Mr. Bowis
  Current Merchant Shipping (Crew Accommodation) Regulations have been considered in the context of the regulatory review of merchant shipping legislation. The aim has been to remove material which is over-specified and unnecessarily detailed, so far as is consistent with safety and with international treaty 412
  obligations which, in this case, are International Labour Organisation conventions 92 and 133. The Marine Safety Agency has recently undertaken formal consultation with the shipping industry on the draft Merchant Shipping (Crew Accommodation) Regulations 1996. These are not intended to reduce the present standards of accommodation or to remove provisions which go beyond the requirements of ILO conventions but to make the regulations more flexible and to make it possible for new solutions to be sought to current problems whilst maintaining existing standards of accommodation.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to issue deregulation orders relating to the plimsoll line. [4113]

  Mr. Bowis
  Current Merchant Shipping (Load Line) Regulations have been considered in the context of the regulatory review of merchant shipping legislation. The aim has been to remove material which is over-specified and unnecessarily detailed, so far as is consistent with safety. The Marine Safety Agency has recently completed formal consultation with the shipping industry on the draft Merchant Shipping (Load Line) Regulations 1996.

  Nuclear Material (Sea Transport)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library the transcript of the special consultative meeting held by the International Maritime Organisation in March on the environmental and safety aspects of the transport of irradiated nuclear fuel and other nuclear materials by sea. [2705]

  Mr. Bowis
  I have today placed in the Library a copy of the most recent draft of the proceedings of the special consultative meeting. A finalised version will be placed in the Library when it has been adopted by the International Maritime Organisation.

  Rail Routeing Guide
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will use his powers under the Railway Act 1993 before the end of 1996 to give guidance to the Rail Regulator that the routeing guide must not restrict reasonable routes to any greater extent than was the case before the guide came into effect. [4549]

  Mr. Watts
  The routeing guide has been issued on a trial basis until May 1997, to give an opportunity for errors and omissions to be corrected. The Rail Regulator and the Franchising Director have already given assurances that they will not approve a guide which unduly restricts the routeing flexibility that passengers enjoy.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Project Work
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list(a) the offices and (b) the budget allocated for the Stoke on Trent project work pilot scheme; and what are the arrangements for the local administration of the scheme. [4366]
  413
  Mr. Forth
  (a) There are nine Employment Service jobcentres in the Stoke on Trent travel-to-work area. These are Stoke on Trent, Burslem, Cheadle, Hanley, Kidsgrove, Longton, Newcastle under Lyme, Leek and Uttoxeter. (b) £100 million has been allocated to operate the pilots, for up to 100,000 people across the country. The pilots will be administered by the Employment Service, through local jobcentres. The Employment Service will ensure that sufficient funds are made available in each travel-to-work area to cover the numbers entering the target group for the pilots, and the help which they accept.

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many of those claimants referred to adjudication for refusal or failure to attend project work have(a) received a benefit sanction and (b) been adjudged to have good cause, broken down by the categories of good cause listed in the adjudication officers' guide. [4429]

  Mr. Forth
  In general, people whose actions fall under the categories of good cause listed in the adjudication officers' guide and in regulation 73 of the Jobseekers Allowance Regulations 1996 will be identified by a project work adviser in the local jobcentre, and not referred to an independent adjudication officer. In judging cases referred to them, sector adjudication officers are not restricted to the list referred to above, but can use their discretion to assess each case on an individual basis. To date, in every case where a sector adjudication officer has made a decision on a case referred for refusal to attend project work, a benefit sanction has been imposed. In 64 per cent. of cases where a decision has been made following referral on the grounds of failure to attend project work a benefit sanction has been imposed. The remainder of cases have been adjudged to have had a good cause.

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the comparative areas used for evaluation of the existing project work pilot schemes and the monthly returns from April 1996 in respect of claimants leaving the register in pilot and comparative areas broken down by duration of unemployment. [4430]

  Mr. Forth
  The comparison offices are Fakenham, Barton on Humber, Chapeltown, Great Yarmouth, Hillsborough, Newport, Cardigan, Portsmouth, Portsmouth North, Cosham, Newhaven, and Stretford.

  On the latest available verified figures, 1,418 people left the pilot and stopped claiming benefit in the pilot areas, by the end of September, while 413 people had left benefit in the control offices. All these people have been unemployed for over two years. Over 400 of those who have left the register in the pilot areas had been out of work for more than four years, compared with 94 in the control areas. Ninety-eight of those leaving in pilot areas had not worked for over six years, compared with only nine people in the control areas.

  These figures apply to all those who had entered the pilot by the end of September, including many who had only just entered.
  414
  A breakdown of these figures by month produces numbers too small to allow reliable conclusions to be drawn. A report based on the monitoring information will be made available in the new year, when there is sufficient data available to allow a more in-depth analysis.

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many of the job outcomes achieved by project work participants since inception of the scheme were(a) full-time permanent employment, (b) part-time employment, (c) self-employment and (d) temporary employment. [4431]

  Mr. Forth
  Early results show that 20 per cent. of those who enter the pilot find a job before they complete the process. Further information is not yet available. A detailed statistical survey is being carried out on a sample of leavers from project work and this will provide information on these, and other, issues. The results of this survey will be available at the end of 1997.

  Young People's Services
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidance has been issued for use by(a) the voluntary sector and (b) Church groups who operate services for young people. [4289]

  Mr. Paice
  The Department issues guidance to national voluntary youth organisations, including Church bodies, on its scheme of grants to those organisations. This includes advice on how to bid for funding and on good practice in voluntary youth work.

  Independent Schools
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to introduce measures to require elected parent representatives on governing bodies of independent schools; and if she will make a statement. [4365]

  Mrs. Gillan
  We have no plans to legislate to interfere in this way in the constitution of independent schools' governing bodies.

  Teacher Education
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to prescribe(a) the content and (b) teaching methods for teacher education.[4439]

  Mr. Forth
  On 18 September, my right hon. Friend announced the introduction of a national curriculum for initial teacher training, starting with primary English and mathematics. It will specify what teachers need to be taught about their subject; what pupils should be taught; effective teaching and assessment methods, and how and when to use them; and the standards of pupil achievement they should expect.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate she has made of the cost of re-inspection of the 20 initial teacher education departments in higher education institutions; in what ways the criteria for the re-inspection are different for the criteria for the first inspection; for how many and which HEI teacher education departments the initial
  415
  inspections have not been completed; and what criteria were used in choosing the 20 initial teacher education departments for re-inspection. [4438]

  Mr. Forth
  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.

  Adjudication Officers
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the staff grade of local adjudication officers based in jobcentres; and what duties other than adjudication they are expected to undertake. [4432]

  Mr. Forth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question 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 Derek Grover to Mr. Terry Rooney, dated 18 November 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me, in the absence of the Chief Executive, to reply to your question about Labour Market Adjudication Officers.
  The Labour Market Adjudication Officer (LMAO) role exists purely to decide questions arising on claims for Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA). Only a small number of labour market adjudication questions will be decided in Jobcentres, and decisions on these questions will only be given by selected ES people who have been trained as LMAOs. The selection of people to perform this task is at the discretion of business managers and, when making their selection, the specific features of LMAO work will be a key consideration.
  We do not expect there to be a need for the LMAO role to be carried out on a full-time basis, although this may change over time. The function will normally be performed by an adviser or a back to work team leader, in addition to their usual duties.
  The grading of each individual post depends, therefore, on its content and it would not be right to assume that everyone carrying out the LMAO function should be allocated to the same pay band. In some situations, it may be that the additional LMAO responsibilities are sufficient to take the particular post into the next higher pay band. LMAO duties are, therefore, carried out by people in Management Pay Bands 5, 6 or 7, depending on the precise combination of duties.
  It will take time for JSA and the role of the LMAO to settle down. Once a position of stability has been reached, we would expect a re-evaluation of individual posts to be carried out as appropriate.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will place in the Library copies of(a) the central adjudication services guidance on jobseeker's allowance used by sector adjudication officers, (b) the Employment Service guidance on jobseeker's allowance used by local adjudication officers in jobcentres and (c) the volumes entitled "Local Office Adjudication and Adjudication Procedural Guidance" [4433]

  Mr. Forth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
  416
  Letter from Derek Craven to Mr. Terry Rooney, dated 18 November 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Education and Employment has asked me, in the absence of the Chief Executive, to write to you concerning the placement in the Library of copies of the Central Adjudication Services guidance on Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) used by sector adjudication officers, Employment Service guidance on JSA used by local adjudication officers in Jobcentres and the volumes entitled, Local Office Adjudication and Adjudication Procedural Guidance.
  My understanding is that the Central Adjudication Service have placed guidance on Jobseeker's Allowance used by their sector adjudication officers in the Library.
  The guidance manuals you requested on Adjudication Procedural Guidance, Labour Market Adjudication Officer Procedural Guidance and Local Office Adjudication have not been made available. This is in accordance with Part 7 para (a) and (b) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Pre-school Education
  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment for what reasons(a) private nurseries, (b) playgroups and (c) local education authority schools for under-fives are not subject to uniform (i) regulations and (ii) standards imposed by a single body. [4551]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The regulation of different institutions is designed to correspond to the type of service they provide. Maintained schools provide education and are bound by education legislation. Private nurseries and playgroups offer day care as well as education for very young children and are therefore required to register under the Children Act 1989.

  Surplus Places
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list for each local education authority in England the number of surplus places and the money allocated to removing them using the latest available data. [4728]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  For the number of surplus places in each local education authority, I refer the hon. Member to the reply the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) on Tuesday 19 March 1996,Official Report, columns 113–18.

  One of our priorities for capital allocations is supporting cost-effective surplus place removal projects. The following table shows the amount allocated in 1995–96 and 1996–97, in response to local education authority bids, for the first year costs of new surplus place removal projects.

  Allocations for new surplus place removal projects

  £000

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Avon

  4,929

  —

  Barnsley

  2,725

  671

  Bedfordshire

  243

  495

  Berkshire

  0

  461

  Bexley

  175

  0

  Birmingham

  1,077

  1,290

  Bolton

  0

  574

  417

  Allocations for new surplus place removal projects

  £000

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Bradford

  346

  750

  Brent

  14

  0

  Bristol

  —

  108

  Buckinghamshire

  57

  467

  Calderdale

  0

  115

  Cambridgeshire

  127

  469

  Cheshire

  443

  20

  Cleveland

  275

  —

  Cornwall

  656

  0

  Coventry

  120

  379

  Cumbria

  1,180

  870

  Derbyshire

  610

  0

  Devon

  2

  0

  Doncaster

  7,472

  355

  Durham

  133

  802

  Ealing

  0

  241

  East Sussex

  300

  1,335

  Essex

  1,278

  1,601

  Gateshead

  2,500

  530

  Greenwich

  61

  741

  Hackney

  100

  750

  Hampshire

  1,457

  3,167

  Havering

  15

  0

  Hereford and Worcester

  0

  116

  Hertfordshire

  0

  173

  Humberside

  1,477

  —

  Kent

  2,663

  0

  Kirklees

  165

  398

  Knowsley

  50

  110

  Lambeth

  50

  0

  Lancashire

  35

  40

  Leeds

  0

  3,590

  Liverpool

  505

  990

  Manchester

  400

  240

  Norfolk

  387

  376

  Northamptonshire

  340

  50

  North Tyneside

  280

  198

  Northumberland

  528

  151

  North Yorkshire

  425

  0

  Nottinghamshire

  638

  805

  Oxfordshire

  336

  495

  Rochdale

  0

  73

  Rotherham

  25

  281

  St. Helens

  0

  366

  Salford

  435

  630

  Sandwell

  0

  610

  Sefton

  78

  88

  Sheffield

  63

  737

  Shropshire

  168

  62

  South Tyneside

  665

  400

  Stockport

  225

  0

  Sunderland

  1,420

  569

  Trafford

  0

  50

  Wakefield

  168

  120

  Warwickshire

  7,925

  0

  Wigan

  1,704

  50

  Wiltshire

  0

  92

  Wirral

  0

  665

  Wolverhampton

  269

  1,065

  York

  —

  25

  Total

  47,719

  29,806

  1996–97 allocations for Bristol and Cheshire are currently held in reserve pending decisions on statutory proposals.

  Full-time Education
  Mr, Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of 16 and 17-year-olds in England are in full-time education. [5031]
  418
  Mr. Paice
  There were 70.7 per cent. of 16-year-olds and 59.3 per cent. of 17-year-olds in full-time education in England in 1995–96—provisional figures.

  Nursery Inspections
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many nursery settings have been(a) passed and (b) failed by the inspectors; [4929]

  (2) if she will place in the Library a list of the establishments registering to redeem nursery vouchers, which have been inspected thus far; [4930]

  (3) how many of the establishments registering to redeem nursery vouchers, due to be inspected by March 1996, have so far been inspected; [4931]

  (4) what are the criteria used to assess the quality of the inspection work of the nursery inspectors; and how the work will be monitored; [4932]

  (5) how many applications have been received for the post of nursery inspector and how many applications have been approved as nursery inspectors; [4933]

  (6) if she will list the inspection contractors which have been appointed by the contracting administrator for the nursery voucher scheme. [4934]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  These are matters 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.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Tourism
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is her policy on tourism; and if [2846]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There are six main elements to my Department's tourism policy: championing and raising the profile of tourism; increasing competitiveness; improving the quality of the tourism product; developing a world-class human resource; making marketing more effective; and managing the impact of tourism. My Department and the tourist boards are now working with an industry forum to develop by early next year a new strategy based on these elements.

  Midweek Lottery Draw
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations she has received in respect of the proposed introduction of the midweek lottery; and if she will make a statement. [2847]

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many representations she has received on the subject of an additional weekly national lottery draw; and if she will make a statement [2862]

  Mr. Sproat
  My Department has received 16 letters from right hon. and hon. Members and 130 from members of the public on the subject of a mid-week Lottery. The licensing of a midweek draw was a matter for the Director General of the National Lottery, subject to the provisions set out in section 4 of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993.

  Millennium Funds (Plymouth)
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations she has received regarding bids for millennium funds in respect of Plymouth. [2848]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Millennium Commission, of which I am chairman, has received representations regarding Plymouth 2000 Partnership's bid "Plymouth Waterfront—A Celebration of Discovery", which is still under consideration, from the port of Plymouth, the West Country tourist board, Plymouth Marketing Bureau, and five individuals. One individual was opposed to the project.

  The Commission is always pleased to hear of support or otherwise for a project, and this is one of the key criteria used in assessing applications for funding.

  Sport
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on her Department's funding for sport. [2849]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Department's funding provision for sport in 1996–97 is £52 million. In addition, the National lottery sports fund has provided funding for sport in England of £305 million to date and £368 million for the UK as a whole.

  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps she is taking to encourage young people to participate in sporting activities. [2850]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Government's policy statement, "Sport: Raising the Game", published in July 1995, sets out our plans for putting sport back at the heart of school life, promoting links between schools and clubs and establishing a new British academy of sport as the pinnacle of a regional network of centres of sporting excellence and academies for particular sports. In July this year, we published "Sport: Raising the Game—the First Year Report", which reports progress on all these initiatives. Work is continuing on the various initiatives and a further announcement of progress will be made in the new year.

  Dance and Drama Students
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representation she has received since her recent statement on the training of dance and drama students. [2851]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I was delighted that on 14 October I was able to announce plans to help more students to take up places at accredited dance and drama training schools in England. My Department has since received a number of letters, mainly from members of the public, on this subject. The Arts Council of England is in the process of formulating the operational details of the new scheme, in close consultation with local authority associations. The House will, I hope, join me in congratulating the Arts Council on having identified an ingenious interim solution to this problem.

  South Bank Ferris Wheel
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment she has made of the advantages of providing millennium fund assistance for the ferris wheel proposed for the south bank. [2852]

  Mrs. Bottomley
  Neither the Millennium Commission nor the Government has received any requests for funding for the proposal to build a ferris wheel on the south bank. I understand that the proposed scheme is to be funded entirely by the private sector.

  Arts Sponsorship
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps she is taking to promote business sponsorship of the arts. [2853]

  Mr. Sproat
  My Department actively encourages private sector support for the arts. The National Heritage arts sponsorship scheme—the pairing scheme—has brought in more than £110 million in new money to the arts since it started in 1984. We also give financial support to Business in the Arts' "board bank" scheme, launched earlier this year by my right hon. Friend, which encourages senior managers to offer their skills to arts organisations on a voluntary basis. The Department's policy document, "Setting the Scene", highlighted the importance of business sponsorship as part of a plural funding system for the arts.

  Volunteering
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what action her Department is taking to promote volunteering. [2854]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  My Department supports, promotes and encourages volunteering in a wide variety of ways. Under the "make a difference" initiative £20 million is being used in the direct funding of projects, and to extend and strengthen the network of volunteer bureaux. These projects run from the most local—such as anti-bullying projects in schools, run by the pupils themselves—to the national—such as the national volunteering helpline and interactive computer databases of volunteering opportunities. Outstanding volunteering action is recognised through the "make a difference"/Whitbread awards. I have also recently launched a new grant programme to help local, volunteer-run community groups to become more effective. The "make a difference" initiative is making it easier for people to volunteer, and encouraging the development of many more volunteering opportunities.

  Volunteering is a theme which runs through much of my Department's work. Both museums and the sporting world, for instance, are dependent on the efforts of an army of willing volunteers, and I am determined to support this in every way possible. I was particularly pleased at the recent publication by the Sports Council of its survey report, "Valuing Volunteers in Sport". My Department is also working with the national lottery distribution bodies to ensure that they recognise the role of volunteers in their grant-giving. Finally, through the ministerial group on volunteering and the voluntary sector, I co-ordinate the policy and practice on volunteering of the Government as a whole—for instance,

  421
  Departments are currently updating their "make a difference" action plans, originally published in October last year.

  Cornish Cultural Life
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what new proposals she has to encourage studies into Cornish cultural life. [2856]

  Mr. Sproat
  At present my right hon. Friend has no proposals for studies relating to Cornish cultural life. Nor do the Arts Council of England or the South West Regional Arts Board.

  Academy of Sport
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when she expects to make an announcement on the location for the national British academy of sport; and if she will make a statement on the procedure for deciding on the location of regional sports centres. [2857]

  Mr. Sproat
  Twenty-six bids have now been received for the British academy of sport, and we hope to make an announcement on the location early in the new year. Details of the Government's proposals for the regional institutes will be included in the prospectus which we aim to launch in early spring next year.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment she has made of the effects of the national lottery on bodies funding sports and the arts. [2858]

  Mr. Sproat
  To date, the national lottery distributing bodies responsible for making grants to sport and the arts have made 3,950 awards for a total of £1,014.3 million. The injection of such large sums into these sectors in such a short space of time is nothing short of a revolution.

  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the latest assessment she has made of the revenue implications of capital grants made under the national lottery scheme for the arts, charities and sport. [2859]

  Mrs. Bottomley
  The lottery distributing bodies must consider the viability and revenue implications of any capital projects which they support. They may provide revenue funding through endowments or in the form of revenue grants, where this is necessary to complete a capital project.

  Digital Terrestrial Television
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on the progress of digital terrestrial television. [2861]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The UK remains on target for the early introduction of the first digital terrestrial television services in the world. I am very grateful for the prodigious efforts of the ITC in achieving this progress in implementing the Broadcasting Act 1996. All the terrestrial broadcasters who were offered guaranteed capacity on digital multiplexes by the Government have indicated to the Independent Television Commission that 422
  they intend to take up that capacity. On 31 October, the ITC invited applications to operate the four digital multiplexes not pre-assigned. Those applications must be submitted by 31 January 1997. The commission hopes to award the licences shortly thereafter, and intends that all licensees should begin their services by 1 July 1998 at the latest.

  Independent Radio Operators
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what responsibility she has for the allocation of public airwaves to independent radio operators. [3900]

  Mr. Sproat
  Under the terms of the Broadcasting Acts 1990 and 1996, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State assigns a range of frequencies to the Radio Authority for the provision of independent radio services. Responsibility for planning the use of this spectrum to deliver a range of national and local services is a matter for the Radio Authority under the terms of the Broadcasting Acts.

  Football Grounds
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many nationwide league football clubs' grounds need major work to bring them up to the standards of the Taylor report in(a) nationwide league division one, (b) nationwide league division two and (c) nationwide league division three. [3766]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Football Trust estimates that there are 37 clubs in the Nationwide League whose grounds require improvements to meet Government requirements on all-seating or safe terracing. Of these clubs, seven are in division 1, 14 are in division 2, and 16 are in division 3.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) what assessment she has made of the improvements needed to football grounds in the nationwide league to enable them to reach Taylor report standards in respect of(a) terracing and seating, (b) barriers, (c) lighting and (d) other safety issues; and what estimates she has made of the cost in respect of each of these categories; [3807]

  (2) what estimate she has made of the costs for nationwide league football clubs who need to carry out major work to bring their grounds up to the standards of the Taylor report, in (a) nationwide league division one, (b) nationwide league division two and (c) nationwide league division three. [3703]

  Mr. Sproat
  Most clubs in Nationwide League division 1 meet the Government's requirements on all-seating. Those few that do not have either been granted an extension to the deadline, on account of their having been recently promoted, or are relocating to new stadia. Clubs in divisions 2 and 3 are not required to go all-seated, but those that choose not to do so will have to meet certain minimum standards for standing terraces by August 1999. A survey is currently being carried out by the Football Licensing Authority to ascertain precisely what will be necessary at each ground to satisfy this minimum requirement.

  Medical Scanners
  Sir Julian Critchley
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many scanners have been purchased from the proceeds of national lottery money. [4269]

  Mr. Sproat
  No medical scanners have been purchased with national lottery funds.

  Regional Sports Centres of Excellence
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans she has to establish regional sporting centres of excellence; and if she will make a statement. [3216]

  Mr. Sproat
  Details of the Government's proposals for regional centres of sporting excellence will be early next year.

  Film Industry
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what discussions she has had with representatives of the film industry. [2855]

  Mr. Sproat
  My right hon. Friend has regular discussions with representatives of the film industry on a wide range of film-related issues. Specifically, this summer she visited the United States of America, where she met leading figures from the American film industry including representatives from MCA, Warner Brothers and the Motion Picture Association of America.

  More recently, my right hon. Friend attended the Edinburgh film festival, visited Shepperton studios and the Warner Brothers feature animation studio in central London, visited the set of the feature film "Wilde", at the invitation of the producers, and attended the opening of the London film festival as a guest of the British Film Institute.

  Sports Sponsorship
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what has been the financial level of sponsorship for sport in each of the last five years at 1996 prices; and what assessment she has made of the effect of the national lottery on sponsorship levels. [2922]

  Mr. Sproat
  The estimated size of the UK sports sponsorship market for the last five completed years, at 1996 prices, is shown in the table. No assessment has been made of the effect of the national lottery on sponsorship levels. Some £58 million of private sector funding has been attracted to support lottery projects.

  Estimated size of the UK sports sponsorship market

  £ million

  Year

  Amount

  At 1996–97 prices

  1991

  238

  272

  1992

  239

  262

  1993

  250

  266

  1994

  265

  278

  1995

  285

  291

  Football Trust
  Mr. Pope
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on the finances of the Football Trust. [2835]

  Mr. Sproat
  Since 1990 the Government have made £138 million available to the Football Trust to grant aid clubs' ground development projects, through a reduction in pool betting duty that the pools companies pass on to the trust. The trust's income from this source has fallen since the introduction of the national lottery. From last May, the trust has benefitted from a further;½ per cent. reduction in pool betting duty worth up to £3 million per year.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he last met the Law Society to discuss legal aid. [2869]

  Mr. Streeter
  I refer the hon. gentleman to the answer I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien).

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much legal aid was granted to(a) foreign nationals and (b) the indigenous population in each of the last three years; to how many individuals; and if he will make a statement. [3217]

  Mr. Streeter
  Information as to an applicant's nationality is not collected and is therefore not available. The Legal Aid Board does maintain a record of applications received from applicants resident outside the United Kingdom, but information on the cost to legal aid of those cases could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the total sum which may be made available to solicitors through the legal aid scheme in advance of the appropriate determination of the size of legal costs to be determined in legal aid cases; and if he will assess the advantages of charging interest payments on these sums in the last available year. [4729]

  Mr. Streeter
  Lawyers may claim on account 75 per cent. of the costs they estimate they have incurred for each of the first three years of a case. In 1995–96, of 372,611 bills paid, there had been overpayments of payments on account on 15,317 bills. The average overpayment was £552. Any overpayment is recovered, or more likely, set off against other payments due from the Legal Aid Board. Systems are in place to detect abuses and the Legal Aid Board actively pursues solicitors who abuse the scheme. The large majority of payments on account are however properly made for work properly done and there are no plans to introduce further costly systems in order to recover
  interest in the few cases where this would be appropriate.

  Administration of Justice
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to make the administration of justice in civil cases more efficient. [2872]

  Mr. Streeter
  I refer my hon. Friend to my answer to his written question on 31 October,Official Report, column 222.

  Public Record Office
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many people visited the Public Record Office census rooms in 1995; and if he will make a statement. [2874]

  Mr. Streeter
  The number of reader visits to the census rooms in 1995 was 76,781.

  The census rooms will remain open in the Chancery lane building until March 1997, when they will move to Myddelton place, 88 Roseberry avenue, London EC1. Their holdings will be supplemented with microfilms of other Public Record Office sources popular with family historians, including probate records and non-Anglican registers of births, marriages and deaths.

  Myddelton place will also house the indexes of births, marriages and deaths currently made available to the public at St. Catherine's house by the Office for National Statistics. It will thus become a joint major centre for family historians and other researchers, within easy reach of central London repositories for related source materials.

  Myddelton place will have improved facilities for users, including a central information point, shop, refreshment facilities, exhibition space, lecture room and better provision for readers with special needs, as well as search rooms.

  Witness Intimidation
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what new proposals he has to counter witness intimidation. [2875]

  Mr. Streeter
  It is already an offence to intimidate witnesses. The Government are conducting a review into ways in which a defendant might be prevented from questioning rape victims and other vulnerable witnesses. There has recently been considerable work on victim and witness care: the Crown court witness service now operates in all Crown court centres, the new victims charter has been issued, and a national model agreement on witness care, including steps to combat intimidation, has been issued so that local agreements can be reached on the most appropriate steps.

  Accident Claims
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will take steps to accelerate hearing dates in the High Court in relation to accident claims. [2876]
  426
  Mr. Streeter
  The Department is currently taking forward reform of the civil justice system in the light of Lord Woolf's review and one of its aims is to bring cases to a conclusion more expeditiously. Pending implementation of the reforms, litigants or their representatives continue to be at liberty to apply to the court to accelerate the hearing of an accident claim, where appropriate.

  Value for Money (Legal Profession)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what discussions he has had with the Bar Council and the Law Society on banisters and solicitors providing value for money. [4296]

  Mr. Streeter
  The legal profession is independent and self-regulating. Fee levels are, in privately funded matters, for client and lawyer to determine subject to the lawyer's professional rules and any particular controls provided by the courts, for example, taxation of costs. However, the Government are concerned to get value for money from publicly funded legal services. The legal aid rates paid to banisters and solicitors are considered each year in consultation with the Bar Council and the Law Society. The value for money provided by legal aid payments to barristers and solicitors is therefore considered on an annual basis, and is discussed with the profession with the same regularity.

  EDS Ltd.
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many contracts his Department, agencies and associated bodies have had with EDS for each year since 1985; what was the value of each contract; if he will indicate for each contract(a) if it was completed, (b) what modifications were made at the request of (i) the company and (ii) the Department and (c) if work under contract is being undertaken in-house; and if he will make a statement on the number of job reductions in his Department arising from the contracting out of work by EDS. [3814]

  Mr. Streeter
  The chief executives of the Court Service, the Land Registry, the Public Record Office and the Public Trust Office will reply on behalf of their agencies. Prior to the establishment of the Court Service and the Public Trust Office as agencies, there is no record of any contracts with EDS. No contracts have been entered into with EDS subsequently by the remainder of the Department or its associated offices.

  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mr. Kevin McNamara, dated 18 November 1996:
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, has asked me to reply to the above Question about the contracts the Court Service has had with Electronic Data Systems Ltd (EDS).
  Since the establishment of the Agency in April 1995, the Court Service has awarded two contracts to EDS. The first began in September 1996 and is for the provision of Information Services to county courts and Crown Court Centres in England and Wales and to the Bankruptcy and Companies Courts. EDS will be paid only for the volume of valid process produced (eg summonses in the county courts, petitions in the Bankruptcy Court) so the final cost is dependent on the Court Service's volume of business. However, the cost of providing the currently contracted IT services is expected to be between £20 million and £25 million (plus VAT) over 7 years. No modifications of the contract have yet been made.

  427
  The first module of the contract, to introduce a case management system into the county courts by the end of 1997, will save staff time equivalent to 600 full time posts.
  Under a second contract EDS provided one day of consultancy support in October 1996 to the Management Structure Review Team in Court Service Headquarters. This consisted of technical advice (not available in-house) on identifying and weighting factors as part of formal decision-making. The work was not connected with the Information Services contract and was separately negotiated at a daily rate of £751. EDS completed the work, without modification and no job reductions arose from this contract.

  Letter from Julia C. Lomas to Mr. Kevin McNamara, dated 18 November 1996:
  The Parliamentary Secretary has asked me to reply to you as part of the Lord Chancellor's Department's response to your Parliamentary Question, listed on 8 November 1996, regarding contracts with EDS for each year since 1985.
  The Public Trust Office has not awarded any contracts to EDS since 1985.

  Letter from Stuart Hill to Mr. Kevin McNamara, dated 18 November 1996:
  I have been asked by the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, to reply to your recent question concerning contracts with EDS.
  H M Land Registry has granted no contracts to this company.

  Letter from Sarah Tyacke to Mr. Kevin McNamara, dated 18 November 1996:
  I have been asked by the Lord Chancellor's Parliamentary Secretary to reply, for the Public Record Office, to your question about contracts with EDS.
  The Public Record Office has had no contracts with EDS.

WALES

  Tuberculosis
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many registered homeless have died from tuberculosis in Wales in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [1495]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is not available centrally. Measures taken by the Department to combat tuberculosis were set out in my reply to the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) on 7 November,Official Report, column 685.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of young people currently enter higher education; and what comparisons he has made with the numbers entering in(a) England, (b) Scotland and (c) each member of the European Union.[3039]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Information is available on a comparable basis for 1993 and is as follows:428

  Country of domicile

  Students entering higher education for the first time as a percentage of population1

  Wales

  31·5

  England

  28·4

  Scotland

  35·4

  GB

  29·7

  1 Home domiciled students aged under 21 entering full-time higher education for the first time anywhere in Great Britain as a percentage of the average of the number of 18 and 19-year-olds in each home country.

  Data are available for European Union countries on a slightly different basis for 1992 and are as follows:

  Country

  Number of new entrants to full-time university education as a percentage of persons of starting age

  Belgium

  27·3

  Denmark

  41·5

  France

  30·6

  Germany (FTFR)

  35·3

  Germany

  33·0

  Greece

  15·9

  Ireland

  22·1

  Italy

  41·3

  Netherlands

  40·1

  Spain

  43·3

  United Kingdom

  26·6

  Source:

  Education at a Glance OECD 1995.

  Millennium Celebrations
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what events he plans to hold to draw support from the Welsh business community for the millennium celebrations. [3106]

  Mr. Hague
  In September, I attended a lunch for members of the Welsh business community. I am not aware of any further events at present.

  Woodlands Projects
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what further support his Department proposes to promote existing projects currently experimenting with the integration of woodland-based manufacturing economies with an increase in the planting of deciduous woodland; and if he will make a statement on his assessment of the advantages of supporting existing projects; [3227]

  (2) what research his Department has (a) planned, (b) commissioned and (c) evaluated with regard to integrating proposals to increase deciduous woodland with the creation of woodland-based manufacturing economies; what financial commitment his Department has made in this area; and if he will make a statement. [3231]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  [holding answer 13 November 1996]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given today by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Smallholdings
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assistance his Department gives to encourage smallholdings. [3453]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Welsh Office policies and support for agricultural businesses apply to smallholdings and larger business. In carrying out various programmes to improve the economic performance of the agriculture industry, full account is taken of the needs of small businesses. Small businesses also benefit from implementation of the Government's deregulation policies.

  Learning Difficulties
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what plans he has to assist children at risk in respect of difficulties after entry to school; [4201]

  (2) what initiatives he has taken concerning policies for those with dyslexia at school. [4200]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The measures introduced by the Education Act 1993, now consolidated in part IV of the Education Act 1996, require schools to publish, and report on, policies for children with special educational needs, including those who are dyslexic, and to make appropriate provision. Schools, local education authorities and other agencies also have to have regard to the code of practice on the identification and assessment of special educational needs which contains guidance on the provision to be made for children with specific learning difficulties such as dyslexia.

  The Welsh Office makes funding available to local education authorities under the grants for education support and training programme for the training of teachers of children with special educational needs, including dyslexia.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to ensure that the problems and potential of dyslexic people are raised in the teacher training curriculum; and if he will make a statement. [4204]

  Mr. Evans
  The existing criteria for courses of initial teacher training set out the competences expected of newly qualified teachers with regard to the education of children with special educational needs, including dyslexia. There will be full consultation on the new ITT requirements in the new year.

  Direct Labour Organisations
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will list by authority and service area, the surplus achieved on trading accounts by local authorities' direct labour or services organisations in Wales for those services covered by the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 and the Local Government Act 1988 for the financial year 1994£95 in(a) cash and (b) constant prices; [4483]

  (2) if he will list by authority and service area, the deficits of local authority direct labour or services organisations in Wales that have failed to meet the rate of return requirements for contracts under the Local
  430
  Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 and the Local Government Act 1988 for the financial year 1994–95 in (a) cash and (b) constant prices. [4484]

  Mr. Hague
  I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

  Arable Area Payments
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what area of land was set aside in Wales in 1995–96 under the arable area scheme. [4217]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  A total of 4,479.18 hectares.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many payments were made in Wales in 1995–96 under the arable area payments scheme(a) between £0 and £5,000, (b) £5,001 and £10,000, (c) £10,001 and £15,000, (d) £15,001 and £20,000, (e) £20,001 and £25,000, (f) £25,001 and £50,000, (g) £50,001 and £75,000, (h) £75,001 and £100,000, (i) £100,001 and £150,000, (j) £150,001 and £200,000, (k) £200,001 and £250,000 and (l) £250,001 and over. [4219]

  Mr. Evans
  The information is as follows:

  Payment band

  Number of payments

  £0–£5,000

  2,027

  £5,001–£10,000

  98

  £10,001–£15,000

  109

  £15,001–£20,000

  64

  £20,001–£25,000

  32

  £25,001–£50,000

  65

  £50,001–£75,000

  11

  £75,001–£100,000

  3

  £100,001–£150,000

  1

  There were no payments above £150,000.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many payments were made in Wales in 1995–96 for set aside under the arable area scheme(a) between £0 and £5,000, (b) £5,001 and £10,000, (c) £10,001 and £15,000, (d) £15,001 and £20,000, (e) £20,001 and £25,000, (f) £25,001 and £50,000 and (g) over £50,001. [4218]

  Mr. Evans
  The information requested is as follows:

  Payment band

  Number of payments

  £0–£5,000

  345

  £5,001–£10,000

  44

  £10,001–£15,000

  10

  £15,001–£20,000

  1

  £20,001–£25,000

  1

  £25,001–£50,000

  1

  There were no payments above £50,000.

