Sitting of 4 February 1997

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

  KING'S COLLEGE LONDON BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for Third Reading read.
  To be read the Third time on Tuesday 11 February.

  LEVER PARK BILL (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Tuesday 11 February.

Oral Answers to Questions
  ENVIRONMENT

    House Building Industry
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the level of activity in the housebuilding industry [12500]
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Gummer): The housebuilding industry is benefiting from strong recovery in the wider housing market. Private housing starts in the three months to December 1996 were up 33 per cent. on the same period a year ago.
    Mr. Winterton: Given that planning delays have been a major factor in the inactivity of the housebuilding sector, will my right hon. Friend proceed as rapidly as possible to implement the proposals that he recently announced to remove inefficiency and, in some cases, deliberate delays in the planning process? Does he accept that action must be taken if we are to achieve the strategic demand of 4.4 million houses over the next 20 years?
    Mr. Gummer: I very much welcome my hon. Friend's support for our proposals, and certainly I shall seek to implement them as fast as possible. He will know that now is a particularly favourable moment in his own constituency, as information from Macclesfield shows that private starts were up 63 per cent. in the past quarter, year on year. I very much hope to be able to expedite the proposals in the sense that he requires.
    Mr. Mackinlay: While the upturn in housebuilding is good news, it also reflects the previous deep depression, in which—during the stewardship of this Tory Government—the housebuilding industry looked like
    782
    Armageddon, with bankruptcies and people being put out of work, simply because there was no demand for houses. There was no demand because people lacked confidence, as they were unemployed and unable to purchase new homes. Is it not time that the Government realised that they have presided over a massive failure of the house building industry, which has meant the impoverishment and homelessness of countless families?
    Mr. Gummer: That is rich coming from the party that voted against the right to buy; the party that has done everything possible to stop people buying their own houses; and the party that has new tax proposals up its sleeve—should it come into power—which would hit every home owner in the country. The hon. Gentleman is unbelievable, as usual.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most important influences on the level of house building is the level of interest rates? Has he contemplated what would happen to interest rate levels and to the house building industry if we were ever to have a Government who were determined to spend an extra £30 billion?
    Mr. Gummer: Low interest rates and low inflation are the result of the Government's extremely good financial stewardship. The Labour party is committed to signing the European social chapter, which would increase unemployment. It is also committed to supporting a series of measures that would increase interest rates and put Britain back in the position that it was under the previous Labour Government—as the laughing stock of Europe, instead of as the leader of Europe.
    Mr. Sutcliffe: How will housing needs be met? Housing association grants have been cut, and, because of political dogma, the Government will not allow councils to build houses. So how will the Government achieve the 4.4-million target in new houses by the turn of the century? Who will build those houses when the Government will not give local authorities the opportunity to do so?
    Mr. Gummer: Of course, the only reason that all would need to be social housing is if there were a Labour Government pushing down people's ability to buy their own houses. So the hon. Gentleman will have to explain why his party has now announced that—in the next two years, which is what we have been discussing—it would not provide any more money for social housing. He had better ask those questions of the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), who has clearly shot him out of the water.

    Stockton City Challenge
    Mr. Devlin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 20 January, Official Report, column 437, if he will announce his decision on the future of Stockton city challenge high street redevelopment scheme. [12501]
    The Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency (Mr. Robert B. Jones): The orders and applications for this scheme are now before my right

    783
    hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, for decision. They have raised some complex issues, but good progress is being made and the decisions will be issued as soon as it is practicable to do so.
    Mr. Devlin: Given that it is a year since the public inquiry ended and that the whole of the town centre scheme in Stockton has been left in limbo because his officials have been sitting on it for so long, will my hon. Friend now deal with the matter as an urgent priority and disregard the representations that are obviously being received from Chesterfield Properties, which has a vested interest in wrecking the scheme?
    Mr. Jones: I fully recognise that my hon. Friend has been leading a vigorous campaign to get the scheme approved; he has certainly left neither my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment nor my hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport in any doubt as to the importance of the scheme to Stockton. As he said, however, there is a legal challenge to the scheme, and it would be extremely unwise to make a decision that could not stand up in law.

    House Conditions (East Lancashire)
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many houses in east Lancashire (a) are unfit for habitation and (b) require repairs to bring them up to a habitable standard. [12502]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison): At the most recent estimate, there were approximately 48,800 houses statutorily unfit in east Lancashire.
    Mr. Prentice: Does the Minister appreciate that 67 per cent. of properties in Pendle were built before 1919, which is the highest percentage of any local authority in England outside inner London? Does he further appreciate that 25,000 properties there are in need of repair and that 5,400 are unfit? Ministers presumably want people to live in warm and comfortable homes, so why have Conservative policies been such a failure in north-east Lancashire?
    Mr. Clappison: The hon. Gentleman is right inasmuch as east Lancashire has one of the highest proportions of older properties in the country, which is a particular problem. According to the most recent analysis of the English house condition survey, the number of unfit properties in the country as a whole has fallen by about 10 per cent. The hon. Gentleman's local authority will no doubt want to deal with its particular problems by taking advantage of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 strategically to use the renovation grants that the Government provide to—[Interruption.]
    I am hearing sedentary comments from the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford). The implication of what he is saying and the implication of the hon. Gentleman's question is that they are pleading for additional public expenditure and the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), who is sitting next to the hon. Member for Greenwich, has his own ideas about
    784
    increases in taxation which could bring that about. The fact must be faced—this is a clear plea for extra public expenditure.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is my hon. Friend aware that the number of single pensioners—they are the most vulnerable people—who live in unfit dwellings fell by 10 per cent. between 1986 and 1991? Is not that an important improvement in the conditions of our elderly population?
    Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. It is indeed good news that pensioners' housing conditions have improved. Pensioners will no doubt want to take advantage of the more generous home repairs assistance under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996.

    Homelessness
    Mr. Touhig: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many households were accepted as homeless by local authorities in England in 1996; and what was the equivalent figure for 1979. [12503]
    The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration (Mr. David Curry): Households that have been found accommodation by local authorities after being accepted as statutorily homeless numbered 55,530 in 1979 and 120,810 in 1995. Detailed changes—uncontroversial changes—to the reporting system were made in 1980 and 1982.
    Mr. Touhig: However much the Minister tries to fudge the figures, he cannot escape the harsh fact that homelessness has more than doubled under this Government. Will he therefore accept that the fact that his party has failed to deal with this problem, which affects the most vulnerable in society, is the strongest argument for a change of Government?
    Mr. Curry: It is curious to be accused of fudging the figures when I have just given two extremely precise figures. The hon. Gentleman ought to listen and use a little common sense. Homelessness is falling and there are measures in place to deal with it. He should also be cautious in assuming that homelessness and other social ills which result from, for example, the falling apart of families, the break-up of partnerships and many social trends of which he or I might or might not approve, can all be remedied by the Government. It takes only a little common sense to realise that the Government can do some things, but that sometimes we have to react just like everyone else—our reaction is comprehensive, effective and working.
    Mr. David Nicholson: My right hon. Friend will be aware that there is a widespread welcome for the success of the rough sleepers initiative and its extension outside London to other centres. However, the success of the initiative is limited when it has to deal with homeless people who suffer from drug or alcohol dependency or mental illness. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that his Department is working with other Departments, including the Home Office and the Department of Social Security, to ensure that the

    785
    problems of homelessness and public begging are tackled by co-ordinated policies that get to the root of the matter?
    Mr. Curry: I agree with my hon. Friend that, when we come to deal with the hard core of rough sleepers—it is a hard core; we have reduced the numbers significantly—we come across problems of mental health and of drink and drugs. Those are not problems to which the Opposition's simplistic answer, "Put a roof over his or her head," applies. A great deal of care is needed. A home is often the last thing that people in such circumstances need, because an enormous amount of work needs to be done before they have the competence even to contemplate looking after themselves. We need a co-ordinated approach to the problems. The rough sleepers initiative, now in its seventh year, adopts such an approach. It is a remarkable example of co-operation between the Government and the voluntary sector.

    Air Pollution
    Mr. Soley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received regarding air pollution. [12504]
    Mr. Gummer: My Department has received 420 representations from members of the public, business, local authorities and other bodies, in response to consultation on the draft national strategy for air quality, which the Government are preparing in accordance with the Environment Act 1995.
    Mr. Soley: Bearing in mind the fact that one in seven children suffer from asthma, which is thought to be aggravated—and even occasionally caused—by air pollution, and given that nobody believes that the Government have coherent policies on transport or air pollution, what hope does the Secretary of State offer to those children and their parents?
    Mr. Gummer: I am surprised by the hon. Gentleman's final comments. We have a national air quality strategy and have arranged a common strategy with the rest of the European Union. We are seen as the leader in Europe on this. I have committed myself to getting rid of summer and winter smog within 10 years, and shall spend much of my time working on that. Our policies are the best in Europe. We are continuing along those lines with an integrated transport strategy, which the hon. Gentleman knows about. On environmental issues, the Labour party knows so little and cares so little that it cannot even produce a coherent question.
    Mr. Evennett: I welcome what my right hon. Friend has done to improve air quality and to monitor the effects of pollution. Is he aware that, in my part of south-east London, there are still considerable air pollution problems? Will he continue to look into those problems and examine the results of the monitoring that is taking place in Bexley?
    Mr. Gummer: Certainly. As my hon. Friend knows, we are working closely with local authorities. I am happy to consider the specific problems of the London borough of Bexley. Air quality is improving. We have high
    786
    standards to attain, which we are determined to reach. We are recognised by the rest of the world as being well ahead of most other countries.
    Mr. Meacher: How can the Secretary of State pretend that he is being serious about his so-called air quality strategy when it fails to set any standards for before 2005, when even then it fails to set any statutory standards for PM10s—by far the most dangerous particles—when it allows monitoring away from the areas of greatest traffic density and when he has provided no powers or money to local authorities to implement it? For all those who have suffered from the doubling in recent years of air pollution-caused asthma, is not the strategy just another pathetic Tory pre-election scam?
    Mr. Gummer: I know that the hon. Gentleman is coming from a long distance back, as the Opposition have done nothing about the environment. It seems that even less will be done now, as the hon. Gentleman has not even read his brief properly. He does not appear to know that we have provided local authorities with money and powers and that we are working with them to carry out our national air strategy. Nor does he seem to understand that we hosted a conference of northern European nations to work out a common air quality strategy that we now lead. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will suggest that we should spend more money and propose a whole series of new taxes to pay for that. The Government have achieved the necessary results. We are leading the rest of Europe—something that the hon. Gentleman could never understand or achieve.
    Mr. Tredinnick: Will my right hon. Friend discuss with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport the key problem of vehicle exhaust emissions? Is he aware that only 40,000 vehicles were tested last year and 6 per cent. were found to be above the limit? Particularly in respect of the M1, which carries the heaviest traffic, does he agree that that is a completely inadequate number, and that the Vehicle Inspectorate needs to test many more vehicles in order to cut down the toxic fumes from which we all suffer on motorway journeys?
    Mr. Gummer: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right to say that we need to concentrate more on that. We are taking part in the negotiations on the auto-oil programme so that it will be a success throughout Europe. As my hon. Friend knows, half the pollution in Britain comes from the rest of Europe and we export half our pollution to Europe. We need a common policy, and we are determined to achieve it.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Pope: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with the local authority associations on standard spending assessments. [12505]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): We have discussions with the local authority associations on standard spending assessments several times throughout the year.
    Mr. Pope: Can the Minister confirm that, following this year's financial settlement, the Government are responsible for forcing up council tax bills by more than 6 per cent.? Will he further confirm that, if Hyndburn council received the same assistance from the Government as Westminster, it would be able to give every band D council tax payer a rebate of £572? Is it not the case that we have to pay more so that Tory Westminster can pay less?
    Sir Paul Beresford: I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman, who I thought had some understanding of standard spending assessments, has taken a line that fell flat on its face last night. Let me put it the other way round. If the flagship Labour authority of Harlow was as efficient as Westminster, relative to its SSA, its band D council tax would be £10, saving local people some £180 this year. In other words, the local authorities should get their act together.
    Mr. Peter Atkinson: When my right hon. Friend met councillors from the north-east of England recently and they asked him for increased SSAs and greater Government grants, did they discuss the funding of the North of England Assembly of Local Authorities? Did they tell him about the increasing burden that that authority was placing on them, and did they say that it was advertising for a new director at a salary of £60,000 a year with the duty of promoting regional government in the north-east of England? Is it not a shameful waste of public money? Is not regional government deeply unpopular in the north of England, as people know that it means heavier local taxes and jobs for the boys?
    Sir Paul Beresford: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Funnily enough, the councillors forgot to mention that. We heard much pleading—there was a little of that last night. Taxpayers and council tax payers, through the SSA, have to carry an extra burden of bureaucracy that will gum up the works even more than the regional authority manages to do now.
    Mr. Rendel: The Secretary of State has leaned heavily on what he describes as local government association support for his decisions on SSAs. When will the Government carry out official Conservative party policy to abolish capping which, unlike the right hon. Gentleman's policies, is supported by local government associations?
    Sir Paul Beresford: I find it intriguing to be told what is official Conservative party policy. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that, while he is free with other people's money, the Government are not.
    Mr. Congdon: Does my hon. Friend agree that the representations from local authorities would carry more weight if they got their house in order by managing their resources properly, and in particular embracing compulsory competitive tendering? What further action will he take to prevent local authorities from trying to deter the private sector from making bids and when they make the lowest bids, doing everything in their power to find excuses to give the contract to their own in-house direct services organisation?
    Sir Paul Beresford: My hon. Friend is right. He was a member of a local authority that went down that road to the benefit of the people of Croydon. New orders were laid at the end of last month to achieve exactly what he has mentioned.

    Downland Protection
    Mr. Waterson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to protect the downland (a) near Eastbourne and (b) elsewhere. [12507]
    Mr. Robert B. Jones: We fully recognise the importance of the chalk downland in Sussex and elsewhere. The Sussex downs are designated as an area of outstanding natural beauty and further protection is given to important sites through designation as national nature reserves and sites of special scientific interest. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has also established the environmentally sensitive areas scheme, which protects downland landscapes, including an extensive area of the Sussex downs.
    Mr. Waterson: When my hon. Friend reviews the role of the Sussex Downs conservation board, will he seriously consider the possibility of extending its powers to give it, for example, the power to call in planning applications? Will he also look closely at the suggestion of putting the Eastbourne downland under the control of an independent charitable trust, so that it can be removed from political control and interference once and for all?
    Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend has fought a vigorous battle to protect downland in his constituency—sometimes against his Liberal-controlled local authority, which seems to want to develop on the downland. When we receive the advice due from the Countryside Commission, we shall make absolutely certain that we consider all the options, including the sensible ones that my hon. Friend has put forward.
    Mr. Sheerman: Can the Minister confirm that industrial waste is being spread on downland? Is he aware that 1 per cent. of Britain's waste is spread on the land, and that there is no efficient method of checking the quality of the waste or how dangerous it can be to the long-term prospects for agriculture? Will he consider an auditing system that works, talk to ADAS about it, and implement it quickly?
    Mr. Jones: Without the detail of the hon. Gentleman's complaint, it is obviously very difficult to comment. I am happy to look at the circumstances that he describes. Then we can no doubt consider whether any action is necessary.

    Fire Services (Essex)
    Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the calculation of the element allowed for fire services in the standard spending assessments for Essex. [12509]
    Mr. Curry: As I announced last week, the fire element of the standard spending assessment for Essex is £35.1 million for 1997–98—an increase of 4.6 per cent. on the same element for 1996–97, and higher than the national average of 4.2 per cent.
    Mr. Amess: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is widespread concern throughout Essex at the way in which the Labour and Liberal-controlled Essex county council is trying to reorganise local fire services? Does he regret that some local politicians are unfairly trying to blame the Government for that? Does he recognise that local residents under no circumstances want Leigh-on-Sea fire station to be closed?
    Mr. Curry: Essex county council has done very well over successive years from changes in SSAs. Indeed, it has had significant additional funds. The fact is that the county can increase its budget by £19.5 million. The fire element increase is £1.5 million. None of that is hypothecated. If it chooses to do so, it could give priority to its fire service. The decision not to do so would be entirely that of local councillors.
    Mr. Olner: While the Minister is considering the problems in Essex, will he turn his mind to the problems in Warwickshire—
    Madam Speaker: Order. Not today, thank you. Perhaps tomorrow.

    Uniform Business Rate
    Mr. Whittingdale: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the impact of the uniform business rate on small businesses. [12511]
    Mr. Gummer: Rates place a disproportionate burden on small businesses. For that reason, we have announced that rate bills for small business premises will not rise in 1997–98. We are looking at what other steps can be taken further to address this problem.
    Mr. Whittingdale: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the burden of business rates bears particularly heavily not only on small businesses but on high-street retailers, who are trying to compete with out-of-town superstores? Is he aware that the Government's announcement that they are intending to redistribute the burden is particularly welcome to small shops such as those in Maldon high street? Will he assure us that he will introduce such measures as soon as possible after the general election?
    Mr. Gummer: I can certainly give the assurance that, if we can find a more satisfactory and equitable way of doing these things, we shall do so as rapidly as possible. I am sure that my hon. Friend would like to extend what he said to the fact that village shops can now get the special mandatory relief—mandatory relief that Liberal Members voted against. They did not want local shops to get that relief as of right, but wanted to leave it in the hands of Liberal councils, which very often do not provide that relief.
    Mr. Pike: Does the Secretary of State accept that we all recognise the importance of small business, but that, when he says that about the part of the poll tax legislation which refers to non-domestic rates, it really shows how that flagship legislation was flawed in both sections—in respect of non-domestic rates and of the poll tax—and shows what a disaster the Government have been since 1987?
    Mr. Gummer: I must point out that the hon. Gentleman represents a party that used to set enormously high business rates and drove businesses out of its areas. For example, he will remember that, before we changed the rules, shopkeepers in Newcastle upon Tyne paid three times as much per square foot as people in Westminster, in Oxford street. That is what it meant to have a Labour council and Labour rates in those days—thank goodness we put that right.
    Mr. Dover: Does the Minister accept that, in fact, probably the large majority of small businesses pay no uniform business rates, because they operate from residential homes? Is it not time that the Government considered scrapping all business rating for small businesses, in view of the arbitrary lines that separate those who pay and those who do not?
    Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend must accept that, wherever one draws those lines, one has such difficulties. I have suggested that we need to get the proportional weight of the business rate correct, which is why we are looking carefully, particularly at small businesses, to ensure that we can do what is best.

    Social Housing
    Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the number of new lettings for social needs which will be available in (i) 1997–98, (ii) 1998–99 and (iii) 1999–2000. [12512]
    Mr. Clappison: We estimate 148,000.
    Mr. Gunnell: That is a rather higher figure than I had anticipated, but why is it that, when there is such a huge level of unmet social need, the Government have allowed social needs housing starts to fall to the lowest level since the second world war? I opened some of those units completed in Leeds only a week ago. Will the Minister ensure that creative partnerships, like that between Leeds city council and its five housing associations, can continue? Will he ensure that more money is made available for social housing, because we have the lowest number of social starts and it is time that the Government paid attention to it?
    Mr. Clappison: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we have our estimates of housing need, and that we are on target to create between 58,000 and 60,000 new lettings over the decade as a whole, which is in line with our estimate of need. We are doing so in a variety of ways and, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledged by his use of the example of Leeds, we are drawing in a great deal of private finance—we estimate £1.7 billion over the next three years The hon. Gentleman asks for more money to meet needs over and beyond those that we have defined,

    791
    so I regard his question as yet another plea for more public expenditure, which is in contradiction of Labour Front Benchers' apparently pre-ordained desire to stay within pre-ordained spending limits and breaches their spending commitments—once again, more public spending.
    Mr. Dobson: The Minister's answer, in effect, only promises more of the same, which we all know is inadequate. Why will not the Government agree to the release of the takings from the right-to-buy sale of council houses, so that they can be invested in building new houses and improving old ones? That would create jobs in the building industry and provide new homes; and it would create new jobs in the building supply industry, whether they be for people making carpets in Halifax and Brighouse, people making electrical fittings in Basildon, or people making doors and windows in Keighley?
    Mr. Clappison: The hon. Gentleman's policy will not work because, as he well knows, many of the areas with the greatest housing need, such as Birmingham, Newcastle, Hackney and Southwark, have no housing receipts to spend, whereas areas with less housing need, such as West Dorset and Malvern Hills, have the receipts. He has never explained how he will transfer the receipts from one to another.
    The next problem that the hon. Gentleman faces is the fact that every pound spent from the capital receipts represents additional public spending.
    Mr. Dobson indicated dissent.
    Mr. Clappison: No amount of fudging can disguise that fact; the hon. Gentleman's proposal amounts to more public spending, which would have to be paid for, as the hon. Gentleman's Front-Bench colleague, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), wants, through more taxation—taxation of allowances, and more and more taxation.