  Fire Authorities (Finance)
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the indicative contributions from the 22 constituent councils to their respective fire authorities. [3991]

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

  Local authority contributions to fire authority budgets 1996–97

  £ thousand

  Conwy

  2,707

  Denbighshire

  2,233

  Flintshire

  3,553

  Gwynedd

  2,860

  Isle of Anglesey

  1,672

  Wrexham

  3,020

  North Wales Fire Authority

  16,045

  Carmarthenshire

  4,929

  Ceredigion

  2,033

  Neath Port Talbot

  4,085

  Pembrokeshire

  3,329

  Powys

  3,551

  Swansea

  6,734

  Mid and West Wales Fire Authority

  24,661

  Blaenau Gwent

  1,888

  Bridgend

  3,370

  Caerphilly

  4,405

  Cardiff

  7,895

  Merthyr Tydfil

  1,532

  Monmouthshire

  2,169

  Newport

  3,539

  Rhondda Cynon Taff

  6,156

  Torfaen

  2,332

  The Vale of Glamorgan

  3,063

  South Wales Fire Authority

  36,349

  Wales

  77,055

  Source:

  Local authority budget returns.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from local authorities in Wales on each of the three fire service budgets; and what has been his response to these representations. [3993]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I have responded to two representations from local authorities in Wales. The matter was also raised at the meeting of the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government Finance on 23 September. The funding of fire brigades is the responsibility of their constituent local authorities. Provision for fire spending is included in the 1996–97 local authority revenue settlement which was approved by the House of Commons on 8 February.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action he proposes to take in the event of one of the fire authorities failing to vote a supplementary levy in order to set a budget for the proper delivery of the fire services in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [3990]

  Mr. Jones
  Under the relevant legislation, this situation cannot arise. Each fire authority is required to set a budget which will enable its brigade to meet its statutory obligations under the Fire Services Act 1947 and to comply with the nationally recommended minimum 432
  standards of fire cover. In the case of combined fire authorities there is scope for the budget to be increased where circumstances warrant it.

  Paragraph 21(5) of the South Wales Fire Services (Combination Scheme) Order 1995 requires that payments made to the South Wales fire authority by its constituent local authorities
  "shall be made at such times, and shall be of such amounts, as are at all times sufficient to enable the financial obligations of the Authority to be met."

  Similar provisions are contained in the orders for the Mid and West Wales, and North Wales fire authorities.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the standard spending assessment figures for fire services in Wales prior to reorganisation and the figures for the aggregated budgets of the (i) North Wales, (ii) Mid and West Wales and (iii) South Wales fire services. [3992]

  Mr. Jones
  There were no standard spending assessments for fire brigades in Wales before reorganisation. Fire brigades were covered by the SSAs of the old counties.

  The following table gives the 1995–96 fire brigade budgets of the old counties aggregated as closely as possible to the new combined fire authority areas. The only difference between these aggregated areas and the new fire authority areas is a small part of Clwyd which was transferred to Powys on 1 April 1996.

  Local authority fire brigade budgets 1995–96

  County area

  1995–96 budget£(000)

  Gwynedd/Clwyd

  15,602

  Dyfed/Powys/West Glamorgan

  22,227

  Mid Glamorgan/South Glamorgan/Gwent

  34,187

  Wales

  72,016

  Source:

  Local authority returns.

  Nursery Vouchers
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 12 November,Official Report, column 210, if he will publish the letter he received in favour of nursery vouchers in Wales. [4768]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  My right hon. Friend is unable to publish unsolicited letters from members of the public, but the correspondent expressed strong support for the scheme and asked for her views, and those or others like her, to be represented.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Access Funds
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much money has been made available for access funds in higher and further education in each year since they were introduced. [3585]
  433
  Mr. Ancram
  The resources made available for access funds since their introduction in the academic year 1990–91 are as follows:

  £ 000

  Financial Year 1

  Allocation

  Higher Education

  Further Education

  1990–91

  348

  144

  1991–92

  365

  293

  1992–93

  369

  297

  1993–94

  403

  326

  1994–95

  443

  394

  1995–96

  457

  411

  1996–97

  458

  411

  1 For higher education the financial year is August to July; for further education the Government financial year.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the adequacy of access funds in higher and further education. [3584]

  Mr. Ancram
  As part of the Government commitment to monitor student finance, a United Kingdom-wide student income and expenditure survey was carried out by the Policy Studies Institute during the 1995–96 academic year. This survey has included students in receipt of access funds. The findings will be published shortly.

  "A Ray of Hope"
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the award of the UNESCO youth ambassador for the culture of peace to the choir, "A Ray of Hope"; and what assessment he has made of the contribution of the choir to the development of a more integrated society. [3436]

  Mr. Ancram
  The "Ray of Hope" choir is worthy of the warmest congratulations on winning the award of youth ambassador for the culture of peace. The children and teachers of the choir are fine examples of how mutual understanding among our young people can produce very positive results. By spreading the word of peace and reconciliation wherever they perform, they are making their own special contribution towards a more integrated society.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the private finance initiative projects in Northern Ireland which (i) are under construction, (ii) have been approved and (iii) are in the process of development. [3587]

  Sir John Wheeler
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 7 November,Official Report, column 665.

  Smallholdings
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assistance his Department gives to encourage smallholdings. [3450]

  Mr. Ancram
  While there are no capital grant schemes specifically targeted to encourage smallholdings, grant assistance for all sizes of farm business is available under the sub-programme for agriculture and rural 434
  development—SPARD—capital grant and farm innovation schemes. Both of these are closed for receipt of applications at present.

  The Department's agri-food development service runs a number of programmes, which include formal vocational courses and involve training courses and group activities at local community level in disadvantaged areas. These are of benefit to farms of all sizes, including small and very small holdings. Assistance for the establishment of farm woodlands is provided by the woodland grant scheme and the farm woodland premium scheme.

  The Department has provided £900,000 of funding from the LEADER II programme to Family Farm Development Ltd. an organisation which aims to assist farm businesses.

  Students
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many extra housing places for students have been created in the past 10 years; and what increase in student numbers there has been in further and higher education over the same years. [3583]

  Mr. Ancram
  A total of 1,741 extra housing spaces for students were created in the 10-year period 1 August 1986 to 31 July 1996.

  In the same period, the number of full-time undergraduate students on higher education courses at Northern Ireland institutions increased from 15,274 to 27,134. The number of students on full-time further education courses increased from 15,178 to 21, 096.

  Bovine Products Regulations
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to introduce provisions to extend the Bovine Products (Despatch to other Member States) Regulations 1996 to Northern Ireland. [3667]

  Mr. Ancram
  It is planned to introduce before the end of 1996 Northern Ireland Bovine Products (Despatch to other Member States) Regulations similar to those introduced in Great Britain.

  EDS Ltd.
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many contracts his Department, agencies and associated bodies have had with EDS for each year since 1985; what was the value of each contract; if he will indicate for each contract(a) if it was completed, (b) what modifications were made at the request of (i) the company and (ii) the Department and (c) if work under contract is being undertaken in-house; and if he will make a statement on the number of job reductions in his Department arising from the contracting out of work by EDS. [3811]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The Northern Ireland Office, Northern Ireland departments and agencies have had one contract with EDS since 1985, which began in 1995. I am unable to disclose the value of this contract as that is covered by commercial confidentiality. The contract is not yet complete, no modifications have been made at the request of EDS or the Department, no work has been
  435
  undertaken in-house and no job reductions have taken place. To include information in respect of associated bodies would incur disproportionate cost.

  Arable Area Payments
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what area of land was set-aside in Northern Ireland in 1995–96 under the arable area scheme. [4224]

  Mr. Ancram
  The total set-aside under the arable area payments scheme in Northern Ireland in 1995–96 was 1,726 hectares.

  Health Services (Newry and Mourne)
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was(a) the total number of people in receipt of day care services, (b) the average number of day care service hours available to each recipient, (c) the total number of day care service hours available and (d) the total budget available for day care services for each year since 1990 in the Newry and Mourne district; and what are the projected figures in each case in each year to 2000. [3952]

  Mr. Moss
  The table shows the number of adults registered at statutory day care facilities within the Newry and Mourne health and social services trust area as at 31 March each year.

  Year

  Number of adults

  1990

  467

  1991

  621

  1992

  626

  1993

  599

  1994

  546

  1995

  522

  Projected information is not held centrally. The average number of day care service hours available to each recipient and the total number of day care service hours available are not collected centrally.

  The total budget available for each year, for which figures are available, was as follows:

  Year

  Total expenditure

  1992–93

  887,139

  1993–94

  1,195,286

  1994–95

  1,212,386

  1995–96

  1,241,136

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) social workers, (b) social work assistants, (c) residential care workers, (d) care assistants, (e) day care centre workers and (f) home helps were employed in the Newry and Mourne district in each year since 1990; and what are the projected figures for each year to 2000. [3949]
  436
  Mr. Moss
  The table sets out the information for the Newry and Mourne trust area:

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Social workers

  39

  40

  48

  49

  62

  70

  Social work assistants

  19

  21

  23

  25

  27

  28

  Residential care workers

  16

  16

  15

  14

  13

  12

  Care assistants

  21

  22

  22

  19

  15

  15

  Day care centre workers

  30

  33

  38

  40

  44

  44

  Home helps

  922

  820

  791

  1,288

  763

  718

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) district nurses, (b) nursing auxiliaries, (c) health visitors, (d) community midwives, (e) school nurses, (f) mental handicap nurses, (g) community psychiatric nurses, (h) treatment room nurses and (i) specialist nurses in (i) cancer care, (ii) diabetes, (iii) continence, (iv) family planning,(v) cardiac rehabilitation and (vi) stoma care were employed in the Newry and Mourne district in each year since 1990; and what are the projected figures for each category for each year to 2000. [3950]

  Mr. Moss
  The table sets out the information for the Newry and Mourne trust area:

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  District nurses

  30

  32

  32

  29

  21

  18

  Nursing auxiliaries

  70

  79

  76

  77

  82

  96

  Health visitors

  29

  29

  30

  32

  30

  24

  Community midwives1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  School nurses

  6

  6

  5

  5

  5

  5

  Mental handicap nurses

  3

  5

  6

  7

  7

  6

  Community psychiatric nurses

  0

  0

  0

  0

  13

  14

  Treatment room nurses2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cancer care

  specialist nurses3

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  2

  Family planning specialist nurses

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1 Not separately identifiable from district nurses.

  2 Not available centrally.

  3 Macmillan nurses only.

  Numbers of specialist nurses for diabetes, continence, cardiac rehabilitation and stoma care is not available centrally.

  Information on projected staffing levels for future years is not held.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was(a) the total number of people in receipt of home help care, (b) the average number of home help hours available to each recipient, (c) the total number of home help hours available and (d) the total budget available for home help services for each year since 1990 in the Newry and Mourne district; and what are the projected figures for each year to 2000. [3953]
  437
  Mr. Moss
  The table shows the number of people in receipt of home help service in the Newry and Mourne health and social services trust area as at 31 March each year. Reliable information on the number of home help hours worked is not available centrally.

  1990: 1,514

  1991: 1,578

  1992: 1,495

  1993: 1,795

  1994: 1,744

  1995: 1,687

  1996: 1,939

  Total expenditure on home help services for each year was as follows:

  Year

  Total expenditure

  1991

  2,053,404

  1991–92

  2,182,948

  1992–93

  2,340,023

  1993–94

  2,511,333

  1994–95

  2,753,428

  1995–96

  2,525,562

  Projected figures are not available centrally.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the social work case load in the Newry and Mourne district in each year since 1990; and what are the projected figures for each year to 2000. [3954]

  Mr. Moss
  The table shows the number of people who have been in contact with the social services department of the Newry and Mourne health and social services trust area during year ended 31 March:

  1990: 1,344

  1991: 2,025

  1992: 4,736

  1993: 5,436

  1994: 4,958

  1995: 6,173

  Projected figures are not available centrally.

  Note:
  The 1990 figure excludes elderly people and physically disabled people who were in contact with the trust.
  The 1991 figure excludes elderly people who were in contact with the trust.
  The 1994 figure includes estimated data for the number of mentally ill people who were in contact with the trust.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total number of attendances at psychiatric day hospitals in Newry and Mourne district in each year since 1990; and what are the projected figures for each year to 2000. [3955]

  Mr. Moss
  There are no psychiatric day hospitals in Newry and Mourne health and social services trust.
  438
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total number of psychiatric out-patient attendances in the Newry and Mourne district in each year since 1990; and what are the projected figures for each year to 2000. [3956]

  Mr. Moss
  The table shows the number of attendances at psychiatric consultant out-patient clinics in the Newry and Mourne health and social services trust.

  1989–90: 1,560

  1990–91: 1,544

  1991–92: 1,536

  1992–93: 0

  1993–94: 0

  1994–95: 4,196

  1995–96: 3,819

  Note:
  During the years 1992–93 and 1993–94, there were no psychiatric out-patient clinics in the Newry and Mourne health and social services trust area. Services in these years were provided elsewhere.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total number of face-to-face contacts with community psychiatric nurses in the Newry and Mourne district in each year since 1990; and what are the projected figures for each year to 2000. [3959]

  Mr. Moss
  The table shows the number of face-to-face contacts with community psychiatric nurses in the Newry and Mourne health and social services trust. Information for individual trusts is not available prior to 1994–95.

  1994–95: 8,053

  1995–96: 9,087

  Projected information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total number of patients treated in the Newry and Mourne district in each year since 1990 broken down by(a) general surgery, (b) ear, nose and throat, (c) general medicine, (d) cardiac medicine, (e) gynaecology, (f) obstetrics, (g) paediatrics, (h) psychiatry, (i) ophthalmology, (j) dermatology, (k) oral surgery, (l) thoracic surgery, (m) haematology and (n) accident and emergency; and what are the projected figures for each year to 2000. [3961]

  Mr. Moss
  The table shows the number of patients treated and the number of attendances as consultant out-patient clinics and accident and emergency departments in the Newry and Mourne HSS trust for the financial years 1989–90 to 1995–96. Projected figures are not available centrally.
  439

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  General surgery

  Inpatients

  4,135

  4,130

  4,114

  4,615

  5,020

  5,291

  5,709

  Outpatient attendances

  12,623

  11,692

  13,270

  13,852

  14,025

  14,291

  15,435

  ENT

  Inpatients

  722

  751

  786

  768

  767

  812

  805

  Outpatient attendances

  2,047

  2,243

  2,184

  2,048

  1,999

  2,193

  2,128

  General medicine

  Inpatients

  1,865

  2,106

  2,076

  2,223

  2,680

  2,834

  2,856

  Outpatient attendances

  6,370

  6,378

  6,310

  6,213

  6,504

  6,834

  7,283

  Cardiology

  Inpatients

  549

  545

  832

  932

  884

  928

  828

  Outpatient attendances

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Gynaecology

  Inpatients

  1,488

  1,672

  1,686

  1,924

  2,060

  1,885

  1,856

  Outpatient attendances

  3,781

  3,928

  3,670

  4,049

  4,976

  5,363

  6,135

  Obstetrics

  Inpatients

  2,478

  2,419

  2,164

  2,358

  2,263

  2,404

  2,236

  Outpatient attendances

  6,382

  7,011

  6,310

  6,785

  6,784

  6,665

  6,989

  Paediatrics

  Inpatients

  1,038

  986

  1,096

  1,063

  1,161

  1,230

  1,345

  Outpatient attendances

  3,198

  2,998

  2,851

  3,209

  3,399

  3,444

  3,759

  Mental illness

  Inpatients

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Outpatient attendances

  1,560

  1,544

  1,536

  0

  0

  4,196

  3,819

  Ophthalmology

  Inpatients

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Outpatient attendances

  3,320

  3,092

  3,298

  3,780

  4,084

  4,125

  4,360

  Dermatology

  Inpatients

  0

  0

  0

  0

  89

  223

  0

  Outpatient attendances

  2,668

  2,769

  2,178

  3,355

  3,385

  3,950

  4,327

  Oral surgery

  Inpatients

  48

  29

  27

  15

  72

  71

  76

  Outpatient attendances

  376

  366

  442

  617

  712

  724

  786

  Thoracic surgery

  Inpatients

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Outpatient attendances

  29

  63

  78

  73

  71

  104

  131

  Haematology

  Inpatients

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Outpatient attendances

  0

  0

  66

  105

  96

  148

  155

  Accident and emergency departments

  29,556

  29,984

  28,452

  30,081

  29,436

  30,410

  32,355

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total number of(a) doctors, (b) nurses, (c) paramedical staff, broken down by discipline and (d) other employees employed to deliver

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Doctors

  43

  44

  43

  51

  73

  85

  Nurses

  563

  597

  595

  586

  605

  621

  Chiropodists

  7

  6

  6

  6

  7

  9

  Dietitians

  2

  3

  2

  2

  3

  2

  Occupational therapists

  11

  12

  13

  12

  17

  18

  Orthoptists

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Physiotherapists

  19

  21

  22

  21

  20

  22

  Speech and language therapists

  6

  6

  7

  6

  7

  8

  Clinical psychologists

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  Other

  806

  784

  820

  778

  803

  834

  Information on projected staffing levels for future years is not held.
  440
  health services in the Newry and Mourne district in each year since 1990; and what are the projected figures for each year to 2000. [3963]

  Mr. Moss
  The table sets out the information for the Newry and Mourne trust area.

  Daisy Hill Hospital
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of(a) the clinical effectiveness and (b) the cost-effectiveness of Daisy Hill hospital; and what plans he has to safeguard the future of the hospital. [3951]

  Mr. Moss
  Assessments of the clinical effectiveness and the cost effectiveness of Daisy Hill hospital are a matter for Newry and Mourne HSS trust and its purchasers in the first instance. The future role of the hospital will be shaped by the requirements of

  Ward classification

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  General patients—children

  34

  34

  34

  34

  34

  34

  34

  General patients—elderly

  36

  43

  43

  43

  44

  44

  44

  General patients—other

  180

  171

  166

  164

  156

  151

  150

  Neonates—maternity

  40

  40

  40

  40

  40

  49

  40

  Maternity—consultant

  52

  52

  52

  52

  46

  38

  38

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the average waiting period for appointments with(a) resident consultants and (b) non-resident consultants at Daisy Hill hospital, for each discipline, in each year since 1990; and what are the projected figures for each year to 2000. [3960]

  Mr. Moss
  Information is not available in the format requested. The table shows the number of people who had their first out-patient appointment in the Newry and Mourne HSS trust during the years 1993–94 and 1995–96 and the length of time they waited. Information before 1993–94 and projected figures are not available centrally.

  Waiting time in months

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  0 to 2

  9,591

  10,513

  12,160

  3 to 5

  2,070

  1,185

  1,737

  6 to 8

  208

  114

  181

  9 to 11

  66

  7

  43

  12 to 14

  4

  1

  1

  15 to 17

  1

  0

  1

  18 to 20

  1

  1

  0

  21 to 23

  1

  0

  0

  24+

  1

  1

  0

  Total

  11,943

  11,822

  14,123

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the average number of nurses employed by Daisy Hill hospital in each year since 1990; and what are the projected figures for each year to 2000. [3969]

  Mr. Moss
  The number of nurses employed in Daisy Hill hospital was as follows:

  Year (at 31 December1)

  Nurses

  1990

  296

  1991

  319

  1992

  315

  1993

  312

  1994

  319

  1995

  332

  1 Average number of nurses in each year is not available.

  442
  my Department's regional strategy for health and social well-being 1997 to 2000, taking account of local needs.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the average number of beds available in each ward at Daisy Hill hospital in each year since 1990; and what are the projected figures for each ward for each year to 2000. [3965]

  Mr. Moss
  The table shows the average number of available beds in wards open overnight in the Daisy Hill hospital for the financial years 1989–90 to 1995–6. Projected bed figures are not available.

  Information on projected staffing levels for future years is not held.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the average number of employees at Daisy Hill hospital in each year since 1990; and what are the projected figures for each year to 2000. [3964]

  Mr. Moss
  The number of employees in Daisy Hill hospital was as follows:

  Year (at 31 December1)

  Total employees

  1990

  667

  1991

  685

  1992

  690

  1993

  662

  1994

  694

  1995

  732

  1 Average number of employees in each year is not available.

  Information on projected staffing levels for future years is not held.

  Waiting Times
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the average waiting periods experienced by(a) patients whose services are purchased by their local health board and (b) patients of GP fundholders. [3957]

  Mr. Moss
  The table shows the number of people admitted as in-patients during the period 1 April 1995 to 31 March 1996 and the length of time they had waited. The average waiting time is not calculable because information on patient waiting times is grouped into time bands and is not measured individually.
  443

  Purchaser

  Waiting time in months

  Eastern board

  Northern board

  Southern board

  Western board

  GP fundholders

  0 to 2

  31,581

  19,077

  20,690

  12,347

  21,315

  3 to 5

  4,847

  3,301

  2,332

  1,543

  3,970

  6 to 8

  2,242

  1,204

  871

  562

  1,641

  9 to 11

  1,460

  695

  475

  379

  960

  12 to 14

  746

  435

  305

  240

  440

  15 to 17

  394

  136

  107

  56

  180

  18 to 20

  177

  61

  55

  43

  68

  21 to 23

  61

  31

  28

  17

  30

  24+

  147

  61

  69

  39

  74

  No date decided to admit recorded

  4,394

  1,461

  929

  375

  1,679

  Total

  46,049

  26,162

  25,861

  15,601

  30,357

  You will also be interested to know that waiting lists and waiting times generally have been reduced considerably since 1992. For example, in that year, about 3,000 patients were waiting two years or more for two years while there were 800 waiting more than 18 months. The number of patients treated has raisen continually over the same period from a total number of 330,000—ordinary admissions and day cases —in 1991–92 to 400,000 approximately in 1995–96.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what were the average waiting periods experienced by(a) patients whose services are purchased by each of the health boards and (b) patients of general practitioner fundholders for (i) Northern Ireland, (ii) each health board area and (iii) each hospital trust area. [3958]

  Mr. Moss
  The tables show the number of people admitted as in-patients during the period 1 April 1995 to 31 March 1996 in Northern Ireland and how long they had waited. The average waiting time is not calculable because information on patient waiting times is grouped in time bands and is measured individually.

  (a) Patients of health and social services boards

  Purchaser

  Waiting time in months

  Northern Ireland

  EHSSB

  NHSSB

  SHSSB

  WHSSB

  0 to 2

  83,695

  31,581

  19,077

  20,690

  12,347

  3 to 5

  12,023

  4,847

  3,301

  2,332

  1,543

  6 to 8

  4,879

  2,242

  1,204

  871

  562

  9 to 11

  3,009

  1,460

  695

  475

  379

  12 to 14

  1,726

  746

  435

  305

  240

  15 to 17

  693

  394

  136

  107

  56

  18 to 20

  336

  177

  61

  55

  43

  21 to 23

  137

  61

  31

  28

  17

  24+

  316

  147

  61

  69

  39

  No date decided to admit recorded

  7,159

  4,394

  1,461

  929

  375

  Total

  113,973

  46,049

  26,462

  25,861

  15,061

  Hospitals trusts do not have a designated geographical area and therefore the information is not available.

  (b) Patients of general practitioner fundholders

  Waiting time in months

  Purchaser Northern Ireland

  0 to 2

  21,315

  3 to 5

  3,970

  6 to 8

  1,641

  9 to 11

  960

  12 to 14

  440

  15 to 17

  180

  18 to 20

  68

  21 to 23

  30

  24+

  74

  No date decided to admit recorded

  1,679

  Total

  30,357

  BSE
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what percentage and what 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; [2160]

  (2) what has been the total expenditure to date on the BSE eradication and compensation schemes; and if he will make a statement. [2165]

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 6 November 1996]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 6 November, Official Report, column 582, by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

  Fireworks
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the importation of illegal fireworks into Northern Ireland in the last three years; what seizures have been made; what categories of illegal fireworks have been found; and what was the country of manufacture. [2494]

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 7 November 1996]: The Chief Constable has advised me that police made 93 seizures in 1994, 31 in 1995, and that 100 seizures have been made so far this year. Illegal fireworks recovered were from categories 1 (indoor), 2 (garden) and 3 (display) and had been manufactured in China, France, Germany or Austria.

  Quantities of illegal fireworks seized in 1996 have amounted to approximately 34 tonnes, a considerable increase on the 1 to 2 tonnes of previous years.

  My officials, in consultation with the RUC and others, will be considering what lessons are to be learnt from this year's experience.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the latest estimates of the expenditure on external consultants, including management consultants, for each year since 1992, in
  445
  1996 prices, for his Department and its agencies; and what are the quantified annual cost savings which such expenditure has resulted in. [4064]

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 14 November 1996]: Within the Northern Ireland departments and their agencies, expenditure on all external consultants, including management consultants, for each year since 1992 in 1996 prices is:

  1992–93: £22,097,000

  1993–94: £31,889,000

  1994–95: £26,462,000

  1995–96: £25,543,000

  As consultants are, in many instances, engaged to contribute particular skills to an element of much larger process, it is not possible to quantify savings which such expenditure has resulted in but, in each instance, consultants were engaged on the basis of best value for money.

  Figures for the Northern Ireland Office are not currently available. I shall write to the hon. Member in due course.

  Taxation
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) individuals and (b) trusts paid capital gains tax in Northern Ireland in the last year for which figures are available. [3941]

  Mr. Jack
  I have been asked to reply.

  I regret that separate figures for Northern Ireland are not available.

  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much money was received by the Treasury from(a) capital gains tax and (b) inheritance tax in Northern Ireland in each of the last 10 years. [3942]

  Mr. Jack
  I have been asked to reply.

  Receipts of capital gains tax in the United Kingdom are published in table 1.2 of "Inland Revenue Statistics 1996". I regret that separate figures for Northern Ireland are not available. Receipts of inheritance tax—including capital transfer tax and estate duty—in Northern Ireland for each of the last 10 years are in the table.
  446

  Year

  Receipts £ million

  1986–87

  12·4

  1987–88

  16·5

  1988–89

  11·0

  1989–90

  11·0

  1990–91

  17·1

  1991–92

  13·4

  1992–93

  13·7

  1993–94

  11·5

  1994–95

  14·8

  1995–96

  14·8

  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of estates granted probate in the last year in Northern Ireland paid inheritance tax. [3940]

  Mr. Jack
  I have been asked to reply.

  It is estimated that in 1995–96 about 4 per cent. of estates for which a grant of representation—or probate—was obtained in Northern Ireland were liable to inheritance tax.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Mammalian Meat and Bonemeal
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what data he collated on the movement of mammalian meat and bonemeal from 12 July 1995 to 12 July 1996; and if he will make a statement; [1359]

  (2) what data he collated on the movement of mammalian meat and bonemeal from 12 July to 1 August; and if he will make a statement; [1355]

  (3) what data he has collated on the movement of mammalian meat and bonemeal since 1 August 1996; and if he will make a statement. [1360]

  Mrs. Browning
  Mammalian meat and bonemeal derived from specified bovine material is audited by the State Veterinary Service. No data were collated on the movement of this material during the periods in question which, under the Specified Bovine Materials Order 1996—formerly the Specified Bovine Offals Order 1995—is required to be incinerated or landfilled following production in approved plants. With the introduction of the over-30-months scheme, the Specified Bovine Material Order was amended to allow OTMS carcasses to be processed in SBM rendering lines. As Commission regulation 716/96 requires rendered OTMS material to be destroyed, all of the MBM now produced from these lines is being stored by the Intervention Board pending disposal by the best practicable environmental option. Data collated on the movement of MBM into store during the periods in question are as follows:

  Tonnes

  3 May 1996–12 July 1996

  7,201

  13 July 1996–31 July 1996

  15.184

  1 August 1996–31 October 1996

  67.682

  447
  MBM derived from other animal waste is rendered separately in dedicated rendering lines under GB provisions set out in the Animal By-Products Order 1992, as amended. Its production is also audited by the State Veterinary Service. Following the ban on feeding mammalian MBM to all farm animals with effect from 4 April 1996, a proportion of the MBM from this waste stream has been sent by renderers to landfill sites. Some data were collated on the quantities of MBM sent for landfill during part of the periods in question, but these are incomplete and considered unreliable.

  Data collated on mammalian MBM, and animal feed containing this, moved under the Government's feed recall scheme during the periods in question is as follows:

  Tonnes

  12 July 1995–12 July 1996

  6,863

  13 July 1996–31 July 1996

  4,040

  1 August 1996–31 October 1996

  4

  Arable Area Payments
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was (i) the maximum, (ii) the minimum and (iii) the average payment made under the arable area payments scheme in 1995. [3633]

  Mr. Baldry
  In the 1995 scheme year, the highest payment under the arable area payments scheme in England was for £2,040,092.26. The smallest payment that could be claimed in 1995 was £80.75, but some claimants may have received less than this because of the application of administrative penalties under the scheme. The average total payment per claim was £24,296.

  Renderers and Abattoirs (Prosecutions)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list all completed prosecutions initiated by local authority departments against(a) renderers, (b) abattoirs, (c) livestock dealers, (d) animal feed manufacturers and (e) pet food manufacturers for each year since 1990, stating for each the (i)date, (ii) name of the individual or organisation prosecuted, (iii) nature of the charges and (iv) outcome of the prosecution; and if he will make a statement. [3662]

  Mrs. Browning
  Information on prosecutions conducted by local authorities is not held centrally by this Department. To gather the material together over this period of time would involve disproportionate costs.

  Public Interest Immunity
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what public interest immunity certificates his Department has issued since November 1995. [3713]

  Mr. Boswell
  The Minister has not issued any public interest immunity certificates since November 1995.

  Milk (Dioxins)
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will place in the Library the complete data arising from the survey of dioxins in milk 448
  at industrial sites which were summarised in the MAFF-Department of Health information bulletin published on 31 October. [3916]

  Mrs. Browning
  The article in the bulletin reported the interim results of the survey. The Ministry did not intend to publish details of the interim results until the survey was completed. However, in this case I will arrange for the data to be placed in the Library once they have been compiled into a suitable form.

  Industrial Fishing
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to promote measures in respect of industrial fishing through the European Council of Ministers.[4161]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 15 November 1996]: In the Fisheries Council I have called for more collaborative research in order to increase our understanding of the impact of industrial fisheries on other species, I have successfully pressed for measures to reduce herring mortality in industrial fisheries in line with advice received from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, I have urged the need for the next multi-annual guidance programme to deal adequately with the industrial fisheries fleet and I am supporting tighter by-catch rules in the sandeel fishery as part of new technical conservation measures.

  Soya Beans
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what applications have been made for licences for the importation of genetically engineered soya beans; and if he will make a statement. [4268]

  Mrs. Browning
  A marketing consent for a specified type of genetically modified soya bean was granted in May 1996 under the Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) Regulations 1992, as amended.

  Quarantine
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 5 November,Official Report, column 488, on quarantine regulations, when he expects to make a decision on this matter. [4466]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 15 November 1996]: At this stage it is not possible to give a date.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of appeals against the disallowance of incapacity benefit for the last financial year were successful; and if he will make a statement. [734]

  Mr. Burt
  Between 1 June 1995 and 31 March 1996, 45 per cent. of appeals against disallowance of incapacity benefit were decided in favour of the appellant.
  449
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in Scotland are currently awaiting a hearing for an appeal against an all work test refusal(a) in total and (b) for each benefit office in Scotland; what percentage this represents of total tests at each office; what is the current average waiting time before each appeal is heard; and what action he is taking to expedite appeals. [1358]

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

  There are 4,423 appeals against incapacity benefit all-work test decisions currently outstanding in Scotland. Individual totals for each office are shown in the table.

  The current average waiting time before each appeal is heard in Scotland is 19.22 weeks.

  We recently introduced regulations amending the appeals process which should help to reduce the time it takes to clear appeals. The Independent tribunal service, through its change programme, continue to look for ways to improve clearance times.

  Benefits agency office

  Outstanding appeals (held by the Independent Tribunal Service as at 5 November 1996)

  All-work test decisions made during the quarter 1 April to 30 June 1996

  Greenock

  150

  794

  Glasgow City

  44

  309

  Glasgow Maryhill

  33

  321

  Glasgow Shettleston

  300

  632

  Glasgow Provan

  3

  702

  Glasgow South West

  1,248

  Glasgow Bridgeton

  491

  293

  Glasgow Laurieston

  4

  704

  East Kilbride

  301

  529

  Glasgow Anniesland

  195

  718

  Glasgow Partick

  1

  475

  Irvine

  65

  751

  Kilmarnock

  101

  375

  Clydebank

  115

  1,267

  Campbeltown

  12

  102

  Oban

  9

  48

  Renfrew

  101

  1,301

  Ayr

  220

  1,245

  Dumfries

  37

  477

  Stranraer

  18

  204

  Glasgow Springburn

  196

  926

  Cumbernauld

  199

  1,199

  Motherwell

  595

  1,095

  Hamilton

  857

  Coatbridge

  56

  636

  Edinburgh South

  37

  829

  Edinburgh East

  25

  782

  Galashiels

  25

  236

  Kirkcaldy

  2

  332

  Cowdenbeath

  141

  513

  Dunfermline

  672

  Leven

  376

  Stirling

  68

  711

  Falkirk

  150

  1,437

  Aberdeen

  2

  869

  Lerwick

  4

  39

  Peterhead

  55

  560

  Inverness

  29

  481

  Fort William

  1

  113

  Kirkwall

  0

  50

  Wick

  4

  184

  Edinburgh City

  32

  424

  Leith

  14

  586

  Lothian West

  92

  2,033

  Dundee

  463

  1,602

  Arbroath

  457

  Perth

  468

  450

  Benefits agency office

  Outstanding appeals (held by the Independent Tribunal service as at 5 November 1996

  All-work test decisions made during the quarter 1 April to 30 June 1996

  Elgin

  29

  337

  Stornaway

  4

  149

  Source:

  100 per cent. count of the incapacity benefit system excluding a small number of clerically processed cases. Some credits only cases which existed prior to April 1995 are not included either.

  Notes:

  1. The number of decisions made includes a small number of credits only cases disallowed as customers failed to return their questionnaire without good cause or failed to attend a medical examination.

  2. Some severe disablement allowance cases which were allowed following reference to Benefits Agency Medical Services are included in the decisions.

  3. The decision to withdraw benefit is made by the independent adjudication officer.

  Bronchitis and Emphysema
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he plans to introduce revised criteria in respect of the claims for disablement benefit in respect of chronic bronchitis and emphysema. [2041]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  A response to the industrial injuries advisory committee's report on chronic bronchitis and emphysema will be made shortly.

  Private Pension Schemes
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the average percentage of total costs taken up on entering private pension schemes by(a) fees, charges and administration and (b) occupational and private pension rebates and subsidies (i) in the first year and (ii) at retirement age, for men and women now aged (1) 20, (2) 30, (3) 40 and (4) 50 years. [3047]

  Mr. Heald
  No such estimates have been undertaken. Given the variety and diversity of occupational and personal pension provision in the United Kingdom, establishing the average percentage of total charges is not possible.

  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the percentage of total pension payments dependent on the performance of private pension funds(a) currently, (b) in 2010 and (c) in 2020. [3923]

  Mr. Heald
  It is estimated that in 1994, the latest year for which figures are available, approximately 40 per cent. of total pension payments, including the state retirement and earnings-related pensions, were from funded occupational and personal pension schemes.

  Comparable projections for 2010 and 2020 are not available.

  Old Age Pensions (Budget)
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the current budget for old—age pensions in England and Wales; and what it was in(a) 1979 and (b) 1990 in equivalent terms. [3092]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is set out in the tables.

  £ million (GB)

  1979–80

  1990–91

  1996–97

  Cash price

  Cash price contributory retirement pension

  8,816

  22,699

  31,951

  Non-contributory retirement pension

  36

  36

  36

  Total retirement pension

  8,852

  22,735

  31,987

  1996–97 prices

  Contributory retirement pension

  23,260

  27,782

  31,951

  Non-contributory retirement pension

  95

  44

  36

  Total retirement pension

  22,355

  27,826

  31,987

  Source:

  Social Security March 1996 departmental report and earlier equivalents.