    Local Government Finance (Kent)
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the 1997–98 financial settlement for Kent county council. [12513]
    Sir Paul Beresford: Kent's overall standard spending assessment increased by 2.2 per cent.—just short of £22 million. Within that, the element relating to education increased by 3.5 per cent., and that relating to fire by 5 per cent. I think that my hon. Friend will agree that that is a very fair settlement.
    Mr. Arnold: My hon. Friend will know that the people of Kent were delighted to receive an extra £22 million for this year—an increase that takes the spending of Kent county council beyond £1 billion. Does he share the dismay of people throughout Kent at the fact that the Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition proposes to cut massive sums from the budgets of our schools, our fire
    792
    service and our social services, and to decimate adult education, the youth service and many other services in Kent?
    Sir Paul Beresford: I should have thought that my hon. Friend would be used to that by now. It is what we call the bleeding stump syndrome—chop off something vital and wave it around to frighten the public.
    Mr. Allen: Will the Minister point out to the outgoing hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), as well as to the hon. Members for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) and for Dover (Mr. Shaw), that all Kent's Tories trooped through the Lobby last night to impose the local government settlement on Kent? It is that settlement, not Kent county council, that will force council tax payers in Gravesham to find another 20 per cent. of the cost of their local services, and voters in Dartford to find another 30 per cent., while the Tories' cronies in Westminster pay only 10 per cent. Will the Minister urge Kent's Tory Members, in their few remaining weeks in this place, to do what Chris Pond will do in Gravesham, Howard Stoate will do in Dartford and Gwyn Prosser will do in Dover, and speak up for Kent in this place, instead of constantly denigrating it?
    Sir Paul Beresford: That is a double-handed blow. On the one hand we have the bleeding stump, and on the other hand, the hon. Member is counting chickens long before they are hatched.
    Sir Roger Moate: Does not the fact remain that Kent has received an extra £22 million, that Labour shadow Ministers are saying that there is no more money available anyway, and that it is Liberal and Labour councillors who are shutting our fire stations, cutting our library services and closing our youth services? The sooner we get them out on 1 May, the sooner we shall be able to ensure that those closures and cuts do not happen.
    Sir Paul Beresford: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If he had been in our shoes at the Department, he would have seen Labour authority after Labour authority coming to complain, wanting more central Government funding, more local funding and council tax, the transfer of the business rate into their hands, and the removal of the compulsory aspect of compulsory competitive tendering. This is not a new tax; it is the same council tax but many times greater.

    Metropolitan Green Belt
    Sir Sydney Chapman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his policy to protect the metropolitan green belt. [12515]
    Mr. Robert B. Jones: I have consistently made clear my commitment to green belts, including the metropolitan green belt. The revised version of planning policy guidance note 2 on green belts, published in 1995, reaffirms the strict control over development in green belts and maintains the presumption against inappropriate development.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: I thank my hon. Friend for that statement. Does he agree that the creation of green belts, especially the metropolitan green belts, has been one of the outstanding successes of our town and country planning system? Will he confirm that the pressure to develop in such places is at its greatest near the inner boundaries of the green belts and take this opportunity to iterate that none of the estimated 4.4 million more dwellings needed in the next 20 years are planned to be sited on green belt land?
    Mr. Jones: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who, as a former president of the London Green Belt Council, provided able leadership for the movement to protect the green belt in the capital—as does the current president, my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Sir M. Shersby). He is right about the pressures on the green belt, which we will resist, but if he wants to know who is on the side of the green belt and who is not, he need only look across his county boundary into Hertfordshire, where the Conservatives proposed that no new housing should be built in the green belt, but were voted down by Labour and Liberal councillors who wanted housing concentrated there.
    Mr. Hardy: I accept the Minister's reply to the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman), but will he make it clear that the Government will not be inclined to approve applications for opencast mining and mineral extraction in the green belt, especially where there is bitter opposition by local communities?
    Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman knows that every application must be looked at on its merits, but—as I have just said—the strong presumption against inappropriate development in the green belt has led us to turn down many applications in the past.

    Local Authority Housing (Transfers)
    Dr. Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities have transferred their housing stock to new landlords. [12516]
    Mr. Curry: Fifty-three local authorities have transferred more than 230,000 homes, generating more than £3.7 billion of private investment. I announced at the end of last month the 1997 programme, in which a further 17 authorities will transfer all or part of their housing. The programme includes some 55,000 homes and will generate another £350 million in capital receipts.
    Dr. Spink: Has it not been proved beyond question that tenants in deprived and rundown local authority housing estates are far better served in every way by non-profit-making landlords? Will my hon. Friend denounce my local council housing committee, which will not speak to my local housing tenants' association?
    Mr. Curry: We have sufficient evidence on transfers to know that tenants like them and that they work in their interests. In addition, tenants have to vote for them. Local authorities should be more interested in service and less in ownership. The case for local authority home ownership is long past, and we must look towards a more sensible arrangement.
    Mr. Raynsford: Does the Minister accept that, while there may be a case in certain circumstances for transfers
    794
    of stock to increase investment, they will not create any new homes? Will he admit to the House—as his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary did in an earlier answer—that the Government have abandoned the target that he gave to the Select Committee only a year ago of 60,000 new lettings? The Government cannot achieve that figure, they have broken yet another promise and they have sold out and betrayed the homeless and the badly housed in this country.
    Mr. Curry: That is a piece of nonsense. The hon. Gentleman should accept that there is an extremely good case for transfers—his own local authority is one of our transfer authorities, and is trying to transfer houses on the Charlton triangle in Greenwich. Instead of being mealy-mouthed about this, he should recognise that, unless he is willing to pour large public sums into housing—his hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) may be, the shadow Chancellor says that he will not and he himself says that he would like to, but does not know how—he should concentrate on doing what is possible, which is improving the conditions of those who live in council houses, and liberating them from local authority control.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce the conclusions of the standard spending assessment consultations with local authorities. [12517]
    Sir Paul Beresford: On 27 January last.
    Mr. Brown: May I take this opportunity to thank my hon. Friend and his colleagues at the Department for the transitional relief provisions that they were able to make for North Lincolnshire? Will he confirm that there is no need for any local authority to make any cuts in education, providing that it spends sensibly? Will he set out the opportunities that exist for local authorities to make further savings in administration costs?
    Sir Paul Beresford: I think that my hon. Friend is well aware of them. In fact, there was a debate on his local authorities in the House on exactly that point. They accept, even though they protest and screech and scream, that they have a special advantage—as they are now authorities governing all local government services—that would allow them to make much greater efficiency savings than they appear willing to do.
    Mr. Turner: If the Minister had visited Wolverhampton and met members of my local authority, they would have told him that the Government have imposed very serious cuts—real-terms cuts—on all standard spending assessment blocks, and that we in Wolverhampton have the worst revenue grant settlement of the 36 metropolitan districts.
    Sir Paul Beresford: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should reflect that I was leader of a local authority when its SSA was cut by 25 per cent. but that it has the best services in London.
    Mr. Turner: I am talking about Wolverhampton.
    Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman's question related to Wolverhampton. However, it is 3.15 pm. Prime Minister's Questions.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Davidson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 February. [12530]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Davidson: Will the Prime Minister give a clear, unequivocal commitment that he will allow the Wirral, South by-election to proceed?
    The Prime Minister: The Wirral, South by-election is proceeding.
    Mr. Rowe: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 February. [12531]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Rowe: The Lib-Lab coalition that runs Kent county council has said that it requires a grant increase of no less than 10 per cent. merely to stand still. Does the Prime Minister know of any other councils that are making a similarly absurd demand?
    The Prime Minister: I do not yet know what other absurd demands may come, but I have no doubt that the natural appetite for spending of so many Labour and Liberal-controlled local authorities will mean that there are quite a number of substantially above inflation demands for increased council tax. When the shadow Chancellor talks about Labour's plans for public spending, he clearly does not talk for the Labour local councils, which spend and spend and must then tax and tax.
    Mr. Blair: In respect of the Ofsted report, does the Prime Minister agree that the inspectors found much to praise and many competent and hard-working teachers, but that they also found severe problems in literacy, numeracy and, in particular, with a significant minority of head teachers? Given the central importance of leadership by a head in a school, does he agree that it is sensible at least to consider making the new national competence qualification a requirement for all new and aspiring head teachers, so mat, over time, this weakness can be remedied to the benefit of our children?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with a great deal of what the right hon. Gentleman said. Undoubtedly there has been an improvement in the past year—that is clear from Mr. Woodhead's report, and I am delighted to see that. It shows that the quality of teaching is satisfactory or better in the majority of schools, and I am pleased about that. I particularly congratulate those schools singled out for special praise by the chief inspector on the basis of the inspection evidence. I believe that they will provide a real example.
    796
    As the right hon. Gentleman said, the professional qualification for headship will be available nationally from September. It will equip aspiring heads with the skills necessary to lead and manage a school and it may, over time, be desirable to make it a requirement. I would like to see how it works in the short term, but I certainly would not rule that out.
    Mr. Gale: I am sure that my right hon. Friend shares my desire that transport safety standards across and under the channel should improve. Does he agree, however, that proposals from Brussels to make cross-channel ferries list the names and addresses of every man, woman and child travelling backwards and forwards on day trips is a bureaucratic nonsense and wholly unnecessary? Will he resist it, please?
    The Prime Minister: I agree, both about taking whatever action is necessary to assure safety and about ensuring that action is not taken that will not help on safety grounds but will simply add to costs, the price of tickets and bureaucracy.
    Mr. Janner: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 February. [12532]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Janner: Has the Prime Minister seen the findings of the Employment Policy Institute, which show that some 4 million people in this country are seeking work? In those circumstances, will he use his speech in Brussels tonight to explain to our European partners why the Government's so-called unemployment figures are rigged, inaccurate and deliberately misleading, and that the only people in this country who deserve to be unemployed are the clapped-out, stale and fag-end Government?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. and learned Gentleman gives me the opportunity to tell the House that unemployment in his constituency has fallen by 39 per cent. In due course, perhaps, the Labour candidate will add one to the figure at the general election. In reality, unemployment in this country is 6.7 per cent. and falling, compared with more than 4 million in Germany, 3 million in France and nearly 3 million in Italy. Indeed, 18.5 million people are unemployed in the European Union, and we have created more jobs in this country in recent years than the rest of the European Union added together. I shall send the hon. and learned Gentleman a copy of the speech that I shall make this evening, so that in future he may be better informed.
    Mr. MacGregor: As rail privatisation completes its final stages, does the Prime Minister agree that it already demonstrates substantial benefits for both passengers and taxpayers? Is not its success one of the main reasons why the Labour party, which bitterly opposed rail privatisation through all its parliamentary stages, as it did with nearly every other privatisation, is all at sea over its policy?
    The Prime Minister: It is undoubtedly the case that the Labour party has not supported a single privatisation until it has proved to be a success, at which point it pays lip service to it. Under Labour, none of the privatisations

    797
    would have taken place. It certainly bitterly attacked rail privatisation, which has now increased investment, increased rolling stock, improved services, provided extra service and saved the taxpayer a substantial amount. [Interruption.] It is, in short, a success, and no doubt that is why the Labour party wishes to shout it down.
    Mr. MacShane: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 February. [12533]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. MacShane: Is the Prime Minister aware that his Chancellor is proposing so to increase air passenger duty that a family of four will pay an extra £80 on a family holiday? How does he justify that increased tax on children and family holidays?
    The Prime Minister: It will be interesting to see which of Labour's expenditure proposals it will ditch to keep within the spending and tax plans that the shadow Chancellor has apparently endorsed. Is it not remarkable that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has had from the shadow Chancellor the most remarkable endorsement of his economic policy that any Chancellor has ever received? On every single tax and spending decision, this year and next, the shadow Chancellor agrees that my right hon. and learned Friend is infallible.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: May I put it to my right hon. Friend that there is no such thing as a stable currency, except for relatively short periods, and that any political party that sought to base its policies on such a misconception would merely demonstrate its complete ignorance of the way in which foreign exchange markets operate in practice?
    The Prime Minister: With the growth in importance of exchange markets and the growth in currency passing daily across exchange markets, my hon. Friend's point is undeniable.
    Mr. Loyden: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 February. [12534]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Loyden: On several occasions, and again today, the Prime Minister has told the House that the economic policies pursued by his Government have been responsible for inward investment and job creation in Britain. How does he square that claim with the fact that 1,300 jobs at Ford on Merseyside, as well as many others, are threatened? Is it not time that the Prime Minister woke up to the fact that jobs are being lost daily throughout the country? As far as I know—I have checked with the Library—Merseyside is still part of Britain.
    The Prime Minister: It is Conservative policy to keep every part of the United Kingdom within the United Kingdom. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not support policies that might force an important part of the United Kingdom out of the United Kingdom.
    798
    Of course I am concerned about the implications of the job losses at Ford as a result of the rationalisation of its business in the United Kingdom and abroad. However, the hon. Gentleman must recognise that, despite those job losses, unemployment has fallen by 130,000 in the past two months.
    Mr. Skinner: Fiddled figures, and 4 million out of work.
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) seeks to deny the reality of falling unemployment. He lives in his own dream world, where he may best be left. The reality is that unemployment is falling throughout the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) will know that people from areas such as Merseyside, where Ford has withdrawn its jobs, have been in touch with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry to see what assistance may be provided.
    Mr. William Powell: Will my right hon. Friend make available three days of Government time next week to give the whole House the opportunity to discuss a Government motion congratulating the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) on his candour in admitting that the Opposition have ample scope for huge tax increases? Such a debate would also allow the House to discuss Opposition Members' widespread hopes and expectations that there will be a £30 billion increase in public expenditure, even though that is denied by Labour Front Benchers. Does my right hon. Friend believe that we should discuss the Opposition's extraordinary agreement to Government economic targets as laid down by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
    The Prime Minister: I am not sure that I can immediately offer three days for debate, but we would certainly require three days to explain the distinction between the remarks of the hon. Member for Oldham, West and those of the shadow Chancellor. It was an outburst of candour from the hon. Member for Oldham, West and also from the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown), the Opposition Deputy Chief Whip, who presumably has some idea of Labour's tax and spending policies. I cannot promise a three-day debate, but I can promise to mention that point on every necessary occasion.
    Mr. Hain: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 February. [12535]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hain: How does the Prime Minister reconcile his assurance to the chairman of the Japanese equivalent of the CBI that he supports a single currency and would take Britain into it, with his assurance to the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) that he opposes a single currency and would block British entry? Which of those views—personally expressed by him—is correct, or are they both "infallible"?
    The Prime Minister: No, they are both incorrect.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 February. [12536]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. and learned Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: Will my right hon. Friend congratulate a firm in my constituency, Technic Holdings, which is now the world leader in manufacturing tyre re-treads? [Laughter.] Will he note the laughter from Opposition Members about a firm that has increased its work force from four to 450 in nine years, and that uses
    800
    70 men to produce the tyres that 300 men are needed to produce in its German competitor, which it has now seen off? Its managing director and chairman have given three reasons for its success: first, the excellence of its workers; secondly, the enterprise culture created by the Government; and, thirdly, the throttling effect of Euro-legislation and German state taxes.
    The Prime Minister: My hon. and learned Friend illustrates clearly where the new jobs are coming from. No doubt the hon. Member for Bolsover would say that those fresh jobs created in my hon. and learned Friend's constituency were fiddled jobs, but they are real jobs. They are jobs that would not have been created but for the Government's policies.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Kevin McNamara: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In column 452 of yesterday's Hansard, in the reply to my written question, it appears that I suffered injuries that were shown in police photographs taken on 13 September; that the allegations of assault upon me were referred to the Cambridgeshire constabulary on 14 September; and that my solicitors were informed that the Crown Prosecution Service was to take no action about those allegations.
I was in Cambridgeshire on that day. I cannot remember what my alibi was, but I was not at Whitemoor prison. That is a bad example of a misprint. I do not know whether I am being paranoid, but, since the printing of Hansard has been privatised, my questions have been lost and there have been absurd failures in sub-editing and proofreading. Can something be done to protect us from the evils of privatisation?
Madam Speaker: I appreciate the point of order raised by the hon. Gentleman. He has a right to complain, and to make a second complaint in a short space of time about the printing or non-printing of Hansard.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: I am making a ruling—do you mind?
Mr. Faulds: I am sorry, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: I should think so.
Accuracy in the printing of Hansard is crucial to the work of this House. I have yet again instructed the printers to pay more careful attention to the detail of printing. A corrigendum will be printed tomorrow, but that does not resolve what has happened today. I reject and deprecate the inaccuracies in Hansard, which are all too frequent these days.
Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wish to draw your attention to a press release entitled "News from Scottish Labour." Its headline is "Public spending watchdog to inquire into Tory ad blitz on vouchers". It goes on to say:
"Shadow Secretary of State, George Robertson MP today announced that the Hon Robert Sheldon, chairman of the powerful all party House of Commons Public Accounts Committee, will be raising the Scottish Office advertising campaign on nursery vouchers with the Comptroller Auditor General, Sir John Bourne, when he meets him tomorrow.
The issue of a £800,000 advertising campaign just before a general election was raised with Mr. Sheldon by George Robertson yesterday, who questioned whether this was a proper use of public money."
The press release continues:
"Mr. Robertson said … 'Ministers may be operating within technical government rules, but the fact that they will piggyback Tory posters on taxpayer funded advertisements shows what a shabby exercise all this is.'"
802
The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) has received a letter from Sir Robin Butler. I shall quote parts of it—
Hon. Members: Order.
Madam Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman wants me to examine written material, I think that I ought to have an opportunity to do so. He ought to send it to my office. I cannot comment on something that the hon. Gentleman is reading on the Floor of the House. What is the point of order for me?
Mr. Walker: I have no hesitation in coming to the point of order, because I believe it to be fundamental and important to the Chamber. You know, Madam Speaker, how deeply I care about the way in which things are done in the Chamber.
Is it in order for a Front Bencher to put out a press release about the possible action of the Chairman of a Select Committee in regard to matters that may or may not be discussed at a meeting with the Comptroller and Auditor General, Sir John Bourn? Is that not a hijack of the procedures of the House—as if the Public Accounts Committee were part of the Labour election machine, as per the headlines in the press release?
Madam Speaker: I should like very much, if I may, to have the material that the hon. Gentleman has. I shall want to look into it very carefully. It certainly concerns the activities of the House—I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman about that.
Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I know that it is said that Prime Minister's Question Time generates more heat than light—but am I having a heart attack, or could it be the light at the end of the tunnel? The luminosity in the Chamber seems to have been significantly increased, to the extent that I now realise how ugly Conservative Members are. Some of us like to skulk in the dark at the back of the Chamber. Were you consulted about the change, Madam Speaker, and can we have an opportunity to say something about it?
Madam Speaker: I thought that it was very illuminating to have improved lighting in the Chamber. I heartily endorse it. For a while, I thought that it was because I had cleaned my spectacles rather carefully this morning.
Mr. Faulds rose—
Madam Speaker: It cannot be a point of order with which I have already dealt.
Mr. Faulds: I am quickly devising a response, Madam Speaker—but, while I do so, may I say that I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) to lurk in dark corners more often, and not to assert his ugly profile so publicly and frequently?
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You may not be aware—but I know that you study Hansard assiduously—that there was a gross misrepresentation a couple of weeks ago of a question of mine in business

803
questions. I took it up with the Editor of the Official Report, who was extremely responsive, and issued a corrigendum the next day—or a couple of days later—but did regret that there were so many frequent occurrences of this misrepresentation of what the House actually said.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must be careful to recognise the difference between Hansard reporting and printing. The original point of order to me, and others earlier, were about the printing. This is not about our Hansard reporters in the Press Gallery; it is about the printing that hon. Members are concerned, and I take that on board.
Mr. Faulds: But it was a different point of order, in that case.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman might have made it clearer.

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

    DELEGATED LEGISLATION
    That the Occupational Pension Schemes (Winding Up) Regulations 1996 (S.I., 1996, No. 3126) and the Advanced Television Services Regulations 1996 (S.I., 1996, No. 3151) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Mrs. Lait.]
    Question agreed to.

    NORTHERN IRELAND GRAND COMMITTEE:
    That the Matter of the Public Expenditure Plans for Northern Ireland for 1997–98—1999–2000, being a Matter relating exclusively to Northern Ireland, be referred to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee for its consideration.—[Mrs. Lait.]
    Question agreed to.