  Income Support
  Ms. Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners receiving income support as an addition to their income would not be eligible for such support if the basic retirement pension had been increased annually in accordance with earnings since 1980; and what percentage of basic retirement pensioners received supplementary benefit income support in (i) 1979 and (ii) 1995. [3050]

  Mr. Heald
  It is estimated that some 830,000 benefit units would no longer be eligible for income support in addition to retirement pension if the retirement pension had been increased annually in accordance with earnings since 19801. The estimate increases to 850,000 benefit units if RP had continued to be increased in accordance with the higher of earnings or prices since 1980.

  It is estimated that around 22 per cent. of basic retirement pensioners were in benefit units in receipt of supplementary benefit in 1979. The equivalent figure in 1995 for income support is 15 per cent2.

  Note:
  Benefit units may be a single person or a couple, plus any dependent children. Either the claimant, their partner, or both claimant and partner may be in receipt of retirement pension.

  Sources:

  1. Income support simulation model based on the Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry May 1995 uprated to 1996–7 prices and caseloads. Estimate rounded to the nearest 10,000.

  2. Data from the Supplementary Benefit Statistics Annual Enquiry 1979, Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry November 1995, retirement pension statistics November 1979 and September 1995. The estimate is rounded to nearest whole number.

  National Insurance
  Ms. Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security on present national insurance contribution rates for employees and employers, what would be the excess of contribution income over benefits, applying the standard assumptions of the Government Actuary, in the years (i) 2000-01, (ii) 2010-11, (iii) 2020-21 and (iv) 2030-31; and what would be the excess in each case if the rate of unemployment was assumed to be(a) 3 per cent. and (b) 8 per cent. [3051]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table. However, I refer the hon. Member to table 10 of HC 160 which reflects the Government Actuary's estimate of the effect on contribution rates of a 2 per cent. change in the unemployment assumption.

  Information based on assumed unemployment rates of 3 and 8 per cent. could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  National insurance fund: £ billion at 1994–95 prices using 1995–96 contribution rates

  2000–01

  2010–11

  2020–21

  2030–31

  Excess of contribution income over benefit expenditure(1)

  1·94

  2·90

  5·54

  3·97

  Source:

  Government Actuary's Department.

  Notes:

  1 Net of costs of administration but excluding any Treasury grant and investment income.

  1. The information in the table is based upon the future rate of unemployment—5 per cent.—assumed for the purposes of the Government Actuary's report on the third quinquennial review under section 137 of the Social Security Act 1975 (HC 160).

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) first applications for disability living allowance were refused, (b) appeals against the decision to refuse disability living allowance were made and (c) appeals for disability living allowance were successful in (i) 1994–95 and (ii) 1995–96. [3508]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The information is not available in the format requested as disability living allowance statistics do not distinguish between reviews and appeals for first claims, and reviews and appeals of existing awards. A claim may be successful on review or appeal for a variety of reasons, for example, because additional information has been received or the claimant's condition has deteriorated. Such information as is available is in the table.

  Thousands

  Refusals, reviews and appeals1

  Numbers

  1994–95

  First applications refused

  256

  Review decisions2

  317

  Successful reviews3

  154

  Appeal decisions4

  26

  Successful appeals5

  17

  453

  Thousands

  Refusals, reviews and appeals1

  Numbers

  1995–96

  First application refused

  225

  Review decisions2

  333

  Successful reviews3

  147

  Appeal decisions4

  28

  Successful appeals5

  18

  Source:
  Analytical Services Division: figures based on 100 per cent. data have been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  Notes:

  1 Reviews and appeals may be received in one year but decided in a later year.

  2 Includes both reviews of the first applications which were refused and reviews of existing awards.

  3 Includes both successful reviews of first applications which were refused and existing awards where the award was increased.

  4 Includes both decisions about first applications which were refused after review and decisions about existing awards.

  5 Includes both first awards of the benefit and existing awards where the award was increased.

  Appeals
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals his Department has to reduce the time taken over social security appeals. [2867]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  We recently introduced regulations amending the appeals process which should help to reduce the time it takes to clear appeals. The independent tribunal service, through its change programme, continues to look for ways to improve clearance times.

  Reduced Earnings Allowance
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many claimants possessing documentary evidence of being awarded reduced earnings allowance for life have presented their evidence to the Benefits Agency; how many of these have been compensated; and at what estimated cost to his Department; [4091]

  (2) when the (a) investigation and (b) compensation processes into claimants possessing documentary evidence of being awarded reduced earnings allowance for life commenced; and when he expects that they will be completed. [4090]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  To receive compensation a person must be able to show a financial loss because a commitment was undertaken in reliance on an unconditional official assurance that reduced earnings allowance would continue in payment for life or some other period.

  Awards of reduced earnings allowance, for whatever period, are always made subject to the requirements for entitlement continuing to be satisfied. For those over pension age, the condition is that the recipient continues in regular employment or can be treated by regulations as continuing in regular employment. No-one awarded reduced earnings allowance since April 1989 should have been given an unconditional assurance of future payment. I am aware that some such assurances may have been given and that the Benefits Agency is considering claims for compensation from people transferred from reduced
  454
  earnings allowance to retirement allowance as they arise. To date, none of the four claims considered has satisfied the criteria for payment.

  War Pensions
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the extra cost to his Department if a national disregard of war pensions were applied by each local authority in England for the purpose of(a) council tax and (b) housing benefit. [4297]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Any increase in the mandatory disregards of war pensions in the income-related benefits would apply across all of Great Britain.

  It is broadly estimated that the additional cost of a total disregard of all war pensions is (a) £15 million for council tax benefit; and (b) £45 million for housing benefit.1

  Any increase in these mandatory disregards would also have to apply in the calculation of the other income-related benefits, notably income support. It is estimated that a total disregard of all war pensions for income support purposes would cost around a further £35 million in additional benefit expenditure.

  Thus, when these costs are added to the £25 million cost of the present mandatory disregards, it can be seen that, for all the income-related benefits, the estimated overall cost of a mandatory total disregard would be in the region of £120 million. This would be in addition to the estimated £1.4 billion expenditure on war pensions for 1996–97.

  Notes:
  1 Estimates are based upon data given in Local Authority subsidy returns for 1994–95; the May 1994 Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry; and the 1991, 1992 and 1993 Family Expenditure Surveys.
  The estimates have been uprated to 1996–97 levels.
  In compiling these estimates, expenditure has been rounded, where appropriate, to the nearest £5 million.
  Estimates are broad order estimates only, due to a lack of comprehensive data.

  Pensioners (Benefits)
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average cost per head to public funds in respect of social security payments over and above the standard retirement or widow's pension of(a) retirement pensioners generally and (b) retirement pensioners in the last two years of their lives. [4379]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows:The cost of social security on the elderly per elderly person per week is £14.

  Notes:
  Figure rounded to the nearest £1.

  Sources:

  1. Departmental Report March 1996—the figures used are for benefit expenditure on Elderly people i.e. those aged 60 or over excluding retirement pension—basic element and earning related component.

  2. Population estimates unit, Office of National Statistics.

  Pensioners Living Abroad
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many British pensioners qualified for a state retirement pension in those countries where the pension is frozen at(a) the most recent date for which figures are available and (b) a year previously; and what factors underlie the increase over that period of his estimate of the payment of fully indexed pensions. [4382]

  Mr. Heald
  In July 1996, the most recent date for which figures are available, United Kingdom state retirement and widow's pensions were paid to 429,647 beneficiaries in countries where the pensions are frozen. Corresponding figures for July 1995 are not available. In January 1995, such pensions were paid to 400,742 beneficiaries. The increase over the period January 1995 to July 1996 in the cost of extending annual cost of living increases to beneficiaries whose pensions are frozen is attributable to(a) the rise in the number of pensioners in receipt of frozen pensions and (b) the increase in benefit rates by 2.2 per cent. in April 1995 and 3.9 per cent. in April 1996.

  Contributions Holidays
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications for national insurance contributions holidays have been received since April 1995; how many have been successful by standard region and Great Britain as a whole and by(a) gender and (b) ethnicity and specifying the numbers who were (i) registered unemployed, (ii) recipients of a training allowance, (iii) lone parents and (iv) carers. [4434]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows:

  Number

  Applications

  2,039

  Successful applications

  1,679

  Unsuccessful applications

  279

  Awaiting further information

  81

  Regional breakdown (successful applications)

  Number

  North

  188

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  254

  East Midlands

  174

  East Anglia

  56

  South East

  233

  South West

  162

  West Midlands

  174

  North West

  166

  Wales

  80

  Scotland

  142

  Greater London

  50

  Total successful applications, by gender

  Number

  Male

  1,435

  Female

  244

  Number previously unemployed: 1,619. Number of lone parents: 57. Number of carers: 3.

  1. The number of recipients of training allowance is not calculated separately.

  2. Statistics relate to the position on 13 November 1996.

  Housing and Council Tax Benefit
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications have been made for extended payment of housing benefit and council tax benefit and how many have been successful by standard region and Great Britain as a whole and by(a) gender and (b) ethnicity, specifying the numbers who were (i) registered unemployed, (ii) recipients of a training allowance, (iii) lone parents and (iv) carers and the duration of the benefit claim since the inception of the scheme. [4435]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Information concerning the gender, ethnicity and duration of claim in respect of housing benefit and council tax benefit extended payments is not collected. The remaining information will be available early next year.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 11 November,Official Report, column 97, if he will calculate the equivalent figures on social security and welfare services in the same form as the Eurostat publication for the period 1994–95. [4546]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table; only Denmark, Italy and the UK have supplied Eurostat with information for 1994 calculated in this way. The equivalent figures for 1994–95 for the United Kingdom could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Country

  General Government expenditure on social security and welfare services as percentage of gross domestic product

  Denmark

  27.71

  Italy

  18.32

  United Kingdom

  16.61

  1. Figures are for 1994. 2. The figures shown in the Eurostat publication "General Government accounts and statistics" for Social Security and welfare services include:

  Social security and assistance
  Administration of payments and funds to compensate for loss of income due to accident, injury, sickness and unemployment and old age pensions.
  Allowances for families, guardians' and widows' allowances, public relief and war veterans' benefits.

  Welfare services
  Child welfare services and institutions.
  Homes for, and care of, the aged and disabled.
  Family welfare agencies and services.
  Other special welfare institutions and organisations.
  They do not include "Health affairs and services" as well as some other smaller items which are included in Eurostat social protection totals.

  Benefit Take-up Rates
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the next edition of "Income-related Benefits: Estimates of Take-up", will be published. [5065]
  457
  Mr. Roger Evans
  "Income-related Benefits: Estimates of Take-up in 1994–95" have been published today by the Government statistical service. Copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  Benefits Agency (Seaham and Peterlee)
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the future of the Seaham and Peterlee Benefits Agency offices; and what changes in provision of services have taken place in the previous 12 months in respect of these offices. [3389]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. John Cummings, dated 15 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 on the future of the Seaham and Peterlee Benefits Agency offices; and what changes in provision of services have taken place in the previous 12 months in respect of these offices.
  As with other Districts, North Durham District, which includes the offices at Peterlee and Seaham, is required to review the services it provides to ensure that the most effective service is given within the resources available. There are no current plans to close either Peterlee or Seaham offices.
  Management responsibility for Seaham Branch Office will transfer from North Durham District to Wearside District with effect from 1st April 1997. It is proposed that a number of claims processing staff will transfer from Seaham Branch Office to the new purpose-built Sunderland District Office. The service to customers at Seaham Branch Office will, however, remain unchanged. Customers will continue to receive the full benefit service.
  The provision of service to our customers has changed in the last 12 months to accommodate the introduction of JSA. This benefit is paid and processed via Employment Services Jobcentres (ESJ). Benefits Agency staff are now employed in local ESJ premises for this purpose at both Peterlee and Seaham. While some processing functions have been re-organised, no changes have been made in the local service delivery to our customers during the last twelve months.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications the CSA has received for departure from the formula for capital settlement; and how many have been approved. [4421]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the chief executive, Miss Ann Chant. She will write to the hon. Member.
  458
  Letter from Ann Chant to Mr. Elliot Morley, dated 15 November 1996:
  I am replying to you Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about Child Support Agency Departures.
  In April 1995, the Agency successfully implemented changes for cases where property or capital settlements were an issue. A broad based allowance in exempt income was introduced to recognise that a transfer had taken place, and to avoid the need for lengthy and detailed investigation of the cases involved. To date the Agency has processed over 12,000 applications and over 4,200 allowances have been awarded under this provision. This measure was introduced as a forerunner to the Departures system, which will allow either parent to request detailed consideration of the circumstances of their case.
  In April this year the Agency started a trial of the Departures system in the area covered by the Agency Centre in Hastings. So far, around 2,300 applications have been received and the Agency has made decisions in over 80% of the cases. Applications are still being received and the trial will continue up to 2 December 1996, when the full Departures scheme is scheduled to be introduced.
  The Agency has had 158 requests for a Departure specifically on the grounds of a property or capital transfer. The Agency has made decisions on 96 of these applications so far and 7 awards have resulted. Of the cases refused, around a quarter were ineligible for a Departure as the amount of the transfer was less than £5,000. The cases where a decision is yet to be made require detailed examination of court orders and related papers to resolve complex issues, such as determining whether property or capital was equally owned and which elements of the transfer were for spousal as opposed to child maintenance.
  Decisions made under the trial exercise have no effect on the maintenance payable at this stage. From 2 December 1996, clients who applied as part of the trial will be asked if they wish their applications to proceed under the full scheme.
  I hope this is helpful.

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

  Mr. Heald
  [pursuant to his reply, 4 November 1996, Official Report, c. 384]: The information that I gave regarding the estimated cost of restoration of war widows pensions was incorrect. The correct information is as follows:

  The estimated cost of restoration of war widows pensions under the Pensions Act 1995 to the end of September 1996 is £40 million.

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

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

Firearms: Homicides
Lord Burnham Lord Burnham asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many separate incidents of killing or malicious wounding by legally held larger calibre handguns have taken place in the last five years.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, information is not available precisely in the form requested. In England and Wales in the three years from 1992 to 1994, 22 homicides are known to have been committed with legally held firearms of which four were handguns of a calibre larger than .22. In Scotland no legally held handgun is known to have been used in crimes of homicide, attempted murder or assault between 1991 and 1995. Information for Northern Ireland is not available. Information about the calibre of guns used in woundings is not collected centrally.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. In the light of the action which is being taken in another place and also here, is that not a very important statistic? Is it not the case that however horrible the events of Dunblane, ill thought out action is being taken on the basis of incomplete information?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, a great deal of thought has been given to this matter. I remind the House what the Home Secretary said in another place. He said that for all the analysis and comment that there has been about what happened in Dunblane primary school on 13th March, the fact remains that these awful crimes were committed with a handgun which was legally bought and legally possessed. That places a heavy duty on the Government to consider what controls there should be on the ownership and possession of handguns. Lord Cullen concluded that there are compelling grounds for stringently restricting their use and availability. We agree with his conclusion and have taken the measures which we believe to be right and in the interests of the public.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I understand that there is to be a debate today in another place on the subject of privately owned guns, and a very important vote is to take place. After that, the Bill will be considered in Committee in another place and will eventually find its way to this House. Would it not be better to leave the subject until the Bill comes here for a Second Reading when noble Lords can express various points of view on the use of all types of guns? That
1092
would be a more suitable time at which to discuss the matter rather than during a Question at your Lordships' Question Time.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have enormous sympathy for what has just been said by the noble Lord. It is not an easy time, and it is a particularly sensitive time. Of course, we do not know the nature and shape of the Bill which is to come from the Commons and we cannot possibly pre-empt that. Therefore, it is a difficult matter. However, I have a duty to answer Questions on the Order Paper. The Question has been tabled and I am answering it.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does the noble Baroness not agree that the figures which she gave to the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, prove that less than 1 per cent. of homicides in England and Wales in 1992, 1993 and 1994 involved legally held firearms of whatever description?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that statistic is not quite right. It is 14 per cent. of those which involved shooting. If we are talking about those three years, there were under 3,000 homicides, of which 196 were shootings. Of those, 22 involved legally held guns.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we accept and understand the Minister's caution in answering questions. I agree with her that it would be wise for the wider issues to be debated on another occasion. But in response to the specific and very limited question of the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, does she not agree that the statistics appear to show that it is not the calibre of the legally held handguns which matters most in homicide shootings?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this is a matter for debate at another time. The Government have thought very carefully about this issue. They have taken the view that there is a body of people within the community who have engaged in a legal sport for more than 100 years and that their right to sport shooting should be protected. That is what has given rise to today's debate. We have taken seriously what Lord Cullen said: that those matters should be rigorously controlled. We have balanced rigorous control with the freedom to engage in a sport which is legal.

Afghanistan: UN Conference
2.42 p.m.
Viscount Waverley Viscount Waverley asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will use today's international conference on Afghanistan at the United Nations to call for, or support, an immediate and total arms embargo by all states in the region.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, we urge all states to comply with the UN Security Council resolution adopted on 22nd October which called inter alia for an

1093
end to the supply of arms and ammunition and which the UK was instrumental in drafting. We shall also continue to urge all parties and states to co-operate fully with the UN special mission to Afghanistan.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, does the Minister agree with me as regards the need for the international community to become serious about Afghanistan? Will he recognise that mandatory action, rather than resolutions, to halt the flow of weapons is overdue and is prolonging the civil war?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, when the resolution was tabled on 22nd October we opposed the inclusion of language which would amount to the imposition of a mandatory arms embargo. We do not consider that an embargo would be enforceable and we are concerned that the Security Council would lose credibility if it passed a legally binding resolution which it could not enforce.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, what is the position of Her Majesty's Government regarding the demand, reported in some of today's newspapers, by the Taliban to take over representation of Afghanistan at the United Nations? Further, and more generally, can the Minister say what criteria have to be satisfied in a civil war situation for a particular party to assume control of the UN delegation for that country?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, we recognise states, not governments. We have contact at official level with a wide range of the factions involved in the civil war. I would prefer not to go further with the matter at this stage.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, does not history afford caution against mandatory action in Afghanistan?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, we do not believe that mandatory action anywhere, unless it is enforceable, should be brought into account.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, can the Minister comment on the statement by Mr. Portillo on a radio programme this morning that the UK has one of the tightest systems for regulating arms sales? Moreover, in the light of arms sales to Afghanistan, and the recent revelation that a British company has been exporting arms via Albania to Rwanda, can the Minister say whether or not those regulations should now be tightened further?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, we consider all export licence applications for defence equipment on a case-by-case basis in the light of established criteria and international guidelines to which we are committed through the UN, EU, OSCE and so on. These take into account inter alia whether a proposed transfer would
1094
prolong or aggravate an existing arms conflict. We have not received an ELA for defence equipment for Afghanistan since 1992.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether there are any representatives of Afghanistan at today's conference?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I believe that the noble Viscount is referring to a conference taking place in New York today. As I understand it, there is no Afghanistan representation at the conference as it is a wide-ranging UN conference which aims to try to get the international community's strong support for the UN special mission to Afghanistan.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does the Minister agree that arms exporters are very ingenious? Have the Government evolved any means whereby they can interfere or stop the process whereby a British firm which itself exports arms can and does export to an embargoed country by ordering through companies of another country, for example, in Mexico? Those arms are then exported to the embargoed country without passing through this country at all. Is that a position which escapes government control?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, it is a situation which it is almost impossible for the Government to control. I can also say that where America has tried to utilise the Helms-Burton legislation so far as concerns outside countries—for example, Cuba—it seems to have attracted, and indeed still attracts, great distaste throughout the world. That may be a parallel to what is being requested in this situation.
Lord Richard: My Lords, perhaps the Minister can help further. My noble friend asked whether there were any parallels to be drawn between the trickle—or, indeed, the flood—of arms which seems to be going into Afghanistan and the arms which appear to have got into Rwanda. Can the noble Lord tell us what rules there are in respect of British companies possibly selling arms to Afghanistan? Can he also tell us how the rules in respect of Afghanistan compare with those in relation to the sale of arms to Rwanda? Finally, have the Government any knowledge of the sale of arms to Afghanistan and Rwanda by British companies?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, the rules are exactly the same. We are talking about an export licence application. There has been no export licence application for any defence equipment for Afghanistan since 1992. We are not aware of any British company selling arms to Afghanistan, and we are not aware of any British company directly selling arms to Rwanda.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether the Government are aware of any indirect sale of arms to Rwanda?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, it seems to me that we are moving away somewhat from the Question on the Order Paper.

Arbitration Act 1996: Commencement Date
2.49 p.m.
Lord Hacking Lord Hacking asked Her Majesty's Government:
When the Arbitration Act 1996 will come into force; and whether they propose that the distinction between domestic and international arbitrations should be abolished.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, my honourable friend the Minster for Corporate and Consumer Affairs gave an undertaking when the Arbitration Bill was being debated in another place to use his best endeavours to bring the new Act into force in January next year. That remains the position. Our intention is not to commence Sections 85 to 87 of the Act. After the rest of the Act has been commenced, an order will be laid before both Houses under Section 88 of the Act to repeal those sections. Assuming the order is agreed, the special provisions for domestic arbitrations will no longer apply.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for that Answer. Can he confirm he is saying that when the Act comes into force there will be no distinction between domestic and international arbitration? Has my noble and learned friend received any representations from any quarter relating to any section of this Act not coming into force at the commencement date? If he has received representations, what has been his response?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, my noble friend is correct to say that on commencement—which we hope will be in January next year—there will be no distinction between domestic arbitration and international arbitration. As regards the latter part of his question, the only representations we have received concern Section 46 of the Act, which relates to the so-called equity or honourable engagement clauses. This provision will apply only to new arbitration agreements entered into after the Act has come into force. The provision will be different from the rest of the Act because it is concerned with the critically important issue of how the substance of the dispute is to be decided. Other provisions relate to procedural matters. Those representations came from the insurance industry, and the departmental advisory committee on arbitration law agreed with the view put to us.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, will my noble and learned friend give further consideration to that issue for two reasons: first, the Act, right the way across its provisions, will now apply equally to all arbitrations started after commencement date? Secondly, will my noble and learned friend consider whether it is in the best interests of the insurance and reinsurance industry that this delay is allowed?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, that is certainly the view of the insurance industry which, as
1096
I indicated, has been supported by the departmental advisory committee. What I sought to explain in my first Answer is that we see that Section 46 is different in character because it goes to the substance of a dispute. It seems to us that while one might adjust procedural matters, it would in principle be wrong to adjust the way in which the substance of a dispute is determined.

Digital Television Services: Regulations
2.52 p.m.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking, through the implementation of Directive 95/47/EC and the accompanying Telecommunications Act Licence, to secure the effective, timely and compulsory licensing at fair prices of all proprietary aspects of the technology used in conditional access and subscriber management systems for digital television services.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, regulations have been in place since 23rd August this year, well in advance of any manufacturing agreements for decoders for digital television, which deal with the licensing of proprietary conditional access technology. Additional regulations covering the supply of conditional access services, including subscriber management services, will come into force around the end of this year.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I apologise to the House for the complexity of the Question, which has certainly exercised my mind. This is a complex area. Will the Minister confirm that the August regulations relating to the European directive cover conditional access? Does the Minister agree with me that to ensure that there is no monopoly of this new technology it is also necessary to give the director general of Oftel full powers to deal with the other aspects of this matter, such as intellectual property rights at a fair price, the applications interface and, of course, the electronic page guides, without which we are in grave danger of allowing a monopoly situation to arise in this important developing area?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I certainly congratulate the noble Baroness on her firm grasp of this extremely technical subject. I can confirm that the statutory instrument that was introduced in August implemented obligations under the directive. It related to the technology of conditional access. What we are consulting on at the moment relates to another part of the directive; namely, the conditional access services and the extent to which those should be regulated. I have indicated that we hope to introduce regulations in respect of that before the end of the year. The noble Baroness is absolutely right; it is not simply a question of leaving the matter there. Changes will be introduced in terms of the Telecommunications Act Licence which would be subject to the direction of the director of Oftel. We are determined to secure that broadcasters may gain

1097
access to the services on a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory basis. I know there is a concern that at present there is potential for anti-competitive abuse of the so-called "gatekeeping position" as regards the company or individual who has control of the box that will sit on top of televisions in years to come. We are determined to ensure that there is a proper regulation of that situation so that the abuse which is feared will not arise.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, does not my noble and learned friend agree that it would be preferable to have one box on the top of everyone's television to cover digital satellite television and digital terrestrial television as opposed to having many boxes? Does not my noble and learned friend also agree that the regulations should include conditions that satellite broadcasters should be made to license their technology to other manufacturers? If that does not happen, those satellite broadcasters with conditional access systems could block free-to-air television services, which would be detrimental both to the industry and to the consumer?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I cannot offer a view about whether there should be only one box. However, if my noble friend has asked me whether I consider that there will be only one box, the answer is yes. It is for that reason that we must ensure that the arrangements for conditional access are properly in place. As regards technology, the regulations that we have already introduced cover the licensing of conditional access technology. As I indicated, that must be undertaken on a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory basis. There will also be a further protection for manufacturers who wish to include what is described as a common interface, which can be either satellite, terrestrial or cable. It would not be permissible for one licensing body to exclude the opportunity for a manufacturer to include such a common interface. I hope that is reasonably clear to my noble friend.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, is the Minister aware that under these technical matters there lies a serious public interest issue as regards the field of competition policy? We are dealing with one media group; namely, the Murdoch group, which at the moment owns 36 per cent. of our national press and has a dominant position in satellite subscription broadcasting. If the Government do not take sufficiently vigorous action, the Murdoch group could have a dominating position with regard to the new digital technology. Is it not necessary for the Government to take pro-active action here rather than wait to see what the Murdoch group does and then try to seek to deal with matters later? Is there not a real danger of the Murdoch interests becoming digital dictators?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the whole purpose of my answers has been to explain that we are not prepared to see an anti-competitive position adopted by whoever may be first into the market. However, I neglected to respond to one part of my
1098
noble friend's question, which may be relevant to what the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, has mentioned. Those who are described as free-to-air broadcasters will have exactly the same rights for access to the conditional access service as anyone else who would otherwise pay. We have to recognise that those who move first and take the greatest investment risk have a legitimate first mover advantage. However, we are concerned that no one should adopt a dominant position. We have the technology regulations in place. We are consulting on the conditional access services position. If anyone has any further views on how those should be refined, my department will be interested to receive those representations.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in view of the fact that this directive became operative in the Recess, and of the importance which my noble friend Lady Dean, and indeed the Government, attach to this matter, would it not be wise for the Government to initiate a full-dress debate upon this whole subject? Will the noble Viscount the Leader of the House take steps to ensure, in conjunction with the usual channels, that an adequate opportunity is afforded to the House to discuss this question?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, if there is to be a full-dress debate, I suggest that on that occasion my noble friend Lord Inglewood might respond to it. I am beginning to reach the end of my knowledge on this complicated matter.
There are no such digital arrangements in place yet. It was desirable that we had the regulations published as soon as possible; as I indicated, I very much hope that the second part of them will be introduced before the end of the year. Then, well in advance of any activity using conditional access, all the regulations will be in place.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I apologise for pressing a question that has already been asked at least once; however, I should like some reassurance upon it. Is it not a fact that, under the regulatory regime as presently drafted, upon the launch of digital television there is a danger that one broadcaster could exercise a monopoly over access to all digital television—unless of course the viewer were to purchase a number of technology boxes for the top of his set to decode different signals? If that is so, is it not a matter of the greatest importance that the Government pre-empt that before the launch of digital television and ensure that no monopoly is possible? Will the Minister please give the House that assurance?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I believe I answered that question. However, if it is not clear, perhaps I may attempt to clarify the matter further. The regulations we have already introduced cover the licensing of conditional access technology. That licensing must be undertaken on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. It would not be open to

1099
the one granting the licence to require of the manufacturer that a common interface arrangement be excluded. If someone regards himself as having been improperly refused such a licence, then the regulations would allow him to take action in court. That is not the only aspect of the matter. Even if the technology is in place and only one box allows access from satellite, terrestrial or cable television, we want to have in place regulations that allow proper access to the services. Those regulations are presently out for consultation and we hope to have them in place before the end of the year. If the noble Lord has views on the draft regulations and is concerned to see them amended, I have already extended an invitation to offer representation. As I hope he will appreciate, our purpose is exactly the same as his; namely, that those who come into the business and take large risks should secure a first mover advantage. However, at the same time we strongly resist the idea that any monopoly should be created.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord arrange for an explanatory paper to be published so that the people who pay the licence can understand what he is talking about?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I should be delighted to have such a paper myself.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I join in congratulating the Minister both on his rapid mastery of this delightful subject and on the reassuring tone of his remarks. He will have noticed the strong feeling on all sides of the Chamber. Does he agree that it is not spoken words in this House that matter, but that we examine the regulations in great detail? Is he aware that the directive contains ambiguities which might allow a potential monopolist to wriggle off the hook? Will he therefore assure the House that the regulations will be absolutely precise in a number of areas? In particular, will he ensure that broadcasters will be able to issue their own smart cards to their own customers and not be subject to the control of a monopolist gatekeeper?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his opening remark. If there are points of ambiguity in the regulations, it is precisely during the period of consultation upon which we are presently engaged that we wish to have them cleared up. I shall be grateful to him if he will let me know of any such ambiguities.
The position is not entirely easy. We cannot adopt certain steps being urged upon us such as the mandatory licensing of intellectual property. That would be an extreme step. Nothing at the present time indicates that such a course would be appropriate. As I have stated on a number of occasions, we do not wish to see a monopoly in place; but we want to allow those who take the risk of investment to take
1100
proper advantage of it, while at the same time ensuring that no such complete restriction is allowed to favour them.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I appreciate that the situation is difficult and complicated. However, am I right in thinking that the regulations referred to by the Government are based on a European Union directive? If that is the case, will the Government give an assurance that, if the final regulations allow Rupert Murdoch to have a monopoly that excludes the BBC, they will not blame the European Union for that outcome?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I hope that none of my remarks led the noble Lord to believe that we should try to blame anyone else. We are concerned to ensure that, as we hope, the pre-eminent position that the United Kingdom presently enjoys in this field can be secured. It is a massive opportunity for exports and trade. We want to maintain that position. At the same time we are well aware of the dangers of establishing a monopoly and seek to introduce regulations to avoid that possibility.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: My Lords, will the Minister agree that the Question has proved that there are far too many television programmes already?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am a little anxious in responding to my noble friend since the one thing I do understand about digitalising the signal is that it will possibly allow him to enjoy as many as a further 200 channels.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, I thank the Minister for dealing so fully with the Question. Will he take into account that, in relation to the regulations presently out for consultation, time is of the essence? I gather that the present monopoly supplier of satellite television is already out to tender for the new set-top box which will be launched next autumn. Time is of the essence in putting the regulations in place very quickly, in order to give the director-general the right to cover and license these areas.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, all the points that the noble Baroness made are well understood. As I indicated, that is why we put out the regulations on 23rd August, giving the maximum time available to put the provisions in place. Clearly it is desirable to ensure that some of the anxieties that noble Lords have will be met, that access will be very much greater than at present, and that the opportunities that lie in the television world will be very much extended and to the benefit of the United Kingdom as a whole.

Relations between Central and Local Government: Select Committee Report
3.7 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Tanworth Lord Hunt of Tanworth rose to move, That this House take note of the Report of the Select Committee on Relations between Central and Local Government, entitled Rebuilding Trust (Session 1995–;96, HL Paper 97), and of the Government's response (Cm. 3464).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the Motion in my name on the Order Paper, I should perhaps start by reminding noble Lords briefly of the remit that the House gave us in October last year. Our task was to consider the relationship between central and local government: the balance in that relationship; whether it was working well or badly; the legitimate concerns of both parties to it; and in particular the financial relationship, including the extent to which financial independence for local government is desirable and practicable. We were not concerned with structure or boundaries, with devolution or with problems relating to particular services; and our terms of reference excluded Northern Ireland. Finally, we were told to complete that rather formidable task by the Summer Recess.
After studying some 150 written memoranda and holding 28 meetings, during which 35 sets of witnesses gave oral evidence, we were left in no doubt that relations between central and local government, although perhaps better than a few years ago, were unsatisfactory. There is a high degree of unconstructive tension between them. We did not point fingers or attempt to allocate blame because the movement of power to central government or to quangos has been happening over a long time and under different governments.
The pressures for national standards are part of the story and, of course, in the 1980s some local authorities had only themselves to blame for some of the restraints imposed upon them. The trouble is, however, that the shift in the balance over time has been on a piecemeal basis as governments reacted to particular problems by taking powers away from the local authorities and it has not been in accordance with any over-arching philosophy as to what it is right for local government to do.
However, the cumulative effect has been not just a weakening of local democracy—which most people who gave evidence to us regretted, since local government is concerned with issues which affect the citizen locally and directly—but also a blurring of accountability so that a local consumer or taxpayer with a problem often does not know and cannot even find out who is responsible for it.
The overwhelming weight of our evidence was that a change of climate was required and that that change pointed to strengthening local democracy while safeguarding and maintaining the essential interests of central government. Although some of our witnesses sought that change in new constitutional arrangements or a Bill of Rights to reinforce the democratic mandate
1102
of local government, we did not see it as within our terms of reference to consider or to call for a codified written constitution to enshrine the powers of local government. We thought it more sensible to assume the continuation of the doctrine of vires under which local government has to adduce powers from Parliament for any action it takes and to see how the climate could be improved and how present arrangements could be made to work better. We came to the unanimous conclusion that there was plenty of room for this.
I cannot mention them all, but our main recommendations can be summarised under three objectives: first, to mark the status and respect which is due to a system of local government enjoying a democratic mandate. We recommended that, first, the guidelines agreed in November 1994 between the Prime Minister and the English local authorities should be expanded into a more formal concordat on the place of local government, its role, its financial base and so on. Secondly, we recommended that the UK should adhere to the Council of Europe's Charter—and of course, the Council of Europe has nothing whatever to do with the European Union. The charter is on local self-government and we seem to meet its provisions anyhow. Thirdly, we recommended that a permanent parliamentary committee should be established to take an overview of and to monitor central/local government relations.
Next, we recommended helping local authorities to play what we felt was their increasingly important role of community leaders in the field of local governance where they alone at the local level can take an overall and prioritising role, in contrast to quangos which are normally single-interest bodies and often unelected. We recommended that: first, the local authorities should have a new power of local competence somewhat wider than that provided in Section 137 of the Local Government Act, but still a restricted power; secondly, that they should be enabled to experiment with different internal management and electoral arrangements; and, thirdly, that better arrangements should be introduced in Whitehall to co-ordinate policy on local issues like public safety and drugs which cut across departmental boundaries.
Finally, on the crucial issue of finance, we recommended: first, that capping should no longer be the general practice, although a reserve power to cap should remain subject to parliamentary approval. Whatever the past justification for capping—and we did not comment on it—it is in our view no longer necessary. It distorts local finance, it confuses accountability and it restricts the ability of local authorities to take financial responsibility for their action. Secondly, we recommended that Treasury control of local authority self-financed expenditure should be relaxed and that the local revenue base should be enlarged by returning the non-domestic rates to local authority control. We felt that the shrinkage of the locally financed base is a disincentive to accountability and has a most undesirable effect on gearing. Thirdly, we recommended that standard spending assessments should be simplified and should be used only for their original purpose of grant distribution. Fourthly, we

1103
thought that there should be a review of whether compulsory competitive tendering should become voluntary and in any case less detailed.
I do not have time to expand on most of the recommendations, although I hope that some of my colleagues will do so. However, I wish to say a word about the proposal for a permanent parliamentary, although not necessarily House of Lords, committee to maintain an overview of central and local government relations. We were aware that in 1992 the Select Committee on committee work, under the chairmanship of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, considered and came down against the idea of a standing committee. We would not wish to appear disrespectful of that view. Indeed, our recommendation for an outside overview committee is couched somewhat tentatively and does not necessarily refer to this House. It seemed to us, however, particularly in the light of the evidence we heard, that things had changed somewhat since 1992. We were mainly influenced by the feeling which ran through all the evidence that we took that whatever decisions were taken on particular issues, the real need was for central and local government to put an adversarial past behind them and to build a new relationship of trust, otherwise, we might as well get rid of local government altogether. To give them their due, I believe that both sides recognise that. But we were struck by the number of witnesses who felt that an outside independent body could play a useful role in making the inevitable tension between the two tiers creative rather than adversarial.
Before touching on the Government's White Paper which is also mentioned in the Motion, I wish to thank all those who helped the Select Committee in its work. I wish to thank the many witnesses, and perhaps I may say how struck we all were by the number of people who thought the issue that we were discussing was important and volunteered evidence to us. We were also exceptionally fortunate in our two specialist advisers: Professor Michael Clarke from the School of Public Policy at Birmingham University, and Mr. Tony Travers of the London School of Economics. Their wide knowledge and experience and their constructive approach were very helpful to us. Our clerk, Mr. Simon Burton, was a real tower of strength both in organising our work and in drafting and redrafting our report against a very tight timetable.
Finally, I wish to express my personal thanks to my colleagues for their consistently helpful approach and for their forbearance. Some of them may wish today to develop points raised in evidence which do not feature in our report, but I wish to stress that the report itself was unanimous.
I now wish to express my appreciation of the fact that the Government's response to the report takes the form of a White Paper. I understand that it is an unusually formal way of replying to a Select Committee report and thus marks the Government's view of the importance of the subject. It is most welcome. I am sure that my committee would also welcome much of the tone of the White Paper and, above all, the fact that it looks to the future and does not rake up old scores. Of course, my
1104
committee no longer exists, so the few comments that I should like to make about the White Paper are essentially personal ones.
The Government agree that the present state of central-local government relations is unsatisfactory and that a change of climate is needed. They agree that the existing guidelines for central and local relations for England and Wales should be developed to incorporate issues of the kind identified by the Select Committee and that similar guidelines should be prepared for Scotland. They agree that those guidelines should include a statement setting out the role and status of local government, covering the same ground as the Council of Europe's charter, even though, no doubt for political reasons, the Government are still unwilling to adhere to the latter.
The Government agree in principle on the need for a new and restricted power of local competence to encourage the leadership role of local authorities. They agree to legislate to allow experimentation with new forms of internal management and to conduct joint research on ways of encouraging public participation. They agree also to examine the effectiveness of Whitehall arrangements for handling cross-departmental business affecting local government.
Those decisions and the language about partnership accompanying them are very much in line with the Select Committee's thinking and I welcome that. But then, coming to the crucial, day-to-day issue of finance, a quite different tone emerges. The Select Committee's recommendations on the discontinuation of capping as a standard procedure with a reserve power to cap when an authority sets a clearly unreasonable budget, on the simplification of SSAs, on the relaxation of control over local authorities' self-financed expenditure and on the return of the non-domestic rate to local control are all rejected.
The Select Committee fully accepted the Government's clear need to ensure that local authority expenditure as a whole is kept within reasonable bounds and that adequate reserve powers are in existence to ensure that. However, we were concerned about the way in which that control is exercised at present. I am afraid that we were not at all persuaded by the Treasury's evidence on the matter. Our recommendations may not be perfect but I am bound to say that it seems somewhat inconsistent, to say the least, to talk the language of rebuilding Trust while refusing to make any concession at all on the financial issues which are at the heart of the central-local government relationship. We shall all want to listen very carefully to what the minister has to say when he comes to reply to the debate.
Perhaps the most intriguing sentence in the White Paper came at the end of paragraph 6. After saying that the building of good central-local government relations is something which must be continued and developed over time, it goes on to say:
"The Lords Report and this response, therefore, should not be regarded as the end of a story or even a beginning, but rather simply as one more, albeit significant and valuable, chapter in the continuing development of our living constitution".