Statute Law Balancing (Limit on Maximum Quantity)
3.39 pm
Mr. Anthony Steen: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to oblige Ministers of the Crown, when proposing either to implement any proposal under the European Community Treaties for legislation by the Council of Ministers or to introduce any bill or statutory instrument, simultaneously to propose the repeal of at least a similar quantity of existing legislation to that which they propose to implement or to introduce.
The Bill seeks to halt the growth in the number of pages of statute law. The idea is nothing new. It comes from ancient Greece. In his play "The Frogs", Aristophanes tells how Dionysius, overcome by the plight of Athens, ventured to Hades to find a poet best suited to save the city. He was asked to judge a contest between Euripides and Aeschylus using a giant set of scales to weigh up the qualitative pros and cons of each line of poetry. Two and half thousand years later, we use an equivalent test every day. Cost-benefit analysis has become a common tool of government, and the extension of compliance cost assessments has made the weighing-up process easier and more precise.
Today, we consider only the qualitative aspect of legislation—what we do in the Chamber. No one gives a thought to the total quantity of law that has been passed. Since 1979, we have produced 220,000 pages of additional legislation. In the 235 years between 1715 and 1950, we passed 298 volumes of Acts of Parliament. In just 45 years since 1950, we have added a further 112 volumes of legislation.
I wonder whether we would have fared just a little better if less legislation had been passed, as it often damages competitiveness, affects our enterprise culture and restricts individual freedoms. It is therefore not a moment too soon to find a way in which to halt the never-ending expansion of the statute book.
Some people will argue that we live in an increasingly complex society, and that it is inevitable that there will be more and more legislation. Others say that the harmonisation of Europe has resulted in more European directives, but many of those new laws are unnecessary, and dozens already on the statute book have lost their importance and relevance.
The Government have valiantly tried to do something about the problem by attempting to push back the insidious growth of statute law, but even their deregulation initiative has run into problems, what with the laborious process of passing deregulation orders via a Select Committee and of trying to push Brussels to repeal outmoded directives originating there. Some success can be claimed in limiting the cost of the implementation of new directives in Britain, but gold plating still lurks in some Ministries. Unlike King Canute, Ministers with responsibility for deregulation have temporarily stemmed the tide, but they have been unable to reverse it.
I seek leave to introduce the Bill because we can reverse the tide. One way is to cut the time that the House sits. There is clearly a correlation between the amount of time we spend in Parliament and the amount of law we churn out. If we sat less, inevitably we would pass fewer laws. In 1950, we sat for just over four months; by 1995, we were sitting for more than

805
five months. Perhaps the Jopling reforms will prove a blessing in disguise by reducing the number of hours that the House sits, and thereby providing fewer opportunities to pass laws.
There is a second way: to use sunset clauses, which automatically lapse unless reinstated. However, the simplest approach, which I favour, is to place a limit on the total weight of the law. I take 1 January 1997 as my baseline. If a new Bill is passed by Parliament, an Act of equivalent weight or a mixture of Acts and statutory instruments must be repealed. Unless that is done, the new Bill would automatically come to a halt, and would not receive its First Reading. That is the most effective way to curb the growth of unnecessary and unwanted legislation.
The approach is well illustrated by Sir Edward Marsh, Sir Winston Churchill's private secretary, who had many paintings. When the walls of his flat were full, he hit upon a simple solution—that he would buy another painting only if he could sell or give away a painting from his existing collection. That is what we must do with our stock of legislation, and my test is not wall space but weight.
Any hon. Member proposing to introduce a Bill must first identify statutes of equal weight to be repealed, and I suggest that the judge could be the Deputy Prime Minister. He would sit at his desk with a set of scales that had been issued by the Clerk of Works. A Minister who wanted new legislation would have to appear before the Deputy Prime Minister with his new Bill and those that he wished to repeal. Only if the scales balanced would the new Bill be eligible for qualitative merit tests in the House.
Clearly, the quantitative test would call for a radical change in the culture of Westminster and Whitehall, since the whole raison d'etre of the civil service is to create new laws, introduce new regulations and enforce new rules rather than wade through existing legislation to see what can be thrown out. Balancing old legislation against new is simple, and that simplicity should commend itself to the House.
Passing laws has always been seen by all hon. Members as a panacea for all ills. When new problems come to light, the cry goes up, "Pass a law," in the belief that a solution will automatically follow. Often, that is not the
806
case; and changing the law makes for other problems. If leave is granted to bring in the Bill, we shall have to adjust our approach. Even a private Member's Bill could be introduced only if existing private Members' or private legislation of the equivalent weight balanced it on the Deputy Prime Minister's scales. Knee-jerk reactions to local or national tragedies would no longer qualify on their own unless existing laws could be found to cancel them.
As things are, we are just piling new laws on top of old, similar to the layers of history that are exposed in an archaeological dig. The Bill would result in wider implications being considered when legislation is proposed. Of course worthwhile and important Bills could still go through Parliament, but with the added bonus of cutting out the dead wood on the statute book at the same time.
I seek leave in a somewhat light-hearted vein to underline a serious point. I used the weighing process as a metaphor to highlight a situation which few Members realise exists. As I have said, there have been 220,000 pages of additional legislation since 1970. Red tape, bureaucracy and over-regulation are long-term threats to our nation's competitiveness and they restrict our individual freedoms. We must be much more vigilant and more vigorous in tackling this issue.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Anthony Steen, Mr. Michael Alison, Sir John Cope, Sir Peter Emery, Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith, Sir Sydney Chapman, Sir Anthony Durant, Sir Anthony Grant, Sir Michael Neubert, Sir Donald Thompson, Sir Gerard Vaughan and Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory.

Statute Law Balancing (Limit on Maximum Quantity)
  STATUTE LAW BALANCING (LIMIT ON MAXIMUM QUANTITY)
  Mr. Anthony Steen accordingly presented a Bill to oblige Ministers of the Crown, when proposing either to implement any proposal under the European Community Treaties for legislation by the Council of Ministers or to introduce any bill or statutory instrument, simultaneously to propose the repeal of at least a similar quantity of existing legislation to that which they propose to implement or to introduce.: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 14 February, and to be printed [Bill 93].
Orders of the Day
  Social Security Administration (Fraud) Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Social Security Administration (Fraud) Bill
    New clause 1

      AGGRAVATED OFFENCE OF LANDLORD FRAUD
      '. Where a person is found guilty of an offence or offences under section 111A of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, as inserted by section 13 above, and the offence is or the offences are in respect of—

      (a) more than one claimant for benefit, and

      (b) benefits paid in respect of persons resident in accommodation owned, managed or controlled by him,

      he shall be liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding twelve years or to a fine or to both, and in determining the level of any fine imposed, the court shall have regard to the sums dishonestly obtained by him.'.—[Mr. McLeish.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      3.49 pm
      Mr. Henry McLeish: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following: Government amendments Nos. 5 to 7.
      Mr. McLeish: The Bill provides for careful examination of landlords' activities in housing benefit fraud, and new clause 1 would create a new offence of aggravated landlord fraud. We think that such an offence is necessary, because the Government have not yet been sufficiently tough on such fraud. In Committee, we discussed at great length the extent of the problem, and some of the points are worth repeating in the House.
      We are currently spending almost £11 billion on housing benefit, a sum which has grown dramatically since 1979. In 1979, we spent £440 million, at 1995–96 prices, whereas, in 1996–97, we spend more than £5.5 billion for private tenants. For local authority tenants, the amount has grown from £1.7 billion, in 1978–79, to £5.2 billion, in 1996–97. We are therefore talking about an enormous amount of public expenditure, and that is the first important context in which we should consider the new clause.
      The second context is that the scale of fraud is considerable. There is possibly a consensus that £1 billion of our annual £11 billion expenditure on housing benefit is being defrauded, although some people have suggested that the figure may be much higher. Although there is some controversy surrounding the £2 billion fraud figure that has been suggested and mentioned in some Social Security Select Committee decisions, that may be the upper level of housing benefit fraud.
      Nevertheless—no matter whether the figure is £0.5 billion, £1 billion or £2 billion—fraud costs an enormous sum of money, and the House and the Government, of whichever colour, must take it seriously. We have tabled new clause 1 because of the scale of the problem.
      808
      In Committee, the Government were sympathetic to a request for a landlord register, and we agreed that Ministers should go away and formulate a new clause dealing with some of the issues that we raised and then return to the Committee. Consequently, we withdrew our new clause dealing with a landlord register. The Government accepted that suggestion, which represent progress, which we welcome. Now the Government have an opportunity to pass a second test, on the matter of an offence of aggravated landlord fraud.
      The Minister said in Committee that the Bill already contained provisions to deal with that offence, but we do not accept that it does. The Bill is clearly focused on landlords and claimants, but far too much emphasis has been placed on claimants and not enough on landlords. Therefore, we want to strengthen the Bill's provisions, particularly those dealing with landlords. We also want to show landlords and the public that we are serious about the annual multi-million-pound fraud. In both the substance and the spirit of legislation, it is important that we send a powerful message to landlords, and especially to those in the private sector, that the House will not tolerate fraud, especially current levels of fraud.
      In new clause 1, we suggest that a person involved in aggravated landlord fraud
      "shall be liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding twelve years or to a fine or to both, and"—
      of course—
      "in determining the level of any fine imposed, the court shall have regard to the sums dishonestly obtained by him"
      or her.
      We think that the type of offence that we are considering deserves the punishment we are suggesting, because there are different levels of landlord fraud. One landlord may have a few properties or a few tenants and be defrauding the system, perhaps in collusion with one or more of his tenants. There is then a gradation in criminal activity, however, in which some landlords in our cities are committing organised big-time fraud. We will simply be sending the wrong message if the Bill does not include a specific offence of landlord fraud.
      The new clause also deals with multiple fraud. It provides a tough prison term, but defrauding the state is a serious offence. Most of the London local authorities that have been at the sharp end of this serious crime suggested that the Bill needed to be strengthened even more, and we agree. We find it difficult to understand why the Government will not accept the further strengthening that Labour is offering now, just as we did in Committee.
      The Government have often talked about being tough on fraud—we support and applaud their attitude—but we have to match the rhetoric and fine words with tough action to show that we not only deplore what is happening but intend to root out the worst excesses of fraud by landlords.
      In the past few years, the amount of housing benefit going to the private sector has risen to the point where it will overtake that paid to public sector tenants. Indeed, over the next two years, perhaps another £800 million will be added to the private sector rent allowance housing benefit. That is a staggering sum.
      The Government should accept our proposal with good will. We want to toughen the Bill and strengthen the attack on fraudulent landlords. By accepting new clause 1,

      809
      the Government will do just that, and will send a powerful message to landlords who are currently defrauding the housing benefit system.
      Mr. Chris Davies: I warmly welcome the new clause, and urge the Government to accept it. Since 1988, there has been a 350 per cent. increase in the housing benefit paid to the private sector. As the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) said, the opportunities for fraud have increased considerably, and it is estimated that between £1 billion and £2 billion is disappearing into the pockets of fraudulent landlords.
      Fraudulent landlords are getting rich at the expense of the taxpayer. They are doing so in various ways: some simply continue to claim for a tenant who has moved on, while some create fictitious tenants in order to claim housing benefit. Others who own several properties form a conspiracy, and set out to defraud local authorities by arranging for fictitious tenants—or, indeed, real tenants using fictitious names—to move so rapidly from one of their properties to another that it is impossible for the local authority agents to pursue them effectively.
      One problem is that local authorities are so strapped for cash that they may not prosecute even when they know that fraud has taken place. Gathering the evidence required for a successful prosecution puts a strain on their manpower. Too often, when a landlord has been detected committing a fraud, all that happens is that the payment is stopped and the landlord goes unpunished. The penalties introduced in the new clause would concentrate the minds of local authorities and of the landlords who seek to defraud the taxpayer.
      The Government claim to be tough on crime, and the new clause simply apes the Government's own sentiments by introducing penalties to curb a problem that we all recognise as one of the utmost seriousness.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Oliver Heald): A claimant or a landlord can be guilty of this offence. The new clause deals only with the sentence. How can it be right to lay down a sentence of 12 years for landlords involved in organised fraud and one of seven years for claimants involved in a series of organised attacks on the benefit system? That is nothing but ludicrous.
      Mr. Davies: With respect, we are dealing only with one new clause, which is aimed at landlords. Whether the matter should also be addressed in other ways is for the Minister to determine. It is for him to take the opportunity to table amendments at the appropriate time. If the Government wish to be tough on crime, they have an opportunity to demonstrate it.
      4 pm
      Mr. Frank Field: I should like to set the new clause in context. It is an extraordinary turn of events for the Minister to find himself in his current position. It must appear to the outside world that he is softer on crime by landlords than on crime by claimants.
      Mr. Heald: The Bill contains eight solid measures to tackle landlord fraud. Is the hon. Gentleman denying that?
      Mr. Field: No, I am not denying that. I await with anticipation the Minister's speech, in which I hope that he will put forward cogent arguments as to why the Government do not accept the new clause. I was merely warning him that, if he fails to do so, he will stand in the dock appearing to the public to have two standards—one for claimants and a gentler one for landlords, as the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Davies) has just said.
      The debate has taken a surprising turn. When the Select Committee on Social Security began its investigations into fraud, it had two clear objectives. The first was to find ways of protecting the largest of public budgets from people who make fraudulent claims, either accidentally or on a more organised basis. It seemed to us inconceivable that the budget was not under attack. The second objective was to try to build a consensus in the House—such a consensus exists in the country—on fighting fraud. It appeared to us that the easiest way to build a consensus was to seek redress for the abuses by claimants and landlords.
      One of the positive results of the report is the unanimity that has developed in the House on tackling social security fraud. Indeed, listening to what Ministers say, it becomes clear that the debate has so changed that Labour is now calling for tougher measures than those that the Government propose. That is the crux of the new clause. To answer the case cogently made by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) and the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth, the Government must explain what measures in the Bill will fulfil the objectives of the new clause. If they fail to provide such an explanation, they will appear to voters to have two standards.
      It would not be surprising if a large number of people thought that. Until the new consensus emerged in the House, it was all too easy for the Government to put over the message that fraud was a claimant issue, allowing people to think subliminally that it was a Labour problem, because Labour supporters were perpetrating the fraud. The Select Committee report suggested a more even-handed approach to the issue.
      Labour has certainly adopted such an approach. We are as serious about rooting out individual abuse by claimants as about giving the authorities the most effective powers possible to counter landlord fraud. I wait with interest to find out how the Government will deal with that.
      Let me pick up another issue that was touched upon earlier in the debate. Have we become more effective in trying to prevent social security fraud, and do we always pursue those who perpetrate it? In other words, do we have a system of incentives that encourages local authorities not only to prevent fraud, but actively to prosecute those who commit fraud and publicly bring them to justice? Many Opposition Members are worried that, although the present structure of incentives and penalties seeks to prevent fraudulent claims—that is important—local authorities do not always have the resources to prosecute those who perpetrate large-scale fraud.

      811
      I hope that the Minister will not join the Secretary of State in skating on thin ice and trying to get away with double standards to counter fraud. At present, we are prepared to throw the book at fraudulent claimants, but we tend to be much more careful in respect of landlords.
      It may be true that fraudulent claimants get away with more money, but that is questionable. Nevertheless, there is no question that the largest individual acts of fraud are perpetrated by landlords, as it is much easier for them.
      Mr. Heald: The hon. Gentleman should recognise that the offence that the Bill addresses is the same whether it is perpetrated by a landlord or a claimant. The new clause proposes that the sentence for a landlord should be 12 years rather than seven years. How does the hon. Gentleman square that with a difficulty that regularly arises when organised gangs who are not landlords attempt to attack the benefits system? Their criminality is just as serious as that of fraudulent landlords. In those circumstances, why should there not be equality?
      Mr. Field: Indeed there should be equality. It is not too late for the Minister to table a manuscript amendment to that effect. We are anxious to make a distinction between fraud committed by individuals and that which is seriously organised by groups of people. The public are most concerned about that.
      As I have said, it would be inconceivable if the largest budgets were not under attack by organised crime, yet many people make a distinction between that category of social security fraud and fraud that is committed by individuals. It is not that the public approve of that fraud, but it is quite clear that certain individuals commit fraud because their position in the labour market has been transformed in the past 10 years by the Government's massive extension of means-tested assistance.
      Many such people keep quiet about the change in their circumstances because of the reduction in their personal income during that period. Although that is wrong and needs to be stopped, it is clearly different from the problem that the new clause seeks to address—landlord fraud and the groups of claimants to whom the Minister referred, who determinedly commit fraud against the public purse.
      I sit down with considerable excitement. I hope to hear not only that the Government intend to accept our new clause, but whether they will table a manuscript amendment seeking to single out groups who are organising fraud in a similar way to landlords, and treat them the same as fraudulent landlords.
      Mr. Ian Bruce: I came into the debate to speak on subsequent amendments that excited me, but having listened to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) express his excitement about waiting for my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to get to his feet, I have become excited about how much new Labour has permeated the thoughts not only of the hon. Gentleman, who is one of the most knowledgable
      812
      Members on social security matters, but the Liberal Democrats. It is extraordinary to see the web that is being woven. I am sure that Opposition Members are acting in an honourable way, but it is nonetheless an extraordinary way.
      The Labour party has traditionally been against landlords. Socialists would always be attacking them. Labour is obviously trying to put down a marker for when it goes back to being old Labour and returns to its socialist roots. It is trying to set a trap for the Government, so that it will be able to claim on the hustings and in its election manifesto that it is the tough party on law and order. Opposition Members know very well that the new clause will not be accepted.
      Mr. Field: The biggest landlords in the country are local authorities. The Opposition are as clear about preventing fraud among them as they are about preventing it among landlords in the private sector. There are no double standards on the Opposition Benches. It is interesting how standards are developing on the Conservative Benches. If we wait long enough before the excitement of the Under-Secretary's reply, we will no doubt see new Conservatism.
      Mr. Bruce: One might have to wait an awful long time for new Conservatism. Conservatism is, of course, a very basic approach, to which we have been sticking through thick and thin, despite the Labour party trying to out-Conservative the Conservative party.
      I was trying to expound what came through clearly from Opposition Members' speeches. Labour and Liberal Democrat Members are saying, "Here we have a wonderful opportunity through the new clause"—even if it is not voted on—"to say that we are the really tough group of people." Perhaps even the Ulster Unionists will be making such a claim, although I am sure that they are much too sensible to jump on the bandwagon.
      I am glad to say that all of us in the House are very pleased to see the clampdown on fraud. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will be able to tell us whether other offences, such as conspiracies to defraud, would put very large fraud into a category outside the Bill's remit.
      Mr. Robert G. Hughes: In case my hon. Friend is misinterpreted, I should point out that, whereas the Labour Front Benchers and the Liberal Democrats are all over the place on the issue, the hon. Member for South Antrim (Mr. Forsythe), who serves on the Social Security Committee, knows precisely what he is talking about. He brings a great deal of wisdom and expertise to the Committee.
      Mr. Bruce: I am grateful for the trailer for the hon. Gentleman's speech. I was very careful not to put him on one side of the web or the other. I am sure that he will speak for himself, and very ably.
      We can clearly see the web that is being constructed. Labour Members are taking what they believe is a wonderful opportunity to say that they are tougher on crime than the Conservatives. One can see that entering

      813
      their election manifestos immediately. I am tempted to suggest to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that he accepts the new clause.
      Mr. Field: Ah, that is what we want.
      Mr. Bruce: With a big smile on his face, the hon. Gentleman says that that is what Labour wants, but is that really sensible?
      As many hon. Members know, I quite often speak about prisons—I am often invited on to television programmes to talk about the situation in them. There are two prisons in my constituency, and we might be getting a third. Labour and Liberal Democrat Members constantly tell me that long prison sentences do not work, and that the Government should be trying other measures.
      If the new clause had been tabled by the Government, a Labour party spokesman would no doubt have told us about the wonders of community service orders in dealing with multiple fraud. Such is the nonsense that comes up. I really stood up to speak so that, when we see the election manifestos, people will be able to go to Hansard, and so understand what the Opposition were up to.
      4.15 pm
      Mr. Clifford Forsythe: I sat through the Committee stage of the Bill, and well remember the debate there on this matter. I recall a suggestion from Opposition Members that they would leave the clause until it came to the Floor of the House, so as to give the Minister the opportunity to think the matter over and perhaps bring forward something acceptable to the Opposition.
      Knowing the Bill, I have listened to the Minister and heard his point that people should not be treated differently, and that, if there is a penalty for doing something that is wrong, it should apply to everyone equally. Of course, there is the difficulty that the Minister himself raised when speaking about organised gangs.
      If the Minister takes the view that those who are carrying out organised crimes should perhaps be treated differently, that could be extended to landlords, because, if they commit that sort of crime, it is arguable that a distinction should be made. While those who are receiving benefit personally might do something wrong through force of circumstances, it is arguable that, although the action is wrong, an allowance could be made because of the circumstances; whereas the Minister might consider that those who deliberately set out in an organised way to defraud the taxpayer should be treated differently.
      Mr. Heald: My point is that measures in respect of conspiracy to defraud and offences under the Theft Act 1968 are adequate to deal with such cases, and that the offence we are debating has its own special place in the scheme of things.
      Mr. Forsythe: I understand that, perhaps in a way that differs from the understanding of others on the Opposition Benches. I understand that the Government, and especially Ministers in the Department of Society
      814
      Security, are anxious to reduce fraud in the system, and I praise them for that. What is debatable is whether the system that they are now introducing is sufficient.
      Contrary to what the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) said, I, as a member of a Committee, make up my mind on the basis of the debate, the argument and my instincts as to whether legislation is correct and will do what is it supposed to do. I do not want to frighten the Minister, but I shall listen carefully to what he says. I do not make up my mind beforehand.
      Mr. Ian Bruce: I am listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman. I had not intended to paint him into a corner with other Opposition Members, but he seems to be going down the same route.
      Let us imagine a case of organised fraud in which a massive fraud was organised by claimants—by people who were not landlords—who inveigled many landlords into taking part. If all the participants were prosecuted under the same Act, would it not be strange that the individual little landlords would be likely to receive a much higher sentence than the persons—the claimants—who did the massive organisation?
      Mr. Forsythe: I think that the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood, or perhaps he has a preconceived notion of the road that I am going down. However, I think that the Minister understands exactly what I am saying. I am patiently trying to put the two sides of the argument and achieve a balance. I have not made up my mind, and I have not yet recommended to my hon. Friends how we should vote. But I shall listen carefully to the Minister.
      I am a member of the Select Committee on Social Security, and I have listened to the evidence, as have others among my hon. Friends, so I shall be most interested to hear what the Minister has to say. The recommendation I make to my hon. Friends will be based on that, and on what has already been said.
      Mr. Heald: We have heard distinguished comments by my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) and by the hon. Member for South Antrim (Mr. Forsythe), and interesting and helpful comments by others who have spoken. We have also heard the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) putting the case for the Opposition.
      However, I must start by saying that the new clause is really simply another attempt by Opposition Members to suggest that the Government and the Bill are in some way soft on landlord fraud. They are not. The reverse is true. Initiatives already in place, together with the measures in the Bill, amount to a 10-point plan to crack down on landlord fraud—
      Mr. Frank Field: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Heald: I should like to make a little progress first.
      Mr. Field: On that precise point?
      Mr. Heald: All right, then.
      Mr. Field: The Minister has misread the situation. We relied on the people in the field who are countering

      815
      fraud, both to help us choose the subject of our inquiry and to guide that inquiry. We did not come to the subject with views; we were not experts on it. The Bill follows many of the report's recommendations, and we are grateful for the Government's response. Those very people, who helped us to shape our inquiry and our report, suggested that we should investigate the area, and it is they who now suggest that the new clause is necessary. It is not a great game put up by the Opposition; it comes from the people who put us on to the issue in the first place.
      Mr. Heald: As you will have noticed, Madam Speaker, I was in the process of criticising the Labour Front-Bench spokesman rather than the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). I am always complimentary about the Select Committee, because of the complimentary remarks that it in turn has made about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his efforts in this context.
      The 10-point plan contains new powers of entry for local authority investigators, which will enable them to enter landlords' business premises and to make inquiries about any person believed to be a benefit claimant or recipient. That new power will help in the fight against landlord fraud.
      There are also new powers, where the local authority has grounds for suspecting impropriety or fraud, to require a landlord or agent receiving direct payments to give information about all the properties that he owns and controls. That is another strong measure in the battle against landlord fraud.
      Thirdly, the new provision for the recovery of overpayments will discourage the type of fraud in which a landlord continues to receive benefit after a claimant has left the premises. It will do that by allowing for overpayment recoveries of benefit in respect of one tenant to be made from benefit paid direct to a landlord in respect of his other tenants. That is another strong measure in the battle against landlord fraud.
      The ability of local authorities to exchange information should make multiple claims, which represent one of the most common landlord frauds, much more difficult.
      The fifth measure will mean that crooked landlords will no longer be able to sit at home and use the postal redirection service to receive their ill-gotten gains. New powers in the Bill will enable the post office to return such post to the local authority that sent it, thus saving the taxpayer from landlord fraud.
      The new benefit fraud inspectorate, using the powers provided in the Bill, will assist local authorities by making recommendations to improve their anti-fraud performance, which will include measures to tackle landlord fraud. The seventh measure is the new offence of dishonest representation or failure to disclose, which is intended to be used against serious fraudsters including landlords.
      In addition, we announced in Committee that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State intends to bring forward proposals for regulations as soon as practicable to enable local authorities to refuse or to terminate direct payments when an authority has reasonable
      816
      grounds for doubting that the recipient—including a landlord—is a "fit and proper person". The Department of Social Security will make clear in guidance to local authorities that they do not have to make direct payments to landlords unless claimants are substantially in arrears with their rent. The new measures give local authorities powerful new tools to tighten up on crooked landlords and to combat serious frauds.
      The eighth point is that the Government have made available £1 million in start-up money for the London organised fraud investigation team, which is designed to tackle serious landlord fraud in London. The team became operational in December 1996.
      The ninth measure is the national roll-out of the housing benefit matching service, run by the Department. This began in November 1996, and is expected to be complete by 1998. It is able to match one local authority's housing benefit data with that held by other authorities, and with DSS benefit data. Discrepancies which point to suspect claims—including false representations by landlords—will be referred for investigation.
      Where local authorities have information about landlords—for instance, those who have made false representations—this can be disclosed to other local authorities for the purposes of the prevention or detection of benefit fraud and checking the accuracy of housing benefit information under the new section 122E of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, which clause 3 introduces. This will help to stop multiple claims by landlords.
      Mr. Alan Howarth: The Minister has been describing a number of initiatives involving data management that are already under way. Are those measures legitimate under existing law, or will the Bill put them on a sound basis ex post facto?
      Mr. Heald: The existing data matching measures used by the Department are all covered by the legal regime under the Data Protection Act 1988, and they meet the terms of the European convention on human rights. The external data matching we carry out at present is limited to cases where there is evidence of fraud, and, in those circumstances, it is covered by the appropriate legislation. We are not approving something retrospectively, although the new powers will, of course, take us further in the data matching direction—something that the Select Committee recommended, and with which we agree.
      Under the anti-fraud incentive scheme—the tenth measure—local authorities receive significant additional subsidy when they successfully tackle all types of benefit fraud—including fraud by landlords. Moreover, local authorities were awarded a further £6 million this year to finance a variety of anti-fraud projects. It is sometimes said that there is not enough Government money to help with these tasks, but local authorities earned £27.8 million in 1995–96 in additional subsidy for successfully tackling fraud. It is estimated that that figure will be higher this year. When looked at together, the measures produce a substantial package to deal with landlord fraud.
      New clause 1 is a new variation on a familiar theme. In Committee, the Opposition sought to introduce an additional offence, which was intended to target

      817
      dishonest behaviour by landlords in connection with multiple claims to housing benefit and council tax benefit, with a maximum penalty of ten years imprisonment. The Committee rejected that proposal. Yet we now have before us a new clause that seeks to top that by introducing a maximum of twelve years for certain types of landlord fraud.
      I am pleased that, in tabling the new clause, the Opposition appear to have accepted my explanation that the offence in clause 13 applies equally to a landlord as to a claimant, and they no longer suggest that there should be a separate offence. I am disappointed that they continue to argue that landlord fraud is somehow inherently more serious than all other types of benefit fraud, including that committed by professional organised criminals.
      The real question is whether a separate, more severe sentence is needed for landlords. As I said in Committee, the new offence in clause 13 is not the only basis for prosecuting landlords who commit serious fraud. They can also be prosecuted—and are in appropriate cases—under the Theft Act 1968 and for conspiracy. Conspiracy to defraud and a Theft Act offence both carry a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment.
      4.30 pm
      I fail to see any justification for a maximum penalty of 12 years directed specifically at landlords. Landlord fraud is serious, particularly when it involves abuse of a position of trust, but 12 years is a higher penalty than that for many serious offences against the person, such as indecent assault, cruelty to children, causing death by dangerous driving, or causing death while under the influence of drink or drugs.
      As I said in Committee, existing fraud offences for which there is a 10-year maximum sentence may involve multi-million-pound frauds or a particularly vulnerable victim, such as an old lady callously defrauded out of her life savings; yet new clause 1 would make a landlord who committed a serious fraud, but on a smaller scale and without aggravating circumstances, liable to 12 years in prison just because he was a landlord. The Opposition have failed to make a convincing case to show the need for such a severe maximum sentence.
      The Court of Appeal has considered the range of sentences which it and the courts feel are appropriate for serious dishonesty in the benefits field, involving large sums of money and an element of breach of trust. Its guideline, which is established as a benchmark, is six years' imprisonment for contested trials in those circumstances. Above that benchmark, the courts have headroom to pass even more serious sentences in more serious cases. However, it is hard to see what a landlord acting as a landlord would have to do to merit a sentence of 12 years, which is double the benchmark.
      In summary, landlord fraud is serious. The Bill introduces a range of practical measures that will help local authorities to investigate fraudulent landlords and bring them to justice. Landlords can be prosecuted under a range of tough offences, carrying maximum sentences of up to seven years under social security legislation and up to 10 years under the Theft Act 1968 and common law conspiracy. A separate, even more severe, sentence is just window dressing.
      818
      I shall now briefly explain the Government amendments. Clause 13 creates a new offence of dishonest representation for obtaining benefit. It covers dishonestly making a false representation, and dishonestly producing or furnishing false information, or causing or allowing another person to do so.
      Social security frauds can continue for a long, time and involve very many false declarations. In the past, we have relied on specimen charges to reflect that criminality. However, in 1996, in the case of R v. Clark, the Court of Appeal ruled out that approach. The implication for social security fraud is that the court would be able to sentence only on the basis of the specimen offences, each of which relates to only one period of two weeks, instead of being able to take into account the individual's full criminality in relation to benefit fraud. This is totally inappropriate where a fraudster is a landlord or a professional criminal, and hundreds of payments may be involved.
      We therefore need an offence—as serious as those under the Theft Act 1968—for those cases in which dishonest obtaining of benefit over a period is a direct consequence of a single false statement or failure to notify changes of circumstances, so that we can avoid having to charge for each girocheque obtained. This is intended to relate the entire dishonest overpayment to the person's initial false statement.
      That new offence is intended to be, in effect, what may be regarded as a continuing offence: an offence that covers the continuing period of dishonest behaviour. The inclusion of the offence of dishonest failure to report a change of circumstances is intended to enable the offence to relate to the full overpayment consequences arising from the failure to report, instead of relying on a series of false representations thereafter to the effect that no change had taken place.
      Clause 13 also makes it an offence for someone dishonestly to cause or allow another person to fail to notify a change of circumstances which regulations under the Social Security Administration Act 1992 require them to notify.
      I hope that I have not trespassed on the House's good will in outlining those details, but it is important to have the reasons for the change clearly stated on the record.
      The purpose of amendments Nos. 5 and 6 is to clear up any possible ambiguity in the reference to "him" in this subsection by making it clear that the "him" referred to is, in all cases, the person who is required by regulations to report the change of circumstances.
      Clause 14 extends the existing provisions in section 112 of the Act to include the offence of failure, without reasonable excuse, to report a change of circumstances which regulations require to be reported. It will also be an offence for someone knowingly to cause or to allow another person to fail to notify such a change of circumstances.
      Amendment No. 7 introduces a further test. The offence of "failing to notify" is being introduced to enforce the existing duty on beneficiaries to disclose a change of circumstances. Much social security fraud arises from omissions rather than acts of commission. That duty is laid on both claimants and, in certain circumstances, third parties.
      The provision will catch, where appropriate, automated credit transfer cases where no declarations are made at the point when payments are received and where a landlord

      819
      receiving direct payments of housing benefit fails in his duty to notify the local authority of a change. Such cases cannot easily be prosecuted under current legislation.
      As I explained to the Committee, it is not the intention that failures to notify caused by a genuine mistake should be treated as cases of fraud and prosecuted. In a case where a person is genuinely unaware of the relevance of a change of circumstances, the intention is that the safeguard of "reasonable excuse" would apply, and that, ultimately, the courts would decide what that constituted. Additionally, the legislation would operate within the framework of the Department's prosecution policy, which is to prosecute only where prosecutions are clearly in the public interest.
      We therefore believe that the defence of "reasonable excuse" provides all the safeguards needed, should proceedings be brought. Nevertheless, concerns were expressed in Committee, especially by the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), about the scope of the offence, particularly where it could be the underlying alleged offence for an offer of an administrative penalty under clause 15.
      In practice, we would not expect a prosecution or an administrative penalty offer in a case where the claimant genuinely did not know that a change of circumstances needed to be reported. However, having reflected on the points made in Committee, the Government consider that it would increase confidence in the prosecution and penalty arrangements if the offence were amended to underline the policy intention.
      The amendment therefore introduces an additional safeguard by adding to the offence of failing to notify the same test as applies elsewhere in section 112—that the person knows that he is required to notify the change of circumstances. That will ensure that only fraudsters can be offered penalties, and people who have simply made a mistake cannot be brought into the penalty regime. I hope that the amendment will allay the fears that were expressed.
      I propose to retain the test of "reasonable excuse", for the reasons that I explained when the matter was discussed in Committee. I want to exclude, for example, someone who had had to go to hospital and had not notified the change, even though he knew that he should have made that notification.
      Like the more serious offence in clause 13, clause 14 contains a reference to a third party causing or allowing another person to fail to notify a change of circumstances. As I explained in the introduction to the amendment to clause 13, there may be a possible ambiguity in the reference to "him". Amendment No. 7, therefore, in addition to introducing a test of knowledge, clears up that ambiguity by making it clear that the "him" referred to is, in all cases, the person who is required by regulations to report the change of circumstances.
      In summary, therefore, I ask the House to reject new clause 1 and to accept Government amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7.
      Mr. McLeish: I am disappointed by the Government's response to new clause 1. In a sense, they have had three tests. First, we asked them to review the direct payments system and allow local authorities to stop direct payments
      820
      to landlords if fraud was suspected. They refused to accept that suggestion. Secondly, in Committee we proposed the creation of a landlord register. They accepted the merits of that proposal, and came back with their own new clause.
      Now we find that they will fail at the final hurdle, because this new clause has been concocted for the benefit of no one; it has been proposed so that this Parliament can say to landlords, "We shall simply not accept what you have been doing, and will crack down firmly with this new offence of landlord fraud." If the Government do not accept new clause 1, they are sending the wrong message to the country. That is why we hope that, as Conservative Members have suggested, there will be a consensus on being tough on the matter.
      It is not right to say that organised criminal landlord fraud is exactly the same as an individual claimant defrauding the system. Both are fundamentally and utterly wrong, but the difference is the scale of fraud and the volume of expenditure involved in the case of private housing landlords. That is the key reason that we want the new clause to be accepted.
      The Government have had their opportunity, but they have failed to accept new clause 1. We shall therefore divide the House.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 244, Noes 297.

      Division No. 64]

      [4.40 pm

      AYES

      Ainger, Nick

      Cohen, Harry

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Allen, Graham

      Corbett, Robin

      Alton, David

      Cousins, Jim

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Cox, Tom

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try SE)

      Ashton, Joseph

      Cunningham, Dr John

      Austin-Walker, John

      Dafis, Cynog

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Barnes, Harry

      Darling, Alistair

      Barron, Kevin

      Davidson, Ian

      Battle, John

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Davies, Chris (Littleborough)

      Beckett, Mrs Margaret

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Bell, Stuart

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Benn, Tony

      Denham, John

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Dewar, Donald

      Benton, Joe

      Dixon, Don

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Dobson, Frank

      Berry, Roger

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Betts, Clive

      Dowd, Jim

      Blunkett, David

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Boateng, Paul

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Bradley, Keith

      Eastham, Ken

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Ennis, Jeff

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Etherington, Bill

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Burden, Richard

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Callaghan, Jim

      Faulds, Andrew

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Fisher, Mark

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Flynn, Paul

      Campbell-Savours, D N

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Foulkes, George

      Cann, Jamie

      Fyfe, Mrs Maria

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Galbraith, Sam

      Clapham, Michael

      Galloway, George

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Gapes, Mike

      Clelland, David

      Garrett, John

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      George, Bruce

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Gerrard, Neil

      821

      Gilbert, Dr John

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Milburn, Alan

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Miller, Andrew

      Gordon, Ms Mildred

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Graham, Thomas

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Morley, Elliot

      Grocott, Bruce

      Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Gunnell, John

      Morris, John (Aberavon)

      Hain, Peter

      Mowlam, Ms Marjorie

      Hall, Mike

      Mudie, George

      Hardy, Peter

      Mullin, Chris

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Murphy, Paul

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Oakes, Gordon

      Hinchliffe, David

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Home Robertson, John

      Olner, Bill

      Hood, Jimmy

      O'Neill, Martin

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Orme, Stanley

      Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)

      Pearson, Ian

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Pendry, Tom

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Pickthall, Colin

      Hoyle, Doug

      Pike, Peter L

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Powell, Sir Raymond (Ogmore)

      Hughes, Robert (Ab'd'n N)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Prescott John

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Primarolo, Ms Dawn

      Hutton, John

      Purchase, Ken

      Illsley, Eric

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Ingram, Adam

      Radice, Giles

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)

      Randall, Stuart

      Jamieson, David

      Raynsford, Nick

      Janner, Greville

      Reid, Dr John

      Jenkins, Brian D (SE Staffs)

      Rendel, David

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & D'side)

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Rogers, Allan

      Jones, Dr L (B'ham Selly Oak)

      Rooker, Jeff

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd SW)

      Rooney, Terry

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Jowell, Ms Tessa

      Rowlands, Ted

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Ruddock, Ms Joan

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross C & S)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Kennedy, Mrs Jane (Broadgreen)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Khabra, Piara S

      Sheldon, Robert

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Shore, Peter

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)

      Short, Clare

      Lewis, Terry

      Simpson, Alan

      Liddell, Mrs Helen

      Skinner, Dennis

      Litherland, Robert

      Smith, Chris (Islington S)

      Livingstone, Ken

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretf'd)

      Snape, Peter

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Soley, Clive

      Loyden, Eddie

      Spearing, Nigel

      McAllion, John

      Spellar, John

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Squire, Ms R (Dunfermline W)

      Macdonald, Calum

      Steel, Sir David

      McFall, John

      Steinberg, Gerry

      McKelvey, William

      Stevenson, George

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Straw, Jack

      McLeish, Henry

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      McNamara, Kevin

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      MacShane, Denis

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Madden, Max

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Maddock, Mrs Diana

      Thurnham, Peter

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Timms, Stephen

      Mandelson, Peter

      Tipping, Paddy

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Touhig, Don

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Trickett, Jon

      Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

      Turner, Dennis

      Martlew, Eric

      Tyler, Paul

      Maxton, John

      Vaz, Keith

      Meacher, Michael

      Walker, Sir Harold

      Meale, Alan

      Wallace, James

      Michael, Alun

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      822

      Wareing, Robert N

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Watson, Mike

      Wray, Jimmy

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Mr. Greg Pope and

      Winnick, David

      Mr. John Cummings.

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Dicks, Terry

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Alexander, Richard

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Alison, Michael (Selby)

      Dover, Den

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Duncan, Alan

      Amess, David

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Arbuthnot, James

      Dunn, Bob

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Eggar, Tim

      Baker, Kenneth (Mole V)

      Elletson, Harold

      Baldry, Tony

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'ld)

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Bates, Michael

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)

      Batiste, Spencer

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Beggs, Roy

      Evennett, David

      Bellingham, Henry

      Faber, David

      Bendall, Vivian

      Fabricant, Michael

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Biffen, John

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Body, Sir Richard

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Forman, Nigel

      Booth, Hartley

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Boswell, Tim

      Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Forth, Eric

      Bowden, Sir Andrew

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Bowis, John

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Boyson, Sir Rhodes

      Freeman, Roger

      Brandreth, Gyles

      French, Douglas

      Brazier, Julian

      Fry, Sir Peter

      Bright, Sir Graham

      Gale, Roger

      Brooke, Peter

      Gallie, Phil

      Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Garnier, Edward

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Gill, Christopher

      Burns, Simon

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Burt, Alistair

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Butler, Peter

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Butterfill, John

      Gorst, Sir John

      Carlisle, John (Luton N)

      Grant, Sir Anthony (SW Cambs)

      Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Carttiss, Michael

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Cash, William

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Channon, Paul

      Gummer, John

      Chapman, Sir Sydney

      Hague, William

      Clappison, James

      Hamilton, Sir Archibald

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochf'd)

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Colvin, Michael

      Hannam, Sir John

      Congdon, David

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Conway, Derek

      Harris, David

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)

      Haselhurst, Sir Alan

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Cope, Sir John

      Hawksley, Warren

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Hayes, Jerry

      Cran, James

      Heald, Oliver

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Heath, Sir Edward

      Curry, David

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)

      Hendry, Charles

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Heseltine, Michael

      Day, Stephen

      Hicks, Sir Robert

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Higgins, Sir Terence

      Devlin, Tim

      Hogg, Douglas (Grantham)

      823

      Horam, John

      Pattie, Sir Geoffrey

      Howard, Michael

      Pawsey, James

      Howell, David (Guildf'd)

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Pickles, Eric

      Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

      Porter, David

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Portilio, Michael

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensb'ne)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Rathbone, Tim

      Hurd, Douglas

      Redwood, John

      Jack, Michael

      Renton, Tim

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Richards, Rod

      Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)

      Riddick, Graham

      Jessel, Toby

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Robathan, Andrew

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Roberts, Sir Wyn

      Jones, Robert B (W Herts)

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

      Jopling, Michael

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Key, Robert

      Rowe, Andrew

      King, Tom

      Rumbold, Dame Angela

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Ryder, Richard

      Knapman, Roger

      Sackville, Tom

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Sainsbury, Sir Timothy

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Scott, Sir Nicholas

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Knox, Sir David

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Kynoch, George

      Shephard, Mrs Gillian

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Lamont, Norman

      Shersby, Sir Michael

      Lang, Ian

      Sims, Sir Roger

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Legg, Barry

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Leigh, Edward

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsf'ld)

      Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

      Soames, Nicholas

      Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Lidington, David

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Lilley, Peter

      Spicer, Sir Jim (W Dorset)

      Lloyd, Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

      Lord, Michael

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Luff, Peter

      Spring, Richard

      Lyell, Sir Nicholas

      Sproat, Iain

      MacGregor, John

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      MacKay, Andrew

      Stanley, Sir John

      Maclean, David

      Steen, Anthony

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Stern, Michael

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Stewart, Allan

      Madel, Sir David

      Streeter, Gary

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Sumberg, David

      Malone, Gerald

      Sweeney, Walter

      Mans, Keith

      Sykes, John

      Marland, Paul

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Marlow, Tony

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Mates, Michael

      Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)

      Mellor, David

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Merchant, Piers

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

      Townsend, Sir Cyril (Bexl'yh'th)

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Tracey, Richard

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Tredinnick, David

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Trend, Michael

      Needham, Richard

      Trotter, Neville

      Nelson, Anthony

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Newton, Tony

      Waldegrave, William

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Walden, George

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Norris, Steve

      Waller, Gary

      Onslow, Sir Cranley

      Ward, John

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Waterson, Nigel

      Page, Richard

      Watts, John

      Paice, James

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Patnick, Sir Irvine

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Patten, John

      Whittingdale, John

      824

      Widdecombe, Miss Ann

      Wolfson, Mark

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Wood, Timothy

      Wilkinson, John

      Yeo, Tim

      Willetts, David

      Young, Sir George

      Wilshire, David

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Mr. Bowen Wells and

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesf'ld)

      Mr. Sebastian Coe.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New clause 2

      CODE OF PRACTICE ON PRIVACY
      '—(1) The Secretary of State shall prepare a Code of Practice on the use and processing of personal data for purposes associated with the provisions of this Act or any enactment amended by this Act.
      (2) A copy of any Code of Practice prepared under the provisions of this section shall be laid before Parliament.
      (3) Before he lays before Parliament a copy of any Code of Practice prepared under the provisions of this section, it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to publish a draft of that Code and consider any representations made to him about that draft by—

      (a) the Data Protection Registrar, and

      (b) any other person or body,

      and he may modify that draft accordingly.
      (4) A Code of Practice prepared under the provisions of this section shall not come into effect until it has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament and issued by the Secretary of State.
      (5) The Secretary of State may from time to time revise the whole or any part of a Code of Practice issued under the provisions of this section, and the provisions of subsections (1) to (4) above shall apply to any such revision, with appropriate modifications.
      (6) It shall be the duty of the Data Protection Registrar to keep under review compliance with any Code of Practice issued under the provisions of this section, and in pursuance of this duty he shall have power to require the provision of any information necessary to him in the discharge of this duty.
      (7) Where the Registrar considers that the provisions of any Code of Practice issued under this section have been breached, then such a breach will be deemed to be a breach of the data protection principle or principles to which that part of the Code relates.
      (8) The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament annually a report on the monitoring of compliance with any Code of Practice issued under the provisions of this section.
      (9) In this section, "data protection principles", "Data Protection Registrar", "personal data", "processing" and related expressions have the same meaning as in the Data Protection Act 1984.'—[Mr. McLeish.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.—[Mr. McLeish.]
      Mrs. Anne Campbell: It is necessary to provide a clear legal basis for the use and disclosure of information. I remind the House that we are discussing information that has been collected for one purpose but will be used for another. Such data may be supplied by statute to the Inland Revenue or by a person who is claiming benefit. People provide the information voluntarily because they believe that they are entitled to claim benefit.
      We have a duty to protect both kinds of information, but we have a particular and pressing duty to safeguard information that must be disclosed according to Government requirements. The Bill proposes to use the information supplied by disclosing it to other Departments