1105
I hope that that does indeed mean that as trust is rebuilt both sides will show a greater sense of partnership and greater flexibility in future years *on finance as well as on other matters.
I commend the Select Committee's report to the House as a contribution to what will be a continuing debate. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House take note of the Report of the Select Committee on Relations between Central and Local Government, entitled Rebuilding Trust (Session 1995–;96, HL Paper 97), and of the Government's response (Cm. 3464).—(Lord Hunt of Tanworth.)
3.25 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for presenting the committee's report and for outlining its conclusions in the elegant manner we would expect from a former Secretary of the Cabinet. To my party, the debate is particularly welcome at this time. A general election is in the offing. One of the issues which no doubt will be debated, perhaps because of a coincidence of dates between the general election and local elections, is the future of local government. The least I can say is that there appear to us to be some important differences of opinion about what that future should be between ourselves and the present Government—I use the words "present Government" advisedly—which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, illustrated. I am glad of the opportunity afforded today to restate and reaffirm the essential themes presented to the committee by the Labour Party in both our written memorandum and oral evidence.
The House will be grateful to the noble Lord not only for the clarity with which he introduced the report of his committee but also for the manner in which he chaired its proceedings, as I know from the compliments I have heard paid to him and my own personal experience. As the noble Lord said, the committee's report has been welcomed not only by my party but also by those who will form the new Local Government Association in England, the Welsh Local Government Association and the existing Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.
The report has also been welcomed, although in a somewhat muted tone and with many reservations, by the present Government. That is indeed a tribute to the committee, especially as the welcome is in the form of a White Paper.
I hope that I do not strike too much of a partisan note if I say that the committee's report is particularly welcome to us since it broadly endorses views which we have held for some time and which we set out in our evidence. I shall mention only a few specifics on which our agreement is absolute. Britain should sign without delay the Council of Europe's charter on local self-government. Local government should be encouraged to develop its role as the community leader; should be allowed more freedom to experiment with internal structures; and should seek new ways of increasing turnout in local elections and be encouraged
1106
by central government to do so. Capping should no longer be a general practice imposed without regard for circumstances. The non-domestic rate should be returned to local authority control. The whole system of compulsory competitive tendering needs to be reviewed and there should be some outside independent body. I recommend that that might be an appropriate matter for your Lordships' House in the course of time.
In all those matters we support the conclusions of the report. I do not wish to say too much more about them except perhaps that we regard the Council of Europe charter as a matter of the greatest importance. My noble friend Lady Farrington will have more to say on that matter later; she will also comment on SSAs, of which she has great experience.
I wish to concentrate on what I regard as the central issue of the report; namely, the problem of what may be described as centralisation. From that follows logically the matter, described by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, as a crucial issue, of local authority finance. In case your Lordships feel that I am wholly and uncritically supportive of the report, I should like to indicate some of the difficulties we see in the full and immediate implementation of the committee's conclusions. I can assure your Lordships it is a matter of timing rather than substance.
Centralisation, as our evidence to the committee pointed out, is not a new problem. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, described how the shift to the centre has taken place throughout the 20th century under governments of all political persuasions. The Liberal Government in 1906 took control over the payment of pensions. The Labour Government of 1945 nationalised gas and electricity. The provision of water and sewerage, long regarded as a local government function, was nationalised in England and Wales by a Conservative Government in 1973. Even by the time the Conservative Government took office in 1979, the position of local authorities in terms of authority and stature was a long distance from the old Birmingham of Joseph Chamberlain. In the matter of centralisation no political party can claim total innocence.
Our concern now is that the shift to the centre has gone unhealthily far. In short, we believe that central government have taken too much to the centre and that local democracy has become enfeebled to the point where it is neither true nor effective. We agree with the broad conclusions of the report on that issue. But let me be brutally frank. We believe that since 1979 there has been a deliberate and sustained assault on local government. The time has now come to call a halt. It is not only a question of calling a halt; it is also a question of putting the whole process into reverse.
The nature of the assault was perhaps best illustrated by the imposition of the poll tax against the advice of practically everyone in local government—of all parties or none—who saw its pitfalls. The experience, as noble Lords will be aware, was truly dreadful. Indeed, it was largely responsible for the fall of one Prime Minister. It is now time to repair—in this we agree with the report—in so far as we can, some of the damage that has been done.
I understand from the government response that the Government have, somewhat belatedly, come round at least partially to that point of view. They accept the

1107
recommendation in the committee's report that the guidelines agreed in November 1994 between the Prime Minister and local government associations should be in a more formal framework. But the government response still reserves the right to add to the issues suggested in the report another matter; namely,
"the role of local government in supporting national aims and objectives set by the Government".
I find that particular response seriously depressing. The Government—or perhaps I should say the Conservative Party since it is the Conservative Government who are responding—have completely failed to understand that one of the main features of local democracy is pluralism. Simply put, that means that democratically elected local authorities may well fall to be controlled by parties or a combination of parties different to the party in power at Westminster. That is a fact which any party in control of central government must accept. It is a monstrosity to insist that any party, of whatever colour, should retain the right—not in legislation, because that is self-evident as long as that party commands a majority in the House of Commons—to require local government to support objectives set by that party's government unless those objectives are either submitted to and approved by Parliament in legislation or they are the product of a consensus between all those who have responsibility in the area; in other words, and in practice, all political parties. Anything else would be a negation of proper democracy. Unless that fundamental point is accepted I doubt whether all the fine words in the Government's response are worth more than a row of beans.
Local authorities have a direct democratic mandate which is quite separate from national government. Until and unless that is recognised—this is the main thrust of the report—and local authorities are no longer treated as mere providers of services, democracy in this country will continue to suffer. I recognise that in their response to the committee's report the present Government—I repeat, the present Government—have moved their ground a bit. But the history of the past few years gives me little confidence that it is more than a temporary spasm.
Let us consider the facts. Since 1979 over 200 Acts of Parliament affecting the powers and responsibilities of local government have been implemented. Regulations of the greatest detail have been introduced to curtail the freedom of local councils to take their own decisions. The degree of central government interference in what most countries would regard as management decisions is not mirrored anywhere else in the developed world. There has been a deliberate attempt to bypass local authorities through the mechanism of the quango. Government-appointed or self-appointed bodies are now responsible for over £30 billion of public spending which used to be under the influence or control of elected local authorities. Education, training, housing, urban development, public transport and planning are only some of the major policy areas over which democratically elected representatives of local people have lost their say. To cap it all, central government now make no fewer than 40,000 appointments to non-elected bodies.
1108
In the light of all that, it is no wonder that local authorities have lost trust and that the noble Lord—I am sure he was responsible—entitled the report, Rebuilding Trust. It is little wonder that in the circumstances so few candidates of quality in any party are prepared to stand for election as councillors or to serve local authorities as officials. Local government used to be the breeding ground for aspiring politicians at national level. It is no longer. It seems that that role has now passed to estate agencies.
That leads me naturally, since it is central to the problem pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, to local authority finance. It is at the heart of centralisation, as the committee points out in chapter 5. It is clear to us that local authorities should have as great a control over their revenue-raising powers as is possible. Perhaps I may speak to the present situation. Local authorities should not be put in the position in which they are forced to raise council tax in order to provide a dying government with room to reduce the headline rate of income tax. In case your Lordships think I am making too much of a party political point, it is worth remembering that last April, when inflation was 2.4 per cent., council tax increases averaged 6 per cent. The previous year, when inflation was at 3 per cent., council tax increases averaged 5.2 per cent.
We know that the Government wish to reduce the standard rate of income tax for purely electoral reasons—it has been advertised well in the press—but it makes no social sense to force a disproportionate increase in council tax in order to do that. In purely party political terms, if I may be cynical for another moment, it makes great sense since the manoeuvre allows the Conservatives, who control central government, to blame Labour and the Liberal Democrats for the council tax increases as opposition parties control most local authorities which are responsible for setting the level of council tax. The tactic is really very simple. You reduce the revenue support grant from central government to local authorities so as to leave room for income tax cuts. Local authorities are then forced to raise more in council tax in order to maintain the level of service which has been, and is, required of them by central government and Parliament. Central government—Conservative—can then reduce national income tax and blame local councils—Labour or Liberal Democrat—for raising taxes in another form. It is all very simple, but I put it in those terms to your Lordships because I believe it is fundamentally dishonest.
I said earlier that we accepted the broad conclusions of the committee's report. Nevertheless, as I pointed out when giving oral evidence to the committee, what is required in our view is a change of culture—a change in the whole way in which the governance of this country is perceived. As I said in the debate on the Address—I do not like to quote my own words but I shall—subsidiarity, like charity, begins at home. And it is no good demanding subsidiarity from Europe unless we are prepared to concede it at home. But it is equally no good imagining that such a cultural shift

1109
as I am suggesting and as I suggested in oral evidence to the committee is quickly or easily accomplished. It is going to take a long time and many disappointments to get from where we are at the moment, as the committee pointed out, to where we should be. It is that word of caution which I would leave with your Lordships. Fine words may be spoken in opposition, but they butter no parsnips in government, and since that is where we expect to be in a few months' time I hope your Lordships will accept that my reservations on timing are to the point.
Having delivered that perhaps slightly sombre warning, I conclude by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and his committee on the quality of the study and the report. I assure your Lordships that we do, and will, take most seriously their recommendations. They have pointed to changes that are needed. Their work has been thorough and effective. We will make sure that that work and those results are not lost.
3.43 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I start by declaring an interest as a serving councillor in the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames and I have various local authority positions, mainly stemming from that. I wondered how, in paying tribute to our chairman, I could avoid being formulaic. It really is quite difficult. One has heard before the thanks to chairs of Select Committees, but I have to say that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, expressed what members of the committee thought far better than we could have done. It would have been a pleasure to have been a fly on the wall witnessing his incisiveness and objectivity. It was an even greater pleasure to take part in the process and in the work led by him, with, as he rightly said, the assistance of the professional advisers and of the Clerk of the Committee.
It was in large part due to the noble Lord's chairmanship that our report was unanimous and also to a large extent because the subject matter—the importance of rebuilding trust—transcended so many differences. I suspect that some members of the committee may have been a little uneasy at how far we went. I know that some of us might have liked to have gone a little further, not perhaps so much in content as in emphasis and in the expansion of certain points. However, the serious nature of the report, and especially of its recommendations, is underpinned and underlined by that unanimity.
I have explained that I am a local councillor. I have been vividly reminded recently of the need for trust by somewhat parochial events—but parochial events illustrating wider issues. In my ward the local authority has been involved in what I think most people would regard as a very small proposal for a very small development. We have called it "mini golf', for failure to find any smaller term to describe it. People who live nearby are anxious and suspicious and talk of it in terms such as an "astro-turfed theme park", but it is something on the scale of clock golf at the seaside.
I have been forced recently, because of these reactions, to assess the response. Why do people think there is a hidden agenda? In my defence I should say
1110
that generally the scheme has been well received, but why should some people think that my colleagues and I—and indeed the council officers—would want to impose something if it is really so very unpopular? What possible benefit could there be in it for us? The answer is not logical, or if it is logical, at any rate it is not causally connected. I think it is that politicians and politics generally are in such disrepute that the instinctive view among many members of the public—the default mode, perhaps, in computer speak—is that anything that comes out of the political process must be tainted. So they distrust the politicians. The future of local government—the future of all government—lies in recreating trust. I do not believe we can recreate trust between the tiers of government without rebuilding the trust of the public.
I recall that when I first thought about standing for my local authority one of my friends started to call me "T. Dan Hamwee". Things have moved on rather positively since then, but politicians share the responsibility for rebuilding trust. If we can do it, we shall be a little nearer to the goal of helping to build a society of people who are keen to exercise their rights of citizenship. That is what a good deal of our report was concerned with—the quality of government, the importance of democracy and the ballot box and the opportunity for local government to do what it sees as right for its own community and to take the consequences at the ballot box. It is that readiness to take the consequences that entitles councillors to do things differently between different areas.
We heard a good deal of such sentiments during the evidence given to the committee. The Scandinavian countries have gone through this exercise. I was fascinated to learn of the experiments that have gone on there. In Scandinavia the systems of local government have traditionally been subject to quite heavy regulation. To try to break that up, free local government experiments were set up. The aim was to innovate, to develop systems and service delivery and to develop ways of relating to the citizen. The experiment was endorsed officially—ironically, that means that it was endorsed centrally—but the endorsement created an environment in which people would take risks. The whole process involved evaluation. So schemes which did not work were dropped and some which did work and worked well were taken up by central government; and the examples were passed round. That very culture of freedom meant that some authorities actually did things which they discovered they could have done under the old rules but had assumed that they could not. That freedom to experiment, as your Lordships will readily appreciate, means that the freedom to fail must be accepted as being an occasional, one hopes, but inevitable consequence.
In our first public session, we moved very quickly to the issue of local competence. The Select Committee raised with the Department of the Environment the freedom for local government to exercise the power of competence. The DoE stated very firmly in its written evidence that,
"local authorities must be able to adduce specific statutory authority for their actions".

1111
The senior civil servant giving evidence to the Select Committee commented that local authorities can use Section 137 of the Local Government Act. That section is referred to in the Government's response. He reminded the Select Committee that the section enables local authorities to spend money for the benefit of their areas and inhabitants.
I asked whether spending within that section has to come within any cap which is applied by Government under the current rules. The reply was, "yes". My noble friend, Lord Tope, asked,
"Since capping is related to Standard Spending Assessment, can you tell us how section 137 spending is reflected in the SSA calculations?"
The reply was,
"I think specifically not at all is probably the short answer".
I am disappointed with the Government's response on the question of the power of local competence. To say that financial limits placed on the use of those powers do not give rise to difficulties because most authorities are spending within the limits is perhaps a failure to understand or admit the relationship with the other regulations to which I have just referred. I look forward to the reassessment which we are promised, but the very wording used in the White Paper:
"whether a more general power of local competence is practical and advisable in the light of broader priorities",
seems to hint at the answer.
The freedom to experiment seems to be accepted more readily in the response in the area of internal working arrangements. How one does things is important, but the scope for effectiveness is limited if what one can do is limited. The freedom to do things differently has recently been identified as important by Sir Charles Carter, whose report on pulling together 10 years of work by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation on local government has just been published. He says that leadership is especially needed in promoting this idea. It is,
"not a ground for suspicion or rebuke or bureaucratic obstruction, hut the essential means for the emergence of new ideas which can then compete for more general acceptance".
It is a pity that the Government are not more willing to embrace the freedom to do things differently. That is particularly odd, given that at European level they argue this very freedom for themselves.
The various controls and constraints which the committee called to be lifted, such as capping, CCT and so on, are not just about constraining spending, but about constraining innovation. The effects are much more long term and fundamental than year-on-year economies. Pushing CCT so far that those who let the contract lose all sense of hands-on experience; controlling capital in order to control a local authority's capital base, because that base means power, so that there is little investment; capping and ring fencing and the Treasury imposing hypothecation even when it does not accept it for itself—all these things are very serious.
I read earlier this year of a warning that the private financing of local authority projects was at risk after a recent court judgment. For the cognoscenti, I refer to the Allerdale case. Bankers would not know if their
1112
borrowers were allowed to borrow so they did not know if they could enforce repayment. The Government were being urged to establish a new tribunal to vet deals in advance in order to certify whether a proposed borrowing was intra vires. Is not the real issue local authority freedom, not the artificial criteria but a local authority being able to seek borrowing based on proper, normal commercial and indeed correctly political assessments?
These regimes also distort perceptions. Who is responsible for certain courses of action or indeed the failure to take action? Accountability breaks down so fast when discretion is constrained. My own authority is currently consulting, as it always does, on next year's budget. At a public meeting last week we were asked, "Please do not spend so much on roads. We want you to spend more on education and on services for elderly people". But if my local authority gets credit approvals, as it may well do, for work to the roads, what are we to do? That credit approval will not be transferable. How do we explain without whingeing—I assure noble Lords that most of us would prefer not to whinge about all this—to the resident who sees road works outside his own house when he has an elderly relative who is receiving less than an ideal level of domiciliary care? I believe that we shall continue in the vicious circle of deficient accountability and mistrust by the public while so little of the local authority budget is raised locally. That is a view that is widely shared. The Government seem to accept that there should be an increase, even if it is a small one. I have to say that theirs is a minority voice in arguing against a return to the business rate.
It is no wonder that people are so confused and that their votes, if they do vote locally, are so affected by what is happening nationally. I am glad to see the statement in the White Paper that the Government want to see progress in increasing public participation in local democracy and local government. I hope that their actions will not be as top down as some of their comments seem to suggest. I do not believe that people want to be treated with paternalism, which is not to say that they do not want leadership. They are very open to that idea, particularly where they have been involved by their local authority. I believe that the future of local government lies in finding the best level of that involvement and the best mechanisms. That is almost bound to vary from place to place and from group to group because even in a relatively small country such as ours we have a culture which is not a monotone. I remain true to my Liberal Democrat roots in believing that government should be delivered at the lowest possible level, but I do not believe that there is any one formula. Certainly I believe that politicians at all levels have an obligation to encourage participation, not simply saying to people, "Here is power, get on with it", but "Here is power and support to use it in the best way".
It is all a question of trust, which is sometimes assisted by symbolic actions. Signing the European charter of local self-government would, among other things, be such a symbol. Perhaps that would be too symbolic in the case of Europe. Establishing a new mechanism to scrutinise the Government's proposals

1113
would also be a symbol, as well as a useful mechanism. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, reminded us, that is what was proposed when we drew to some extent on the experience of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. That is not perhaps the step which the White Paper suggested. A concordat between central and local government, something more than a guideline, would also be a symbol, but it would be much much more.
The Government's response states,
"It hopes that local government will be willing to play its part".
That is fair enough. Every sector must play its part to rebuild trust, including the trust of citizens—and of people who want to be citizens, not subjects—and the trust of tiers of government of one another.
I believe that there is a great responsibility on the next government, of whatever colour and of whatever intensity of colour, to work to rebuild that trust. If the next government fail, or refuse, to do that, they will be failing thousands of councillors and council officers who are frustrated in the job that they want to do. They will be failing millions of people, not only by precluding efficient and effective local government, but by precluding their participation. Indeed, I do not think that it would be going too far to say that they would be failing the cause of democracy itself.
4.1 p.m.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, our interests are declared in our report so your Lordships will understand that I attach great importance to the deliberations of the Select Committee on relationships between the two elected tiers of government in our democracy and that I deeply wish to see the gradual but strong move towards "Rebuilding Trust" between them, which is the title of our report. We were very fortunate in our chairman whose longstanding skills drew out an agreed report although there were many areas of disagreement during our deliberations.
I am glad that in their response the Government also accept the importance of the subject and wish to play their part in improving those relationships and regenerating trust, as does the newly set up joint Local Authority Association. That augurs well for the future.
The committee believes, as do the Government, that there will always be tensions between the two levels of democracy. Those tensions need, however, to be used constructively on both sides to solve difficult problems of future policies. Too often they are used as an excuse for slinging mud across the fence, particularly if different political parties are involved and, of course, the media love to stir up a row.
As we stated in our report, recognising that local government is created by statute, it needs to play its part in improving future relationships with a mature recognition of its standing relative to central government. As councillor Sir Jeremy Beecham and others fully acknowledged in evidence to us,
"Some local authorities during the 1980s sometimes tried to take on national government in matters which were not their proper concern, and to spend to excess".
1114
That was a great mistake which I believe many now regret. We need a mature recognition of their standing.
Central government must play its part too, and I was glad to read in the response that the Government regarded,
"robust, independent local government as an essential feature of the country's democratic society".
Local government has become more corporate over the years and I am glad that the Government are to examine the effectiveness of cross-departmental handling of business so as to reflect that need in Whitehall. The involvement of the Government's regional offices in this respect will be valuable as they too are more corporate, but they must be seen to take local needs upwards to Whitehall, as well as demonstrating government policy the other way. I am glad that the Government are already putting our recommendation into action by increasing the number of two-way secondments and exchanges between senior civil servants and local government officers so as to improve the link between "Town Hall and Whitehall". There needs to be a strong ongoing policy in developing mutual professional respect.
We welcomed the Prime Minister's guidelines for central and local government relations as a turning-point of the tide towards better days, but those need to be further strengthened and mutually and sincerely put into action on both sides over future years. Actions of central government such as publishing major policy changes affecting local government in the press without prior notice to local government so that it can produce a considered response instead of a knee-jerk reaction should be unthinkable. That shows a total lack of trust. I am glad that the Government accept our recommendation that those guidelines should be strengthened and given more formal status and that they are to pursue the matter with the new overall Local Government Association, and in Wales and in Scotland, with the stated aim of improving the guidelines. It may be worthwhile looking at the impact of the Citizen's Charter in this area because it has been very successful overall. I also welcome the fact that the Government propose similar action to improve public involvement and local participation in local government. That is very important.
I am very sorry that the Government are not to set up a parliamentary committee to review relationships and to receive annual reports from those concerned. I believe that that would have helped to strengthen relationships between Members of Parliament and their local authorities and to improve mutual respect. Perhaps at least annual reports should be presented to the Select Committee on the Environment, and to others where relevant.
I also regret that the Government will not sign the European Charter although they support its principles. However, I welcome the fact that they consider that a clear signal is necessary to recognise the value of local government and that they intend to agree with local government a statement covering the same ground as the charter and setting out the role and status of local government. That constitutes a valuable step forward in trust.

1115
It is of great importance that the Government accept the vital role of local government in community leadership and agree to review the scope for action within Section 137 and to assess whether a more general power of local competence should be allowed. I hope that that too is approached on both sides in a constructive manner and results in progressive action.
I am glad that the Government intend to bring forward enabling legislation in the next Parliament to allow local authorities to propose experiments in internal management. I am not in favour of wholesale change in that area, but pilot schemes can often give valuable experience that others can follow, and new arrangements can gradually develop based firmly on successful practical experience. I am not in favour of any major reorganisations in local government—certainly for another 20 years—as they always prove more expensive than expected and, if anything, create more problems than they solve. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" is a good motto.
I am sorry that the Government do not feel that they can loosen the compulsion on compulsory competitive tendering. We felt that that would indicate a substantial statement of increased trust. It is a pity that, to quote from the Government's response,
"many local authorities have sought to avoid competition wherever possible",
but we felt that the holding of a reserve power by government, which is strictly enforced, might have controlled those few authorities adequately. We have no doubt, as we say, that CCT has produced a change for the better, and has led many councils to see themselves as efficient and economic enablers in the provision of services rather than purely providers. Public services must be there to serve the local public in the best possible manner and flexibility must be the name of the game.
Finance is a knotty problem. In saying that, I believe that the Audit Commission has done an excellent job in encouraging efficiency, economy and the conservation of public expenditure. I hope that it continues to do that. It is very important that the public should be clear who has made a decision to alter the services that affect them substantially. At present mud is slung indiscriminately by both sides and the public have no means of judging who is at fault. As The Times said on 25th July, councils can be their own worst enemies, whingeing a great deal but still managing to foot the bills. They cry "Wolf' too often.
Accountability is vital in a healthy democracy. SSAs are complex and the public does not understand them. Councillors often feel that they are a very blunt instrument, and especially when used for capping. Different parts of England have very different expectations and priorities in the provision of services, and elected local government must be free to try to meet those local needs in a variety of ways. SSAs and capping form a straitjacket of prevention rather than enablement, especially when associated with a high gearing which is inevitable where local government is raising only 21.4 per cent. of local expenditure. I am glad to hear that the Government plan a modest increase in the proportion met by council tax.
1116
I am sorry that the Government did not feel able to return the non-domestic rate to local authority control. I have doubts myself, in that the non-domestic rate smacks of "taxation without representation" as industry and commerce have no vote. However, I believe that local authorities now have a statutory duty to prepare an economic strategy for their areas upon which they must consult the business community. If non-domestic rates are too high, industry and jobs flee to other parts of the country. So I hope that that new duty will enforce prudence. It would certainly have improved accountability.
Local government is only as successful as the people it attracts to its service—councillors and officers. I thoroughly support the Nolan Committee's view that the most important qualities to be encouraged in public life are selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. Beyond that, we want members with a variety of experience in life, and good professional officers upon whom to rely for advice. They will be attracted to local government only if they have sufficient freedom to develop innovative and worthwhile services to the public to meet local needs.
I am glad that the Government are taking the steps that they are in response to our report. I wish they had gone further in relaxing financial controls, with safeguards, but clearly making local government both responsible and accountable for its decisions. In that respect, I believe that the emphasis on local government elections should return to being more local. Too often the media show local elections as a vote for or against the national government in Westminster, which they most emphatically are not. Local elections must be about electing the best and most responsible local councillors—strong-minded, honest, efficient men and women prepared to stand up for the needs of their local communities—truly prepared to be accountable locally.
Whitehall certainly does not know best on local matters, and local government, as the Government accept, has been elected to be a focus of leadership in local communities. The Government themselves believe in subsidiarity, and are proposing, in the new Local Government Rating Bill, to give more influence to the lowest tier of local government (parish councils), which I welcome.
I hope that the Government, in their wish to continue to work on improving relationships over a period of time, will see their way, step by step, to relaxing some of those straitjacket financial controls as local government itself acts responsibly. I hope that will attract people of calibre into local government, and although not a believer in "golden ages", I am sure that democracy in this country will be the beneficiary in future.
4.14 p.m.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, in following two speakers who were themselves members of the Select Committee, I have great pleasure in congratulating them as well as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, on the

1117
presentation of this clear and valuable report and I also congratulate the noble Lord on initiating this debate today.
I have only one small interest to declare, as honorary president of the Institute of Trading Standards Administration, an office which I held for four years from 1992, until a few weeks ago, when I happily handed over that task to the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, whom I see in her place on the Government Benches. The Institute of Trading Standards Administration is the professional body for trading standards officers engaged by local authorities in the important task of upholding high trading standards and fair dealing in the market place, to the benefit of the general public and legitimate business.
I am proud of the fact that the institute asked me to be its president when I left my post as Director-General of Fair Trading in 1992, because, after all, I had been head of a non-ministerial central government department and they are local government officers. I am happy to imagine at any rate that there were good relations between those two parts of central and local government and trust between us, in the pursuit of similar objectives.
Yet I do not disagree with the general thrust of the Select Committee's report. In general, I do not have much doubt that relations between central and local government are, as it put it, "unsatisfactory and can be improved". Given the all-party and cross-bench membership of the committee, the report's title, Rebuilding Trust, is significant. After all, one can only rebuild trust if it has broken down. Trust is, at its best, a two-way concept.
I suppose that central government in the 1980s, with its strongly assertive and conviction politics agenda, did not trust local government to conform to central government's objectives for policy and spending restrictions, and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Platt, indicated, some local authorities overreached themselves in ambitious and often silly extensions of local authority competence. Local authorities, for their part, lost trust in central government because their powers and functions, and spending capacities, were drastically reduced and their role marginalised when vital areas of policy were transferred to central government or central government-appointed quangos.
The Select Committee report steers clear of commenting upon local government structure. I fully understand that, and I do not complain. But I believe that another aspect of local government distrust of central government has been the launch of large-scale local government reorganisation in all parts of Great Britain. I follow again the noble Baroness, Lady Platt, "If it ain't broke, why fix it?" I wonder what all that restructuring was in aid of. The exercise seemed to involve a remedy in search of a problem at least in England, as distinct from Wales and Scotland. There was massive consultation through the work of the Local Government Commission, although one must admit that that seems to have resulted in a great deal of confusion and inconsistency between one part of England and another. When Sir John Banham did not invariably
1118
come up with solutions acceptable to central government, he was replaced as chairman. In Wales and Scotland, reorganisation simply went ahead imposed by Act of Parliament.
Trading standards form but a small part of local government activity, but they are important to consumers of goods and services of all kinds, and, as I said, to legitimate business. I point out that at one time I led a delegation of trading standards officers, all employed by local authorities, to see various Ministers. When we went to see John Redwood, then Secretary of State for Wales and Allan Stewart who was then at the Scottish Office, I did not find them at all rewarding occasions. Our concern was that splitting up existing cohesive, hard-working and useful trading standards departments between several new unitary authorities would be bad for efficiency and even the viability of the service, and therefore for the protection of the public. These concerns were brushed aside with the suggestion that local authorities could after all co-operate voluntarily one with the other. There could be voluntary co-operation between different local authorities. Can the government tell us in the course of today's debate whether such arrangements in Wales and Scotland have been made?
The report of the Select Committee expresses the general position extremely well. I do not believe I need to apologise for quoting it again. The Select Committee reports that many in local government feel that they have been crushed and abused by central government over many years. I believe that that expresses the matter with great clarity. I particularly like the conclusion of the report that acceptance of its recommendations would give local authorities more space in which to breathe and develop.
I detect in the report a moderately optimistic note to the effect that recently there has been an improvement in central government/local government relations. I quote Councillor Sir Jeremy Beecham, chairman of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. He has already been quoted today. He gave evidence to the committee that in the past few years there had been an increasingly relaxed relationship between Department of the Environment Ministers and representatives of local government. So that I do not partially quote him, he added that he was not sure whether that extended to other government departments.
Sir Jeremy was one of three leaders of major local authorities on my party's Regional Policy Commission (on which I also served) whose report was published earlier this year. I should like to conclude my remarks this afternoon by mentioning two of the commission's conclusions. They are particularly relevant to the subject of today's debate and give some cause for optimism for the future. One of our conclusions was that local government could and should give leadership. My noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel referred to community leadership as a vital aspect of local government work. We believed that it should give leadership to much needed economic and social regeneration, particularly in the worst parts of urban conurbations, in partnership with private as well as various community interests.