      825
      and local authorities in order to detect fraud. The Opposition support that objective, but the Bill contains wide powers for data matching activities that may be carried out in two ways: first, by checking an individual's details with other databases—for example, by checking whether an address supplied is valid or income details remain the same—and, secondly, by performing a side-by-side comparison of two or more large databases to detect trends, anomalies and potential duplicates.
      It is possible to compile a comprehensive picture of an individual, and to identify likes, purchase habits and credit behaviour. Alternatively, the information may be used to detect similarities and differences between data that are collected for different purposes—for example, someone may be collecting social security and paying income tax. The information may be used both as a commercial tool and as a weapon in the fight against fraud.
      With the proposed privatisation of many Department of Social Security functions, many data will end up in the hands of private operators. The two remaining bidders for Project Accord—the centralised computer project in the Department—are American, and one is registered in Liechtenstein. There is no guarantee that work will not be exported to another country to take advantage of cheap wages. The Department of Social Security is accountable to Parliament, but that partner would be far removed from it.
      New clause 2 does not contain any proposals that the Government have not already acknowledged. In their Green Paper, "Government direct", the Government state specifically that people want their interests to be protected. The document says:
      "people want to be assured that their interests—such as their reputations, their finances, their entitlements and their prospects in life—are properly safeguarded. Information about them must not be misused, wrongly disclosed, accidentally revealed or fraudulently obtained … New methods of service delivery outlined in this Green paper will be developed in accordance with the requirements of the UK's international data protection obligations."
      It also promises that the Government will consult the Data Protection Registrar so that the collection, use and disclosure of data can comply with the necessary requirements and meet the necessary standards of protection. It goes on to give an assurance that the commitment to consultation on all those issues will apply equally once the European Community data protection directive is in force.
      The Opposition want the Government to do what they have said they want and intend to do in "Government direct". I have quoted the Government's own words—but they are empty promises unless the Government can ensure that public concerns are met. Labour proposes that the Government achieve that aim through the provision of a code of practice to regulate the way in which information is used and disclosed.
      Mr. Heald: The problem with new clause 2 is that it applies to only a limited area of government, so we would end up with a piecemeal approach to data protection rather than the seamless provision that everyone wants. Consultations are taking place on the European data protection directive and the "Government.direct" Green Paper. That is surely the proper place to deal with those issues.
      Mrs. Campbell: The Minister is correct to say that we shall soon require new legislation to bring the EC data
      826
      protection directive into force. It will apply only to data that are specifically guarded by EC legislation, and it will not apply across government as a whole. There will be a time lag before that directive is implemented in the United Kingdom, so we shall require some protection in the interim. Our proposal has been suggested by the Data Protection Registrar herself, to protect the interests of individuals in the meantime.
      If we consider the possible abuses, it is clear what problems may arise. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) felt angry and betrayed when the details of his unpaid Visa bill were made public. Similarly, members of the royal family were embarrassed and dismayed when it was revealed that a private telephone conversation had been recorded.
      It is clear that, when the technology was invented, such activity was not intended to happen. We must guard against the unexpected and the harmful. Intrusion into private lives could become commonplace if regulation is not put in place. The stakes are high. I urge the Government to think twice before being cavalier about privacy.
      5 pm
      We propose a code of practice, but we do not set out what should be in it. There should be full public consultation, and the Data Protection Registrar's advice should be sought. The code of practice may need to be reviewed regularly, as technologies change rapidly, security requirements differ over time as criminals discover new techniques for defrauding the system, and international treaties may change our obligations. Flexibility is required. The new clause would provide for a code of practice, which should be drawn up after consultation and introduced by regulation.
      The Minister referred to the EC data protection directive. We do not yet know what form of domestic legislation will transpose that directive into United Kingdom law. The statutory code that we propose should serve to ensure that decisions that are made on the basis of automated, data-matching exercises are not in breach of article 15, which gives individuals the right not to be subject to an automated individual decision, although there may be exemptions. As a person who has suffered damage as a result of a breach of the data protection principles can claim compensation, it is important that the Secretary of State takes note of that. He should now establish procedures that would avoid that problem.
      Our proposal is by no means unusual. In Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United States and Germany, data matching by government is subjected to independent scrutiny. Individuals who are identified in "hits" as a result of data matching must have a chance to make representations.
      I hope that the Minister will accept the new clause, or at least agree to introduce a clause of his own when the Bill goes to the other place. Our proposal follows the advice given to the Secretary of State by the Data Protection Registrar in a letter dated 10 January. If the Minister will not safeguard personal privacy by a code of practice, I hope that he will spell out in his reply precisely what he will do instead.
      Mr. Ian Bruce: I shall comment briefly on the excellent provisions in the Bill, and explain why I believe that the new clause, although worthy, should not be accepted.

      827
      Hon. Members will have heard me talk about the European informatics market group, which has an unfortunate acronym—it sounds like something completely different unless one listens carefully. That all-party group considers issues such as data protection. It was set up because of an unfortunate EC draft directive that probably would have destroyed the whole of the informatics market in the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) raises her eyebrows, but she will be pleased to know that the current draft directive, which is doing the rounds in Europe, is more to the United Kingdom's liking and to the liking of the European informatics market group, which has taken sensible advice.
      The United Kingdom civil service has almost the most enviable record of any civil service in the world on keeping people's personal data secret and secure. It may not have such an enviable record on keeping the Government's secrets secure—especially when draft information is being sent between Departments—but we should be proud of what the Inland Revenue, the Department of Social Security and housing benefit offices in our town halls have already achieved. The codes of practice they work to are exemplary.
      We are considering whether it is right or wrong to allow information that is collected for one purpose to be used in matching to discover whether criminals—I emphasise that—are trying to rip off the system and steal taxpayers' money. No hon. Member who has read the reports of the Social Security Committee can be in any doubt that we should use whatever technology is available to check that we are making best use of public money, and that we are not being ripped off.
      The Opposition propose that, instead of having discrete information in discrete Government Departments, we should establish a special code of practice with a special form of policing to cover the exchange of such discrete information between Departments. That is an unnecessary leap.
      The Data Protection Registrar has made many proposals. Many aspects of our data protection registration are nonsense. We can prosecute people if they do not register to operate and keep data—if they have not informed the registrar—but once they have registered, there is not a lot that the registrar can do to them. It is important for the registrar to lay down principles. We should not have a bureaucratic system. We should ensure that remedies are available to people who are damaged because data on them have been passed on when they should not have been. We should examine that aspect of the problem.
      It is long past time that we had this exchange of information. Many hon. Members will know that I ran an employment agency in Yorkshire for about 12 years. Towards the end of that time, the Department of Social Security found out that a temporary member of staff had more than one job. In fact, that individual had five jobs and was claiming unemployment benefit and social security. The Department knocked on our door and said, "This person has been claiming and has also been working for you." I said that I could provide the necessary details, because we had told the Inland Revenue and the Contributions Agency that that person was working for
      828
      me. I was amazed that that information had not immediately been passed to the Department of Employment so that it could check the details.
      When the investigator asked whether we could give him a list of all the people who had been working for us in the past six months, I said, "No problem," and provided him with a complete list. We found that a third of the people who were registered in our agency were working for us, being paid by us, paying taxes and national insurance—and receiving unemployment benefit.
      The first thing that amazed me was the time that it had taken the Department of Social Security to ask us for information. We were only too happy to co-operate: we were taxpayers, and we wanted to ensure that people were "signed off' before coming to work for us. Following the successful outcome of our passing information to the Department, however, I was even more amazed when it did not contact us again.
      I strongly believe that data matching should be available to Departments that are trying to establish whether people are ripping off the system. It is very simple; it is a case of churning through data, using high-powered computers, and trying to find a match. Records involving people who are not in any way suspicious are ignored. No person examines the records: certain information is thrown up that looks a little suspicious—perhaps 50 people, all supposedly living at the same address, claiming housing benefit, or perhaps 30 people with different names claiming unemployment benefit in a one-bedroom flat. A large number of people may be found to have the same date of birth, and to be living in the same place. I am sure hon. Members will agree that that is the kind of information that we want to find.
      The hon. Member for Cambridge made an impassioned plea for data to be treated properly. She should accept that this country has a good record on ensuring that personal data are kept in an appropriate way. Most people would be amazed to learn that information they give to one Department is not shared with others. Most honest citizens would probably consider sharing entirely normal and natural; it is because the crooks know that it is not that they have been getting away with murder for years.
      I oppose the new clause.
      Mr. Chris Davies: I do not believe that any hon. Member can wish to do other than end benefit fraud. Money should, of course, reach those who are most in need, and not be siphoned off by people who are out for private gain, and defraud taxpayers and other claimants for their personal advantage. People should not, however, be able to take advantage of the bureaucratic obstacles that may exist now in order to play one Department off against another. We support the widening of powers to ensure that data can be cross-referenced to enable crooks and fraudsters to be caught out.
      As long as the powers in the Bill are used as they are intended to be used, there will be no problem. The question is, how do we ensure that that happens? How do we prevent civil servants with access to information from going on fishing expeditions to find out—for reasons of curiosity, devilment or desire for personal gain—the private details of other citizens? The details may be those of a personal acquaintance: a neighbour, perhaps, or an ex-wife's new partner.

      829
      One thing is certain. The House cannot rely on the good behaviour of every civil servant; that is expecting too much of human nature. As sure as eggs is eggs, there will be cases of abuse.
      I listened with interest to the comments of the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce). He spoke of the specific information that would be available, giving us to believe that it would be possible to gain access only to that information; but a National Audit Commission report published in March 1995 noted 655 reported incidents of computer hacking among civil servants—staff who were exceeding their authority by using passwords to obtain information about members of the public which they intended to disclose, or did disclose, to outsiders. That happened two years ago.
      Mr. Bruce: It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman should raise the subject of computer hacking. Does he accept that someone who opens a filing cabinet and examines a piece of information in that cabinet can get away with it very easily, but that someone who hacks into a computer leaves an audit trail? Many people say that a computer is less secure than a filing cabinet, but I would contend that it is much more secure.
      Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman misses the point. He may be correct in saying that it is possible for computer hacking to be detected—if, that is, someone is aware that it is taking place, and bothers to go and check. There is clearly a huge difference between access to one filing cabinet in one Department and the ability to touch a computer keyboard and gain access to a full range of Government information on the screen. The technology that is now at our disposal, and the sheer amount of information on private citizens that is stored in Government offices, create an opportunity for the fostering of Orwellian conditions.
      As Liberty has pointed out in the past few days, there is a danger that human rights may be violated if the Bill is passed in its present form. The House must remember that it has an obligation not only to protect taxpayers from fraud, but to protect and safeguard the liberties of all individuals, along with their privacy. It must give them the right to ensure that that privacy is not invaded without specific and lawful reason.
      5.15 pm
      In an intervention, the Minister said that powers would shortly be introduced to ensure that access to information was properly controlled, but I, for one, do not feel happy about supporting proposals now on the assumption—only the assumption—that safeguards will be introduced later. In the past few weeks, the official Opposition's approach to the Police Bill has demonstrated all too clearly that they do not share the approach of Liberal Democrats and, I believe, Liberty to the defence of civil liberties. That does not make us feel confident that the safeguards mentioned by the Minister are likely to be introduced if the official Opposition become a Government later this year.
      None the less, I support the proposals for a code of practice, which go some way towards meeting my concerns. I ask hon. Members to remember that we have a duty to set standards that are, in this respect, at least as tough as those applying in other democracies, and that we should not forsake that duty.
      Mr. Alan Howarth: In contemplating the Bill, we face a dilemma. We are all committed to introducing measures
      830
      and powers to prevent and expose fraud, but, equally, we should all be committed to safeguarding civil rights, and, in particular, the right to privacy that is enshrined in article 8 of the European convention on human rights. We must strike a balance. That involves a difficult judgment, but I believe that the introduction of the code of practice proposed in new clause 2 would help us to strike the right balance. At present, such a balance is grievously lacking.
      Last week, I asked the Secretary of State a question about this matter, and his response was not discouraging. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us today that it is indeed the Government's intention to introduce a code of practice—but we must wait and see what he says.
      In the meantime, hon. Members are doubtless aware of the legal opinion with which Liberty was provided by Mr. Richard Drabble QC and Dinah Rose, who clearly consider that the Bill fails to constrain powers within the exceptions that are set out in the second paragraph of article 8 of the European convention—the exceptional circumstances in which intrusion into privacy can be justified. They doubt whether the powers that would be exercised under the Bill could be regarded as being in accordance with the law; in the sense that the Bill creates such large discretion, and omits so comprehensively to provide safeguards, that it would not be possible for the citizen to regulate his conduct with sufficient precision—to use the terminology of legal opinion. They question whether the Bill, and the actions that could be taken under it, would be proportionate.
      Of course there is a pressing social need to address the problem of fraud, but it remains at the very least highly doubtful that such far-ranging powers should be taken and exercised by the Government and their agencies, invading the privacy of the individual citizen through data matching. The opinion's authors deplore the absence of an effective remedy, to which the citizen should be entitled under article 13 of the convention when there is abuse of his privacy. They say that, before someone's personal records are divulged to others, there should at least be grounds for suspicion or, at any rate, inaccuracies and inconsistencies should already have been demonstrated. Of course, the Government will contend that, until they have the data matching powers, it will not be possible to demonstrate the inaccuracies and the inconsistencies, as is necessary in the effort to deal with fraud, so we are clearly faced with a conundrum.
      What the House cannot be in doubt about is that the Bill provides for a large extension of state powers. It amends section 122 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 so that the Inland Revenue, Customs and Excise and other Departments may pass on information to the Secretary of State. He may pass on information to local authorities and their contractors, who may pass it on to each other—not to mention access to the Royal Mail's database for redirection of mail. We are therefore talking of a vast increase in the scope for data matching and of the use of extended powers not just for purposes of prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of fraud, but to enable greater accuracy to be achieved in records.
      Then there is the catch-all phrase:
      "any other matter relating to social security".
      The Department of Social Security already has powers to obtain information from other Departments when it investigates fraud, but, if the Bill is passed in its present

      831
      form, the Department will have powers to embark on wholesale trawling of increasingly large databases. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) said, that must at least be contrary to the 1981 European convention on data processing, which stipulates that data compiled for one purpose should not be used for another.
      Safeguards need to be introduced. We need legislation to incorporate the new European data protection directive. We also need privacy legislation. We should incorporate the European convention on human rights into our domestic law and, following satisfactory public debate, introduce a Bill of Rights in Britain.
      In response to my intervention, the Minister said that the Bill was not needed to legitimise existing data matching, but I understand that, since April 1995, the Department has cross-checked certain benefit payments, looking for inconsistencies and multiple claims. The London fraud initiative is already under way. Existing legal powers must be being stretched to their ultimate, if not being overstepped. We should be careful and sensitive about civil liberties. The Police Bill has been mentioned, and I think that we are all conscious of this issue's delicacy.
      There was a story in the press recently—I think last Sunday—about benefit spies joining police road checks. It said that fraud investigators and the Benefits Agency were interrogating people who were stopped by police in routine roadside checks and that, last year, up to 10,000 vehicles were checked. Benefits Agency staff were alongside the police as they did that.
      Liberty reports that some people who were questioned were not told of their right to stay silent. That must worry us all. There is always the temptation for big government and officialdom to step beyond where they should go in the exercise of their powers, using excessive zeal, and jeopardising civil liberties. That is why it is particularly important for the code of practice to be incorporated into the Bill.
      Mr. Bruce: The hon. Gentleman seems to be supporting the Bill but saying things that would preclude its being passed. May I give him an example? The original data protection directive said to people who wanted to mail a person information that was unrelated to the fact that they had the person's name and address from another source that they first had to mail the person and say, "Am I allowed to mail you something?" but, by doing that, they would have broken the law in the first place. That is the way we can go if we take it absolutely at face value that no one is allowed to cross-check information that is given to the Government.
      Mr. Howarth: I think that the hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. I am not suggesting that there should not be data matching. I argue that data matching should be circumscribed by powers that enable the citizen to be protected. Limitations on data matching should be set out in a code of practice, which can evolve over time to match best practice internationally, and match agreements that we enter into. We would have flexibility within what I hope would be an absolutely resolute desire to strike the balance that we need between the civil rights of the individual citizen, particularly the citizen's right to
      832
      privacy, and the Government's obvious duty to do what they can to stamp out fraud. I am arguing not for an absolute in one direction or the other, but for maximum care.
      I hope that, in the exercise of whatever powers the Government take through the Bill, they will always be anxious to do what they can to minimise intrusion into privacy by using, for example, privacy enhancing technology such as encryption and "pseudonymisation", ensuring that names of individuals about whom data may be revealed are known to the minimum number of officials and only in circumstances when that can be absolutely justified.
      In Committee, I quoted from DSS research report No. 56 on "Confidentiality: the public view"—the Department-commissioned report by Mr. Alan Hedges. Its findings should warn Ministers that public opinion is sensitive in this matter, and they must be extremely careful in deciding what powers to take—and certainly in the exercise of those powers.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge described how legislative practice in other countries has moved well ahead of ours. By the autumn of next year, we shall have to legislate to incorporate into our law the new European directive. That will inevitably provide a new legislative context for the Bill's operation, but, as we do not have that safeguard in place, it is all the more important, as she has said, that the code of practice should be incorporated.
      Mr. Harry Cohen: I support the new clause, which provides for a code of practice on privacy. First, it does not adversely impact on data matching for anti-fraud activity. All it does is ensure that such activities comply with a code of practice that is approved by the Data Protection Registrar.
      I tabled a parliamentary question on the Bill to the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security. His answer stated:
      "The registrar wrote to my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, on 10 January about the scope of the disclosure of information powers contained in the Bill, advocating the introduction of a statutory code of practice for DSS datamatching activities."—[Official Report, 27 January 1997; Vol. 289, c. 108.]
      Therefore, the registrar clearly supports the new clause's purpose.
      Liberty's opinion has already been quoted to the House. Its press release, published on 31 January, said:
      "Liberty today published a legal opinion from two leading lawyers, one of whom is a Queen's Counsel, which states that the "Datamatching" provisions of the fraud Bill breach the right to privacy contained in the European Convention on Human Rights."
      Liberty stated:
      "The opinion is by Richard Drabble QC and Dinah Rose who are experts in social security and the law of the European Convention on Human Rights and advise the government on such matters."
      A code of practice would help to prevent Ministers from breaching our international obligations under recommendation R(86)1 of the Council of Europe convention. Although the United Kingdom has opted out of the provisions of paragraphs 1.2, 3.3 and 5 of the recommendation, it has not derogated from paragraph 4.3, which states:
      "Personal data should not be communicated outside the framework of social security for other than social security purposes except with the informed consent of the person concerned or in accordance with other guarantees laid down by domestic law."