1119
The Select Committee report gives a number of examples of partnerships between local authorities and other bodies, for example to achieve successful single regeneration budget bids. An example of successful local authority leadership is the work of Lancashire Enterprises which was started by Lancashire County Council. It has a number of achievements to its credit, including the rescue of Leyland Daf in 1993, investment in small-scale management buyouts and worker buyouts and the provision of venture capital to local entrepreneurs. Recently, someone has commented that partnerships are becoming as familiar a feature of urban life as traffic jams. At least they are more constructive.
I also want to mention our approach to the 10 government offices for the regions established two years ago to co-ordinate the work of central government departments in the various regions of England. We sought to follow the twin principles of democratic accountability and subsidiarity. We proposed that a Minister at Cabinet level be appointed with overall responsibility for co-ordinating and integrating regional matters for which the government offices for the regions would be accountable. In time, as regional chambers or assemblies were set up some of the functions of the government offices for the regions should be transferred to them, ensuring more direct accountability to elected representatives of local and regional communities.
I believe that the work of the Select Committee has been extremely timely. History may show that it led the way to a more collaborative and co-operative relationship between central and local government—one in which the inevitable tensions between different levels of government are creative rather than negative.
4.25 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My lords, those of your Lordships who have studied the list of members of the Select Committee will be aware that I stated no interest. I believe that in that I was unique; I was a member of the committee who had never served in, or been in any organisation related to, local government. My interest, such as it was, was confined to local government in the late 17th century, about which I wrote my first book, when England was governed by justices of the peace, local landowners, clergymen and the closed corporations of the towns. Whether we were then governed better or worse is not a matter that we need to go into today.
When we refer to local government we mean locally elected government. My interest was to find whether, in a modern advanced industrial society, that is a viable proposition in the sense that, unlike the situation in the 17th century, more people now work in one place, get their recreation in another and reside in a third. So the question of local identity is itself a problem. We were confronted with passionate advocates of local self-government and increased powers for local elected bodies both in the scope of their activities and their freedoms. I, and no doubt my colleagues, were interested in the evidence of the witnesses who came before the committee. For me, it was a wholly new world. I was like an anthropologist in the rain forests of New Guinea. They were strange creatures. My conclusions were somewhat surprising. In the whole series of oral evidence—I do not
1120
believe that I missed a single session—those who came out best were the officers of local government. Their evidence was in general clear, to the point and well expressed. Those who came out worst were, without exception, civil servants. It may be that they are so restricted by their duties to Ministers that they are unable to answer questions on which they have not previously received instructions. It might be referred to as "smothered by Osmotherley".
We have to ask ourselves whether Select Committees of either this House or another place can properly fulfil their proposed functions if an important part of government that makes so many of the decisions is inhibited in helping those committees reach conclusions. I was not in the least surprised—I imagine that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, to whom we owe an obligation, was also not surprised—by the tone of the White Paper in dealing with our financial suggestions since the representatives of the Treasury showed a total inability to understand the subject we were investigating. That was a problem.
The other problem which exercised me and which still exercises me after hearing the enthusiastic proponents of some kind of reinvigoration of local government is whether there is a popular demand. My noble friend Lady Platt of Writtle who, unlike me, has vast experience in this field, says that parish councillors, town councillors, county councillors and so on should be elected in the light of the services they can perform for their local communities and not as a demonstration of people's attitude to the government in power or to the Opposition of the day.
That might be a moral injunction but I think it bears no relation to what research indicates and, indeed, what the bare statistics indicate about local government. If people were really interested and if they thought that different councillors would give them better roads, better miniature golf courses, or whatever the current phrase may be, would they not seek opportunities to question them about such matters and eventually to vote? The low turn-out in local government elections is a fact which the committee could not escape and which your Lordships, in considering the matter, cannot escape either.
Democratic local government was created in this country as part and parcel of the democratisation of government as a whole. The various reforms in local government did not exactly coincide with but were roughly parallel to the enlargements of the franchise for Parliament; that is, they were part of a general movement by which power was diffused from the few to the many.
I have come to doubt whether in this country there is an enthusiasm even for national self-government. After all, we have allowed an increasing part of Parliament's duties to be transferred to the institutions of the so-called European Union without much protest on the part of the public; in fact without an awareness that it is happening. I wonder whether noble Lords opposite who hope to form part of a forthcoming Labour Government appreciate that Mr. Blair as Prime Minister will have

1121
less influence on our destinies than his predecessor, Mr. Kinnock, who is a Brussels Commissioner. There is someone with power.
If we are not interested in self-government as a nation, it is perhaps understandable that we are not interested in self-government locally. When one questioned the enthusiasts for self-government on the ground, locally, there was an inability to show a demand from the public for the return of greater power to local authorities.
Another factor to emerge very clearly was that without a greater degree of fiscal autonomy there was nothing much that local government could do to improve its powers or its performance. The cry, "No representation without taxation" was heard from successive witnesses. I venture to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, about the poll tax. The more I listened to people saying how important it was that there should be a direct relationship between those who were receiving the services and those who were paying for them through local taxation and that that relationship should exist through the elected councils, the more it became clear to me that the poll tax was a very good idea and would have been a very popular way of returning power to local government if it had not been messed up in its application. In principle what we were being asked for was a form of poll tax which would have re-created the link between local expenditure and local taxation on the one hand and local services on the other.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will forgive me for intervening. I have two questions. The noble Lord referred to the 17th century. Does he believe that the way forward is that pursued by Louis XIV which led in my view, and I am sure in the noble Lord's view, to the inefficiency of local administration which was part of the main cause of the French Revolution? Secondly, as regards the poll tax, it is all very well to say that you can vote for finance for the charges that you want. The problem with the poll tax, as Wat Tyler would have reminded the noble Lord had he been here, was that it was simply a head tax with no distinction between one source of income and another.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, there were weaknesses in the definition of what could constitute a tax of that kind, but a tax on individuals, perhaps of greater flexibility than that which appeared in the Bill, rather than a tax of property, seemed to me to be something which was espoused in one form or another by many of our witnesses.
The noble Lord referred to Louis XIV, and I know that the noble Lord has a special interest in France. But I was thinking about local government in this country at the time of the Glorious Revolution when there were, and remained, very considerable powers in the hands of local authorities, admittedly not elected, which proved extremely successful in guiding the country until the industrial revolution demanded greater central
1122
intervention in their affairs. Therefore, I am not shaken by reference to Louis XIV, who does not often figure in our debates.
Looking back, I can say that it was an extremely educative experience serving on the committee even though I share the disappointment of some of my colleagues that more of our recommendations were not looked at more favourably by the Government. That raises the question, referred to by several noble Lords, including the chairman, of what happens next. Clearly, it would be worth having some kind of inquiry, possibly parliamentary, possibly extra-parliamentary, to determine what is an almost irreconcilable logical difficulty. People say that they want local initiative, local autonomy and the capacity to innovate and experiment. At the same time they want services which are no different if they move from one part of the country to another. That is most obvious in the field of education, but one can perhaps see it elsewhere.
Those two things are very hard to reconcile. Does one prefer something original but different and so risk, when one moves, having to accommodate oneself to a new system? Alternatively, does one believe that uniformity of service and provision is something which every citizen of a democracy has a right to demand? Those are problems which certainly demand further consideration. Despite the Government turning down the ideas that the committee put forward, I hope that something will be done to address them in the future.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I should like, first, to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, and his committee for a most excellent report. I must admit that during the debate I had a blinding flash of revelation. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, suggested that his membership of the Select Committee opened his eyes like—and I paraphrase his remarks—a series of anthropological lectures on a foreign race. At any rate, that seemed to be the gist of the noble Lord's remarks. It is curious that a senior supporter over the past 17 years of the Conservative Government, who have implemented, according to my noble friend Lord Williams, about 200 Acts of Parliament affecting local government, should turn round after the event and say, "I knew nothing about it; it was like a foreign race".
The latter is perhaps an explanation as to why this country no longer has an empire. If Conservative Governments have been followed by such assiduous followers for the past 200 years while implementing legislation which affected British citizens throughout the world, no wonder they turned around and said, "We are not totally happy about it". They just did not know what they were doing.
I could use today's debate to indulge in a long and probably rambling discourse about how badly local government has been treated over the past 25 years, and then take some time to suggest how things might be changed for the better in the future. However, I am sure that noble Lords will be glad to hear that I shall try to contain myself. I aim to make just a few simple points. First, I would commend anyone listening to our debate,

1123
or reading the transcript of it in Hansard later, to read the report itself. It is a very useful document which has been most skilfully compiled. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, to all the members of the committee and, indeed, to all the officers involved for their work. I would also recommend people to read the Government's response. Although I do not agree with all their responses to the recommendations in the report, at least they have at last recognised that there is a problem.
Democracy as we know it can do two useful things. In the first place it can enable people in a community or society to come together to develop them. Secondly, it can enable that society or community to accommodate change. To do those things successfully there must be a climate of trust. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, pointed out that if central government politicians do not respect local government politicians then they cannot expect respect in return. That does not apply just between the national political arena and the local political arena; it also applies to the European and—dare I say it?—the worldwide political arena. I hope that the report will help to build that mutual trust and respect which both national and local politicians need. It is essential.
Innovation and change is one of the things that local government can do most effectively. Indeed, that has been demonstrated, for example, over the past 150 years. I shall give your Lordships three specific examples. The first was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel; namely, Joseph Chamberlain in Birmingham. He instituted the municipal provision of public utilities that is now taken for granted across the country. It is interesting to reflect that it took something like 30 or 40 years before Birmingham's experience effectively translated to London. However, that is another story.
The second example is one of competitive tendering, not compulsory competitive tendering, for local authority goods and services. I believe that that happened in the 1930s and 1940s. It was insisted upon by Communist members of the Leiston urban district council. To prevent the previous local councillors providing their friends and cronies with orders for council work, competitive tendering was insisted upon. Again, even today, that remains an essential feature of local authority activity throughout the country.
My third example is that of the Conservative controlled county council of Leicestershire in the 1950s and the 1960s. It realised the inadequacy of the secondary modern education that was being provided for a large proportion of their young population and instituted the system of comprehensive education which has benefited this country so much over the past 30 years or so.
I can understand why the following was not touched upon by the Select Committee. It is unfortunate that it did not do so, but I believe that it was slightly outside the committee's terms of reference. I have in mind the structure of local government. I have referred to three tiers of local government; namely, the small urban district county council and the county borough—the
1124
Birmingham-type situation. However, there is a third category which we no longer have and that is the ability of all the people living in a large urban conurbation to come together and have a directly elected council which can speak and work for that whole population. I make a plea that all the people in our urban heartlands—that is, the Glasgows, the Liverpools, the Manchesters, the Birminghams and the Londons of our country—should be able to elect a council to speak and work for the whole of that urban conurbation.
We did have such councils but they were lost. It is interesting to note that they were instituted by a past Conservative Government under the leadership of Sir Edward Heath who reorganised local government. He did so after a series of Royal Commissions on local government and indeed committees of inquiry stretching over a good many years. The final result was the local government reorganisation which began in 1974 and which went on to bring about the introduction of the regional authorities in Scotland.
Interestingly enough, that Conservative Government under Sir Edward Heath made two significant constitutional changes. The first was our entry into membership of the European Community, which is now the European Union. The other was the institution of the major elected authorities for the major urban conurbations. It is unfortunate that Sir Edward Heath's involvement in trade union/industrial affairs and in economic policies went wrong, but I believe that history will suggest that those two constitutional changes were of great significance. I hope that the actions of this Conservative Government of the past 17 years which have attacked both those constitutional changes will be reversed by the next government.
4.50 p.m.
The Earl of Kintore: My Lords, I also had the privilege of serving on the Select Committee under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Tanworth. The chairman kept us in remarkably good order and any points that had to be conceded to produce a unanimous report were conceded with grace and humour. We were well served by our Clerk, Simon Burton. I wish him good luck in his new appointment.
I wish to address two points. As the only "independent" on the committee, apart from our chairman, I started the inquiry thinking that local government would be more effective if all councillors were non-political. By the end, I think I was just persuaded that political parties are necessary in local government to provide the necessary infrastructure. However, I hope the political parties will regard the prime function of their councillors as that of acting for the good of all their local electors. I realise there may be some noble Lords in the Chamber who consider that dominance by one political party of central government for too long is a bad thing. At the local level it is even worse. I am pleased to note at paragraph 42 of their response the Government accept that some form of proportional voting should be tried to achieve a better consensus at local level.

1125
Local government is big business. It will spend £74.5 billion in 1996–97, including capital and revenue expenditure. Most of the money is provided by central government—as we have already heard—but a small proportion is raised locally through the council tax. I note at paragraph 65 of the response that the Government state their belief that,
"the council tax should raise a slightly larger proportion of money spent locally and current plans envisage a modest increase in the proportion met by the council tax".
I suppose the words that worry me are "slightly" and "modest". The Department of the Environment told us that council tax might raise, say, a quarter—that is, 25 per cent.—of local government revenue. While not knowing if my council tax for this year represents a figure of 25 per cent.—here I declare an interest as owner of a Band H house—I hope I may encourage the parties involved in local government to bear in mind that local authority expenditure should be kept within reasonable bounds. If that is the case, local authorities may then be able to restrain the increases they demand of the top band payers who raise insignificant amounts, but even these amounts are beginning to bear heavily on those who have to pay. I hope our report Rebuilding Trust will aid and carry forward positively the relations between central and local government.
4.54 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, it was a privilege and a pleasure to serve on the Select Committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. However, he also achieved at the end what I thought would be well nigh impossible when we started; namely, a broad measure of agreement among such a diverse membership. He certainly showed skills which in previous years the Cabinet had the benefit of.
I should perhaps declare an interest in that in the past I have been a local councillor on Westminster City Council and for a few years I worked in local government. Since that time there have been many changes in local government in this country. I believe morale is now lower and fewer people feel that to become a local councillor is worthwhile as a career and as an expression of civic duty. I agree with the thrust of our report that far more needs to be done to promote the image of local government. If that were to be achieved—I believe it is achievable—some of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, when he suggested that local government was not particularly interesting to people and that people did not care much about it, might be reversed. It is one of our challenges to try to make local government exciting and interesting to the local communities that are served by local authorities.
One of the key points that came out of our work was the question of centralisation. I note that over many years—particularly since 1979, but it is a longer-term trend—there has been an erosion of local government power. That has arisen partly because central government have sought to exercise tighter control over local authority spending. However, the matter goes further than that. I accuse the Conservative Government
1126
of having tried to suppress views emanating from local authorities which ran counter to the Government's beliefs. I believe that a healthy democracy is a plural democracy. One has only to look at the United States to see the differences of view expressed between the President and Congress and between the states and Washington. Those differences may sometimes be too wide but I believe it is healthy in a democracy that different points of view should be expressed. We have gone too far in trying to denigrate the views of local government when those views have been contrary to the policies of central government.
If powers are taken away from local government it becomes less attractive to serve as a local councillor. However, it has also had one other consequence which is that voting for local authorities has increasingly become a way of indicating views on national politics rather than on the worth of the policies and practices followed by a particular local authority. It would be a healthy move if we could devise ways in which people in local authority areas were as concerned about the policies of their local authority as about those of national government, and sought to reflect those concerns in their voting practices.
There is another problem which I think is as yet unresolved, and that is the dilemma to which other noble Lords have referred as to how to resolve the conflict between seeking to have uniform national standards of service throughout the country, as provided by local authorities, and giving local authorities the right to encourage diversity, and for local authorities to practise that element of diversity in the way they provide services. Clearly there are many pressures to adopt national standards. I refer to pressures of public expectations and pressures from the media and from the Audit Commission with its proper emphasis on performance measurement and comparison between one local authority and another. However, if we are to support local government and local diversity we have to accept that there have to be some departures from national standards. Another area in which local authorities have lost power is to quangos. That is a well developed argument and one which need not concern us too much this afternoon.
I now turn to finance. I am concerned that central government now contribute 80 per cent. of local authority expenditure. Not so long ago the figure was 50 per cent. I appreciate the argument made earlier this afternoon by my noble friend Lord Williams, when he prophesied something that I believe is widely expected; namely, that in their bid to reduce national taxation central government will impose pressures on local authorities to increase the amount they levy through the council tax. That may slightly change the percentage of central government support to local government, but it is not the answer that I seek. I should like to see a different method whereby central government contribute less and local government is therefore not so dependent upon central government funding. It is therefore a matter of particular regret that the Government have not accepted the committee's recommendations that the business rate should be returned to individual local authorities. That proposal is supported by the CBI and

1127
the Institute of Directors, among other bodies, and would help to make local government finance more independent of central government and therefore make local authorities more autonomous.
However, we need to go further. The committee throws out a few hints in that direction. It would be right and proper to seek ways of providing additional income for local authorities. One example might be that the road tax on motor cars could be transferred from central government to local government. After all, the presence of motor cars is a burden on local authorities, which have to find parking space for them; motor cars exercise pressure on roads which local authorities have to meet. It might be better if the income and the process of collecting the road fund tax could be transferred from central government to local government. We should also look at other sources of income for local government in order for it to achieve more independence from central government.
It is right, as the committee states, that a power of local competence should be given to local authorities to raise money for other purposes—a power rather wider than the old Section 137 as it was called. Obviously some reserve powers would have to be given to central government to ensure that there was no abuse. But it would he a proper way of allowing local government to exercise some element of independence.
I should also like to see more freedom for local authorities to experiment in constitutional matters, as the committee suggests. The idea of elected mayors is an interesting suggestion. They might well give more focus to a local authority and might attract more interest in local government on the part of electors. Certainly at the time of the GLC there was a great deal of interest in that body. The GLC established something in the minds of its people that most local authorities do not establish.
I accept that if we are to move to the position of having elected mayors—I support the idea merely on an experimental basis—there would have to be a change in the role of elected councillors; and that would possibly involve some diminution in their powers. It is worthwhile examining the idea of elected mayors, but I see that problems might arise. We might also move to annual elections for councillors, with one-third of the members of a council retiring every year. That is the practice in some areas, but not in others. It would be a good thing if it became universal. It would make local authorities more sensitive to changing opinions on the part of their electorates.
Finally, I turn to a point that was outside the remit of the committee, and it concerns local government in London. I am not sure that it should have been outside our remit, but I accepted the decree that it should be. I believe that since the abolition of the GLC there has been a constant weakness in local government in London. The various measures devised to bring together the 32 London boroughs and the Corporation of London simply do not represent a democratic way of providing local government for the capital of this country. It is right that following a change of government there should be a move not to bring back the GLC in its old
1128
form but to provide some strategic body that can represent the people of London and look after the overall interests of Londoners.
5.4 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the noble Lord, in a very interesting speech, bemoaned, as did other speakers, what he sees as the diminished power of local government. I agree with him. I also agree with my noble friend Lord Beloff in his remark that had we been able to implement the poll tax, albeit in a much more flexible form than that in which it came before Parliament, local government now would have a lot more power than it has and would probably he raising more than 50 per cent. of what it spends. But that is history.
I read the report with very great interest. It is a masterly report. It contains a number of ideas that are new, at any rate to me. I was not a member of the committee. I wish to confine myself to two limited points, both as they might affect Scotland in particular. The first concerns the report's evidence and recommendation on the capping of local government expenditure. The second relates to what is proposed for competitive tendering.
On capping, the Select Committee concludes that a council's spending should no longer be capped by central government unless a council's budget is clearly unreasonable. It recommends that whether a budget is reasonable should be determined by a Select Committee of Parliament, which would receive recommendations from the relevant Secretary of State backed by means of a statutory instrument. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, who is presently not in his place, indicated that the Labour Party liked that idea.
The question arises as to what would happen in Scotland should Mr. Blair win the general election and implement his plans for a Scottish parliament. That parliament, out of a block grant from Westminster together with any amount raised in Scotland as additional income tax on the Scots—the so-called tartan tax—would be entirely responsible for allocating central funding to 32 Scottish local authorities as well as for legislating for local government.
Would it be appropriate for a Westminster committee to consider the Secretary of State for Scotland's recommendation on what are reasonable budgets for Scottish local authorities? I think not. In any case, the idea seems to be that there would no longer be a Secretary of State for Scotland to do any recommending at Westminster. I take it therefore that in Scotland the committee that would do the recommending would be a committee of the Scots parliament to the Scots parliament. I suppose that that parliament would then act by means of a Scots form of statutory instrument, if it had one. However, I wonder how easily the members of a Scots parliament and its committee would accept that the council had budgeted unreasonably. One must remember that they would not have determined the overall block grant in the first place.
We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, at the outset of the debate that in contrast to the Government the Labour Party would probably

1129
implement this proposal. I wonder whether the noble Baroness, in winding up, might be able to tell us whether the Labour Party considers that it would work in Scotland—whether the mechanics would work in relation to a Scots parliament, and whether the politics would work. It could be an important point. As local government and its funding would be a major part of the work of a Scots parliament, it would doubtless have to be catered for in any devolution Bill.
My other points relate to competitive tendering, which has hardly been mentioned so far in the debate, and whether it should continue to be compulsory. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, like the local authority associations south of the Border, in its brief to noble Lords indicated that it believes it should be voluntary. The Scottish National Party said, in evidence to the committee, that compulsory competitive tendering is:
"a prime example of inappropriate central government policy applied to local Authorities".
It also said that it had had,
"disastrous consequences on local Communities and local Authorities".
The Select Committee's report takes the view that competitive tendering has brought about major changes of management style and approach which have been good, but it also expressed the view that they would not have come about without some compulsion and that if compulsion were to end there would need to be an alternative. I agree with that. I would add that in Scotland the alternative would need to be a pretty strong one, at least if the part of the country where I live is anything to go by. When Tayside Regional Council was set up in 1974 under Conservative control, we used competitive tendering in many areas of our activities from the outset. We did it partly to aid cost effectiveness, but also to invigorate the local economy. In Dundee, which was part of our area, the private sector had withered on the vine because traditionally it stood little chance of contracts in the midst of such an enormous public sector.
We councillors took a lot of care in designing our system and in appointing a really able official of great integrity to operate it. The system worked extremely well. But when, 12 years later, a Labour council took over, supported by the Scottish National Party, there was little enthusiasm. As a Conservative central Government began to take a grip, efforts were increasingly made in Tayside to undermine the system.
Also, private sector competition does not seem to be viewed with great favour in the three all-purpose councils that have succeeded the Tayside Regional Council. A team recently appointed by the Secretary of State for Scotland to investigate residential care for the elderly has found that all three of the new authorities are paying more for accommodation in publicly run homes than they would in the local private sector. In the Scottish National Party-run Angus and Perth and Kinross councils, council homes for the elderly cost £200 and £150 a week more respectively. In Labour-run Dundee, it is £100 a week
1130
more. What is more, the added costs, says the inquiry team, are not leading to better quality care. That attitude does not bode well for the formal system of competitive tendering which we are discussing in this debate. In Tayside and, I believe, throughout much of Scotland, should tendering no longer be compulsory, there must be a very strong alternative indeed.
I add just one final point. To work, a competitive tendering system must clearly have the confidence of both business and the public. Councillors need to confine their role to agreeing a good system, choosing the official to operate it and making the final decisions on the official's recommendation according to predetermined criteria.
In my view, for councillors to allow themselves to be beholden in any way to potential tenderers for contracts would compromise the integrity of a council's system from the start. I profoundly disagree with Mr. Ashdown when he said that there was nothing wrong in inviting potential tenderers to contribute to party funds so as to meet councillors at the Liberal Democrat Party conference in order to hear about business possibilities in local government, however general the discussion may have been. Councillors need to keep at arm's length the whole tendering procedure until they exercise their statutory responsibility of deciding which tender to accept. I dare say that it is not only in Scotland that the framework for competitive tendering must be both clear and strong.
Lord Hunt of Tanworth: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, on her first point perhaps I may draw her attention to paragraph 1.7 of our report. It states that we specifically did not consider the effect which our recommendations would have if there were a Scottish parliament and devolution. We could not do so. In a sense, it was outside our terms of reference, but unless one knew what the powers of that parliament were to be in relation to finance, one could not consider it.
The noble Baroness raised an important subject and the essential point that we were trying to get over is that if you abolish capping and have a reserve power to cap, which we felt was necessary, it should not be exercised at the whim of the Secretary of State thinking that it would be a nice thing to do in the case of a particular council. It should only be exercised after debate and approval in the appropriate parliamentary assembly.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for pointing that out. I appreciate that the committee decided not to take account of the possibility of a Scots parliament and I understood why. Nevertheless, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, having said that he was very much in favour of that approach, would have to accept the point which perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, will take on board when she replies; namely, that some arrangement would have to be made for the Scots parliament. There are problems in making such a move in the circumstances of that parliament. That was my point.
5.16 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, as a member of the Select Committee I too wish to begin by giving my thanks for the manner in which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, guided our deliberations with his outstanding skills as a former Secretary to the Cabinet. I also wish to thank our chairman for the clear way in which he presented the report's main recommendations to the House today. I am very pleased that the local government associations are greatly heartened that the report attaches vital importance to local government and its democratic legitimacy. I believe that that is one of the basic principles of the report.
I note that in their response the Government call in aid the well-established principle that local authorities are statutory bodies created by Acts of Parliament and hence are unable to act unless given specific statutory authority to do so. Of course, Parliament, in the end, is supreme. Parliament giveth and Parliament taketh away. Yet the local authorities have invoked the equally well-established principle that a local authority is itself more than the sum of its statutory functions. It has itself a distinctive role to play as trustee serving its community. I am gratified that the Government acknowledge that wider principle in at least two lines of the report.
Surely the proper relationship of central and local government must be based upon a common understanding which pays regard to the two principles which I have attempted to describe, both the restrictive and the positive. Indeed, unless that common understanding is there, it seems to me that we have a recipe for trouble.
To some degree, the relationship has always been adapting and changing. Yet, as Professor George Jones of the London School of Economics and a member of the National Consumer Council put it in his evidence to the committee:
"something very serious happened in the 1980s".
For their part the Government recognise, in paragraph 8 of their response, that the traditional central and local government relationship, in their words, "broke down in the 1980s". As our chairman indicated, it was not for the committee to attribute blame.
The legislation of the 1980s left a legacy which has soured the central and local government relationship. There is also something else. Many councillors and council officials who gave evidence to the committee felt that they had been treated by too many Ministers as outsiders, constantly under unfair attack, while those same Ministers were never short of praise for the quangos, many of which now provide services formerly provided by local government and which are in the hands of unelected members appointed by Ministers. I have seen no evidence in the report that that criticism has been taken on board by the Government.
But, in fairness, the Government agree that the present state of relations must be improved. So where do we go? As the House has repeatedly been reminded, our report takes as its title Rebuilding Trust. Mutual trust is essential. How can it be rebuilt? For my part, I share the view, expressed by many of our witnesses, that we
1132
have to go back to the principle that local government is a cornerstone of what has been called "a viable system of local democracy." That principle is well illuminated in the evidence of Mr. Vernon Bogdanor, Reader in Government at Oxford University, and Mr. Simon Jenkins, chairman of the Commission on Local Democracy, in particular.
As we heard from our chairman, the committee fully agrees that there is not one single answer to the problem. There is not one single answer because the problems are far too deep-seated for that. There is a need for a package of significant measures. Those measures can be said to fall within three broad categories: first, the symbolic changes to recognise that local government has an assured place in the governance of this country; secondly, the strengthening of local government's position in its relationship with central government; and thirdly, the strengthening of local government's position in financial matters.
Time permits me to touch only briefly on some of our main recommendations and the Government's response thereto. We urge the Government to sign the Council of Europe's charter of local self government as an expression of a commitment to local government. Many witnesses pressed for that. They believed that signing the charter would send a clear signal to the local authorities that the Government wish to establish a new chapter in its relationship with them. Alas, the Government do not agree that it would be "a worthwhile step". Of course, I do not deny that there are difficulties for this Government in going down a path which is signposted to Europe. It is therefore gratifying that the Government say they support the principles of the charter and that these will be reflected in the new concordat between central and local government. That compromise is welcome. I hope that the preparation of the new agreement is given great priority in Whitehall.
The committee considered that there is a very good case for setting up a permanent committee of Parliament—not necessarily of your Lordships' House—to keep central and local relations under review. It would have the wide-ranging remit touched on by our chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, in his opening speech. That recommendation is supported by the evidence of Professor John Stewart and Professor George Jones and by the local authority associations.
I am saddened that, contrary to our hopes, the Government have not fully supported the proposal, although they have come part of the way. They have relied on the view which the committee chaired by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, took of it in 1991. I re-read the debate held on 3rd June 1992 on the Jellicoe report. The climate has changed since 1992, and we now have the analysis of the Select Committee. I, for my part, am not satisfied that the arguments then advanced against it remain valid today. I find it difficult to believe that a permanent committee of Parliament with the wide-ranging remit described in the report would merely duplicate the work of the existing departmental Select Committees. We are entitled to ask whether those committees are producing the rewards which the proposed permanent committee could achieve.

1133
The Government have suggested the possibility of another ad hoc Select Committee in about five years' time. That would be a step in the right direction. Nevertheless, I suggest that an ad hoc Select Committee would not be so informative and so effective as a permanent forum operating within the remit that the committee suggested. I hope that in due course the House will pursue the proposal.
Again and again we heard that the local authorities are seeking a more active role as community leaders serving their communities. That implies that they should have freedom to supplement statutory services in accordance with local needs and aspirations and to raise money for that purpose. The committee believes that that role could be partly achieved by a new statutory power of local competence, although it would be legitimate for safeguards to be written into the proposed new power. I am glad that the Government accept the spirit of that recommendation and propose a review of existing Section 137.
The review is welcome. But we find that it is the Government's intention that a power under an amended Section 137 is not to be exercised in a way which will increase total spending of the local authorities. The committee (in paragraph 6.27) found that Treasury argument unconvincing. Surely it is for local electors, to whom the councils are accountable, to determine whether the additional expenditure is acceptable or unreasonable. So I fear that at the end of the promised review the Government will miss the opportunity to strengthen the role of the local authority as community leader.
I should like to mention briefly compulsory competitive tendering, which, as we say in the report, is a clear example of central regulation of local government. The committee recommended a review of whether CCT should now become voluntary and in any case less prescriptive. It is a pity that the Government seem to have set their face against that recommendation. But that is another reform which could be a symbol of greater trust and confidence on the part of the Government in the local authority's ability to serve its community.
We have indicated that action is also required on the part of local authorities to promote local government. We have heard of the low level of public interest in local government generally and low participation in local elections. Those must be matters of concern. It is important that local government leaders in England, Wales and Scotland should get to grips with the issue. I note in their supplementary written evidence that the local authority associations accept that they too must be ready to make a fresh start.
In conclusion, I hope that the publication of the report and the Government's response mark the opening of a new and constructive debate about the role of local government in the future. It is time for all concerned to realise that unless we move forward along the lines suggested in the report there is a danger that local government could wither away. Would that matter? I think it would. I believe, notwithstanding the
1134
increased mobility mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, that strong local government in partnership with their communities is important to the health of local communities and democracy.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I appreciate that it is inevitable that a Motion to consider a Select Committee report will inevitably lead to a certain amount of repetition. But I make no apology for starting my remarks by joining with others in paying tribute to our chairman. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, chaired our committee with total acceptability. His guidance when we were deliberating was profound; his tolerance when we were taking evidence was equally impressive and I am sure that we are all delighted to have served on a committee under his leadership.
I should like also—briefly because it has already been elaborated upon—to say thank you to both our professional advisers and also to our clerk, Mr. Simon Burton, whose tireless work was much appreciated by everybody.
I have to admit that I was less than enthusiastic in relation to one or two of our recommendations. But if a Select Committee is to produce a unanimous report, everyone has to make concessions. In the end we were able to produce a report which, at any rate I feel, is worthwhile and forms a basis for improved relations between central and local government. I trust that it will not be cast aside to gather dust, but will be used as something which may sow seeds among those who read it which will grow into fresh developments. Indeed, my only worry about the report is the warmth of the response to it from the other side of the House. I always feel a little apprehensive when I have been involved in something which receives as much praise from our natural opponents as the report has done.
Probably the most satisfying aspect so far is that it has been given a positive welcome both by the Government and by local authority associations. Both sides seem prepared to try to work positively to come at least some of the way towards the other's point of view. The tone of the Government's response is optimistic and the briefing paper from the local authority associations for today's debate carries a different tone from much of the evidence we heard earlier this year. That is good and augurs well for the future. Indeed, the Government go so far as to suggest that their responses form a package of proposals which can open a new chapter in their relations with local government.
I am glad that the Government were able to accept a good many of our recommendations in principle, if not to the letter. It is rather like a Minister at the Committee stage of a Bill who accepts an amendment in principle but does not like the drafting. We now look forward to the Government's implementation of the good will which they have shown in accepting a great deal of what we suggested.
However, we should not forget why we are where we are. The main reason is the abuse of the old conventions which existed between national and local government—abuse by only a minority of councils. That gradually

1135
resulted in the introduction of measures to ensure that local authorities kept within their budgets. If those are to be relaxed, there must be a positive indication that local authorities will co-operate and put behind them some of the blemishes they attracted in the past.
I was interested in what my noble friend Lord Beloff had to say about the poll tax because I happen to agree with him. In principle, it was probably the answer. I still believe that had my party in another place been prepared to accept an amendment around two-thirds of the way through the discussions in Committee which would have taken into account ability to pay, that may well have gone through. I agree with my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour that it might have made a considerable change to the whole of local government as we know it today.
Certainly the Government's responses are positive on many of the recommendations. For example, the recommendation for existing guidelines to be expanded is virtually met; the power of local competence is accepted in spirit; experimentation with new forms of internal management and alternative electoral systems is accepted; and the Government agree that they will examine our recommendation that Whitehall arrangements be changed. It is only when we come to the financial aspects that the Government do not go along with much of what we want. I suppose one must admit that it is relatively easy to accept proposals from the Opposition Benches; it is relatively easy to accept them from our Back Benches, but when one has to implement them and make them work it is a totally different matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, gave us one of his interesting addresses this afternoon. But I noticed that he carefully avoided the question of capping. He did not deal with that in any serious way at all. I am not surprised. During our deliberations we received, among other documents, a paper from the Scottish Local Authorities Management Centre at the University of Strathclyde. It was interesting in as much as it was as critical of the Labour Party as it was of the Conservative Party. When we are dealing with the question of capping it is interesting to read what the document says at page 9:
"It is alarming that the Labour Party in its published consultation proposals seems to accord the same priority to expenditure control as the present government in order for Ministers to discharge their macro economic responsibilities a 'reserve power' of capping will be retained".
The report goes on to be rather scathing about that position. I merely wanted to point out that those who think that a change of government will lead to a loosening of the reins in relation to expenditure are barking up the wrong tree. It seems to me from everything said by Mr. Gordon Brown and other Front Bench spokesmen that a future Labour Government would treat local government in regard to expenditure in not too different a fashion from the way it has been treated over the past 17 years. We must not forget that local government brought most of those measures upon itself. No government could sit back and allow local government to defy government policy in relation to local government expenditure and not do something about it. That is precisely why the present Government
1136
took the necessary steps and I believe that those steps would be enforced just as rigidly by a new Labour Government, if we ever have one.
The evidence we received was not particularly inspiring. However, I would not criticise those who came to give us evidence. I say it was not particularly inspiring because it said very little new. It did not feed us with any number of ideas that we could turn over and think about. It was very much along the old lines: much criticism of the present system and much criticism of the present Government, but no exciting alternatives. However, I do not criticise those people. I merely state fact. I do perhaps criticise ourselves as a Select Committee. Perhaps we were not exciting enough; perhaps we were not radical enough; perhaps we were not able to give the intellectual spark to produce a report to which both government and local authorities could immediately have responded, "Here they are. They have hit the nail on the head. This is exactly what is needed". I feel sorry that we did not rise to the challenge placed before us.
I have already indicated how highly we all thought of our chairman. However, it does not really matter how good a chairman is. If the ideas are not forthcoming from the members, there is not a great deal he can do about it. I hope that, if a future ad hoc committee is set up in five years' time, perhaps our successors will be able to give that intellectual spark and to create something which can be universally accepted. I strongly support the chairman in the Motion he has put before the House.
5.40 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, is so suspicious about the attitude of the Opposition. I should have thought that, as a member of the committee, he would have been rather pleased to have had a generous and, I think, sensible approach from this side. I am also rather surprised that he does not seem more enthusiastic about his own committee's report when everyone else has praised it; and I am going to do the same.
I should like to thank the chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, most warmly for a very good and clear report which I have thoroughly enjoyed reading. The report has come at a very opportune moment, when the local government associations are to amalgamate and when central government seem to be a little more flexible and willing to listen than they were. As both the report and the White Paper recognise, this will offer an important opportunity to take advantage of the new climate and to re-fashion a positive working relationship between central and local government. I also congratulate the noble Lord on achieving a unanimous report. That was a great achievement when one considers the membership of the committee. I believe that a unanimous report will have much more effect in Parliament.
I should perhaps declare my interest. I have been a councillor in Cambridgeshire and I am presently a vice-president of the ACC and the AMA. Last week