      833
      The importance of paragraph 4.3 is that, if other uses occur, guarantees must be laid down in domestic law.
      5.30 pm
      Clause 1 replaces section 122 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, and clause 1(4) shows that personal data can be lawfully supplied to other organisations. There is no statutory guarantee offering the protection that the recommendation proposes. A code of practice would supply such a guarantee.
      My second reason for supporting a code of practice is that the legislation has the potential to negate most of the Data Protection Act 1988. As the House knows, that has eight principles, and the Bill could negate all of them. I shall refer to a couple of those. The first principle states:
      "The information to be contained in personal data shall be obtained and personal data shall be processed, fairly and lawfully."
      Clause 1(4) makes lawful certain disclosures of detail from the Inland Revenue to the Department of Social Security and vice versa. Later clauses legalise disclosures to local authorities and vice versa. The Data Protection Registrar has no remit under the lawfulness arm of the first principle, as any processing with respect to the exchange of personal data is made lawful by the Bill. Similarly, the fairness arm of the principle, which requires a data subject to be notified of any non-obvious use and disclosure, is also negated. The new law, as represented by the Bill, overrides it.
      If the use or disclosure of personal data is required by law, it can be used or disclosed "in any event". The "fairly obtained or processed" provision is overridden, which means that any use or disclosure under the legislation can lawfully be kept secret and data subjects need not be informed of it. The fourth principle states:
      "Personal data held for any purpose or purposes shall be adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to that purpose or those purposes."
      As I said in Committee, any hon. Member who loses his job after the election—many Conservatives will lose theirs—and makes a social security claim can be data-matched for ever under the Bill. That is an excessive provision. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) said, clause 1 legitimises the disclosure of personal data, not just about offences relating to social security but
      "for use in checking the accuracy of information relating to benefits, contributions or national insurance numbers or to any other matter relating to social security and (where appropriate) amending or supplementing such information."
      That is a broad provision, and it makes a mockery of the principle that data should not be used excessively.
      The Government have the potential to negate all the data protection principles. In almost all other fields, if the Data Protection Registrar wishes to enforce compliance with the data protection principles, she serves an enforcement notice on data users in the knowledge that failure to comply with it is a criminal offence. However, under section 38(2) of the Data Protection Act, a Government Department cannot be prosecuted. If Departments cannot be prosecuted, enforcement notices cannot be enforced, and serving them is irrelevant. As a result, the Data Protection Registrar is impotent in terms of enforcing the principles.
      That is a worst case scenario, but, as we are dealing with fundamental privacy matters, we need to give the registrar an effective role in correcting abuses. There
      834
      should be a statutory code of practice which brings in the registrar, and it should relate to the data protection principles and privacy considerations. If the DSS decides to act in an underhand way, the registrar could make her views known to Parliament, and it could take account of her warnings. Such a code of practice should hold no fears for the DSS. However, we cannot leave the potential for gross neglect of the data protection principles by the DSS to chance, thereby trampling on the privacy rights of individuals. A statutory code of practice on privacy is necessary.
      Mr. Heald: My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) made an excellent point when he said that this country should be proud of the way in which the security of personal data has been protected for many years by Government Departments.
      There are stringent rules governing the way in which the Department records and uses such information. It is available only to officials on a "need-to-know" basis. There are random management checks to ensure that access has been properly authorised, and there is also audit trail analysis. Officials are conscious of the need to hold and process data securely, not least because, each time an official logs on to the system, he is reminded of the fact that every access must be authorised and that unauthorised use is a serious disciplinary offence. Some staff in the Department have been disciplined and some have been dismissed within the past year for breaches of the rules. However, there have been very few breaches, because there have been few instances of officials and staff not following the rules that we have laid down.
      All computer processing is registered under the Data Protection Act 1988, and officials are in regular contact with the Data Protection Registrar. Any unlawful disclosure of information is an offence and, occasionally, prosecutions are pursued. The Department's record on handling personal data by computer is exemplary in terms of security, confidentiality and conformity with data protection principles and other requirements of the Act.
      As the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) said, since July 1995 we have been data matching between different computer systems. That has been carried out by a small team of highly skilled officials working in secure conditions on a single site. Detailed criteria are set, any matched data must be relevant to the benefit, and discrepancy is investigated only where it raises a suspicion of fraud. In the Office of the Data Protection Registrar, the registrar is aware of that service and of the action that is taken to protect data.
      The same rigorous principles of confidentiality and security will be applied to the Bill: only relevant data will be supplied by the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise, and about emigration, immigration, nationality and prisoners; it will be held in secure conditions by a small number of specially appointed officials; and data that are consistent with data we already hold will not need to be further disclosed within the Department. Moreover, the Department's use of that data will be registered in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1988, and—once they come into force—with the requirements of the European Union data protection directive.
      Like all other data users, local authorities are bound by the requirements of the Act and other legislative requirements to ensure confidentiality and proper

      835
      handling of data. They, too, have a good compliance record. The Office of the Data Protection Registrar has produced guidance for local authorities—which is endorsed by both the DSS and local authority associations and issued to all local authorities—and it will be updated once the Bill receives Royal Assent.
      As drafted, new clause 2 presents the House with a very wide proposal. It would apply to all current processing performed by the Department of Social Security and range across other Departments—not only the DSS—and it would be unsystematic. It would also extend the operation of the Data Protection Act 1988. Any breach of a code of practice would be deemed to be a breach of the data protection principles, even if it were not. Moreover, the Data Protection Registrar's role would be greatly expanded, and she would have to review compliance with the code of practice. That would be unnecessary because, as I have explained, our policy is to co-operate with her. I think that she would agree with that. Her annual reports and those of her predecessors show that it is not the DSS but other data users that cause concern.
      Hon. Members may believe that the Data Protection Registrar should have a right to obtain information from any data user, but that is a general issue to which, no doubt, the House will return when it considers the Government's proposals for the implementation of the EU data protection directive.
      Mr. Alan Howarth: Will the Minister give way on that point?
      Mr. Heald: I think that I am about to deal with the point that the hon. Gentleman wishes to make. Perhaps I can go on, and we can then discover whether his question has been answered.
      Other concerns are specific to the new powers introduced by the Bill. We are in touch with the Data Protection Registrar on the use of personal data within the Department, and she has suggested to us some ideas on additional safeguards which could apply to data matching. Although the Government are unconvinced at the moment by the case for a code of practice—as it would not add any practical measures to safeguard personal data, and risks blurring the clear provisions of the Data Protection Act 1988 and the Secretary of State's accountability to the House for compliance with it—the Government will consider further the points made by hon. Members in this debate and, if she wishes, discuss them further with the Data Protection Registrar; that offer has been made.
      I do not doubt that similar concerns will be raised when the Bill is considered in another place, and there will undoubtedly be further opportunities for debate then. The Government are unconvinced of the case for a code of practice, but will reflect on the points made in this debate.
      I should also mention the point on Liberty's opinion. In framing the Bill, it was of course vital that the proposals complied with the provisions of the European convention on human rights. The issue would be tested only in the context of an individual case being pursued. However, when we were developing the proposals, we considered all the issues of lawfulness and prescribed the law in a very tight and careful manner. We believe that there is no question of there being any breach of our obligations.
      836
      I realise that hon. Members are as concerned as we are to protect the interests of individuals, and I can assure them that the Bill's provisions are not the thin end of any wedge.
      The powers we propose have been framed to allow relevant information to be provided by other Departments to the DSS, and the purposes for doing so have been explained clearly in the Bill. There is no question of curious civil servants being able to trawl through information to investigate friends and neighbours. There are very tight procedures for such activity, and clear measures for discipline and prosecution are available, should it occur. I do not think that it is necessary for me to say more on that issue, unless the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon would like to pursue it.
      Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to the Minister.
      Many administrative functions have of course now been contracted out to private sector organisations. I am not sure how confident he can be that the very strict rules, informal code and ethics—which he rightly says he insists on in the Department—will be observed by private sector agencies. As matters now stand, the Data Protection Registrar does not have a power to audit; she can only respond to complaints. Does the Minister really consider that sufficient, considering the scale of the operation?
      Mr. Heald: I think that the package of current safeguards, which I have outlined, are adequate. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Hedges report. It is worth remembering that one of its key findings was that the public want information to be sufficiently available for the efficient conduct of their own affairs, and for confidentiality not to act as a shield for serious wrongdoing. That is also the Government's view. Having outlined the Government's case on new clause 2, I hope that the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) will be prepared to withdraw the motion.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 258, Noes 300.

      Division No. 65]

      [5.45 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Boateng, Paul

      Ainger, Nick

      Bradley, Keith

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Allen, Graham

      Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Armstrong, Ms Hilary

      Burden, Richard

      Ashdown, Paddy

      Byers, Stephen

      Ashton, Joseph

      Caborn, Richard

      Austin-Walker, John

      Callaghan, Jim

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Barnes, Harry

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Barron, Kevin

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Battle, John

      Campbell-Savours, D N

      Bayley, Hugh

      Canavan, Dennis

      Beckett, Mrs Margaret

      Cann, Jamie

      Beggs, Roy

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Beith, A J

      Clapham, Michael

      Bell, Stuart

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Benn, Tony

      Clelland, David

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Berry, Roger

      Cohen, Harry

      Betts, Clive

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Blunkett, David

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      837

      Corbett, Robin

      Janner, Greville

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Jenkins, Brian D (SE Staffs)

      Cousins, Jim

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & D'side)

      Cox, Tom

      Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Cummings, John

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Jones, Dr L (B'ham Selly Oak)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try SE)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd SW)

      Cunningham, Dr John

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Dafis, Cynog

      Jowell, Ms Tessa

      Dalyell, Tam

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross C & S)

      Darling, Alistair

      Kennedy, Mrs Jane (Broadgreen)

      Davidson, Ian

      Khabra, Piara S

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Davies, Chris (Littleborough)

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Lewis, Terry

      Denham, John

      Liddell, Mrs Helen

      Dewar, Donald

      Litherland, Robert

      Dixon, Don

      Livingstone, Ken

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretf'd)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Loyden, Eddie

      Eastham, Ken

      McAllion, John

      Ennis, Jeff

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Etherington, Bill

      Macdonald, Calum

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      McFall, John

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      McKelvey, William

      Faulds, Andrew

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      McLeish, Henry

      Fisher, Mark

      McNamara, Kevin

      Flynn, Paul

      MacShane, Denis

      Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

      Madden, Max

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Maddock, Mrs Diana

      Foulkes, George

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Fraser, John

      Mandelson, Peter

      Fyfe, Mrs Maria

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Galbraith, Sam

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Galloway, George

      Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

      Gapes, Mike

      Martlew, Eric

      Garrett, John

      Maxton, John

      George, Bruce

      Meacher, Michael

      Gerrard, Neil

      Meale, Alan

      Gilbert, Dr John

      Michael, Alun

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Milburn, Alan

      Gordon, Ms Mildred

      Miller, Andrew

      Graham, Thomas

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Grocott, Bruce

      Morley, Elliot

      Gunnell, John

      Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Hain, Peter

      Morris, John (Aberavon)

      Hardy, Peter

      Mowlam, Ms Marjorie

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Mudie, George

      Henderson, Doug

      Mullin, Chris

      Heppell, John

      Murphy, Paul

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Oakes, Gordon

      Hinchliffe, David

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Home Robertson, John

      Olner, Bill

      Hood, Jimmy

      O'Neill, Martin

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Orme, Stanley

      Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)

      Pearson, Ian

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Pendry, Tom

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Pickthall, Colin

      Hoyle, Doug

      Pike, Peter L

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Pope, Greg

      Hughes, Robert (Ab'd'n N)

      Powell, Sir Raymond (Ogmore)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Prescott, John

      Hutton, John

      Primarolo, Ms Dawn

      Illsley, Eric

      Purchase, Ken

      Ingram, Adam

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)

      Radice, Giles

      Jamieson, David

      Randall, Stuart

      838

      Raynsford, Nick

      Straw, Jack

      Reid, Dr John

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Rendel, David

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      Thurnham, Peter

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Timms, Stephen

      Rogers, Allan

      Tipping, Paddy

      Rooker, Jeff

      Touhig, Don

      Rooney, Terry

      Trickett Jon

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Trimble, David

      Rowlands, Ted

      Turner, Dennis

      Ruddock, Ms Joan

      Tyler, Paul

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Vaz, Keith

      Sheerman, Barry

      Walker, Sir Harold

      Sheldon, Robert

      Wallace, James

      Shore, Peter

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Short, Clare

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Simpson, Alan

      Wareing, Robert N

      Skinner, Dennis

      Watson, Mike

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Smith, Chris (Islington S)

      Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Snape, Peter

      Winnick, David

      Soley, Clive

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Spearing, Nigel

      Wray, Jimmy

      Spellar, John

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Squire, Ms R (Dunfermline W)

      Steel, Sir David

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Mr. Joe Benton and

      Stevenson, George

      Mr. Eric Clarke.

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Carttiss, Michael

      Alexander, Richard

      Cash, William

      Alison, Michael (Selby)

      Channon, Paul

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Chapman, Sir Sydney

      Amess, David

      Clappison, James

      Arbuthnot, James

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochf'd)

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Ashby, David

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Colvin, Michael

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Congdon, David

      Baker, Kenneth (Mole V)

      Conway, Derek

      Baldry, Tony

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Cope, Sir John

      Bates, Michael

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Batiste, Spencer

      Couchman, James

      Bellingham, Henry

      Cran, James

      Bendall, Vivian

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Curry, David

      Biffen, John

      Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)

      Body, Sir Richard

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Day, Stephen

      Booth, Hartley

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Boswell, Tim

      Devlin, Tim

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Dicks, Terry

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Bowden, Sir Andrew

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Bowis, John

      Dover, Den

      Boyson, Sir Rhodes

      Duncan, Alan

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Brazier, Julian

      Dunn, Bob

      Bright, Sir Graham

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Brooke, Peter

      Dykes, Hugh

      Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)

      Eggar, Tim

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Elletson, Harold

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'ld)

      Burns, Simon

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Burt, Alistair

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)

      Butler, Peter

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Butterfill, John

      Evennett, David

      Carlisle, John (Luton N)

      Faber, David

      Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)

      Fabricant, Michael

      839

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Lamont, Norman

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Lang, Ian

      Forman, Nigel

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Legg, Barry

      Forth, Eric

      Leigh, Edward

      Fowler, Sir Norman

      Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Lidington, David

      Freeman, Roger

      Lilley, Peter

      French, Douglas

      Lloyd, Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Fry, Sir Peter

      Lord, Michael

      Gale, Roger

      Luff, Peter

      Gallie, Phil

      Lyell, Sir Nicholas

      Gardiner, Sir George

      MacGregor, John

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      MacKay, Andrew

      Garnier, Edward

      Maclean, David

      Gill, Christopher

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Madel, Sir David

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Malone, Gerald

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Marland, Paul

      Gorst, Sir John

      Marlow, Tony

      Grant, Sir Anthony (SW Cambs)

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Mates, Michael

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Mellor, David

      Gummer, John

      Merchant, Piers

      Hague, William

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Hamilton, Sir Archibald

      Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Hannam, Sir John

      Needham, Richard

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Nelson, Anthony

      Harris, David

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Haselhurst, Sir Alan

      Newton, Tony

      Hawkins, Nick

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Hawksley, Warren

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Hayes, Jerry

      Norris, Steve

      Heald, Oliver

      Onslow, Sir Cranley

      Heath, Sir Edward

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Ottaway, Richard

      Hendry, Charles

      Page, Richard

      Hicks, Sir Robert

      Paice, James

      Higgins, Sir Terence

      Patnick, Sir Irvine

      Hogg, Douglas (Grantham)

      Patten, John

      Horam, John

      Pattie, Sir Geoffrey

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Pawsey, James

      Howard, Michael

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Howell, David (Guildf'd)

      Pickles, Eric

      Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Porter, David

      Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

      Portillo, Michael

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensb'ne)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Hunter, Andrew

      Redwood, John

      Hurd, Douglas

      Renton, Tim

      Jack, Michael

      Richards, Rod

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Riddick, Graham

      Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Jessel, Toby

      Robathan, Andrew

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Roberts, Sir Wyn

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

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

      Jones, Robert B (W Herts)

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Jopling, Michael

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Rowe, Andrew

      Key, Robert

      Rumbold, Dame Angela

      King, Tom

      Ryder, Richard

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Sackville, Tom

      Knapman, Roger

      Sainsbury, Sir Timothy

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Scott, Sir Nicholas

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Knox, Sir David

      Shephard, Mrs Gillian

      Kynoch, George

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      840

      Shersby, Sir Michael

      Townsend, Sir Cyril (Bexl'yh'th)

      Sims, Sir Roger

      Tracey, Richard

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Tredinnick, David

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Trend, Michael

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsf'ld)

      Trotter, Neville

      Soames, Nicholas

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Waldegrave, William

      Spicer, Sir Jim (W Dorset)

      Walden, George

      Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Waller, Gary

      Spring, Richard

      Ward, John

      Sproat, Iain

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Waterson, Nigel

      Stanley, Sir John

      Watts, John

      Steen, Anthony

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Stern, Michael

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Stewart, Allan

      Whittingdale, John

      Streeter, Gary

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Sumberg, David

      Wilkinson, John

      Sweeney, Walter

      Willetts, David

      Sykes, John

      Wilshire, David

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesf'ld)

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Wood, Timothy

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Yeo, Tim

      Thomason, Roy

      Young, Sir George

      Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Mr. Bowen Wells and

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Mr. Sebastian Coe.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New clause 3

      SUPPLY OF INFORMATION AND IDENTIFICATION OF ENTITLEMENT TO BENEFIT
      '. Regulations made under this section may prescribe circumstances in which—

      (a) information held by any authority under any provisions of this Act, or any other Act amended by this Act, may be used to identify persons who are entitled to receive benefit, for the purposes of determining that entitlement; and

      (b) information supplied under the provisions of this Act or any other Act amended by this Act for the purposes of ascertaining benefit entitlement may be used by an authority or by the Secretary of State for the purposes of verifying another benefit claim.

      (2) Regulations under this section shall be by statutory instrument, which shall be laid before Parliament in draft and which shall be subject to approval by resolution of each House before being made.'.—[Mr. Denham.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      6 pm
      Mr. John Denham: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The new clause reflects the clear principles that Labour consistently advocated in Committee: we must be tough on fraud, tough on cheats and tough on crooked landlords, not only because fraud and theft are wrong, but because each pound taken away in fraud could have been used to help those who are entitled. The welfare system should deliver help only to those who need it, but we must ensure that it does indeed deliver that help.
      Some of the powers in the Bill to tackle benefit fraud could also be used to help to identify and encourage claims from and payments to those who are entitled. The

      841
      Bill rightly contains far-reaching powers, but Labour Members have difficulty understanding the Government's objections to using similar techniques to help people to receive the benefits to which they are entitled. The new clause would do that. It would make clear the ability to pass information from one Department to another and between Departments and local authorities, to help to identify people who have an entitlement to benefit.
      Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating my local newspaper, the Cambridge Evening News, on its benefits take-up campaign? Its front-page story on 27 January featured Mr. and Mrs. Gibson, who were able to claim several thousand pounds of entitlement that they had not known about.
      Mr. Denham: I have no hesitation in applauding that initiative in Cambridge and those in many other areas. My local authority's benefits take-up week was responsible for identifying a further £80,000 of unclaimed benefit. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that there is a sharp contrast between such local initiatives and the Government's record.
      The new clause would make clear the ability of Departments and local authorities to share information to help to identify people with an entitlement to benefit and, under carefully controlled circumstances set by the Secretary of State, would make some claims for benefit simpler by specifying that information accepted as valid by one agency, perhaps a local authority housing benefit department, could be accepted as valid by, for example, the Benefits Agency, for another benefit.
      It is an historical accident that the welfare system is divided into so many units that do not communicate with one another. If history had been different, this debate might not have been necessary. A seamless, unified benefits system could have been created, capable of delivering a person's entire entitlement in one exercise. We do not have such a system, but there is a case for identifying circumstances in which that would be a desirable way forward. The new clause would help with that.
      We should be clear about the problems that need to be tackled. One million pensioners do not receive the income support to which they are entitled—that figure represents a sharp rise on the previous estimate of 700,000—and go without an average of £14 a week, not for one or two weeks or for one or two months, but year in, year out. They remain in poverty because of their lack of income. We are talking not about missing out for a few weeks, as someone on another benefit might, but about permanent poverty.
      The Government have not bothered to find out who those pensioners are, but we can make an informed guess that they are like other poorer pensioners: they are old, they are alone, they are women and they are widows. We should not ignore their plight. We know that, if they do not get income support, they will not get cold weather payments. One million pensioners in Britain lose out on that entitlement and on the reassurance of help with heating bills. We know what happens: high fuel bills mean that many pensioners do not turn up their heating during periods of intense cold, such as the weather that we had in December and January.
      Mr. Heald: Who brought in the cold weather payments system?
      Mr. Denham: The 1 million pensioners do not benefit from a system that does not work. There were 127 separate events triggering cold weather payments during December and January, but those pensioners did not benefit. This country carries the shame of an extra 30,000 to 50,000 deaths a year because of the cold, but the Government's response is confused, uncaring, ineffective and increasingly mean. What do the Government say when faced with evidence that their income support system is failing 40 per cent. of the people whom it is meant to reach? The Secretary of State said in his Politeia lecture last year:
      "Our policies promise security to the least well-off pensioners."
      They do not—not when they fail 40 per cent. of the poorest pensioners. The Secretary of State says that people do not claim because they choose not to. If that is true, why did the number of people not claiming increase by 300,000 in one year?
      The Under-Secretary is more direct. He told the Standing Committee considering the Bill:
      "we do not know why certain pensioners do not take up income support".—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 5 December 1996; c. 44.]
      That was honest, but the Government should know. They say that they want people to claim. The Minister told the Committee:
      "We all accept that it is important that pensioners who are entitled to income support should be given every encouragement and all the information that they need to claim it."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 5 December 1996; c. 62.]
      The system is failing 40 per cent. of those entitled, and Government spending on publicity is being reduced.
      The Government seem content to see the poorest pensioners in poverty and happy to go on creating the stigma that deters claimants. I do not believe that the problem is simply one of people choosing not to claim. I believe that the stigma puts people off, because income support is seen as charity, not as a right that goes a small way towards returning some of the taxes and national insurance paid over the years.
      The forms are complex, and people are worried about misclaiming inadvertently and being labelled scroungers, or worse. Elderly people are often proud, and have every reason to be, but that does not mean that we should not ensure that they are offered what they are entitled to in the most acceptable and easiest form.
      I commend the role played by Age Concern, Help the Aged and many local councils and voluntary agencies in raising awareness about benefits. They have shown that, with the right approach, information and help, people will claim; but still income support is failing 40 per cent. of the poorest pensioners.
      A different approach is possible. Labour Members have said that we want to move towards a pension entitlement that is simpler to claim, with more access points and presented without the stigma of income support. One valuable tool to help to identify potential beneficiaries would be finding ways of using information that people have already freely given. The new clause would make that possible.
      It is often assumed that pensioners who do not claim income support are outside the system, and that no one knows about them or has any idea who they are. That is not true. A considerable number of those missing out on