1137
I was at the last ACC conference in Eastbourne, which was presided over by Sir Frank Layfield, who told me how much he appreciated the report.
It begins by stressing the importance of deciding whether local government was,
"primarily a means of administering a national service at a local level or a means by which local people democratically make their own choices about local services".
The committee came down strongly for the latter. Local government is democratic, as quangos and appointed bodies are not. Layfield is quoted:
"Local government has a value in its own right in promoting democracy; it acts as a counterweight to the uniformity inherent in government decisions".
Democratic accountability has not been respected by this Government.
What is disappointing is that the Government are not willing to sign the Council of Europe's charter of self-government, as many others have said, which would have been, as the report says, an obvious first step in signalling the value of local government in the UK. This refusal seems illogical, since the DoE accepts that the UK system of local government powers conforms to the charter. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, himself said that. One can only suspect that there are party political reasons for this refusal. The Labour Party has said that it will sign up to the charter. But the White Paper does state that the Government intend to agree, with the new local government associations and the Welsh AGA, a statement covering the same ground as the charter and setting out the role and status of local government in England and Wales, and that this would be included in any expanded guidelines. I suppose we should be grateful for that, but it does seem to be rather odd logic.
The guidelines are to be developed into a more formal concordat. That is satisfactory. What strikes me on reading the guidelines is that they are admirable and, if followed, would be a real help to local government. But has there really been informal discussion with the associations at the early stages of developing policy affecting the role, functions, organisation, financing and operating of local government and its services? I suspect that the consultation promised has been minimal and that the period in which to respond to the proposals has been much too short.
The recommendation for there to be a permanent parliamentary committee to maintain an overview of central/local government relations is something about which I confess I have some doubts. The White Paper rejects it, drawing attention to the existing departmental committees in the Commons which, interestingly, it says the Government,
"intends should in future have more opportunities to scrutinise legislative proposals, including those affecting local government".
I hope that really happens. The more early scrutiny, the better. If Ministers could be questioned after even a Second Reading debate on a new Bill, and would then pay attention to what emerged from that session, a great deal of parliamentary time could be saved and a better Bill produced. A similar committee to the one chaired
1138
by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, should be set up in the course of the next three or four years to monitor developments.
A very legitimate concern of the committee is the lack of interest in local elections shown by the low percentage of those voting. The White Paper does propose that the LGA and the Welsh LGA should join government in analysing current difficulties, with public participation. Power to experiment with different internal managements and different voting structures and patterns should be given. The Government have given an undertaking to legislate in this area.
If local government is allowed to innovate, to experiment, to pay a lot of attention to its community role, and if the wide general power which would help to support that community role is conceded by the Government, I believe that it will encourage people to be more interested in what is going on locally. With very reduced powers, it is not altogether surprising that there has been, I am afraid, a greater lack of interest in local elections.
Local government has been very innovative in the past. Chief officers have had ideas—and good ideas—and I was very glad to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said about the good quality of the officers who gave evidence. I speak from my own experience of Cambridgeshire where our most famous chief education officer, Henry Morris, invented the village college, providing education, services and care to people of all ages in its area. From the village college grew the community school and the community college. Although the idea of local management of schools—LMS—had been talked of, Cambridgeshire was the first to put it into practice. That was in my time in the late 1970s. We were also among the first councils to have truly representative governing bodies, adding parents and teachers and independent people to the councillors. So much can be done with good will.
I want to say a word about secondment. The report recommended an expansion of existing programmes. The Government appear to agree and congratulate themselves on what has already been done. I would suggest that 70 exchanges in three years was not very much when you consider the number of senior officers there are in all our councils. I do not know whether the fact that the social services have a positive and creative relationship with the Department of Health was because of secondments or on some personal basis. But Mr. John Ransford, secretary of the Association of Directors of Social Services, said that positive relationships were enjoyed with both Ministers and officials.
There had been an enormous amount of round table work on the Children Act and as one who took an active part when that Bill was going through this House, that certainly showed in the legislation. It was very enjoyable working on that Bill. The noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, was perhaps a benign influence on all of us, but everyone was concerned to get the best Bill possible.
Contrast that with the atmosphere when education Bills were going through the House. The Society of Education Officers, in evidence to the committee, said

1139
that relations were very poor and that there was a gap in terms of policy making and a lack of real partnership on major educational issues. Surely, if there had been more secondments, relations and understanding would have been improved. I was sorry to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said about civil servants, if they are as had as he made out. I believe that there probably has been a deterioration in the quality of civil servants, but I had hoped that the secondments would work and that there would be good enough people to come to local government and to learn how it works. However, I believe that relations are, as far as the education officers are concerned, a bit better than they were.
It is typical that it is only in the section on finance that the Government disagree profoundly with the committee. That is very disappointing to me. It takes away from the value of the Government's response, which started by being pretty emollient and good. They seemed to agree with a lot that the committee recommended. But to turn down the recommendations on capping, SSAs, CCTs and the non-domestic rates seems to me to be profoundly disappointing. The trust that it is hoped to rebuild will not be encouraged by that.
I must end by saying that as a true believer in local government and as one who regrets very much the diminished role and loss of powers it has suffered in the past 16 years, I am immensely grateful for this report and its hopeful title, Rebuilding Trust. It will take time to rebuild that trust, but a start has been made and I hope that it heralds a happier time ahead for the relationship between central and local government.
I am pleased that many of the recommendations in the report are already Labour Party policy. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, will enjoy that. I recommend to those noble Lords who are interested in this subject that they read the Labour Party document Recovering Democracy, Rebuilding Communities. I believe that they might find that quite informative and helpful.
5.53 p.m.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, perhaps I may add my congratulations to those of other noble Lords to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, and his committee for providing us with the report that forms the basis of today's debate. The report has many virtues—it is concise, it is clear and, at the risk of being misunderstood, it is politically correct.
I do not know whether in the course of the debate the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, and the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, have been laying the ground for the Conservative Party's first manifesto for a Scottish parliament. If so, it would appear to have one policy—bring back the poll tax. I have to tell them that we shall be very happy to fight the election on that basis.
I was a member of my own council in Aberdeen from 1974 to 1984, and between 1982 and 1984 I served as president of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. Those were not happy days for local government, especially in Scotland where, to many of us, it seemed that we were being used almost continually
1140
as guinea pigs for policies and legislation. Once they had failed and been seen to fail in Scotland, they were then applied to England.
It was during those years that central government moved from influencing to actually controlling the level of local government spending. It was also the time when central government both exercised more detailed control over local government and also moved areas of activity outwith local government's sphere of influence. By the time I left local government it had lost control over local taxation and it had seen its powers further reduced.
But it had all started so differently. The Royal Commission report under the chairmanship of the late Lord Wheatley led to the fundamental change in the structure of local government brought about through the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. The Wheatley report appeared to promise a new age for local government and perhaps for the first time argued the case for local government from first principles. Wheatley was about a system of local government in which local councils were strong enough and had sufficient capacity and capability to tackle in a co-ordinated and comprehensive way the problems confronting their communities. What Wheatley was attempting to establish was a strong local government system within which local authorities would be able to provide local solutions to local problems against a set of locally defined priorities. There was to be a decisive shift away from the idea of local administration to that of local government, or what is now called local governance. Local councils, while remaining creatures of statute, were to be something much more than the passive administrative agents of central government.
Wheatley wrote about the need even then to bring about a fundamental shift in the balance of power from central to local government. Those were brave days, but things turned out, sadly, rather differently. Now, some 30 years on, the Wheatley Report is still worth reading. It is interesting and fascinating how so many of the same issues and concerns that appear in the Wheatley Report resurface in our own Select Committee's report and in the debate today.
If we are to discuss the relationship between central and local government, we have to ask some pretty fundamental questions about the nature of our political system and the distribution of power within it. Essentially, the case for a strong system of local government rests not so much on issues of service delivery, important as they are, but on local government's contribution as a key building block in the structure of a democratic, pluralist political system. Pluralism is a difficult concept to define, yet in essence it is about the diffusion of power within the political system and especially to those intermediate institutions in society that stand between the individual and the state. A society that enjoys a richness of strong, vigorous and autonomous intermediate institutions enjoys the best defence against both totalitarianism and authoritarianism. Indeed—and this is one of the ironies of the past 20 years—the party opposite has historically been sensitive to such propositions and has traditionally been suspicious of centralised power. Of course, from time to time there is a need for reform, but over the past

1141
20 years or so those institutions that act as a check on the power of the state have not so much been reformed, they have been enfeebled.
The report draws our attention to the idea of local governance as a possible way forward for local government. I believe that such an approach has a lot to offer. It is a model which sees local government, because of its democratic authority and legitimacy, acting as the local community leader. It provides the means by which local problems and challenges are not only identified but are challenged by bringing together the local interests and agencies drawn from the public, private and voluntary sectors. They are all given focus and direction. But one of the major costs of the rise of the quango and of the enfeeblement of local government has been fragmentation at the local level: the mushrooming of different, largely unaccountable organisations with often differing and conflicting agendas. In the future I believe that local government is going to be required to play a local strategic leadership role, bringing together and helping to focus the work of all those organisations that both affect and have a stake in the future of their communities. If not, I do not see how such diverse problems as urban regeneration on the one hand and rural depopulation on the other can be tackled effectively.
However, for such an approach to succeed, it would be necessary for central government to rethink its relationship with local government. I do not think that the conventional partnership model has ever been wholly adequate or accurate to describe the relationship between local and central government. There have always been too many contested areas. There have always been too many areas where objectives and outcomes have not been shared. In recent years the response of central government to those tensions has been brutal in its clarity. Central government dominates and says, "We'll abolish you if you disagree".
What I am asking for and what I think is necessary if we are to make progress towards the idea of local governance is a move away from central dominance, but we should not replace that with a system of city states. We need a system in which central government's relationship with local government is marked by the toleration of difference. That is essential. It must be recognised that in a diverse society such as ours, with its richness of different local communities, those local communities will be tackling different problems and challenges. In such circumstances, the emergence of local priorities and local policy outcomes, which may differ from those of central government, should not be seen as a threat, but as the mark of a flourishing, plural, democratic society.
Of course, the toleration of difference will have to be exercised within boundaries and there are limits, but those limits should not be as closely drawn as they are today. I do not think that we would do well by trying to be too precise in defining the relationship between central and local government through statute. I am a strong supporter of the "I know what it is when I see it" school and do not place too much faith in the usefulness of abstract definitions.
1142
One of the key proposals in the report which I found attractive was that relating to the establishment of a parliamentary committee to oversee relations between central and local government. It is a pity that the Government have been less than lukewarm in their White Paper response to that proposal. Such a committee could undoubtedly exercise a much wider breadth of view than a more narrowly focused and perhaps more centrally oriented departmental Select Committee. One of the useful functions that could be exercised by a permanent parliamentary committee such as was advocated in the report would be to act as something of a whistle-blower and to draw attention to where either central or local government was pushing too hard at the boundaries, where local government was going beyond the limits of tolerable difference and where central government was seeking to impose too great a degree of central control and direction.
We have had the benefit of an excellent report which has produced an equally excellent debate. I hope that the Government will listen and reflect rather than pursue further a narrow, constraining and ultimately distorting agenda. In their White Paper the Government have started what should be a more positive process. For my part, I remain an advocate of strong local government operating within a local governance framework because I am convinced that not only will that provide the means by which local problems can best be confronted in an integrated, effective and comprehensive way, but because I believe that by going down that road we also strengthen and revitalise our democratic, pluralist political system—and that is a worthy and necessary objective.
6.4 p.m.
Lord Tope: My Lords, like others I start by paying a warm tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth. His Select Committee was the first of your Lordships' Select Committees on which I have had the privilege to serve and, as one who frequently has to chair committees in other places, I found it an extremely valuable learning experience to see the gentle but firm skill with which the noble Lord steered us. To the surprise of many of us, we managed to produce a unanimous report without too much difficulty. That is a considerable tribute to the noble Lord.
Those who have managed to reach Appendix 7 of the report will note that our interests are declared there. I have some considerable local government interests, but absolutely none in central government so my place on the two sides is clear.
We have had some discussion today about when local government's golden age might have been. Some noble Lords have said that it was in the 1960s. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, suggested that it was some time before the Liberal Government of 1906. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, told us that it was in the 17th century—except that local councillors were not elected then. I must admit that that has its attractions at times. However, whenever the golden age of local government occurred, it certainly has not been in the 22 years in which I have served in local government.

1143
Indeed, no sooner was I first elected than the then Secretary of State told me that the party was over—before I had even got there.
I am clearly on one side of this debate—and that is because I have a strong belief not only in local government, but in local democracy. There is a difference. As I am so strongly on one side of the debate and because all my experience comes from one side, I am also sometimes one of local government's strongest critics. That is why I wanted to start my remarks by saying that I recognise, as do many in local government, that local government itself or at least some parts of it—that is an important qualification—has played a part in the deterioration of the relationship between central and local government. For too long we have paid the price of the damage that was done by a minority of local authorities in the 1980s. I acknowledge that. Indeed, that fact was acknowledged in the first evidence that was given to the committee by local government politicians when Sir Jeremy Beecham acknowledged that it had been a mistake in the 1980s for some local authorities to believe that it was essential for them to have a policy on Nicaragua. That is right, but those days are past, and very few, if any, local authorities now take that view.
The report is important because it recognises, first, that there has been a deterioration in the relationship between central and local government and, secondly and most importantly, that there are things which must and can be done about it. As someone from local government, I have been pleased by the tone of this debate because without exception every speaker has led me to wonder whether there is a problem. When listening to the debate one would think that the importance and the strength of local government and local democracy were already fully recognised. I must agree with the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin—I suspect that this will surprise him because we have not always taken the same view of the evidence that we have heard—that the evidence that the committee received was long on the problems but rather short on the solutions. I accept that as a member of local authority associations I have some responsibility for that.
However, as I listened to the evidence I became increasingly convinced that the fundamental problem is the low esteem in which local government is held in this country. At the root of so many of the issues that we considered was not only the low esteem in which local government is held in general, but sometimes the low esteem in which local government holds itself. I was struck today when a noble Lord referred to local government as the training school for Parliament and for national government. Perhaps that is a statement of fact, because one of the things that I discovered during our deliberations was that 280 of our current Members of Parliament had at some time been local councillors. I suggest that one of the matters that is wrong with the relationship is that too many good quality local councillors see their only progression as being to Parliament.
1144
One of the strengths of the report is the unanimity of its recommendations. The most important recommendation which goes to the heart of the issue is that there should be a concordat between central and local government. That goes substantially further than the existing guidelines, which were themselves considerably watered down from what was initially proposed to central government. I should like to quote briefly that part of the report which specifies the nature of the concordat. I believe that in principle it goes significantly further than simply beefed-up guidelines, however desirable they may be. The report suggested that the concordat should cover the constitutional place of local government, the role of local government and the financial base for local government. It should place a requirement on central government to consult local government about any changes to that relationship. It should also include a commitment by central government to consult local government on policy proposals and legislation affecting matters for which local government has a responsibility, and—this is important—there should be a commitment by local government to respond within a certain period of time. I believe that that concordat goes to the heart of what is needed to address the problems of the relationship and the low esteem in which local government is now held in this country.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, in a sense provided a trailer for the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, who follows me in this debate, when he spoke about the Council of Europe Charter of Local Self-Government. I will not say very much about it because I know that the noble Baroness is an expert in such matters. However, one of the important features of that charter is symbolic rather than real. Nothing would change the day after it was signed. However, it would be a recognition by central government, of whichever party, of the importance of local government. Noble Lords have suggested today, and others have suggested elsewhere, that the Government's disinclination to sign the charter is primarily because it begins with the word "European" and that may cause difficulties with some members of their party. That may have been one of the considerations. I suspect that when the Minister replies to the debate he will not reveal that to us. Having read the charter, I wonder whether the real problem is that someone else in local government has also read it and realised that it is at least questionable whether the United Kingdom qualifies under the terms of the charter as having local self-government. I will not take time in pursuing what I believe to be an important point.
I turn to the Government's White Paper response. I am pleased that the local authority associations have given a qualified welcome to it. I believe that that is a right and positive response. We need to build upon whatever is there for us to build upon. Others have said that they are disappointed with the response. To be disappointed one must have expectations in the first place. The only expectation I had was that the Government might agree to sign the charter on local self-government because they would not accept anything else in the report. My expectation was that the Government would provide warm words on the attitudinal points—those which dealt

1145
more generally with the relationship—and there would be a specific "no" on the finance-related recommendations. I was not disappointed. My expectations were met in full, except for the European charter. We have received warm words from the Government about the relationship. I hope and want to believe that they are meant. I strongly support the intentions of the new Local Government Association to try to build upon those warm words and develop that relationship. But warm words must be backed by real actions. Words alone are not enough. At the same time as we have warm words on the White Paper we are faced with an Education Bill that results in further powers being taken away from local authorities. We also have the Secretary of State for Health attending a conference on social services and announcing that there is to be a White Paper which proposes to take away social services provision from local government. In parenthesis, it was remarkable that in taking the evidence the relationship between social services directors and the Department of Health appeared to be markedly better than anywhere else within the central/local government relationship. Therefore, even where it is good it is now to be damaged. These are issues that need to be raised and discussed, not announced at a conference and put into a White Paper in this way. It must be developed in the way that the suggested concordat will do.
If we are to rebuild trust, as the title of the report proposes, central government must learn to trust local government, and local government must feel that it is trusted. Nowhere is that more important than in the realms of finance. For that reason, although I am not surprised, I am saddened that the Government still do not recognise that. It is the fundamental right of a democratically elected local council to determine the needs of its community, the priorities to meet those needs, the level of tax required to pay for them, to balance them, and to be properly and democratically accountable locally for the decisions that it takes. If local government is to be trusted that is the real test of that trust. Until we get back to that stage it will not happen. The recommendations of the committee which other noble Lords have addressed well—the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in his intervention, put the case extremely well on capping—go a long way to meeting that. I am sorry that they drew back just a little from positively recommending local income tax. I believe that that would go even further towards creating the kind of direct link that many noble Lords in this debate said was needed.
I touch briefly on the CCT arguments. I believe that this is also a key measure of trust between central and local government. I have never been in favour of compulsion. I do not like it. But I will concede that it is probable that in the first instance there would not have been so much progress—I use that word carefully—in competitive tendering had there not been an element of compulsion. However, the Government's proposals in that respect were not driven primarily by a desire to improve competition—something which I believe that most, though not all, local authorities now embrace—but by a desire to take services away from local government. All of the rules and regulations surrounding
1146
CCT were designed, not for a level playing field on which local authorities could genuinely test whether their service provision was competitive, but to ensure that wherever possible those services went to the private sector. I believe that it is a tribute to local authorities that so many of them have been able to retain their service provision and to do so competitively.
I say a brief word about the parliamentary committee. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in his intervention made reference to that committee in the context of capping. The suggestion was that the parliamentary committee should oversee the relationship between central and local government. It may be just a drafting error, although I suspect that it is more significant, that in the summary of the White Paper the Government refer to it as a parliamentary committee to oversee local government matters. To oversee local government matters is substantially different from overseeing a relationship between central and local government. If the Minister can reassure me that that is only a drafting error and it is not what the Government mean, I will listen with care.
I turn finally to community leadership. The Select Committee has made some useful recommendations on the development of the role of local authorities as community leaders. I believe that to be a very important future role for local government. It is, and is likely to remain, the only local democratically elected body with proper accountability to its community and the ability to take an overview of the interests and needs of that community.
Reference has been made to the problem of low turn out; of voting on national issues—there is no time for me now to explore that. I have to say that when I avidly read any report I can about what is happening in local elections I find that they are invariably written by national political correspondents and speak only of their implications for national government. Rarely do they say much about local government.
We can say a great deal about how to improve the ability of people to go to vote in terms of a different day for elections, different electoral arrangements and so forth. Noble Lords might not be surprised to hear me say that by far the best way to increase turn out and accountability is to introduce proportional representation. I have always believed that local government is well suited to a system of proportional representation.
The committee recommended that local authorities should have an opportunity to experiment, including in relation to electoral arrangements. My noble friend Lady Hamwee from the London Borough of Richmond-upon-Thames, and I, as leader of the London Borough of Sutton, feel a certain discomfort over that. My party has 84 per cent. of the seats on my council with about 53 per cent. of the votes. In the London Borough of Richmond-upon-Thames it is slightly less than that. We do not defend that, but I am not sure that we wish to experiment with proportional representation until and unless the London Boroughs of Newham and Haringey agree to join in the experiment. Nevertheless, it is an important point which would do much to increase interest in local democracy.

1147
There is much talk about experimenting as regards the right and opportunity to be different. That is important. The right to experiment is important. I am sad that the Government are a little lukewarm about it, for all their fine words, which I support, about internal management. The right to experiment is one thing: for those experiments to take place we need also the climate to experiment. If local authorities are to be bold enough to undertake experiments—we must recognise that by their nature some experiments must fail, and we may learn more from a failed experiment rather than from one which is an assured success and therefore not truly an experiment—they must know that if those experiments fail, or are perceived to fail, they will not be descended upon from a great height by Ministers, or big wigs from their own party; they are not going to be pilloried in the media. In other words, we need to have a climate in which well thought out experimentation—not reckless experimentation—is a good thing when encouraged positively. It is the kind of climate about which my friend Lady Hamwee was talking in the free communes in the Scandinavian countries.
To conclude, the report is entitled Rebuilding Trust. We need to return to that. If we are to rebuild trust, central government must trust local government and local government must reflect that trust by behaving responsibly and by playing a positive part in the central and local government partnership in the way that the concordat suggested in the report envisages.
The health of our democracy depends upon the strength of its roots, and its roots lie in local democracy. The report makes some major proposals towards achieving that. I was privileged to have served on that committee. I support the report most strongly.
6.24 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I, too, compliment and thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, and all the members of his committee. It is an excellent report. At the end of the debate, it is even more remarkable to note that the report was agreed unanimously.
I wish to declare an interest as a serving county councillor and a member of the Association of County Councils, which is due to be replaced next April by the new Local Government Association. That is a welcome development for local government.
This has been a good and important debate. The issue is crucial because we need to live in a healthy democracy. That must include democratic subsidiarity and strong local government with a capacity to respond to local circumstances. My noble friend Lord Prys-Davies stressed the need for an understanding of the local community initiative and diverse issues such as economic development initiatives—pilot schemes and innovation. They all enrich the quality of life of the citizens of the UK with the provision of specific services through local government.
I shall refer to three issues raised in the report and during the debate. The first is the European charter; the second is the need for partnership; and the third is the vexed issue of finance, especially SSAs. The report
1148
rightly recommends that the UK should adopt the Council of Europe's charter for local self-government. I have a special interest in the charter because, as a member of the Standing Conference of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe, I was present and voted for the adoption of the charter. We sought support and understanding from colleagues in other countries as the UK Government insisted on watering down the proposals in the charter and, having achieved that, sadly refused to sign it.
DoE witnesses to the committee confirmed that the UK should have no problem in signing the charter. Despite that, the Government still refuse to do so. Presumably they will also oppose the acceptance of the charter within the revision of the treaty as requested by the Committee of the Regions. I declare an interest as a member of the Committee of the Regions. With the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and other Members of your Lordships' House, our CoR membership has convinced us of the need for the treaty to be revised within the EU in line with the charter which applies to the Council of Europe to ensure that European citizens both in the wider Council of Europe Europe and, in this case, in the EU have a greater say through genuine democratic subsidiarity which should begin in our cities, towns and rural communities where decisions can best be made at local level through full, universal, democratic choice.
Many people within the UK have for a long time been critical of Brussels. Perhaps they were unaware of the degree of centralisation of their own country until services affecting them and their families showed them the danger of the centralised state in which they live. The UK would be in an even stronger position in the process of working to encourage the development and strengthening of pluralist democratic societies, structure and stability in the countries of central and eastern Europe were we to be signatories to the charter. It is a sad irony that on many occasions the pressure on countries seeking membership of the Council of Europe to sign the charter has been applied even by representatives of our Government, notwithstanding their refusal to sign the charter.
During the debate there has been welcome stress on the report's recommendations with regard to the value of partnership. It is impossible to comment upon the wide range of issues raised in that area. However, the need to unlock the potential at local level, to respond to many of our economic, social and environmental problems, has been stressed by the report and by contributions today. We hope that the Government's agreement to review the scope of Section 137 funding will enable even greater initiative at local level. My noble friend Lord Borrie referred to the sort of development that has taken place in my own county of Lancashire through Lancashire Enterprises. There is a long list of authorities, Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat controlled, which have pioneered the way in that field of economic development.
I wish to refer to the vexed issue of local government finance. The report recommends the return of the non-domestic rate to local government and a reversal to the use of capping as a reserve power only where an authority has clearly set an unreasonable budget.

1149
There has been much dishonesty in the relationship between central and local government in many fields but nowhere greater than in the field of local government finance. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Platt of Writtle, who welcomed the shift towards council tax for the raising of revenue at local level. But my doubts, fears and concerns are strengthened by bitter experience over my many years, since 1973, in local government. It will be said by many Members of Parliament, and in the presence of many Members of Parliament both here and, more importantly, in the other place, that the result of government policy will be an inevitable increase in council tax bills with no improvement in service, an approximate increase in taxation of 5 per cent. being needed to raise every 1 per cent. of additional expenditure and to make up the shortfall. When that happens, sadly, there are those who lack political integrity who will return to their constituencies and make a party political point that those parties in government at local level are scurrilously raising taxation without any necessity to do so. That is the tragedy.
The second tragedy of local government finance during my time in local government since 1973 has been the development of the standard spending assessment. It is necessary for any government to develop and establish a system for the distribution of grant from central government funds to local government. SSAs are inevitably crude. Perhaps I may give a few examples to demonstrate that crudity. SSAs are broken into components by service area. The SSA for the fire service changed dramatically during the time the Minister was at the Home Office because of a change in the calculation of the formula concerning the Isle of Wight and whether an island authority could reasonably be expected to call on fire brigades from adjacent fire authorities at the time of an emergency. It is clearly a nonsense to suggest that a fire engine can drive across the Solent to tackle a fire. But the vagaries of changing the system made quite a marked difference because the calculation then became based on length of coastline. That took funds away from many fire authorities and gave them to another.
I understand that London, which is not an area on which I am an expert, has an SSA system which calculates degrees of social need, financial poverty and hardship. I understand that the system assumes that something in the order of 12 per cent. of all those living in the City of Westminster are considered to be in the category of social deprivation. There is also an assessment about the need to have regard to the number of visitors which an authority has. The result of those two calculations leads to a system of SSAs which places approximately 12 per cent. of visitors staying in the Savoy or the Ritz in the band of social poverty and need. It is unlikely that the City of Westminster is putting people who are homeless in the Ritz or the Savoy.
I make those points as serious points because any system or formula is bound to have a degree of crudity when it is worked out in Whitehall. I do not sneer at Ministers unless I believe that they are deliberately manipulating the system. But it is wrong, tragic and
1150
bad—bad for government, bad for local people and bad for local democracy—as the report says, for it to become a rigid measure of controlling the amount which is to be spent at local level.
It is important to protect and improve minimum standards for people. Noble Lords have referred to that. It is important that we recognise that government will always have a role to play. But when government cynically increase teachers' pay with end loading and when they say cynically that the grant will not increase but that the authority's ability to spend will increase and when those same government Ministers claim that that is an example of profligacy in local government, then we see the system being undermined.
It is critically important that we look forward. It is critically important that we do not engage in, and embark upon, a further war of attrition. I lived through the war of attrition in the early 1980s when I would say that it was six of one and half a dozen of the other. There were bad authorities. But there were government Ministers who demanded of local government that there should be no cuts in services, no rate increases and no rent increases.
The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, referred to the importance of the calibre of people who are local government officers. Personally, I have found the same high calibre among the civil servants with whom it has been my pleasure to work from local government. There is one deep difference. It is that officers at local level have to stand in public meetings night after night and answer detailed questions from the public as to what they are doing and what their political government is doing. They must face that. Therefore, I do not think that it is a difference of quality; it is the importance of changing the service.
The charter needs to be signed. It is important for us to go ahead. CCT is important and has achieved savings. But from these Benches we would argue with the noble Baronesses, Lady Platt of Writtle and Lady Carnegy of Lour, that it would have been better for the people working in those services had they as individuals been protected by a national minimum wage so that the savings were not made by cutting the pay levels of the poorest in the community.
From these Benches, I repeat the commitment made by my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel. We believe that this country must sign the charter. There is a need for a clear statement of the powers and duties of local government. We believe in a pluralist local system, as described so well by my noble friend Lord Sewel. We believe in a reduction in the dependence on central government grants; decisions made should be more transparent. We look forward to rebuilding trust; we believe that the report paves the way to achieving that worthy and important objective.
6.40 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, we have had an interesting debate and the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, for having introduced today's debate and for giving your Lordships

1151
the opportunity to discuss one of the most important factors of a democracy—the relationship between central and local government. Noble Lords have also expressed appreciation for the masterly way in which I understand the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, chaired the Select Committee. Indeed, a substantial tribute has been paid by those speakers this afternoon who served on the committee.
The committee deliberated for some nine months and produced a valuable report in a short time on a system of local government which has developed over many decades.
The Government welcome the Select Committee's examination of this subject and see the report as an important contribution to the debate about the nature of local governance in Great Britain. In turn, I was pleased that my noble friend Lord Gray of Contin was glad that the Government have gone as far as they have.
The development of good relations between central and local government is something which has to continue over time. The Select Committee's report, and the Government's response to it, should not be regarded as the end of a story—or, indeed, the beginning of one. It is merely a step on the road—a most important one—in the continuing development of what is, after all, a living constitution.
Local democracy is an essential element in the constitution of any democratic state. It is one of the hallmarks of a free society—along with the respect for human rights, the rule of law and a freely elected government. But just as there is no one universal model of a free society, there is also no one blueprint for local democracy.
Here in the United Kingdom, our local democracy is the product of our own traditions and of our unique constitutional experience. We have a constitution which continues to develop; therein lies its strength.
Today our local democracy provides democratically elected local authorities which provide the leadership of local communities; which have important roles in overseeing the implementation of various regulations; and which have a major part to play in providing, or arranging, different services to the locality.
Local government is also involved in carrying out the national priorities for the economy and in ensuring that certain minimum national standards exist—such as, for example, in education. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady "T. Dan" Hamwee, as she likes to call herself, that it is important to encourage people—and the right people—to go into local government. Of course, that does mean that a certain element of pro bono publico is needed behind those people.
The Government also share the committee's view that the traditional relationships between central and local government broke down in the 1980s. We agree that, from that point, there needed to be a rebuilding of trust. Indeed, I would echo those speakers who have already said that it is most appropriate for the report to be entitled Rebuilding Trust. It is important that that is achieved.
1152
Over a long period of time, relations between central and local government were always conducted informally. That continued during the period after the war when local authorities began to do an increasingly large number of things and when they began to spend an increasingly large amount of money. But there came a point at which central government were bound to acknowledge that the activities of local government were such that, when taken together, they had a real effect upon what central government could decide and what it could—and should—do at the centre. I suppose that that probably reached its zenith when a Labour Secretary of State, Mr. Tony Crosland, said, in a state of frustration on a famous occasion, "The party's over".
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, said that since 1979 there has been a deliberate and sustained assault on local government. I know that the noble Lord likes to use fairly graphic expressions from time to time but I believe that he went too far in that respect. Of course there has not been an assault on local government; indeed, we believe it to be an extremely important part of the constitution.
It is common knowledge that, from 1979, the Government took a very firm step to manage the economy and to ensure that people were given value for money in what local government did. It was pretty unpopular with some, but the economy today demonstrates that that was the right thing to have done.
Then, some in local government began to see themselves as an alternative voice on how the country as a whole should be run. Some tried to break the Government's plans to cut spending by pushing up their own local spending in the knowledge that many of their voters would be protected from increased local tax bills by the benefits system; that many local businesses do not have the vote and, therefore, could do little about their increased rates; and that many people who benefited from increased local authority spending did not actually pay any rates. That, of course, was the genesis of the poll tax, which the Government prefer to call the community charge. However, as my noble friend Lady Carnegy said, had that continued in operation, that may well have resulted in local authorities having more power. Other people tried to use their local platform to influence matters which properly belonged to central government.
My noble friend Lady Platt of Writtle pointed out that the committee said that there will always be tensions between central and local government and that we must try to lessen them. That is absolutely right. Clearly no government, whether this Government or one of another political complexion—if one can extend one's imagination to that enormous extent—can afford to find themselves in a position where they cannot decide major issues about the national economy. After all, the Government provide 50 per cent. of all that local government spends. If one adds to that the non-domestic business rates of 25 per cent., what is actually produced in the locality from the council tax is about 21 per cent. in broad terms.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, wanted local government to be free to do what it wants and then to be accountable. However, I am sure that the noble Lord will realise that

1153
when you look at such figures obviously a government of any persuasion have a great interest in the way in which the money from taxpayers is spent. The government of the day have to be able to decide on the overall level of public expenditure, both central and local, which the economy can afford. They have to be in a position to decide their priorities for central government spending.
If local government collectively seeks to raise significantly the total amount which local government spends, then central government is bound to be forced to do one of two things: either they have to abandon their overall strategy for spending and taxation, or reduce their expenditure in other areas of the public sector—such as, on the health service—below the level which they consider appropriate. That is the position in which central government found themselves in the early 1980s.
The Government, therefore, took steps to make formal that which had previously been a reasonably well accepted informal understanding with local government as to the boundaries of local government action.
There was a good deal of tension and disagreement during the 1980s, as your Lordships will remember only too well, about the measures which the Government introduced, and which culminated in the present financial arrangements which involve capping, the national business rate and the introduction of the council tax.
Since then, there has been a genuine attempt—by local government and by central government together—to rediscover the traditional relationship between central and local government which we in the Government, and the great majority of those in local government, too, believe is the right way of proceeding.
The Government intend to do their best to improve relations with local government and to improve the esteem in which local authorities are held. My noble friend Lady Platt of Writtle said that it is not a bad maxim to say, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, agreed with that. I also agree with that. I hope that he will be able to persuade his noble friends to adopt that maxim when they consider the future of the constitution and of your Lordships' House. The noble Lord, Lord Borne, said that he visited Mr. Redwood and Mr. Stewart and that it was not a rewarding experience. He went to see them about trading officers. He was told that local authorities should be able to co-operate. The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, never visited me to inquire about that subject when I was at the Department of Trade. That was my misfortune, but those words were familiar because I have used them myself. The Government tend to speak with one voice on these matters. The Government have seen no evidence that the oversight as regards trading standards is any worse following local government reorganisation. It is for local authorities to decide whether and how to co-operate in that field.
My noble friend Lord Beloff made the most astonishing swipe at civil servants which I believe horrified the noble Baroness, Lady David, as well as myself. He said they are
1154
so occupied tending Ministers—that is a touching thought—that they cannot answer any questions unless they have sought advice beforehand. I have great sympathy with civil servants. Anyone who has had to answer questions in your Lordships' House will be upset if he has not been briefed properly on the questions which are likely to be asked. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Borne, was going a little far when he talked about trading standards. When he asked me a question about that I could not give him an exact answer at the time but, fortunately, my mental powers are such that I recalled the answer and I have given it to him. My noble friend Lord Beloff cast appalling aspersions on civil servants. In my experience, irrespective of the department concerned, they have always been absolutely superb in knowing the facts and the details and in expressing those articulately to Ministers, one of whom is not always quick to recognise the facts and takes rather longer than his colleagues to do so.
The Government's White Paper sets out a programme of action which has three objectives. The first is to strengthen local democracy; the second is to promote the local leadership role of local authorities; and the third is to improve yet further relations between central and local government. One might ask how local democracy can be strengthened. The respect in which it is held must be increased. Local democracy must be held in high esteem. The programme of action therefore proposes a statement, which is to be agreed between central and local government, on the role and value of local government.
For reasons which I shall mention later, the Government do not feel that we can accept the committee's recommendation that the United Kingdom should adopt the European Charter of Local Self Government. Indeed, we propose a statement instead. We view the proposed statement as addressing one of the main principles which underlies the committee's recommendation, which is that the Government should give a signal that they recognise the value of local government. The statement will do that.
The Government also wish to see local democracy strengthened by increasing public participation in local government. Your Lordships' committee has identified a number of measures which might achieve that, to one of which the noble Baroness, Lady David, referred; namely, allowing individual authorities the option of moving to a different electoral system for local elections. The noble Earl, Lord Kintore, thought we were going down the path of voting by proportional representation. Of course the noble Lord, Lord Tope, could not resist the opportunity of again banging the drum of proportional representation. I am sorry to have to disappoint them. Before decisions are taken about which methods might be used, there has to be a proper analysis of the issues and the difficulties which are being encountered. The Government's programme of action therefore involves joint research and analysis with the new Local Government Association on the level of local participation in local government. Then, and only then, will we be in a position to decide whether, and if so what, new measures and arrangements are necessary or desirable.

1155
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, referred to the management of local authorities, and in particular elected mayors. The Government intend to bring forward in the next Parliament legislation to enable local authorities to experiment with their internal management arrangements. However, as regards elected mayors, it is worth noting that during consultation by my department in 1991, of over 600 responses only four favoured elected mayors. The main objection was that there would be conflict and confused accountability between the elected mayor and the other councillors on the council.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, was concerned about what the White Paper meant by local government matters which could be overseen by a parliamentary committee. I can assure him there is nothing sinister in that. It simply means the matters to which the committee refers in paragraph 2.70 of its report; in other words, the matters which it suggests should be looked at by a parliamentary committee. One might ask then how we can better promote the leadership of local authorities. The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, wants us to move away from central government dominance over local government. Of course these are difficult balances to maintain but local authorities need the ability to innovate. To do that, the committee has recommended a general power of local competence. Local authorities, of course, already have a general power in Section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972. The Government accept the spirit of the committee's recommendation. Our programme of action also proposes a review of Section 137 in order to assess the scope which it gives for leadership action and to see whether a wider general power is either practical or advisable.
The Government also accept the committee's recommendation about experimenting with different models for the internal management of local authorities. We shall bring forward legislation in the next Parliament to enable local authorities to do so. All these measures will help to improve yet further the relationship between central and local government. The Government also accept the committee's recommendation concerning the existing guidelines for central and local relations. We propose to consider, with the new Local Government Association, how the existing guidelines can be developed yet further. The Government also accept the committee's recommendation concerning Whitehall arrangements for considering local government issues which involve more than one department. We shall carry out a review of their effectiveness.
I believe that this programme of action is based on the Government's belief—which I am glad to say the Select Committee shares—that democratically elected authorities have important roles in the world of local governance today, in particular that of being the leader of the community in which they serve. As your Lordships' committee recognised, local authorities are not, and never have been and never will be, the sole monolithic providers of all services in a given geographical area. Nor can they ever operate wholly apart from the powers of central intervention. Our programme will prove to be a significant chapter in the
1156
continuing development of local government. That is a development which we aim to continue in a spirit of partnership and of collaboration with local government.
The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, referred to regional assemblies. The Government see no case for setting up new bodies to provide regional government. That would simply add an unwanted and unnecessary tier of bureaucracy. As regards partnerships for regeneration, we share his view of the importance of partnerships and of local authorities' role in this. Of the partnerships which won bids for the single regeneration budget, 80 per cent had local authority involvement and about 50 per cent had been led by local authorities.
However, I am afraid there are some recommendations of the committee which the Government do not feel able to accept. I refer to the recommendation that we should adopt the European Charter of Local Self Government. That was a source of disappointment to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, a source of shock to the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, and a source of scurrilous speculation to the noble Lord, Lord Tope. The Government have always held the view on the charter that while we support the principles of local government which are established in the charter—and which are reflected in the United Kingdom's system of local government—we do not consider that it is necessary for the United Kingdom to enter now into a binding international agreement which covers domestic local government arrangements. We have a long tradition of effective local government—a tradition which is founded on, and which is given practical expression by, the legislative decisions of your Lordships' House and of another place. We do not need a European convention to bolster those traditions or to show that we carry them out.
However, the Government accept the committee's view that it would be worth while for central government to send a clear signal that they recognise the value of local government. We therefore propose to agree with the new Local Government Association a statement covering much the same ground as the charter which will set out the role and status of local government in this country. The committee also recommended the establishment of a permanent parliamentary committee. It is clearly a matter for the House and for Parliament, and one that Parliament must decide.
My noble friend Lady Platt of Writtle was sorry that the Government did not view the prospect of a permanent committee with enthusiasm. It is the Government's belief that a permanent committee would be very difficult to justify when there is already an existing structure of departmentally based committees in another place to which can be added other arrangements such as the ad hoc inquiries which were undertaken by your Lordships' committee.
The committee also questioned whether there was still a need to retain the compulsory element of compulsory competitive tendering, and whether compulsory competitive tendering itself could be made less detailed and prescriptive. The committee felt that local authorities have now well embraced the tendering

1157
philosophy and that they can be relied upon to continue tendering without the compulsory element. A number of noble Lords felt that to be the case, including the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington. They wanted the compulsory element removed.
The Government's researches do not support the view that removal would be beneficial. They show that local authorities as a whole cannot be relied upon to provide open and fair competition in tendering. For the time being at least, we believe that the compulsory element ought to remain. It may, however, be possible in the longer term to consider a more flexible regime. Our recent experience does not lead us to believe that a voluntary framework would provide for local residents the benefits and improvements that are obtainable under compulsory competitive tendering.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, reminded us, the committee made a series of recommendations directed at removing the influence of central government over local government finance. It suggested that central government should relax their control over the amount of local authority expenditure that is financed locally—sometimes referred to by the ghastly acronym "LASFE"; that in essence the present arrangements for the capping of council tax should be abolished; and that non-domestic rates should be returned to the control of the local authorities.
The Government introduced a national business rate because they believed that businesses ought to be able to plan properly without major annual tax variations, and that businesses should pay the same rate wherever in the country they happen to locate themselves. We still maintain that view.
The noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Williams, the noble Baroness, Lady David, and my noble friend Lord Gray of Contin, referred to the matter of capping. My noble friend Lady Platt also referred to it and said that Whitehall does not always know best. That is perfectly true. However, the Government are elected to look after national economic priorities and the overall level of local spending, including local authority self-financed expenditure, as it affects the national economy. The government of the day therefore have a legitimate interest in influencing it. Capping, although controversial, has proved effective in controlling the overall level of local authority budgets and in protecting the local taxpayer from excessive tax rises.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, and the noble Baronesses, Lady David and Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, referred to standard spending assessments. I am bound to say that I have a certain sympathy with the points made. The Government share the committee's aim. We would dearly like to simplify them if possible. Such action is very close to my own heart, since I have personally tried to simplify and understand the SSAs and regrettably, as noble Lords might imagine, both because of the nature of the problem and the quality of the erstwhile reformer, I failed desperately on both counts. The fact is, if one finds SSAs unfair and tries to simplify them, they
1158
become more unfair; if one tries to "refine" them, they then become more bureaucratic. However, that does not mean that efforts should not continue to be made to simplify them. After all, formulae ought to be designed to be the servant of the people, not their master.
The Government accept the committee's assessment of the present state of the relationship between central and local government and we agree that considerable effort has to be expended to improve further that relationship and to enable local authorities the better to be able to fulfil their role as leaders of the community.
On that basis, as well as having regard to wider economic and policy objectives, the Government have considered the committee's recommendations. We believe that the measures we propose to take will improve the current state of relations. We believe that they can open up a new chapter in our relationships with local government and will contribute to the development of local democracy and local government into the next century.
7.5 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Tanworth: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, and I thank all noble Lords who took part in this interesting debate. Despite the criticisms that some of us made of the Government's decisions on finance questions, the debate has also been an encouraging one. No one is now saying that there is not a problem. No one says that the problem can be solved by a quick fix, whether by making local government simply a branch office of central government or by some new constitutional arrangement. Everyone seems to be saying that what is needed is a rebuilding of trust and of an attitude of partnership, of working together, with the essential acceptance by the Government of the recommendation that the guidelines should be developed into a more formal concordat that would send a signal to local government as to its place in the system. But the rebuilding of trust has to be earned, and by both sides. I am sure that people will reflect on that.
Some very kind remarks were made about me. However, I remind the House that this was not an issue on which a manipulative chairman could secure unanimous agreement. It was a hard, difficult issue. The committee was composed of senior Members with different political views and different experience of local government. Over a period of nine months we listened, read, argued and talked; and at the end we found that we had reached a consensus. I hope that the debate will continue, in Parliament and in the media, as to how local democracy best finds its place in our constitutional systems.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Land Registration Bill [H.L.]
7.7 p.m.
Lord Browne-Wilkinson: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This is a short but very technical Bill. It has two aims. The first is to increase the rate at which land in England and Wales with unregistered title is brought on to the register of title kept by Her Majesty's Land Registry. As I shall explain, the Bill seeks to achieve that by a mixture of carrot and stick. The second aim is to make fairer provision for those who suffer loss by reason of some error or omission in the register.
Ever since Mr. Robert Wilson, a solicitor, first proposed a system of registration of title to land in 1846, it has been the aim of those who wished to reform conveyancing law to make the buying and selling of land as simple as dealings with other forms of property, such as stocks and shares. Now, 150 years later, that aspiration is close to fulfilment. Nearly 16 million of the estimated 21 million titles to land in England and Wales are now registered and more than 86 per cent. of all registered titles are computerised to the great advantage of the public.
The way in which unregistered land has been brought on to the register has been through a system of compulsory registration. There are two elements in this. The first—that the land must be in an area of compulsory registration—will always be satisfied now, because the whole of England and Wales has been subject to compulsory registration since December 1990. Secondly, the transaction must be of a type which is required to be registered. At present, these types are limited. The only dispositions of unregistered land that must be registered are conveyances of freehold land on sale; leases which are granted for more than 21 years; assignments of existing leases where the lease has more than 21 years still to run; and certain leases granted for 21 years or less under the right-to-buy legislation.
It is of course intended that all the remaining unregistered land in England and Wales should in time be brought on to the register. The existing triggers for compulsory registration will never achieve that objective because there is land that may never be bought or sold. In November 1992, Her Majesty's Land Registry issued a discussion and consultation paper, Completing The Land Register in England and Wales, in which a possible strategy was set out for completing the register. A number of options were put forward to achieve this. Two of the five clauses contained in this Bill are derived from the responses to that consultation paper.
A joint working group was set up in 1994 which consisted of representatives from the Land Registry, the Law Commission and the Lord Chancellor's Department. One of its objectives was to see whether parts of the Law Commission's third and fourth reports which had proved too ambitious for early implementation could be implemented at once. That objective has been fulfilled and the results are found in the First Report of the Joint Working Group which was published by the Law Commission as Law
1160
Commission Report No. 235. That report also makes recommendations to give effect to the responses to the Land Registry's discussion and consultation paper that I have already mentioned. The Bill at present before the House is based on the draft Bill attached to that report with a handful of minor changes.
I have mentioned that the first aim of the Bill is to speed up the rate at which land with unregistered title is brought on to the register and the Bill attempted to do that by a mixture of carrot and stick. I shall begin with the stick. The stick consists of the extension of the triggers for compulsory registration. Clause 1 replaces the existing Section 123 of the Land Registration Act 1925 with two new sections. The present Section 123 is not well drafted and has been criticised. The opportunity has therefore been taken not only to extend the triggers for compulsory registration but also to remedy the flaws in the present legislation.
The first of the new sections, Section 123, lists triggers for the compulsory registration of unregistered land that will apply when the provision is brought into force. First, all transfers of freeholds, all grants of leases for more than 21 years and all assignments of leases with more than 21 years to run will have to be registered if they are made for valuable or other consideration by way of gift, by way of an assent (including a gift of such land in a will) or to give effect to an order of the court. This is the effect of the new subsections 123(1) and (6).
Secondly, the new Section 123(2) provides that where an owner of an unregistered freehold or an unregistered lease having more than 21 years to run creates a first legal mortgage on that property which is protected by the deposit of documents of title, the title to the freehold or to the leasehold must be registered.
Those provisions will make two changes in the law. First, gifts of land, whether made in the donor's lifetime or by his or her will, are not at present registrable. In future they will be. Secondly, where an owner of an unregistered freehold or of a lease with more than 21 years to run either executes a first legal mortgage of it when it is unencumbered, or remortgages it, discharging any existing legal mortgages, he or she will have to register the title to that land. The two new proposed triggers were favourably received when the Land Registry consulted upon them in 1992.
It seems likely that in the course of time it may be desirable to add new triggers for compulsory registration. The new subsections 123(4) and 123(5) which the Bill inserts make provision for that to be done by the Lord Chancellor by way of statutory instrument. I understand from the Land Registry that it would not make any recommendations to the Lord Chancellor to extend the range of triggering dispositions without prior public consultation. The noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, will be able to tell your Lordships whether my understanding is correct.
The new Section 123A, which is also inserted by Clause 1, makes provision for the compulsory registration of dispositions falling within the new triggers and explains what happens if registration does not take place. This new section simply makes explicit

1161
and clarifies what is thought to be the present law and meets certain technical difficulties that could arise under the present Section 123. In practice it is unlikely to be much used because there is usually compliance with the requirements for compulsory registration. It is, I am afraid, lawyers' law of the driest kind—as, I interpose, is the rest of the Bill. As the new section is not intended to make any substantial changes to the existing law, I need not expand on this.
I now turn to the provisions of the Bill that use the carrot rather than the stick. The Lord Chancellor is empowered to make fee orders. There is, however, only a very limited power to authorise what the Act calls "specially reduced fees". It is not possible under the present power to charge lower fees in order to encourage voluntary registration. It is clear to the Land Registry, both from responses to its 1992 consultation and from correspondence from practitioners, that voluntary registration would be much more popular if there were reduced fees.
Clause 3 of the Bill replaces the existing Section 145(3) of the Land Registration Act 1925 with the two new subsections. The new Section 145(3) will enable reduced fees to be charged in cases of voluntary first registration of title.
The Land Registry has estimated that if the new triggers and the new proposed reduced fees were introduced, the number of first registrations would increase by about a third. This would be a very significant step towards completing the register. It would mean that over a period of three years more than 1 million new titles would come on to the register, a quarter of a million more than would be the case with the existing triggers.
The second aim of the Bill is to make fairer provision for those who suffer loss by reason of some error or omission in the register. Those proposals have their origins in the Law Commission's third and fourth reports on land registration. Section 83 of the 1925 Act makes provision for the payment of indemnity where loss is suffered as a result of rectification and in cases where there has been some error or omission but the register is not rectified.
Clause 2 of the Bill is intended to improve the provision for the payment of such indemnity and to strengthen the Land Registry's rights of recourse against those who have actually caused the mistakes that led to the payment of indemnity. Clause 2 substitutes a new Section 83 in place of the existing section. Much of the substance of the section is the same as at present, though in places the wording has been improved. I shall confine my comments to the changes.
The first change is in Section 83(1)(b) which deals with a problem that first came to light in a case decided at the end of 1975. It became clear that even where a landowner succeeded in obtaining rectification of the register in his favour, he might still suffer loss, and that is because the rectification did not affect the rights of a third party that had already vested when the register was rectified. As Section 83 is at present worded, the registrar has no power to pay indemnity in such a case. The new Section 83(1)(b) will give him that power.
1162
The second change is concerned with the effect of the claimant's fault on his or her claim for indemnity. At present, where a claimant for rectification has caused or substantially contributed to the loss by his fraud or lack of proper care, his or her claim to indemnity is wholly barred. The new Section 83 subsections (5)(a) and (6) makes a number of changes to that rule. First, Section 83(5)(a) makes it clear that a person who has caused the loss by fraud, whether wholly or partly, is barred from claiming indemnity. Secondly, the same bar applies where the loss has been caused wholly by a claimant's lack of proper care. Thirdly, the new Section 83(6) introduces a principle akin to that of contributory negligence. If the claimant has partly contributed to the loss as a result of his lack of proper care, he or she is no longer totally barred from indemnity, as up until now. Instead, any indemnity is to be reduced to such extent as is just and equitable having regard to his share in the responsibility for the loss.
The third change contained in the new Section 83(5)(c) is to extend the requirements for the prior consent of the registrar to cover not only legal proceedings but also negotiations if the person claiming the indemnity is to be subsequently provided with an indemnity against such costs.
The fourth change is to extend the Land Registry's rights of recourse against third parties in cases where it has had to pay an indemnity. The registry already has rights of recourse in cases of fraud and can enforce against third parties the rights of the person indemnified. Under the Bill those rights of indemnity are to be extended so that the registry can enforce any right of action which the person in whose favour the register has been rectified would have had if there had been no rectification. I understand that the Land Registry exercises such rights of recourse sparingly; in practice, only in such cases where there has been fraud or negligence. I further understand that it is not intended to change that practice.
The Bill contains provisions for consequential appeals in Clause 4 and for commencement in Clause 5, which do not call for any particular comment.
My Lords, any land registration Bill is unlikely to be particularly exciting and this one certainly is not. However, the Bill contains concrete proposals which will be of enormous practical advantage to many people. It will make conveyancing quicker and cheaper. It contains a number of useful measures that will still further improve conveyancing in England and Wales. I accordingly commend the Bill to this House and ask that it be given a Second Reading.
Moved, that the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Browne-Wilkinson.)
7.20 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, said that this is not an exciting Bill. It is the most exciting thing that has happened to me today. When, in days of yore, I was an articled clerk to my noble friend Lord Mishcon, I never imagined in my wildest dreams, based upon my capacity as a conveyancer, that I would ever be entrusted with a

1163
land registration Bill. But there it is; things move on and here I stand at the Dispatch Box simply because my noble friend Lord Irvine is not able to be present.
I am sure that the House is grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the clarity of exposition which he has portrayed for what is undoubtedly a complex measure, complex but necessary in the continuing process of simplification of conveyancing law. It started in 1925 and more recently, through computerisation, it has been radically reformed and become far less expensive. That is incredibly important for people who are dealing in title. Today, a solicitor or a licensed conveyancer is able to examine title within seconds. That constitutes a revolutionary change from the days when solicitors were to be found in dingy offices poring over title deeds.
The process of simplification has proceeded apace. The noble and learned Lord more than amply described how that has occurred, and he outlined the purposes of the Bill, explaining in particular the amalgam of carrot and stick to ensure the speed with which unregistered title is brought on to the register. The House will be relieved to know that therefore requires no further elaboration on my part.
Sensibly, the Bill replaces those mechanisms which do not work satisfactorily under the present law. It introduces important changes for the future, particularly in the way in which further compulsory registration will be triggered by statutory instrument rather than by primary legislation, thereby avoiding a good deal of unnecessary delay and complexity.
I very much like the idea of introducing reduced fees, as one of those carrots to which the noble and learned Lord referred. That should speed up voluntary registration. Different fees for different cases and in certain instances no fees at all can be a much valued instrument in that regard.
The noble and learned Lord referred to indemnity for those suffering loss through errors or omissions on the register. Those are cases which usually involve fraud. It is important that the provision for indemnity should be strengthened and I very much welcome that.
Another very important change is dealt with in the new Section 83(12). It will have the effect of enabling a claimant to claim certainly for six years after the date on which he becomes aware or ought to have become aware of the claim to indemnity which he would have. That is an important change and one which is certainly overdue.
The Bill merits rapid progress and I am sure it is unlikely to run into any great difficulties in this House—unless the noble Baroness has any severe criticisms, which I am reliably informed she has not—nor indeed in another place. Therefore, we thank the noble and learned Lord for having introduced the Bill so ably this evening.
7.25 p.m.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I warmly welcome the second reading of this dusty piece of legislation, so clearly introduced by the noble and learned Lord. I particularly welcome the carrot and stick aspect of the changes to registered conveyancing which are proposed.
1164
It seems to me that the sooner there is completion of the registration of all property in this country, the better it will be. I hope that the carrot and stick will be effective and, if not, that consideration will be given to creating a cut-off date, after which all land becomes compulsorily registrable. I can see that some land will remain unregistered for many years and there will be two systems of conveyancing existing side by side: the up-to-date registered conveyancing and the dying, old style unregistered conveyancing consisting of the examination and preparation of abstracts of title and deeds. We shall find, as the old style system dies out, that conveyancing becomes more sloppy and more difficulties arise, because fewer people will know how to do it or have experience of carrying it out.
There is also the fact that unregistered land carries an anomalous privilege of privacy in that, after many hundreds of years, under the Land Registration Act 1988 the ownership of land and title became public knowledge. But that does not apply to unregistered land. The 1988 Act did not extend to making public leases of flats and I should like to spend a moment discussing that matter because the Bill before us tonight, according to its Long Title, is a Bill to amend the Land Registration Act 1925. That gives us an opportunity to look at Section 112 of that Act, which is the section that now deals with the right of public access to information held by the Land Registry.
During the passage through Parliament of the 1988 Act, I moved an amendment to try to make the copies of leases of registered land held in the Land Registry available to the public, but to no avail. Among the reasons given for its not being then practical was that there was no need in practice for leases to be made available.
This evening I wish to press again that point and say that there is a need in practice for people who are buying flats to have access to the leases of the other flats in what may be a converted house, because it is only by having that access that they, their lawyers or conveyancers can find out whether the leases in the house are sensible and add up to a coherent whole as regards the management, service charges and the like, or whether in fact to buy into that house will amount to buying into a law suit.
Also, since 1988 there has been enacted the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993. As a result, it becomes necessary for lawyers and others dealing with collective enfranchisements of blocks of flats to have access to all the flats in the building, to find out exactly what is there. It is not always easy to achieve that by asking around in the building because one lessee will have his documents, another will not and yet another will not know where they are. If they are available from the Land Registry, it would be a very simple matter to get hold of all the copy leases and for whoever was advising in connection with the enfranchisement to advise promptly, speedily and probably in the long run more cheaply than would otherwise be the case.
The Leasehold Enfranchisement Advisory Service (LEAS) is experienced, after three years, in giving leaseholders and freeholders advice as to leasehold

1165
matters generally. It was introduced in the wake of collective enfranchises in relation to flats and now offers advice on all matters connected with leasehold tenure both to freeholders and to the lessees and to those who advise both. It seemed to me that it would know whether there was a need for the change in the law that I hope we can achieve out of the Bill. I therefore wrote to Peter Haler, the chief executive of LEAS, and asked him about it, particularly as to whether there was a need. He replied:
"It is in the interests of lessees and conveyancing generally that a prospective party, intending to acquire an interest in a property is able to reassure himself that his lease and the others in the property, which are likely to affect him, do not make the proposed acquisition a non-starter. Too often a lessee finds himself, once he has acquired his flat subject to matters either misrepresented or undisclosed in other leases. The recourse may, technically, be to pursue his surveyor/solicitor/vendor, but for practical purposes the law being what it is may make this impossible. Hence if the complete register and documents filed with it was open to them it would be for a purchaser to satisfy himself that the proposed purchase has no unforeseen, or misrepresented, problems. One imagines that such a search may raise the cost of conveyancing, but with this would come certainty".
Mr. Haler says that he does not accept the view that there is no need for information. He says,
"There was a need when you raised the issue in 1988 and the reasons then still apply now. We would certainly concur that this need has greatly increased as a direct consequence of the 1993 Act … We agree that there is a major case for public access to the copy leases and would strongly support your proposal".
That is a proposal which in due course I may put before your Lordships in Committee. In the meantime, I strongly welcome the introduction of this Law Commission Bill and strongly support the Motion for a Second Reading.
7.32 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am not sure how I would describe my day, but certainly not as the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, did. Equally certainly, I am honoured to stand in for my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and deeply grateful to the mover of the Bill for the kindness he has shown me.
I am also grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, for bringing this useful if technical Bill before the House. I am grateful to him both for outlining the clear advantages that registration of title brings with it in terms of expediting and simplifying conveyancing, and for explaining with such clarity the necessarily intricate provisions of this Bill. It is obvious that, if it is enacted, the Bill will do much to hasten the day when all the land in England and Wales is registered. I should like to remind your Lordships that the Government are committed to the objective of total registration as soon as is reasonably possible.
I would like to express my noble and learned friend's gratitude to the Law Commission and HM Land Registry for their continuing work to improve the legal framework of land registration, of which this Bill is merely the first fruit. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, reminded the House, the Land Registration Act 1925 is not happily drafted. Given its central importance to conveyancing today, it is clearly
1166
desirable that the legislation should be improved. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor looks forward to the second report of the Joint Working Group and to its proposals for redrafting and simplifying the present legislation.
I must refer to two specific aspects of the Bill, where the noble and learned Lord sought my assurance as to his understanding of what is intended. First, I can confirm that the power to extend the triggers for compulsory registration by statutory instrument conferred by the new Sections 123(4) and 123(5) will be exercised only after prior public consultation.
Secondly, I can also confirm that HM Registry would use sparingly its extended rights of recourse under the new Section 83(10) in cases where it had paid an indemnity. The extension proposed is both a logical and a modest one. I am aware that some concern was expressed by the Law Society when the first report of the Joint Working Group was published, that the registry's rights of recourse might be employed in situations where professionals such as solicitors had quite innocently caused the situation which led to the payment of indemnity. That concern was prompted by a recent decision, Penn v. Bristol and West Building Society, in which a firm of solicitors was held liable under a technical legal doctrine called warranty of authority. In principle, that doctrine could be applied to make a solicitor liable even in a situation where he or she was blameless. However, it is neither the practice nor the intention of HM Land Registry to resort to its rights of recourse against those who are neither fraudulent nor negligent. It is a power that will continue to be used only in bad cases.
My noble friend Lord Coleraine raised an interesting point in relation to making available for inspection by tenants involved in collective enfranchisement more information than can presently be had in regard to leases held by the Land Registry. I am grateful to my noble friend for having given notice of the points he raised. Time did not permit an answer to be prepared in time for this debate, but I hope he will be satisfied if I undertake to ask my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to write to him shortly with a substantive reply.
I warmly welcome the Bill proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson. I agree with him in commending the Bill to the House.
7.37 p.m.
Lord Browne-Wilkinson: My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome given from both sides of the House to this Bill. I demur at the modesty shown by spokesmen on both sides in their professed knowledge of the law. On one side I know it to be wrong and, on the other, the noble Baroness demonstrated a superb command of the technicalities.
I thank my noble friend Lord Coleraine for his great courtesy in informing me of the fact that he was going to take up the point that he did. The suggestion by the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, that the Lord Chancellor should deal with the matter in writing after consideration is a sensible way of dealing with it.

1167
Perhaps I should say that I have no proprietorial feeling about the Bill. It is a Law Commission Bill; not mine. For myself, at first sight, I am not enthusiastic about going into that interesting point in this Bill.
The Bill gives effect to Law Commission Land Registry reports which have been the subject matter of great consultation between those who understand these matters—I am afraid that I do not count myself among their number. It would be a mistake if we sought to insert into the Bill something which has not been the subject matter of the same research and consultation. Again, I commend the Bill to the House as being something which will produce some dull, but worthwhile improvement for the public.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Animal Quarantine Regulations
7.39 p.m.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what progress they have made in the relaxation of the quarantine regulations, particularly those relating to the importation of dogs and cats into the United Kingdom.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is some 18 months since this House debated the issue of quarantine and the importation of dogs and cats into the United Kingdom, since when important changes in the status of rabies in domestic animals and wildlife have occurred in the European Union. For example, vaccination of wildlife has progressively reduced the number of rabid animals in the European Union in foxes and other animals, including dogs, cats, sheep, horses and indeed man. There have been improvements in diagnostic tests and procedures. Sweden has adopted a vaccination policy for dogs entering that country instead of quarantine and New Zealand has conducted an important risk assessment analysis. Indeed, there has been a growing tide of public opinion for a reconsideration and modification of the present regulations.
There are two organisations in which I must declare an interest. One is Passports for Pets, in which I have an indirect interest in that I assist with its scientific commentary, and the other is Vets in Support of Change, a document to which I was a signatory and which many of your Lordships will have already received. In both these cases reconsideration is asked in the knowledge that rabies is a fearful, horrible disease that kills 35,000 humans per year globally. It places a very heavy burden of responsibility on those pressing for change to be sure that freedom from rabies which we enjoy in the United Kingdom is not compromised in any way by the changes.
What then are the changes and issues believed to be consistent with the preservation of our rabies-free status? First, no changes are proposed for dogs and cats coming from countries where dog mediated rabies is endemic and where control measures are deemed to be inadequate. Those include countries in the Far East, Africa, South America and Central America. Animals
1168
coming from those countries would still be required to enter quarantine for six months and would also be vaccinated.
Secondly, the changes proposed are based on the following principles and concepts: animals from rabies-free countries pose no threat and should be admitted without quarantine or vaccination provided they are properly and unequivocally identified, preferably by microchip, and have documented evidence of residence in the country of origin for at least six months or since birth and would normally arrive in this country direct from that country; vaccination when performed correctly with an approved vaccine, of which there are three, is considered to be 100 per cent. effective. There has been no documented case of failure of vaccination in dogs in the European Union in the past 15 years. In any case, the efficacy of vaccination against rabies can be assessed by a blood test, when the antibody levels reach a required level which is consistent with protection against rabies.
A period of at least four months should be allowed to elapse after vaccination before admittance to the country in order to guard against rabies developing in an animal which has been vaccinated during the incubation period. Unequivocal identification is a necessity and is best performed by microchip. There is now an agreed international standard, published by the International Organisation for Standardisation and used by ANIMO, the acronym for Animal Movements, for the importation of dogs and cats under the Balai Directive and the importation of livestock.
Certification as to origin is essential. Veterinary certification must be reliable and is considered reliable under the ANIMO system. With animals coming from the European Union we already accept veterinary certification. Proof of residence is clearly a requirement. It is, however, the nature of rabies in the European Union that is particularly important. No dog-mediated rabies exists in the European Union. The dog strain occurs in the Far East, Pakistan, Africa and South America. In the European Union we have only the fox strain. Bat rabies is of little consequence. Foxes constitute the major reservoir.
Fox rabies can occur in dogs, cats and other domestic animals such as sheep, cattle and horses. In other than dogs and cats the infection is regarded as an end infection. In other words, the infected animals are the end hosts and are unable to transmit the infection to other species, and so naturally there is no onward transmission. That is why horses, cattle, sheep, pigs and so on are allowed into this country without quarantine. However, in Belgium and France it is said that there is more danger of a human getting rabies from a rabid horse or bovine than from dogs and cats. That is an indication of how successful the control of dog rabies has been.
There is an increasing body of scientific opinion that the dog is also an end host. Fox rabies is less infective for dogs, and dogs infected with fox rabies are less infective for foxes and other dogs. There is not a single known incidence of a dog infected with the fox strain infecting another dog or indeed another fox. Although

1169
dogs and cats infected with the fox strain can transmit rabies to man—hence the necessity for vaccination—the disease will not spread to other animals through the dog infected with the fox strain. Simply put, with respect to our own fox populations, the only realistic source of rabies is through the importation of a rabid fox. That would not normally happen and therefore it would be a fox that was brought in illegally.
Given all these facts about the nature of the rabies virus in the European Union and the safeguards of vaccination, the proof of response to vaccine and so on, we believe that we can safely remove the quarantine regulations from animals that meet the rigorous requirements within the European Union, and that includes animals from the United Kingdom whose owners include blind people and deaf people and also tourists who wish to take their animals overseas. They would be able to return without those animals going into quarantine.
What these proposals do not do is to eliminate smuggling. To use vaccination instead of quarantine would reduce smuggling, as has occurred in Sweden. At present there are about 100 notified cases of smuggling per year in this country. They are probably due to inadvertence or even ignorance. However, those are not the dogs and cats that are dangerous. The important ones are those that are being smuggled in illegally—possibly for a fee of, we believe, about £500. Under the Swedish system, which costs about £130 to £150 to the owner of the dog, they have also found that smuggling is much reduced.
Perhaps I may summarise by saying that we believe that we are out of step with the rest of the European Union—a situation which is not unusual, of course. The proposed new approach will benefit the health of humans, animals and wildlife by reducing smuggling and hence the importation of animals of unknown health status. It will allow greater freedom of movement of many groups. It will reduce the trauma of prolonged separation of the owner and his pet. It will also reduce the cost and expense of importation.
I believe that these various points are valid for a relaxation of the quarantine regulations. I hope that the rabies control review now taking place will lead to a swift risk assessment. I look forward with interest to the results of that review. But I also hope that a start will be made in relaxing the regulations where there is no risk whatever as regards the importation of animals.
7.51 p.m.
Baroness Wharton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, for introducing this debate. As noble Lords will know, the noble Lord raised the question of a possible relaxation of quarantine controls on 15th March 1995 in response to the report of the Select Committee on Agriculture in 1994. I, along with other speakers tonight, took part in that debate. This time I hope that we shall have a more positive response from Her Majesty's Government. We all want to continue to live in a rabies-free country. The difference between now and 40 years ago is that we have
1170
developed inactivated vaccines which are safe in both dogs and cats. We have also acquired a great deal more knowledge about the different strains of the rabies virus and the effects when transferred from one species to another.
As the noble Lord said, the rabies problem in Europe has always been in the fox population and these animals are unlikely to be imported. The infected zone in western Europe, thanks to continual immunising programmes, has now shrunk to about 130 square miles comprising north-west Germany, the southern part of Belgium, Luxembourg and north-east France. Rabies, contrary to the belief of many, is clearly declining both geographically and in the number of outbreaks within the European Union. Obviously, to the east and beyond, as the noble Lord said, there are problems and there is no possibility of lifting the quarantine on animals from these areas.
Now that we have a safe vaccine, backed up with blood testing, which provides an effective protection against rabies, and microchipping readily available with an established ISO standard so that every chip can be read by every reader, there seems to be no need for us to continue with six months' quarantine. That could now be viewed as a back-up procedure rather than the primary protection that most people still believe it to be.
When I opened the British Veterinary Association conference in 1995 in Winchester, I made a plea that we should shift our stance on quarantine, even knowing that at that time the BVA was not supportive of a change. Afterwards several delegates came up to me confirming that view despite all the advances made in trying to eradicate the disease in the EU. I am glad to see that that view is now shifting. Vets in Support of Change put out a paper, following their conference on 16th October. It was signed by the noble Lord and six eminent members of the veterinary profession. I hope we all have a copy of it. Many of us agree that it makes a very strong case for change. After all, quarantine regulations do not apply to cattle, goats, and horses, but they too are vulnerable, and the Balai directive allows dogs and cats to be commercially traded provided they are vaccinated and blood tested and accompanied by the correct paperwork. Yet companion animals which would appear to be the least at risk are obliged to endure six months' of deprivation, to say nothing of their owners. We all know that bonding takes place between owner and pet and sometimes the consequences of quarantine can be awful.
This story was told to me by a veterinary friend who is one of the signatories to Vets for Change and who has a special interest in the training of hearing dogs. A hearing dog and its owner were flying from Southampton, I believe, to the Channel Islands when bad weather diverted the plane to Cherbourg. However, soon after touching down in Cherbourg the plane got the all-clear for it to return to the Channel Islands. I would like to stress that no one disembarked and no doors were opened while the plane was on the French runway. Nevertheless the specially trained hearing dog was promptly removed on landing back in Jersey and put into six months' quarantine, despite not having set foot in France. Quite frankly, that is officialdom gone mad.