      843
      benefits are receiving other benefits, or are in contact with other agencies, such as the local authority social services department.
      Entitlement could be established at a wide variety of predictable trigger points: retirement age; reaching 75 years; reaching 80 years; a spouse going into care or into hospital; care assessment for domiciliary care; a move to sheltered housing; a claim for attendance allowance; a claim for disability living allowance; becoming registered as blind; the death of a spouse; or making an application for housing or council tax benefits. Those trigger points could be brought together to identify and encourage take-up.
      The new clause would allow the development of some parts of such a system. For example, it would allow the passing of information from the Contributions Agency to local authorities and between agencies and the Benefits Agency. It would allow the Secretary of State to set out the circumstances in which that could happen. There are good reasons for that approach, including the proper protection of privacy and the proper protection of public finances. However, it is clear that more could be done for pensioners who claim some benefits but not others.
      Under the new clause, people who receive council tax benefit, for example, could have their entitlement to income support identified. They would be offered the chance to claim, and payment would be made on the simplest possible basis.
      According to what the Minister said in Committee, fewer than half the local authorities are in a position to tell pensioners about possible entitlement to income support. Notification is likely to be vague and unspecific, and the individual will still have to comply with a lengthy claims procedure, possibly duplicating the procedure for claiming council tax or housing benefit.
      The first part of the new clause would enable local authorities to identify a potential claimant and calculate the value of the claim, in many cases using existing information. Only a little additional information might be required. The local authority could follow up the claim or pass it to the Benefits Agency.
      The second part of the new clause would allow the information verification procedures adopted by one benefit-paying body to be accepted for benefit payment, under circumstances set out by the Secretary of State. That would avoid the need for the same information to be assessed by two separate bodies for the same purpose—paying benefit. In practice, that might require a system of local service agreements between the Benefits Agency and the local authority about the information required to calculate benefit.
      Under the new clause, people eligible for one benefit—a pensioner receiving council tax benefit, for example—could have their entitlement to another benefit, such as income support, calculated. They could then be offered payment, which would be triggered simply by their saying yes, which would obviate the need for a further claim.
      The new clause would go a significant way towards assisting the poorest pensioners who are missing out on their entitlement.
      Mr. Robert G. Hughes: New clause 3 has at its heart a simple proposal that sounds attractive. It was mentioned
      844
      by the hon. Members for Peckham (Ms Harman) and for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) on Second Reading. It sounds simple: there would seem to be no reason why the method used to catch people who seek to defraud the system should not be used in the other direction.
      There is an overlap between this debate and the previous one. We should consider what the new clause would mean in practice rather than take it at face value. In practice, it would invade people's privacy in quite some detail.
      Some people may not want to claim benefit, although I accept that some people may be unaware of their entitlement. That is why the Government continue to run a succession of benefit take-up campaigns, some of which have been very successful. Some people, however, might resent the idea that the state was looking at all the details of their private lives and had decided to inform them that they might be entitled to benefit and that they should make a claim; they would resent that intrusion into their private lives.
      Mrs. Anne Campbell: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has discussed his concerns with the Data Protection Registrar. It appears from my conversations with her that she would insist on certain safeguards, but she is happy with the principle of data matching for such benign purposes.
      Mr. Hughes: That is extremely good of the Data Protection Registrar. Funnily enough, however, I was not referring to her. Although she may consider it perfectly right to do so under the regulations, she cannot possibly speak on behalf of pensioners and other potential claimants. The hon. Lady has raised an irrelevant point.
      As my hon. Friend the Minister said at the end of the debate on Second Reading—although I missed the first few seconds of the speech by the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), I do not think that he addressed this point—some people would be identified as potential claimants, but would not be entitled to benefit.
      Mr. Paul Flynn: I am stunned by the hon. Gentleman's line of argument. Can he provide examples of elderly people—or anyone on a tiny disposable income, living in real poverty—having objected because the Government had tried to force money on them?
      Mr. Hughes: I am sure that some people would not object, but others might. Some elderly people are very proud and might object to the state taking an overview of their lives.
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Heald: Does my hon. Friend agree that one category that includes substantial numbers consists of people who live with their families, are supported by them and choose not to claim benefit?
      Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I do not wish to delay the House long, but there are two points to be made about the new clause. First, many pensioners would find its provisions grossly intrusive into their private lives; secondly, the information gleaned might be inaccurate and some people would be informed that they

      845
      were entitled to further benefit when that was not the case. Unless those points can be answered, new clause 3 should not be added to the Bill. I shall certainly oppose it.
      Mr. Chris Davies: In supporting new clause 3, I should like to take up what I understand to be the Government's argument in opposing it, which is simply that it would be impractical and would not achieve their objective. If that is the case—and some Opposition Members believe that the Government's objective is not to increase public expenditure, even to help the most needy in society—why does the Minister not simply look at the wording of the new clause? It is well intentioned, relatively harmless and unlikely to cause any problems if the Minister were to accept it. The possible benefit to be gained is that more than a million pensioners might have the opportunity to secure some of the money to which the House believes them to be entitled.
      I ask the Minister to reject the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) that pensioners are reluctant to accept what is rightfully theirs, and I ask him to recognise that, although the new clause may be flawed and technically it may not be possible to implement it at present, perhaps in a few months or years there may be some advantage to be gained. Even if the advantages are minimal, at least by accepting the new clause the Minister will have swept away the criticisms of Opposition Members who suspect that he may have ulterior motives.
      Mr. Heald: The hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Davies) has made some interesting comments. It is an odd principle that we should simply take a punt on the new clause, whether or not it works. We heard a detailed account of the Opposition's approach from the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), but my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) really hit the nail on the head when he addressed many of the difficulties in that approach.
      New clause 3 attempts to enable benefit entitlements to be identified, assessed and checked without the involvement of the individual concerned, using information already held or gathered under the provisions of the Bill. Unfortunately, it would not work, and it would take us no further forward. In fact, it would do little more than raise people's hopes when they are not entitled to benefit.
      I explained in Committee the measures that are in place to make the public aware of the benefits that are available. Everyone has the choice whether or not to claim benefit; the important point is that help is there for those who need it. Assessment of entitlement to benefit is a complex procedure and not something that can be achieved without having all the relevant information available; yet by proposing that entitlement should be determined using just the information already held, that is exactly what the new clause would result in.
      In respect of information in Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise records, data matching would be ineffective from a benefit take-up perspective. The Inland Revenue holds information only about taxpayers and those claiming repayments of tax; it does not hold information about non-taxable income counted for benefit purposes such as income from premium bonds, tax-
      846
      exempt special savings accounts and national savings certificates or earnings from part-time employment. Similarly, Customs and Excise holds information relating only to people and businesses registered for VAT, but not those with turnovers below the VAT threshold. Other details, such as information about non-dependants and other household members, are also relevant for benefit entitlement purposes but cannot be obtained from the Inland Revenue, Customs and Excise or any Government Department.
      Mrs. Anne Campbell rose—
      Mr. Heald: That brings me to the subject of local government, about which the hon. Lady may wish to ask me.
      Our guidance to local authorities encourages them to take action to make all claimants who appear to have a potential entitlement to income support aware that help may be available to them from the Benefits Agency. Many local authorities have software available to automate that. With regard to income support records, a service level agreement between the Benefits Agency and local authorities allows for information to be exchanged, and that will continue. Income support claim forms contain a form inviting the income support claimant to claim housing benefit and/or council tax benefit.
      Mrs. Campbell: Does the Minister agree that many pensioners who claim council tax benefit are entitled to income support but do not claim it even though they have been told by their local authority that they may be entitled to it? His proposals do not deal with that. That is precisely what my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) is trying to overcome.
      Mr. Heald: I recognise the hon. Lady's concern, but the difficulty is that, although it is quite right to make all pensioners and individuals who are entitled to benefit aware of their entitlements—and such help is quite properly available—it is for the individual to decide whether they wish to claim benefit.
      The Government's view is that to undertake a means-testing exercise behind people's backs and without their permission, which would also not be accurate, is the wrong way forward. Making pensioners aware, through information made available by the Government through leafleting, sending information to various information points, visiting pensioner groups and co-ordinating the sort of pensioner awareness campaign that has recently been running in conjunction with Help the Aged and other elderly people's groups is the better way forward.
      With regard to income support rules, if the income support claimant does not indicate that he or she wishes to claim housing benefit or council tax benefit and does not complete the claim form that we issue, I do not believe that it is right for him or her to be pursued or for us to insist that they make a claim. This is a free country, as the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) said in a different context, and we must accept that there may be reasons why individuals genuinely do not want to claim.
      Mr. Flynn: What reasons?
      Mr. Heald: I think that I gave an example earlier.
      Mr. Flynn: It is ludicrous to say—and no evidence of it has been given—that pensioners are not claiming benefits because they do not want the money. It would be extraordinary if that were so. We know that the reason is that they are ignorant of available allowances. The awareness campaign would impress us a great deal more if the Government had not recently made cuts in the telephone hotline service—the main service that told people what was available.
      Mr. Heald: I totally disagree with the hon. Gentleman about the purpose of closing the general advice line. It was closed because numerous people were ringing to ask about their personal circumstances and were having to be told that they would have to get in touch with their local office if they wanted anything to be done. We are localising the service. Why bother having an intermediate step when individuals can ring their local office where trained staff are able to answer their inquiries? The hon. Gentleman says that we all know that individuals do not claim because they do not know about the rules, but we do not know that that is so. What we know is that a significant number of people do not claim, and I believe that there may be a variety of reasons for that.
      The Government believe that it is a better use of resources to ensure that information about benefit entitlement is freely available in the public domain, and that is what we do. The Department and its agencies take extensive action to publicise the wide range of benefits that are available. It is a clear measure of success that in 1994–95—the most recent year recorded—£9 out of every £10 of available benefit was claimed.
      The state retirement pension order book contains notes explaining details of other benefits, including income support and housing benefit. People whose benefits are paid directly into their bank or building society by automated credit transfer receive annual copies of the notes. Information about social security benefits and the conditions of entitlement to them is widely available to the public from Benefits Agency offices, local authorities, welfare rights organisations and other places such as doctors' surgeries. In addition, leaflets explaining benefit rules are available in post offices and libraries throughout the country.
      There will always be some people who choose not to claim. That is their right. For those who wish to claim, information and advice about benefits to which they might be entitled is readily available. In those circumstances, I ask the House to reject the new clause.
      Mr. Denham: The Minister has failed to rise to the scale of the problem: 1 million pensioners—one in 10 of all pensioners, and the poorest pensioners in this country—are going without the benefit to which they are entitled; 40 per cent. of people who are meant to be helped by income support are not receiving it; and the number of pensioners who chose not to claim in one year increased by 300,000.
      The Minister says that that is simply because people do not want to receive assistance—a contention for which he has put forward no evidence whatever. If the Government were genuinely concerned about the problem, the very
      848
      least that they would have done would be to conduct some research to try to justify their claim. In the absence of such a claim, I prefer to believe that, although some people may not want to claim, the great majority do not do so because of the stigma, the complexity and the difficulty of understanding the system and making a claim.
      Every one of the objections that Conservative Members have raised can be dealt with. If the Secretary of State were convinced that there would be serious objections—albeit from a minority of pensioners—to information that was freely given for one benefit being assessed for another, there is no reason why, under new clause 3, the Secretary of State could not simply include on the claim forms a box to enable people to refuse to allow information to be used for any other purpose. I suspect, however, that very few people would exercise that option. That point entirely meets the objection raised by the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes).
      The second objection raised was that information would not be accurate. Anybody who knows the structure of the benefits system is aware that information that has been accepted as accurate for, say, housing benefit or council tax benefit is precisely the same information that is needed to calculate income support. Either the Minister and the hon. Member for Harrow, West are suggesting that there is something fundamentally wrong with the information being used for the payment of benefits, or that objection, too, is a red herring.
      Fundamental to the issue is the difference in message that would go out if it appeared that the system worked to the benefit of the individual who needed assistance. It should be made clear that such help is not charity or a state handout, but an entitlement, and every part of the system should make every effort to ensure that those who need support receive it because the support received has been paid for many times over during people's working lives. At present, the Government seem prepared to allow an entire set of wholly unnecessary obstacles to lie in the path of an efficient and effective system. For those reasons, I hope that the House will support new clause 3.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 245, Noes 297.

      Division No. 66]

      [6.29 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Benton, Joe

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Ainger, Nick

      Berry, Roger

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cav'try NE)

      Blunkett, David

      Allen, Graham

      Boateng, Paul

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Bradley, Keith

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Armstrong, Ms Hilary

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Ashdown, Paddy

      Burden, Richard

      Ashton, Joseph

      Byers, Stephen

      Austin-Walker, John

      Caborn, Richard

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Callaghan, Jim

      Barnes, Harry

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Barron, Kevin

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Battle, John

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Campbell-Savours, D N

      Beckett, Mrs Margaret

      Caravan, Dennis

      Beith, A J

      Cann, Jamie

      Bell, Stuart

      Chidgey, David

      Benn, Tony

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Clapham, Michael

      849

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Hutton, John

      Clelland, David

      Illsley, Eric

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Ingram, Adam

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)

      Cohen, Harry

      Jamieson, David

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Janner, Greville

      Corbett, Robin

      Jenkins, Brian D (SE Staffs)

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & D'side)

      Cousins, Jim

      Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Cox, Tom

      Jones, Dr L (B'ham Selly Oak)

      Cummings, John

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd SW)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try SE)

      Jowell, Ms Tessa

      Dafis, Cynog

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross C & S)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Kennedy, Mrs Jane (Broadgreen)

      Darling, Alistair

      Khabra, Piara S

      Davidson, Ian

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C)

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Davies, Chris (Littleborough)

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

      Lewis, Terry

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Liddell, Mrs Helen

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Litherland, Robert

      Denham, John

      Livingstone, Ken

      Dewar, Donald

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretf'd)

      Dixon, Don

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Loyden, Eddie

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      McAllion, John

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Eastham, Ken

      Macdonald, Calum

      Ennis, Jeff

      McFall, John

      Etherington, Bill

      McKelvey, William

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      McLeish, Henry

      Faulds, Andrew

      McNamara, Kevin

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      MacShane, Denis

      Fisher, Mark

      Madden, Max

      Flynn, Paul

      Maddock, Mrs Diana

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Foulkes, George

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Fraser, John

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Fyfe, Mrs Maria

      Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

      Galbraith, Sam

      Martlew, Eric

      Galloway, George

      Maxton, John

      Gapes, Mike

      Meacher, Michael

      Garrett, John

      Meale, Alan

      George, Bruce

      Michael, Alun

      Gerrard, Neil

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Gilbert, Dr John

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Milburn, Alan

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Miller, Andrew

      Gordon, Ms Mildred

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Graham, Thomas

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Morley, Elliot

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Morris, John (Aberavon)

      Gunnell, John

      Mowlam, Ms Marjorie

      Hardy, Peter

      Mudie, George

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Mullin, Chris

      Henderson, Doug

      Murphy, Paul

      Heppell, John

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Hinchliffe, David

      O'Hara, Edward

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Olner, Bill

      Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Home Robertson, John

      Orme, Stanley

      Hood, Jimmy

      Pearson, Ian

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Pendry, Tom

      Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Pike, Peter L

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Hoyle, Doug

      Prescott, John

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Primarolo, Ms Dawn

      Hughes, Robert (Ab'd'n N)

      Purchase, Ken

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Randall, Stuart

      850

      Raynsford, Nick

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Reid, Dr John

      Stevenson, George

      Rendel, David

      Straw, Jack

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Rogers, Allan

      Thurnham, Peter

      Rooker, Jeff

      Timms, Stephen

      Rooney, Terry

      Tipping, Paddy

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Touhig, Don

      Rowlands, Ted

      Trickett, Jon

      Ruddock, Ms Joan

      Turner, Dennis

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Vaz, Keith

      Sheerman, Barry

      Walker, Sir Harold

      Sheldon, Robert

      Wallace, James

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Shore, Peter

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Short, Clare

      Watson, Mike

      Simpson, Alan

      Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Winnick, David

      Smith, Chris (Islington S)

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Wray, Jimmy

      Snape, Peter

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Soley, Clive

      Spearing, Nigel

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Spellar, John

      Mr. Jon Owen Jones and

      Steel, Sir David

      Mr. Clive Betts.

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Cash, William

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Channon, Paul

      Alexander, Richard

      Chapman, Sir Sydney

      Alison, Michael (Selby)

      Clappison, James

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochf'd)

      Amess, David

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Arbuthnot, James

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Colvin, Michael

      Ashby, David

      Congdon, David

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Conway, Derek

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)

      Baker, Kenneth (Mole V)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Baldry, Tony

      Cope, Sir John

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Couchman, James

      Bates, Michael

      Cran, James

      Batiste, Spencer

      Curry, David

      Beggs, Roy

      Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Bendall, Vivian

      Day, Stephen

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Biffen, John

      Devlin, Tim

      Body, Sir Richard

      Dicks, Terry

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Booth, Hartley

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Boswell, Tim

      Dover, Den

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Duncan, Alan

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Bowden, Sir Andrew

      Dunn, Bob

      Bowis, John

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Boyson, Sir Rhodes

      Dykes, Hugh

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Eggar, Tim

      Brazier, Julian

      Elletson, Harold

      Bright, Sir Graham

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Brooke, Peter

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'ld)

      Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Evennett, David

      Burns, Simon

      Faber, David

      Burt, Alistair

      Fabricant, Michael

      Butler, Peter

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Butterfill, John

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Carlisle, John (Luton N)

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Carrington, Matthew

      Forman, Nigel

      Carttiss, Michael

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      851

      Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

      Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

      Forth, Eric

      Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)

      Fowler, Sir Norman

      Lidington, David

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Lilley, Peter

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Lloyd, Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Freeman, Roger

      Lord, Michael

      French, Douglas

      Luff, Peter

      Fry, Sir Peter

      Lyell, Sir Nicholas

      Gale, Roger

      MacGregor, John

      Gallie, Phil

      MacKay, Andrew

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Maclean, David

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Garnier, Edward

      Madel, Sir David

      Gill, Christopher

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Malone, Gerald

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Mans, Keith

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Marland, Paul

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Marlow, Tony

      Gorst Sir John

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Grant, Sir Anthony (SW Cambs)

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Mates, Michael

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Mellor, David

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Merchant, Piers

      Gummer, John

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Hague, William

      Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

      Hamilton, Sir Archibald

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Needham, Richard

      Hannam, Sir John

      Nelson, Anthony

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Harris, David

      Newton, Tony

      Haselhurst Sir Alan

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Hawkins, Nick

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Hawksley, Warren

      Norris, Steve

      Hayes, Jerry

      Onslow, Sir Cranley

      Heald, Oliver

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Heath, Sir Edward

      Ottaway, Richard

      Hendry, Charles

      Page, Richard

      Hicks, Sir Robert

      Paice, James

      Higgins, Sir Terence

      Patnick, Sir Irvine

      Hogg, Douglas (Grantham)

      Patten, John

      Horam, John

      Pattie, Sir Geoffrey

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Pawsey, James

      Howard, Michael

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Howell, David (Guildf'd)

      Pickles, Eric

      Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

      Porter, David

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensb'ne)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Hunter, Andrew

      Redwood, John

      Hurd, Douglas

      Renton, Tim

      Jack, Michael

      Richards, Rod

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Riddick, Graham

      Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Jessel, Toby

      Roberts, Sir Wyn

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

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

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Jones, Robert B (W Herts)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Jopling, Michael

      Rowe, Andrew

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Rumbold, Dame Angela

      Key, Robert

      Ryder, Richard

      King, Tom

      Sackville, Tom

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Sainsbury, Sir Timothy

      Knapman, Roger

      Scott, Sir Nicholas

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Shephard, Mrs Gillian

      Knox, Sir David

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Kynoch, George

      Shersby, Sir Michael

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Sims, Sir Roger

      Lamont, Norman

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Lang, Ian

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsf'ld)

      Legg, Barry

      Soames, Nicholas

      Leigh, Edward

      Speed, Sir Keith

      852

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Trimble, David

      Spicer, Sir Jim (W Dorset)

      Trotter, Neville

      Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Spring, Richard

      Waldegrave, William

      Sproat, Iain

      Walden, George

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Stanley, Sir John

      Waller, Gary

      Stern, Michael

      Ward, John

      Stewart, Allan

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Streeter, Gary

      Waterson, Nigel

      Sumberg, David

      Watts, John

      Sweeney, Walter

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Whittingdale, John

      Sykes, John

      Widdecombe, Miss Ann

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Wilkinson, John

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Willetts, David

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Wilshire, David

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Thomason, Roy

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesf'ld)

      Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Wood, Timothy

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Yeo, Tim

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Young, Sir George

      Townsend, Sir Cyril (Bexl'yh'th)

      Tracey, Richard

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Tredinnick, David

      Mr. Bowen Wells and

      Trend, Michael

      Mr. Sebastian Coe.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 8

      DIRECTIONS BY SECRETARY OF STATE
      Amendments made: No. 1, in page 14, line 24, after 'Act;' insert—
      '(bb) a copy of a report relating to the administration of benefit has been sent to a local authority under section 102(2) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 and to the Secretary of State and section 103(1) of that Act has been complied with;'.
      No. 2, in page 14, line 26, leave out 'that Act' and insert
      'the Local Government Finance Act 1982'.
      No. 3, in page 14, line 46, leave out 'achieve' and insert 'attain'.—[Mr. Heald.]

    Clause 11
      INFORMATION FROM LANDLORDS AND AGENTS
      Amendment made: No. 4, in page 18, line 28, after '(1)' insert 'Regulations shall provide that'.—[Mr. Heald.]
    Clause 13

      OFFENCE OF DISHONEST REPRESENTATION FOR OBTAINING BENEFIT
      Amendments made: No. 5, in page 21, leave out line 46.
      No. 6, in page 22, line 1, leave out from 'notify' to 'to' in line 3 and insert—
      'a change of circumstances which regulations under this Act require him to notify; or
      (d) causes or allows another person to fail to notify a change of circumstances which such regulations require the other person'.—[Mr. Heald.]