1171
It certainly makes a mockery of the law. I doubt whether any of the officials who dealt with that case gave a thought to the months of valuable training given to the dog or to the fact that after six months' quarantine it would have to be re-trained, not to mention the loss suffered by its owner who depended on the dog for its skills.
Pet Plan sent out a questionnaire to all its clients. They were asked if they would like to see quarantine abolished. Fifty per cent. said yes provided that there were safeguards. Secondly, they were asked if the situation should remain as it is. Only 22 per cent. agreed. Thirdly, they were asked whether there should be some form of quarantine. Twenty eight per cent. suggested up to one month with safeguards in place. The former owner of Pet Plan felt that the responses represented an overwhelming vote for change by the informed pet owner. Passports for Pets and Vets for Change both draw attention to the fact that Australia and New Zealand have modified their regulations. Dogs and cats coming from rabies-free countries are quarantined for 30 days while in Japan there is no quarantine.
It is now clear that all major animal welfare bodies are moving towards accepting the eventual abolition of quarantine for pets from the EU and other rabies-free countries. The RSPCA too has moved its position in the past few months. While on the subject of the RSPCA, I would point out that not all kennels are especially well run. RSPCA inspectors cannot automatically gain access even when they have reason to believe that all is not well. There is no legal obligation regarding the welfare of the occupants, only guidelines. The statutory obligation is that the accommodation be secure. The NCDL has been campaigning for the statutory inclusion of welfare considerations in the quarantine regulations.
Finally, the Ministry of Agriculture claims that it would be difficult and expensive to set up a system along Swedish lines. I cannot accept that. If other countries can implement changes, surely we can. I really do believe that the UK has remained rabies free, not because of quarantine laws, but despite them, for the past 25 years.
7.57 p.m.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Soulsby, in initiating today's debate, has put emotion on one side, which, in view of all the articles read and letters received, was not easy. I hope to follow his example.
Is not the system of quarantine now based on dogma and not on the best scientific data available? With the advances made in the area of prevention, vaccination, identification by tattoo or microchip, as mentioned by the noble Lord, and the incubation period before any animal is allowed into Sweden or Norway, for example, is that not sufficient to silence any sceptics? Why should we not follow their lead?
It is admitted here that the smuggling of pets is on the increase, and that is surely where the danger of rabies exists. As the noble Baroness has said, it is now two years since the House of Commons Select Committee on Agriculture decided unanimously that
1172
quarantine restrictions should be lifted subject to various safeguards, which I have already mentioned, yet until very recently there has been no move by Her Majesty's Government seriously to reconsider their approach. In reply to a Question I asked on 17th July the Minister stated that Sweden had administrative difficulties and that smuggling there remained a problem. As I believe my noble friend Lord Soulsby said, I understand now that both those situations have been virtually resolved. Tonight I trust that when the Minister comes to reply he will exhibit a positive approach and take the advice of independent organisations which have produced the scientific evidence which vets require.
7.59 p.m.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Sharples, who I know has for some time been an ardent supporter of the campaign not just for passports for pets, but also for identity cards for us, the two-legged creatures.
Last Wednesday, in a supplementary question to the Starred Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, on rabies and quarantine regulations, I jested that it would be difficult for the Government to consider a review of the quarantine laws ahead of next year's general election. The Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, answered that the Government were reviewing the current regulations, but could give no clear time horizons about when the review would take place. It was therefore a great surprise and most heartening to read on the front page of yesterday's Sunday Telegraph that the Prime Minister is now backing the campaign for a reform of our tough anti-rabies laws; and, furthermore, is considering including such a reform in the Conservative Party manifesto.
Against that background, it is opportune that the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, with his extremely distinguished background as a former president of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, has introduced the debate. The noble Lord gave an extremely convincing and expert overview of the current situation and the risks, making a strong and justified call for the relaxation of the quarantine laws.
In my allotted six minutes, I should like to touch on a few of what I believe to be the key issues. On 14th October, Michael Hornsby, the agricultural correspondent of The Times, aptly headed his article on the subject with the words,
"Expensive and cruel—or a vital a safeguard? Britain's strict defence against rabies arouses fierce debate".
So, what are the raw facts and figures that bring about such harsh and fierce debate?
Many believe that the current regulations are draconian. However, the reality has been that Britain is one of the few countries in the world to have escaped the rabies menace. I understand that the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, is to speak very much in favour of the status quo. Nevertheless, with advances in science and technology, there are now alternatives to quarantine which are just as safe, such as the passports for pets scheme. Vaccination and blood tests give the same guarantees.

1173
Furthermore, we have a rabies-free clean record despite the fact that, as the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharpies, have mentioned, many pets have been smuggled into Britain to avoid the quarantine laws. In fact, some commentators believe that for every dog and cat that goes through quarantine, another is smuggled into the country. In addition, apart from dogs and cats, many other potential rabies carriers enter Britain every day.
There has been much publicity about the condition of many quarantine kennels and calls for regulations to allow the RSPCA access to those kennels to monitor pets' welfare. Although there have been many complaints about the conditions in several quarantine kennels, the mortality rate of pets dying in quarantine is relatively low. A code of welfare practice has been introduced—which is to be welcomed—setting out minimum standards for kennel owners. Sadly, however, many pets come out of quarantine in a bad state of health—not only physically but mentally. A key statistic on quarantine kennels is that there have been no proven cases among any of the 200,000 dogs and cats that have been imported into Britain in the past 25 years. We are a nation of pet lovers and there is no denying that six months of solitary confinement is an extremely harsh regime for any domestic pet.
The British Veterinary Association believes that it would be wrong to abandon quarantine until electronic tagging is perfected to ensure tamper-proof identification of individual pets and accurate recording of their rabies jabs. Concerns have been expressed about how the proposed alternative protections could be implemented in practice. I have always found it extraordinary that in a country with such strict quarantine laws there is no compulsory dog licence. That may be an administrative nightmare to co-ordinate and police; but can the Minister comment on whether the Government have any plans to reintroduce such a licence? As noble Lords are aware, in 1994 the Select Committee on Agriculture in another place unanimously recommended that the passports for pets system be introduced.
With so much public support and with calls from the blind and deaf who rely on their dogs, together with support from military personnel and diplomats serving abroad, surely there is no denying the recent statement by Vets in Support of Change that,
"the present laws are an anachronism and are indefensible on scientific grounds".
8.6 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior for introducing this debate and for an extremely good speech. I do not think that the rest of us put together have my noble friend's knowledge and expertise in the subject.
I must apologise to my noble friend Lord Lucas: I may not be able to be present until the very end of the debate as I had promised to make another speech this evening somewhere else and had not realised that the debate on local government would go on for so long.
1174
Having served on the Front Bench, I know how irritating it is when noble Lords say that, so once again I apologise to him.
The first question that we must ask is whether the quarantine arrangements are really necessary and whether their repeal and the introduction of a licensing system would put at risk the health of either the people or animals of this country. The answer to that question must be no because, as we have heard, vaccination works. Even the Government agree that it can provide protection equivalent to that given by quarantine. We also now know that verification works. Microchip technology means that a chip can be inserted into an animal which can then be tested to ascertain whether it has been vaccinated with the right vaccine and whether all the other safeguards that have been mentioned have been applied.
The second question is whether smuggling would increase if the quarantine regulations were repealed. I think that the answer has to be no. All the evidence from Europe shows that smuggling has not increased. We know that the costs of the vaccination procedure are not all that high. Indeed, they are much less than the cost of keeping a dog in quarantine kennels for six months.
Last week in answer to a Question my noble friend said:
"any system is likely to impose considerable cost and inconvenience on people who are bringing pets in and out of this country".— [Official Report, 13/11/96: col. 932.]
As I do not understand what could be more costly or more inconvenient than the present system, I do not think that the argument that smuggling would increase is valid.
I do not propose to talk about kennels and the state of some of them. It is rather like debating prisons in this country; they are never good enough. What we are debating here is being sent to prison or, in this case, being sentenced to six months of solitary confinement.
I am optimistic because in answer to that Question last week my noble friend said that the Government are reviewing the current laws. In fact, he said at col. 929:
"The Government are now looking again at these matters".
That is a chink of light. This evening we must all encourage my noble friend in his endeavours to push at what I hope is not a closed door. However, my noble friend also said something that rather alarmed me, stating that any change would have to have the agreement of the European Union. If there is anything to make some of your Lordships greater Euro-sceptics than they already are it is the argument that somehow this will fall foul of European regulations. There are very few European regulations in relation to this matter. Although my noble friend is quite right in saying that certain matters have to be agreed in Europe, I hope that they will not be regarded as barriers but open doors to be pushed at. I believe that there is a valid case here.
I declare an interest as a keen foxhunter. I have always been concerned that any repeal may damage foxhunting. If foxhunting were to be threatened I would not be for this proposal. However, I am convinced—those who are expert in the matter agree—that there is no danger to foxhunting in this country. Indeed, there

1175
is more danger to foxhunting in this country from rabid Members of another place who try to ban it than from rabid foxes. It may be that even the noble Lord, Lord Carter, is one of those rabid Members who wish to ban it. I am sure that he is not because I know him to be a sporting man. I must also declare an interest in that I am the owner of dogs. If the law were repealed I would find it rather expensive. I have managed to curb the aspirations of her Ladyship to foreign travel by asking, "Who is to look after the dogs?". Of course, if this measure is passed, we will have to take the dogs with us and thereby incur huge expense, but that is our problem.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord St. John, said that he thought that I would speak against repeal. He will know by now that that is not so. He said that in the article in the Daily Telegraph it was suggested that this might appear in the manifesto of the Conservative Party. If it appeared in the manifesto it would not only make the winning of the election a likelihood but guarantee success.
I should like to put a question to my noble friend. I do not know whether he has the answer with him this evening. If not, perhaps he will write to me. If the Government were able to produce a consultation paper and the consultation process showed that there was good reason to change the law in this country, would it have to be done by Act of Parliament or could it be done by order or under the deregulation initiative? I believe that your Lordships now know where I stand on this issue.
8.12 p.m.
Lord Cochrane of Cults: My Lords, first I thank my noble friend for his very clear explanation of rabies, its mode of transmission, and so on. Nothing less could have been expected from a man of his distinction in his chosen field: veterinary science. He is a great ornament to that profession so it seems to me what he proposes makes admirable sense.
However, it would be remiss of me if, before going any further, I did not point out that the regulations and law that your Lordships' House is presently considering were introduced in the teeth of Cabinet opposition by the grandfather of my noble friend Lord Long. One of the problems is that the perfection of his arrangements for the control of rabies are so successful that they have become almost written in stone and as such unchangeable. I sympathise with my noble friend, but time goes on and, believe it or not, science advances. We now have a situation in which the scientific procedures for ascertaining the presence of rabies, protecting against it and preventing its spread are a vast improvement on what they were some 70-odd years ago, when the grandfather of my noble friend took such wise steps to control what was then seen to be a very hazardous disease.
It is momentarily interesting to realise that in the first edition of Scouting for Boys published in 1908 some rather alarming advice was provided by Baden-Powell for dealing with a mad dog. Time does not allow me—nor do I believe it to be wise—to go into the details, except that the punchline refers to a well-aimed kick. In those days, as a matter of course everybody wore what
1176
are now known as bovver boots, or something of the kind. The example he gave of a rabid dog being pinned to the ground by the neck by a man wielding a pitchfork illustrates the ferocity of the dog and the way the problem was dealt with so many years ago before the present rules were introduced.
In passing, the 1977 edition of Black's Medical Dictionary—which, after all, is now quite out of date—remarked that there had been no proven case in the United Kingdom of anybody having caught rabies from a United Kingdom source since 1911. I do not believe that at the present time there is anyone in the Chamber who was even alive then.
In his reply to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, on Wednesday, my noble friend Lord Lucas appeared to differ a little from earlier Written Answers given in another place as to the extent to which the Government were considering revision of the rules. Perhaps some explanation for that is provided by the fact that my noble friend used the seven-letter "P" word, which is the great current excuse for doing nothing or finding reasons for not doing something. Before people's imaginations become overheated, I point out that the word is "paramount". It is used as an excuse that this, that or the other consideration is paramount, and I recall pointing out in connection with another subject that if there was a desire to make safety in this field paramount it was better not to have any of it at all. Of course, that is not a practical solution. Also we have the mystery of the missing brief. I hope that it will not be a three-pipe problem for the current successor of 222b Baker Street, but there appears to be a slight dichotomy of view within the Ministry of Agriculture.
The Agriculture Committee of another place has produced a comprehensive regulatory framework, which I suggest is a totally practical method of replacing the present regulations and laws with which we are now lumbered. This accords well with the advice of my noble friend Lord Soulsby and his distinguished colleagues. I believe that we should get on with it, remembering that the present regulations are full of loopholes and anomalies. As an earlier speaker has said, all mammals can get rabies. Contrary to what my noble friend has just said, my vet tells me that humans can get rabies from horses, although it is extremely difficult. (I am glad to see that my noble friend agrees with that). This country imports a large number of herbivorous animals which can carry rabies. The only difference is that the herbivores do not go mad but dribble most appallingly. That can be mistaken by the uninitiated for foot and mouth until one looks at their feet.
The present regulations represent a major impediment to tourism. I declare an interest. I have been engaged in this matter for many years. When the ancestor of my noble friend produced these regulations there were about four cross-Channel trips made from Dover per day. I understand that today there are 85 such ferry sailings. One can see the extent to which the trade has grown. That in turn should be a further consideration. I have the greatest admiration for my noble friend's proposals. They are worthy of consideration and early implementation.
8.19 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am fearful of being accused of over-activity. I have already addressed your Lordships' House several times this Session. However, I believe that this is an important issue. Unlike many noble Lords, unfortunately at present I do not have a dog. I have yet to hear any scientific argument against the proposed alternatives to quarantine. The fact that this country has not had rabies is not a scientific argument. I have heard plenty of arguments against quarantine, many of which have been very well presented this evening. If the Minister or his department has some scientific argument against the scheme I shall be interested to hear it.
Like the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, I should like to draw the attention of your Lordships to the position of members of the Armed Forces who serve overseas. This is particularly relevant to many servicemen who have to change locations every two or three years. Such a situation makes it unfair to introduce a dog into the family, both for the dog and the children. Growing up with pets is an important part of a child's upbringing.
I should like to take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, on one point: the rabies-free area. I do not claim any greater knowledge than the noble Lord—in fact, far less. But this is a point of practicality. If we were to have a relaxation of the rules, we should still have rock-solid defence. That means that we must have antibody testing, passports and microchips, whether or not the dog or cat comes from a rabies-free area.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wharton, mentioned kennels. In view of the way the debate is going, kennel operators should perhaps review their business plans. Will the Minister explain why the kennel operators do not always welcome RSPCA inspections? Whether or not the quarantine rules are to be continued, we must be confident that the kennels are being operated properly. In conclusion, I support the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby.
8.21 p.m.
The Earl of Liverpool: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior for giving us the opportunity to discuss this matter. I, too, have an interest to declare: my French wife and I are owners of a dog which lives in France. He has been properly inoculated against rabies, but we are unable to get him over here to live with us because we are not prepared to place him in quarantine kennels for six months. We have the directly inverse problem of that mentioned by my noble friend Lord Astor, because the result is that we spend an inordinate amount of money travelling backwards and forwards on Le Shuttle, succeeding only in upsetting ourselves and our dog when the inevitable separation comes. However, that is better than the torment through which he would be put in a quarantine kennel.
We are an animal and pet-loving country—a trait for which I am happy to say we are known throughout the world—so how is it that we continue to condone a system which forces an individual—British citizen or otherwise—coming to this country with a pet to place
1178
that animal in a concrete prison for six months without access to grass or the other natural elements so essential to animal welfare? As other noble Lords have said, the RSPCA is refused access to quarantine kennels. Quarantine vets have absolute discretion to deal with animals in the kennels without recourse to their owner. What is most important—this was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Wharton—a representative from MAFF visits the kennels once a quarter but his concern is just security and not the welfare of the animals.
Over 100 pets die needlessly each year in cold, cement, isolation cells. Let us consider the distress and anger that that must cause the owners of the pets when they know that advances in medical science make it unnecessary to cause that suffering.
The all-party Select Committee of another place which presented its report and recommendations in January 1995 came to the unanimous conclusion that the existing quarantine law should be changed and replaced by a safer and better system—I refer to tagging and passports. I have read its detailed report which has been mentioned previously in your Lordships' House. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I quote briefly one passage. In the conclusions it states:
"The introduction of a suitable system of controls through vaccination is emphatically not a relaxation of Britain's defence against rabies. We would never support a change which increased the likelihood of rabies entering the UK. In fact we consider that a system such as we propose would effectively decrease that likelihood, not least because the costs of the new procedure, a small fraction of the expense of quarantine, would no longer provide an incentive for many to smuggle their animals into this country".
I raised that point about smuggling last week on the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. I should be interested to know whether my noble friend the Minister would like to reconsider his answer to that, because I believe that smuggling would decrease dramatically if we introduced the inoculation and tagging system.
I shall refer briefly to our servicemen and their families—a point mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. Many servicemen are required to serve overseas. They consider a family pet to be an essential stabilising element in the upheaval process. The trauma caused to both pet and family by quarantine can be deeply distressing. What adds insult to injury is that the serviceman is required to pay the bill which can be anything from £1,500 to £2,000, and no assistance is currently given by the MoD to meeting that cost.
Finally, I shall turn to the damage that current legislation is causing to UK plc. Recently, I met a well-known Canadian businessman who has two dogs. He and his family are very attached to them and believe in the adage that a dog is a man's best friend. He wished to come to live here and to establish a business in Great Britain which would have been capitalised at over £200 million. But he did not go ahead with his plans. Why? The answer is of course that he just could not bear to subject his dogs to a six-month sentence in the quarantine kennels. It would be folly to assume that he is the only overseas businessman with those views.
The efficacy of inoculation, blood testing and tagging is unquestioned. We must move forward, and, like Sweden, adopt that system as quickly as possible.

1179
I welcome the review currently being undertaken by the Government. I have been doing a little scoring during the debate. It is interesting to note that of eight speakers, we have so far eight people in favour of change and none against.
I believe that the great majority of the British public sees the current law for what it is—overreacting, Dickensian and discredited. I hope that my noble friend the Minister can give me some assurance that we will not have to wait long for the law to change for the better.
8.28 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior for initiating once again a debate on this subject that affects so many people in this country. Rabies, la rage, la rabbia—the word alone evokes in people a fear of death. Understandably, a disease called hydrophobia from the Greek—a horror of water, inability to swallow, owing to a contraction of the throat—is enough to scare anyone. "Rabid" is described in the dictionary as "raging", "fanatical". That could well be used to describe some humans who have not even been attacked by a rabid animal.
It is hard to believe that for over five years as a Member of the European Parliament, at practically every constituency meeting, the subject was brought up. As an MEP, one's postbag is huge—easily 50 to 100 letters a day, a great number of which concern pets. Sadly, I do not own a pet at the moment. I am also aware that there are many people—dare I say?—who are so politically incorrect that they still feel like W.C. Fields who said:
"Anybody who hates children and dogs can't be all bad".
The subject we are debating arouses as much passion as any European debate. We would all agree that we must keep Britain rabies free and continue to work for its extinction in Europe, as I wrote in my election address. But what is the most efficient and humane way? There are the technical facts, and there is the humane factor. I start with a few facts. Quarantine is not responsible for keeping Britain rabies free. We have heard that. It is 26 years since a rabid animal was found in quarantine. Perhaps I may say to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, that scientific methods of countering rabies by an oral vaccine are a proven success. Incidentally, no one has died of rabies contracted in the European Union for more than 30 years.
There is no doubt that rabies still constitutes one of the major perceived threats to human health with estimates of some 35,000 deaths annually, mainly in India, Pakistan and other Asian, African and American countries—none, I repeat, in Europe.
There are two distinctive strains of rabies, as we heard from my noble friend Lord Soulsby: one in foxes and one in dogs. The former is far less dangerous and does not exist in the UK as foxes cannot swim or penetrate the Tunnel. The latter does not exist either because travelling pets are now vaccinated.
Secondly, there is the humane side. Pets in quarantine are not allowed to be handled. Owners are allowed to go to see their pets but not to touch them. There must
1180
be no cuddles because they are in quarantine. Let us remember that six months in a dog's life is the equivalent to more than three years of a human's. Many pets die in quarantine, quite understandably, from stress and related illnesses. That is plain cruelty and inhumane treatment of animals. Therefore, pet owners are tempted to smuggle rather than to allow that torture or to bear the very heavy costs.
What rules or laws do we need to keep Britain rabies free? Perhaps I may support a few suggestions which have been mentioned. As my noble friend Lady Sharples, in her Question on quarantine on 17th July mentioned, Norway and Sweden used to have quarantine but now have pioneered the pet passport system. However, there are essential requirements. The pets must be identified by a tattoo or microchip. The animal must be vaccinated with an approved inactivated vaccine. The animal must have resided in a European Union country for the preceding 12 months. At least four months after vaccination, a blood sample must be taken. Quarantine should still exist for animals which fail to test or which come from a non-European country which is not rabies free.
I fully support the Prime Minister by backing the reform of Britain's tough anti-rabies laws and I very much hope that reforms will be included in our manifesto. My right honourable friend Douglas Hogg deserves support too for having his department float the idea of a reform earlier this year.
Perhaps I may quote part of a recent letter written from Madrid and which appeared in Country Life headed, "Quarantine, a cruel farce". The letter states:
"Our Staffordshire bull terrier made her final journey to the vet last weekend, so not for her the human equivalent of three years in the slammer, a sordid cage with no remission. She had, like all dogs in Spain, had rabies shots and an identity chip implanted in her shoulder. As in most other European countries, the only instances of rabies in Spain during the past 25 years have been as a result of human importation or laboratory accidents.
"Nobody, least of all dog owners, wants to import rabies. Recently there was a case of rabies in the UK, imported in the blood stream of an unfortunate human returning from Africa. Should we put humans in cages for six months or should we confront, like many other countries, the unholy alliance of certain vets and kennel owners and end the farcical cruelty of quarantine?"
I am the tenth speaker in favour of the Motion. In case your Lordships are depressed, perhaps I may tell a short story. There was a little old lady with her knitting and a young man sitting in a railway compartment on their way to Norfolk. From time to time the little old lady threw cups out of the window. The young man finally summed up the courage and asked, "Why are you doing that?" "To keep the elephants away, of course". "But surely, my friend, there are no elephants in Norfolk?" "Exactly so! That is why I must keep doing it".
8.35 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, we must be very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, for asking this Question this evening which has produced a great deal of wisdom and knowledge, even though, as the

1181
noble Lord, Lord Cochrane of Cults, goes out of the door, one must comment that his numeracy may not be as great as it should be.
As has been mentioned by some noble Lords, we had a preview of this debate in Question Time last Wednesday when the noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked a Question. On reading those exchanges, two matters caught my attention in particular. First, the noble Lord, Lord Hayhoe, got rather hot under the collar about what he thought was a suggestion that the Governor of Hong Kong might not abide by the regulations in force when he returns to this country. In fact, no one made such a suggestion nor do I believe that anyone in your Lordships' House would do so.
The second and by far the most important matter was the admission or the information from the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that no welfare requirements can be imposed on quarantine kennels. That has been repeated several times in this debate.
That being so, we find ourselves in a position which is in some ways easy for the Government because, whatever their views on the necessity of quarantine, they must recognise that there is a need for legislation of some kind. Although the Minister expressed his belief that the conditions in quarantine kennels have been considerably exaggerated for the worse, nevertheless he and other noble Lords made it clear that there are instances where those conditions are not satisfactory and that again is a matter which has been repeated this evening.
Therefore, if we care for the welfare of those animals, we must bring in legislation either to enable those conditions to be controlled or to make them unnecessary by changing the whole system, particularly in view of the widespread conviction that there are now other and more humane ways of controlling rabies and probably more efficient ways too. The Minister suggested that there will always be a temptation to smuggle, and I grant that point, but that temptation must surely be greater under a system where the pet in question must spend one-twentieth of its life in quarantine than one under which it merely has to have a series of injections and be tagged and the cost is much less.
I brought a dog back from Hong Kong. It is fair to say that it was neurotic before it went into quarantine but it was far more neurotic when it came out. One would like to spare animals and their owners that kind of experience.
In view of the fact that the Government have to take action one way or the other, is it not time that they took the best advice available and acted decisively on it? We know that they are looking into the matter. That is the first step. On these Benches, we should be the last to ask the Government to act against a precautionary principle for which I find myself having to argue so often in debates in your Lordships' House. But we ask the Government not just to accept the status quo, against which they argue and act so vehemently in other areas, but to establish
1182
the facts and to act accordingly. They may find that the advice and the findings of the Fifth Report of the Agriculture Committee of another place, which has already been quoted, are extremely helpful in terms of exactly what to do about it.
8.39 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, for tabling this Question. This is a very sensitive subject. There is an understandable caution regarding any dramatic change in the existing regime and the equally understandable fear of a dreadful disease like rabies. My noble friend Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, who, I believe, was the Minister who set up the Waterhouse Committee in the late 1970s, asked me to say that if he had not had a previous speaking engagement he would have liked to speak in the debate and would exercise a word of caution.
We all agree about one thing: it is crucial that the UK continues to protect its status as a rabies-free country. Therefore, it is essential that any change to the existing system must be shown clearly to produce at least the same degree of protection which we now have and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Cochrane, will not mind my saying that the precautionary principle should be paramount. All the technical points have been made; there is no need to repeat them. We have all received most persuasive briefing from vets in support of change and from Passports for Pets.
My colleague in the other place, Mr. Elliot Morley, who speaks for the Labour Party on animal welfare, made, while emphasising our concern to maintain our current rabies-free status, a number of very constructive suggestions for full consultation with interested parties on the following matters. Because of the lack of time, I shall paraphrase his suggestions. He says that we should consider stronger safeguards than those recommended by the Select Committee in the other place including a tighter requirement for import licences, restricted points of entry and powers to hold animals in quarantine pending blood tests if there is a doubt about their identity.
Mr. Morley also suggests a phased approach to the gradual lifting of quarantine which would have to be based upon a full inquiry by MAFF into all the procedures to be put into place and the effectiveness of other countries' schemes. Such an inquiry would obviously involve full consultation with all interested parties, the implementation perhaps of a full trial scheme between the UK and other countries with rabies-free status and an agreement on a European standard for microchip technology.
The Government's stance is, to say the least, a little unclear. Several speakers referred to the Question that I asked last week about the status of the risk assessment that had been announced, I thought, by the chief veterinary officer of the Ministry of Agriculture to the Royal Society of Medicine on 3rd May 1995. Noble Lords will no doubt remember that, in reply, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said that,
"no such risk assessment was announced".

1183
The noble Lord added later:
"Yes, there will be a risk assessment if and when there are proposals for change"—[Official Report, 13/11/96; col. 929.].
I found that hard to understand because, as your Lordships will know, it is clear that the chief veterinary officer did say in the "General Discussion" reported in Rabies in a Changing World:
"We will carry out our own risk assessment…The Ministry of Agriculture is taking a positive line. We are listening and will carry out our own risk assessment analysis".
Indeed, we all find this a little hard to understand. For example, we have Mr. David Willetts in the other place admitting that when the chairman of the Select Committee says that he wants advice, he does not want it and, presumably, when the chief veterinary officer says that they will carry out their own risk assessment, that actually means that there will be no risk assessment. I am beginning to feel that a qualification in linguistic philosophy might help me to understand such matters.
However, we do have the Written Answers referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Cochrane of Cults, from Mrs. Angela Browning, the Parliamentary Secretary in another place. She said on 6th November:
"We are now looking at the matter, taking account of the most recent information-.—[Official Report, Commons, 6/11/96; co1.488.]
Then, on 12th November, she said that possible identification and vaccination systems,
"are being considered as part of the review of rabies controls announced in my reply of 5 November 1996" [Official Report, Commons, 12/11/96; co1.72.]
Therefore, it would be extremely helpful if the Government could tell us what is actually going on. Are they reviewing their rabies policy? If they are, surely such an integral part of such a review must be a risk assessment.
As I understood the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, last week, he seemed to imply that the Government will consider proposals for a change in policy and that they will then carry out a risk assessment. That would seem to a layman to be exactly the wrong way around. If the Government are reviewing policy, then surely a risk assessment must be an integral part of it. As I said, we now have an Answer twice within a week from Mrs. Angela Browning mentioning the review of the rabies policy.
When the Minister replies it will be extremely helpful if he will tell us what is going on. I understand that there is an inter-departmental review. Can the Minister tell us the timetable for that review and its components; in other words, what matters are being considered?
We have had a most useful debate on a most important subject. I have one further question for the Minister and I should at once declare an interest as a member of my family is a guidedog owner. Of all animals, guidedogs are properly looked after. They are fully recorded as regards their health; they are centrally registered and identified. Could not an exception be made for them on the same basis which already exists for what I believe are termed "tradeable animals"? Finally, I was intrigued by the mention of the possible
1184
inclusion in the Conservative election manifesto of proposals on rabies and quarantine. It seems to me that the spin doctors will have some fun with that one.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I must say that it is a great pleasure to be answering a debate where every single speaker has spoken so clearly in favour of the basic principles of Government policy in this area; namely, first, the need to protect the public and our livestock against the disease of rabies and, secondly, that we should take a very careful look at how best to do so.
I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior for initiating tonight's debate. I greatly respect the sincerity of the views that he put forward, which were, I believe, echoed by every other speaker in the debate. However, there is an equally strongly held view which has not been expressed this evening. It is what one might call the "long view"; namely, that quarantine has served this country well and that there are no alternatives which carry as few risks. We also respect the sincerity with which that view is held. I do not believe that it helps a debate when some people—including, I am sad to say, one of my noble friends, Lady Rawlings—indulge in spurious rubbishing of it. If we had not had quarantine, it is quite clear that we would now have rabies in this country. The question is not whether quarantine works but whether we can find something which works better.
The question of whether to amend the present six months' quarantine requirement is a complex and difficult one. We are now looking again at our arrangements to keep rabies out of this country. I hope that that answers one of the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. Clearly a risk assessment will be part of such an examination if and when we reach the point where the proposals are clear enough and few enough to make that a sensible thing to do. At present there are just too many options under consideration. However, as I made clear at the beginning of my remarks, any changes will have to take as their starting point the paramount—and I am delighted that I have been able to find that word in my brief—need to protect the health of people and of animals in this country.
Rabies is held in awe—and rightly so. As my noble friend Lord Soulsby pointed out, tens of thousands of people worldwide die each year from the disease. People are right to be concerned that the disease should be kept out of this country. I do not share the relative lack of concern of my noble friend Lord Soulsby about fox-mediated rabies. I have seen no research, certainly no published peer-reviewed research, as to the nature of the difference between fox rabies and dog rabies. I have not seen that it has been genetically sequenced. I have not seen that research has been carried out on different forms of rabies to show whether they evolve with the species or whether it is a disease which has crossed species barriers in the relatively recent past.
I have not seen information on the variability of the disease within the European fox population. I certainly have not seen any results of dog-to-fox transmission experiments. I appreciate that the noble Lord is right to

1185
say that there are no demonstrable instances of it. But one would not really expect to find such instances, given the fact that the fox is likely to go away and be wild and no one will have seen the bite and, therefore, no one will know whether the fox was infected by a dog or another fox. Indeed, it would require proper experiments to prove what happened. The indications we have seem to suggest that it is certainly a possibility that it could happen.
Fox rabies is not something that we would want in this country. We have a large urban fox population and it would no longer be safe to let one's children play in the back garden if we had it. As my noble friend Lord Astor said, it would cause significant difficulties with fox-hunting, although that may not trouble some people. I suppose that the only people who would notably benefit are vets, who might expect an additional income of about £300 million a year if fox rabies was endemic in this country.
Quarantine has for long been the basis of our current policies. But, as we have heard tonight, quarantine is not popular with the pet owners affected. Some feel the separation from their animals deeply. That prolonged separation of owner from pet is seen as imposing a hardship on both of them. The debate this evening and the ministry's postbag bear eloquent witness to that fact. My noble friend Lord Liverpool and others have made that point with great eloquence and have pointed out that it not only affects our own people but also visitors and businessmen who do not come to this country when they otherwise might.
The question has also been raised of the quality of welfare in quarantine kennels. We have recently published a voluntary code of practice on welfare standards which has been sent out to kennel owners and prospective quarantine customers. It is not the case that the death rate of pets in quarantine is higher than that in the general population. As regards access by the RSPCA and other organisations, we do not accept that that is necessary given the safeguards that we already have. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wharton, said, welfare considerations are something which we are prohibited by the current legislation from taking into account when MAFF inspects quarantine kennels. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, will bring a Bill to this House in a couple of days' time. He is well aware that it is possible to address welfare issues through Private Member's Bills. I wish that he had chosen to address this issue rather than that of chickens. If he had done so, we might have had some more useful results from our debates.
In our review of rabies control measures, we shall look to see whether we can alleviate this distress while maintaining our existing level of protection against the disease. We accept the scientific evidence that a pet from Europe that is properly vaccinated before being exposed to rabies infection, satisfies a blood test, is conclusively identified, and has a residency certificate, would in theory pose no greater threat of introducing rabies into the United Kingdom than one entering under our current quarantine arrangements. However, it is not easy to devise an arrangement which would work in
1186
practice and offer the same level of protection. Clearly we could have a system ranging from what we have at the moment to a system where there were no controls at all, which I am sure would not be acceptable to any noble Lord. In between there is a wide range of possibilities, including those broadly of the type recommended in 1994 by the Agriculture Select Committee in another place. This might involve animals imported from certain "approved" countries being subject to a system of vaccination, blood checking and identification, along the lines of that introduced in Sweden. Animals imported from other countries, or which could not meet the conditions, would still have to be quarantined. We have not yet reached any conclusions but we are listening to all the arguments and weighing them up carefully. That is why the debate this evening, and all the various discussions which are going on through Passports for Pets and other organisations, are of such great value. However, I can tell the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, that we are not considering dog licences.
There are two factors of which we shall have to take particular account in our review. The first is Europe. The Common Market and the free movement of goods and people are clearly principles which give the European Union a crucial interest in the future of our rabies control. Any proposed changes will have to be discussed with the Commission in great depth. We have its assurance that it shares with us a determination that any proposals agreed by it should provide at least the same level of protection as that provided for in relation to traded animals at present.
My noble friend Lord Astor wondered whether we might not be pushing at an open door. Indeed, as regards Europe, we are. What we are worried about is that there might be an oubliette on the other side. We might find ourselves with regulations which are so loose that they resulted in an increased risk of rabies in this country.
Many noble Lords have raised the question of smuggling. To my mind the key defence against smuggling is that everybody knows that any dog or cat entering the country in a normal vehicle, or with a foot passenger, must be an illegal import. That is the key deterrent to smuggling. In any other system clearly there would be a reduced incentive—or there might be a reduced incentive—if the costs of importing a pet were reduced. However, there might be an increased incentive if it was easier to smuggle a pet under the particular system put in place. That is one of the aspects of any new system that one would have to look at. One would have to consider whether it would make smuggling easier to the point where people would smuggle more.
The second factor we have to look at is enforcement. Alternative arrangements would have to be capable of maintaining our protection against rabies in theory and in practice. With a vaccine based system we would need to be sure, for example, that the paperwork accompanying every cat and dog entering the United Kingdom could be checked and found to be acceptable. We would also, I imagine, want to be able to detain animals subject to blood tests until that test had shown an acceptable result. These difficulties may or may not be insuperable, but they would certainly require careful

1187
consideration. We would also have to consider the additional administrative cost of the alternatives to quarantine. Depending on the system adopted, enforcement could be expensive. Clearly we need a system where there will be people charged with looking at what might be a large number of dogs coming into and out of this country. I suppose we could give them the title "Dogwatch" and try to sell the rights to television, but somehow I think "Baywatch" will always be more popular.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked a couple of questions which I would like to give particular attention to. First, he asked about guide dogs. Guide dogs will in many cases have been kept under close control and have well-documented histories. We shall be looking at the question of guide dogs in our review but I cannot prejudge the outcome. Secondly, he asked when the results of the review would be announced. This was a question which I think was amplified by the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, who even suggested that something he had read in the Sunday Telegraph might be true. That is always a dangerous supposition. I said to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, last week that the Government are looking again at the rabies quarantine
1188
rules. If there is a decision on any new moves, an announcement will be made. Obviously this is a complex matter. It is too early to say when a decision might be made, if it were to be made. I hope that is suitably inscrutable for the noble Lord.
My noble friend Lord Astor also asked what mechanisms we would need to use to change the present regulations. We believe it would be technically possible to change them by a statutory instrument. But given the considerable interest there would be should any proposal be made to change these regulations, such considerations might weigh rather more heavily than the merely technical. Our challenge is to maintain a system of rabies control that is both secure and enforceable. We are looking again to see whether anything would offer us the same degree of protection and of enforceability that we enjoy at present. But, as I have previously said, any changes would have to take as their starting point the paramount need—I really think that is going overboard for my noble friend Lord Cochrane—to protect the health both of people and of animals in this country.
House adjourned at three minutes before nine o'clock.

  Prisons Ombudsman: Complaints Procedure
  Prisons Ombudsman: Complaints Procedure
  Hong Kong: British Dependent Territories Citizenship
  Hong Kong: British Dependent Territories Citizenship
  Northern Iraq
  Northern Iraq
  Children: Road Accident Deaths
  Children: Road Accident Deaths
  Bus Services: Figures
  Bus Services: Figures
  Hong Kong Ethnic Minorities: Citizenship Rights
  Hong Kong Ethnic Minorities: Citizenship Rights
  European Commission for Democracy Through Law
  European Commission for Democracy Through Law
  Draft Commonhold Bill
  Draft Commonhold Bill
  Public Record Office
  Public Record Office
  EC Volatile Organic Compound Directive
  EC Volatile Organic Compound Directive
  Gypsy Caravan Sites
  Gypsy Caravan Sites