    Clause 14

      EXTENSION OF OFFENCE OF FALSE REPRESENTATION FOR OBTAINING BENEFIT
      Amendment made: No. 7, in page 22, line 26, leave out from 'notify' to 'he' in line 30 and insert—
      'a change of circumstances which regulations under this Act require him to notify; or
      (b) knowingly causes or knowingly allows another person to fail to notify a change of circumstances which such regulations require the other person to notify,
      and he knows that he, or the other person, is required to notify the change of circumstances,'.—[Mr. Heald.]
      Order for Third Reading read.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Knapman.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): I call Mr. McLeish.
      Mr. McLeish: I think that there are two other Opposition contributions to be made before I speak, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      6.43 pm
      Mr. Clifford Forsythe: I have no wish to detain the House, but I would like to make a few comments. I welcome the Bill again, as I welcomed it on Second Reading, and I support its implementation. However, I am very disappointed that new clause 2, covering the code of practice on privacy, was not accepted, because of the implications for Northern Ireland.
      I am sorry that the Minister felt that he had not enough time to take an intervention, because that part of the Bill is most important to Northern Ireland and the security situation there. I wish to put on record the fact that the implementation of the Bill will go through the House by negative resolution, by Order in Council, so, unfortunately, we shall not have the opportunity to discuss the impact of those aspects on Northern Ireland.
      I am unhappy that it was not found possible to include Northern Ireland on the face of the Bill, so that such matters could have been fully discussed and investigated in the context of the legislation. I am the social security spokesman for my party, yet I have found great difficulty in getting information about the system for dealing with social security fraud in Northern Ireland. I am unhappy about that, too.
      Until we see the order, which cannot be debated but will go through the House by negative resolution, I shall not know how the system will work. I have not had an explanation. I do not know whether the provisions will be implemented by the Department or by the Benefits Agency, and I do not know how the Housing Executive will fit into the whole scheme.
      The fraud situation in Northern Ireland is unique, because we have the only land frontier in the United Kingdom. That in itself creates problems. Other aspects of the situation in Northern Ireland mean that, in some areas, it will not be possible to implement all of what is in the Bill.
      It is unfortunate that the implementation of the Bill's provisions in Northern Ireland will go through the House by negative resolution, because there will be no debate,
      854
      and we shall not be able to consider the details of how things will be done, or whether we should change anything. That is a great tragedy for democracy in this great House.
      That is why I wanted to make a final contribution on the Bill. Those who organise such things—the usual channels—may consider such matters a suitable subject to be brought before the Northern Ireland Grand Committee before the order appears. I have given the Bill a warm welcome, but I am unhappy and uneasy about the way in which its provisions will be implemented in my part of the United Kingdom.
      6.47 pm
      Mr. Chris Davies: On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne), the Liberal Democrat social security spokesman, gave the Bill a cautious welcome. She expressed some reservations about details, but said that, overall, it was necessary and welcome. At this late stage in the process, I echo those sentiments.
      Of course there are faults in the welfare system as a whole. The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), perhaps better than anyone else, has pointed out the way in which the welfare system traps people in dependency, and all too often prevents them from rising out of it.
      None the less, unless other widespread changes are made, the Bill is still essential in its present form. It makes no difference what party is in power; it is the task of the Government of the day to ensure that fraud is stamped out, because there can be no place in our system for cheats—for people who rob the taxpayer. They create a climate of hostility among the public, and that leads to political pressures being applied, which ultimately mean that those in the greatest need are denied some of the help that is really necessary.
      6.49 pm
      Mr. McLeish: It is a pity that the Government have seen their anti-fraud strategy start to unravel during our final discussion on the Bill. The whole House is tough on fraud, and there is no point in trying to defend individuals or landlords—or organisations of both—who try to defraud the taxpayer. In doing so, they create a climate in which many people are accused of scrounging. That is a travesty, and that is why we must continue to be tough on fraud. Certainly the next Labour Government will continue to be tough on fraud.
      We could have gone further, of course, and the Government failed three tests. First, we asked the Government to consider introducing a register—or a code of conduct or practice—to ensure that civil liberties are protected as the Government embark on a wide-ranging extension of data matching within both local and central Government. But the Government could not bring themselves to accept our new clause, and I am still dismayed by that.
      The second test concerned the question of the specific landlords offence. In Committee, we heard that the Bill would deal with claimants and landlords who indulge in fraud, but that is simply not good enough. It is quite clear that, in view of the scale of the fraud in which landlords are involved and the volume of taxpayers' money being defrauded, we need a specific offence of landlord fraud. That would have sent a powerful message from this House

      855
      that landlord cheats would be identified and dealt with in the toughest way possible. The Government failed that test, also.
      The third test was the opportunity to use a Bill aimed at improving the administration of social security to tackle the problem of people who are entitled to benefits but do not take them up. If it was not so serious, the response of the Government to the matter would be laughable. They said that an attempt by the state to help people to get the benefits to which they are entitled would be invading the privacy of individuals. "Ludicrous" does not start to sum up that response.
      We then heard that those people did not want to claim benefits, but we should put that to the test. I believe that many of them would want to claim. We also heard that they would resent the state forcing them to take up their entitlements. This is Third Reading—the conclusion of our discussions on the Bill. We could have introduced a common-sense measure to try to help people who need income but do not get it, and the data matching in the Bill could have been of immense help.
      We have lost an opportunity this evening, and I hope that some of these matters may be discussed in another place. I also hope that the Minister will tell us why the Government have refused to strengthen a measure which started by aiming to tackle fraud in a tough way. We should be tough on fraud, and our only disappointment is that the Government have not gone further. They should have sent a powerful message to everyone that not only do we talk tough on fraud, but we implement legislation that hits hard—especially landlord cheats.
      6.53 pm
      Mr. Heald: The Third Reading debate presents me with the opportunity to thank the Committee for the care that it has taken in discussing the Government's proposals. The Bill received a thorough scrutiny during the 11 sittings of the Committee, but, throughout, business has been conducted in a constructive and professional manner.
      I would like to thank the two Chairmen—my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Sir J. Hill), and the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam)—for their guidance, their forbearance and their wisdom. I should also like to thank Opposition Members for their constructive contributions, especially the hon. Members for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) and for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham). Each member of the Committee in his own way made a positive contribution.
      Above all, I should like to thank the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt), who was my partner in taking the Bill through. He is that political rarity, a man who commands equal respect from both sides of the House. His good sense and plain humanity have helped the progress of this Bill in equal measure.
      The Bill proposes a number of measures designed to reduce the opportunity for the fraudulent claiming and payment of social security benefits, and a number of other measures to improve the security, control and accuracy of social security administration.
      The hon. Member for South Antrim (Mr. Forsythe) played a distinguished part in Committee and raised the issues that affected Northern Ireland, and I pay tribute to
      856
      him for that. He raised two points on Third Reading. First, he referred to security and the importance that should be attached to data security in Northern Ireland. The principles of data security that I outlined earlier apply to Northern Ireland in exactly the same way as to the rest of the UK.
      The Social Security Agency in Northern Ireland takes security and confidentiality very seriously. The hon. Member for South Antrim will be aware of the moves to mirror some of the developments on benefit fraud investigation and security in Northern Ireland, and I am sure that he will welcome those measures. As someone who knows about this matter intimately, he will know that the agency does a good job, often in very difficult circumstances. We should all pay tribute to it.
      Secondly, the hon. Member for South Antrim referred to amending the legislation for Northern Ireland by Order in Council. We discussed this matter in Committee, as he will remember. When Northern Ireland legislation follows Great Britain legislation and the Bill provides for that—as this Bill does—the convention is to proceed without amendment, but other issues which may arise in Northern Ireland were discussed in Committee. The hon. Member said that he had tried to intervene earlier, but that I had not given way. I hope that he accepts that it is most unusual for me to do that, and I apologise.
      The main provisions of the Bill are: to enable certain other Government Departments to supply relevant information to the Department of Social Security for the purposes of preventing and detecting social security fraud and for checking the accuracy of social security information; to enable the Department to share information with local authorities, and for authorities to share information with each other; to enhance and improve the range of penalties available against those who abuse the system; and to give the Secretary of State the power to inspect local authority performance, make directions as to the standards that are to be achieved and, in the event of the directions being ignored, to reduce subsidy.
      The hon. Member for Fife, Central asked whether enough is being done about landlord fraud. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's 10-point plan—which I outlined earlier—will lacerate landlord fraud, and will put paid to the abuses to which the hon. Gentleman referred. More importantly, we should perhaps ask why it would be sensible—in circumstances where different kinds of individuals and organised criminals commit serious fraud—to single out landlords when the level of criminality can be just as serious with another kind of offender.
      The Opposition's thoughts on the matter—particularly in circumstances where there is no evidence that landlords are committing the bulk of the fraud—result from their views on landlords. My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) made the point that there is a demonology of the left, in which a landlord who commits an offence—whatever the level of criminality or the comparisons that can be made—should somehow warrant a 12-year sentence, when everybody else committing the same offence with the same level of criminality should receive a six-year sentence. I do not understand that, and nor does the rest of the House.
      Mr. Alan Howarth: By the same token, is there not a demonology of the right as far as disabled people are concerned? Why are two clauses in the Bill particularly pitched at disabled people? Is that not at least as invidious?
      Mr. Heald: The answer to that is a frank no.
      The Bill will create powers for duly appointed local authority officials to check benefit entitlement, such as powers to enable them to enter business premises, including those of landlords; and it includes other powers which I believe will represent an important step in the Government's increasingly successful strategy to counter benefit fraud—a strategy which has produced record savings for the taxpayer year after year, and as a result of which we are expected to save £7 billion in the next three years.
      It is not good enough for Labour Members to give the impression that they have had 17 years of good ideas on ways to counter benefit fraud, which the Conservative Government have ignored. They are Johnny-come-latelies on this issue. As recently as 1993, the Labour Front Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley), was describing the problem of benefit fraud as a mere bagatelle.
      Mr. Denham: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Heald: No; I shall not give way any more. I have had enough of these ill considered—
      Mr. Denham: Give way.
      Mr. Heald: I have already answered the response which I know will come, which is feeble in the extreme. The hon. Gentleman admitted that, when he was in local government—
      Mr. Denham: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Heald: No.
      The hon. Gentleman admits that he was telling the Labour authorities and the Labour party that this was a serious issue, and they ignored it. It is only because the Government have taken the effective steps and action they have that fraud is now being tackled, and tackled effectively.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  Local Government Finance (Wales)
  7 pm
  The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. William Hague): I beg to move,
  That the Local Government Finance Report (Wales) 1997–98 (HC 218), which was laid before this House on 3rd February, be approved.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): I understand that with this, it will be convenient to discuss the following motions:
  That the Special Grant Report (Wales) 1997 (HC 219), which was laid before this House on 3rd February, be approved.
  That the Limitation of Council Tax (Relevant Notional Amounts) Report (Wales) 1997–98 (HC 220), which was laid before this House on 3rd February, be approved.
  Mr. Hague: These motions concern provision for local authority revenue spending in Wales in the financial year beginning in April 1997.
  In summary, I propose to set the total standard spending of Welsh local authorities at £2,931.3 million. That is an increase of £66.3 million, or 2.3 per cent., over the current year—slightly more than the forecast rate of inflation. Total standard spending includes £340 million for the four Welsh police authorities, £2,515 million in standard spending assessments for the 22 unitary authorities, and £73 million in specific grant such as national park grant and magistrates court grant.
  Under my provisional capping criteria, every local authority in Wales can, if it sees fit, increase its budget in comparison with its previous notional amount by at least 3.7 per cent.
  My plans for total standard spending increase the advantage that Welsh local government has over its English counterparts. Welsh TSS represents more than £1,000 of expenditure for every man, woman and child in Wales. It is an increase of £20 per head on the current year, and £70 per head higher than the equivalent figure for England.
  That is a good settlement, and I look forward to Labour Members' support for it. They recently announced that they agree with and accept the Government's overall spending plans for the next two years. As the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) said, quoted in the Western Mail of 21 January:
  "Labour will accept the spending plans for the first two years as they stand. This applies across the board and therefore to Wales."
  It would be churlish of me not to welcome that statement of support for my budgetary plans, even though Labour Members had previously denounced them. The hon. Member for Caerphilly will no doubt wish to clarify tonight whether that commitment applies to the local government settlement, and, if not, what other Welsh spending would be reduced in order to increase it.
  Hon. Members on both sides of the House will also be pleased that the vast majority of local government spending in Wales will continue to be provided from central Government funds. I propose to provide £2,577.9 million in central Government support through aggregate external finance in support of total standard spending. That is an increase of £64.3 million—or 2.6 per cent.—on the current year, about 1 per cent.

  859
  higher than the increase for England. It amounts to £880 per person, an increase of £20 on the current year, and a massive £150 per head more than the level of support provided in England.
  Aggregate external finance will comprise £1,732.7 million in revenue support grant, £584 million in distributable non-domestic rates, £244.5 million in specific grants—including police grants to be paid by the Home Secretary—and £16.7 million for council tax damping measures.
  My decisions about aggregate external finance clearly confound the view expressed by some people last year that Welsh council taxes would rise rapidly to English levels. My plans will ensure that, on average, Welsh council tax increases should be no higher than those in England, and that average Welsh council tax levels should be about £200 lower than in England.
  I remain of the view that, over the longer term, local government should raise a greater proportion of its income from the local taxpayer—it is difficult to understand how anyone who believes in local accountability can hold a different view. However, I have always made it clear that I would take my decisions, year by year, on the merits of the case, and for the coming year I have decided to hold aggregate external finance at about 88 per cent. of total standard spending. That compares with the much lower figure of 79 per cent. in England.
  In addition, I expect to fund 100 per cent. of mandatory local government reorganisation costs and a proportion of discretionary costs in the coming year, amounting to a total of £10.1 million. Overall, the provision that we have made for transitional costs arising from local government reorganisation will amount to £104 million over the five-year period ending in 1999.
  Mr. Ted Rowlands: The right hon. Gentleman makes a serious point about the way in which central Government increasingly carries the burden of local spending, so that any marginal change in central Government decisions has a disproportionate effect on taxation at local level. That has happened this year and last year. Is not the problem that we have never managed to devise an effective system of local government taxation?
  Mr. Hague: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. We have not succeeded in devising a form of local government taxation that would allow local government to raise the vast majority—or all—of its revenue and take all that responsibility. That is why we continue to provide a very large proportion of local government spending from central Government funds. It does not mean that we cannot adjust that amount, but it means that, for a long time to come, unless the basis of local taxation is changed, most of the money will be provided from central Government funds.
  Mr. Christopher Gill: Has my right hon. Friend considered that the only way that we shall put this equation right, so that local government is totally accountable for its expenditure, is to remove the cost of education and social services from the local authority, and assume it as a national responsibility? If we did so, local
  860
  spending could be almost 100 per cent. funded by the council tax, ensuring greater accountability, greater intelligibility to the electorate and more satisfactory local democracy.
  Mr. Hague: In theory, one way to change the equation would be to reduce the total amount and shift responsibility elsewhere. As my hon. Friend knows, we have moved much responsibility for education budgets into schools, and I prefer to think that our future progress will involve greater devolution to local decision making instead of centralisation of decision making. However, Governments of all parties have tried to reform the present system, and have not enjoyed the experience. I believe that, within the existing system, the decisions that I am announcing for the coming year are right.
  The standard spending assessment specified in the "Local Government Finance Report (Wales) 1997–98", which is before the House, have been calculated in accordance with a formula agreed with the Welsh Local Government Association. It was developed over a two-year period by the Welsh Office and the local government associations, and comprises objective, largely population-based, indicators of relevant need.
  That said, I want to explore all avenues for improving the formula. It is subject to a full review being undertaken jointly by the Welsh Office and the Welsh Local Government Association, which will be completed in time for the 1998–99 settlement. I welcome the fact that local authority elected members are participating in the review working groups. Pending its completion, the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government Finance agreed that no significant change should be made to the formula for the coming year. The consultative council will consider the review recommendations in the autumn.
  Sir Wyn Roberts: It is all very well for the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) to look a gift horse in the mouth when he refers to the 88 per cent. that my right hon. Friend has secured, compared with the 79 per cent. in England, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the real threat to the favourable treatment that Wales receives is from the Opposition's devolution proposals?
  Mr. Hague: My right hon. Friend makes two valid points. He draws attention to the advantage that Wales enjoys in local government finance, which we have preserved over many years, with a much larger proportion of local authority spending financed from central Government funds. He is right to say that the threat to the formula which determines the spending of the entire Welsh block, on which these figures critically depend, is a fundamental change in our constitutional arrangements, which could sweep that formula away.
  Local authorities are responsible for setting budgets and determining their council tax. In setting budgets, they will need to take account of the effect of their spending decisions on council tax payers.
  Mr. Walter Sweeney: I assume that the aggregate external finance figures that my right hon. Friend has given include the provision from central funds for the police and the amount that comes from the Home Secretary. Will my right hon. Friend clarify

  861
  whether the figures he gave include the additional funds promised by the Home Secretary to fund additional policing?
  Mr. Hague: The specific grants, which include £171.1 million in police grant to be paid by the Home Secretary, are included in my figures for aggregate external finance, and that is the total provision from the Home Office for the police in the coming year. It therefore includes all policy initiatives, which my hon. Friend will have heard the Home Secretary announce, and which are now being implemented.
  The provisional capping principles that I announced on 12 December enable me to restrain spending by local authorities, if necessary. However, provisional capping limits are ceilings, not targets, and it is open to local authorities to set budgets below their capping limits.
  I have taken careful account of representations made to me about potential council tax increases, should authorities exercise their discretion to budget at cap, so I decided to continue for a further year the targeted council tax damping scheme that I introduced for last year. I am making £16.5 million available within AEF to ensure that, excluding any increase in community council precepts and discretionary non-domestic rate relief, no council tax increase can exceed 15 per cent. The great majority of council tax increases will have to be well below that level, and council tax payers in nine of the 22 unitary authority areas will benefit from the scheme.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: The capping limit in Wales is 1.8 per cent., whereas in England it is 2.6 per cent. What is the logic behind the difference?
  Mr. Hague: The capping limit in England is much more complex. It is 2.6 per cent. for certain types of authority but a lower limit for other types of authority. It varies in England because of the introduction of unitary authorities, and because of a different pattern of local government reorganisation from what we have seen in Wales. If one were to allow for all those differences, the hon. Gentleman would find that capping limits are not as generous in England as they are in Wales. I should be happy to write to him with those figures.
  Mr. Denzil Davies: The Minister said that, in an ideal world, he would like to see an increase in local democracy, and more money raised locally. We would all agree with that, although we realise the difficulties. Why, then, does he have capping at all? Why not just put the capping aside and allow local democracy to take its course?
  Mr. Hague: As we discussed earlier, we do not have a system in which local authorities take true responsibility for all their decisions. I am interested to hear Labour Members advocate the lifting of all capping restrictions, because it is one of those murky areas of policy that the Labour party has developed over the past year or two. Previously, it was in favour of abolishing all capping limits; now it seems to be in favour of capping limits for the coming year, if I understand the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) correctly. I expect that the hon. Member for Caerphilly will enlarge on that in his speech.
  862
  My answer to the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) is that the consequences for Welsh council tax payers would be unacceptable if local authorities were left to set the council tax themselves.
  There is good news on the local authority front, which Opposition Members and others outside the House often do not care to recognise. Local government reorganisation has worked well, as the Welsh Local Government Association acknowledges. Only last week, Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools in Wales reported a significant and continuing improvement in standards in our schools. Local authorities are playing a full part in attracting inward investment. I am happy to pay tribute to those who have helped to secure some of our recent projects.
  Local authorities have increased access to private sector resources for capital investment under the private finance initiative, and a significant number are pressing ahead with schemes. They are beginning to realise that they do not have to depend on central Government capital allocations.
  There are a number of ways in which local authorities can take action to help themselves, particularly through the levering in of private finance. Much more can be achieved by innovative partnerships between local authorities and the private sector. That has for a long time been the case with regeneration projects, but now the opportunities extend to a wide field of mainstream service delivery.
  Under our PFI, major and radical changes have been made to the capital finance rules over the past two years, which, coupled with new arrangements for revenue support which are not constrained by the normal capping rules, have given local authorities the tools to go about providing services and facilities such as schools, roads, libraries and leisure facilities in radically new ways. Again, I pay tribute to those authorities that are looking seriously at private finance options.
  Local authorities should also consider the opportunities for transferring their housing stock, with the consent of their tenants, to a local housing company or an existing housing association. That allows borrowing for improvements in the housing stock outside PSBR constraints, and, depending on the valuation of the stock, it can also generate a usable capital receipt for the authority. Where stock transfers at a positive value, concessions agreed at the time of the budget make the receipt position more favourable than under previous rules.
  I am therefore pleased that a number of Welsh authorities are actively considering stock transfer, and I urge all authorities to do so. Experience in England amply demonstrates the benefits to councils and their tenants. Stock transfer should be regarded not simply as a means of dealing with the problems of individual estates, but as a strategic choice for long-term investment in the housing stock. I wish that, instead of decrying as inadequate the resources that local authorities have, Opposition Members and local authorities would take a positive view of the opportunities that those resources and new ideas provide.
  I make no apology for stressing the importance of the need for continuing public expenditure restraint. It has been the key to our enviable economic performance in recent years. Local government in Wales continues to

  863
  receive almost half the resources at my disposal. It must expect to play its full part in keeping public expenditure in check.
  Mr. Llew Smith: How can the Minister say that he wants public expenditure restraint, while accepting and supporting a £60 million investment in the royal yacht from public funds?
  Mr. Hague: Some of the investments that have come into the United Kingdom, and specifically into Wales, in recent years have been partly negotiated or signed because of events held on the royal yacht. I can absolutely assure the hon. Gentleman of that. The royal yacht is worth far more than £60 million in generating new jobs and investment for the UK, and Wales has been one of the principal beneficiaries. [Laughter.] Anyone who laughs about that shows a depressing lack of imagination about the marketing of this country.
  Mr. Gill: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the £90 million that the British Government will be called upon to pay for the new European Parliament building is 50 per cent. more than the cost of the royal yacht, and will return no benefit to the United Kingdom?
  Mr. Hague rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State should confine his remarks to the debate on the rate support grant (Wales).
  Mr. Hague: I have no plans, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to allow any of the projects recently mentioned to be financed out of the Welsh local government settlement, as hon. Members will be delighted to hear.
  Mr. Paul Flynn: The Secretary of State mentioned the jobs that have come from the royal yacht. Has he noticed that the royal yacht has never visited Japan or Korea? Can he tell us how many jobs resulted from the destinations that it has visited? How many jobs for Wales arose from its visits to the Lesser Antilles, the Azores, the Leeward Islands, the Windward Islands, Gran Canaria, Grand Cayman, the Ivory Coast or Namibia?
  Mr. Hague: The hon. Gentleman will be delighted to know that the royal yacht will be visiting Japan and Korea on its current tour. As his constituency is one of the principal beneficiaries of investment from Korea, he in particular should welcome our continued good relations with Korea.
  Local authorities must expect to play their full part in keeping public expenditure in check. As large organisations with big budgets, local authorities have scope to prioritise services and to put in place tight, cost-effective administrative and service structures. Reorganisation has given Welsh local authorities the opportunities to do that.
  I have seen the predictable press reports that always appear at this time of year speculating on cuts or meltdowns of one sort or another, including teacher
  864
  redundancies by a number of authorities. One authority seems to be preparing for teacher redundancies while increasing allowances for its members. I am heartened by reports that some authorities have rejected a policy of teacher redundancies, including Carmarthenshire, Denbighshire and Rhondda Cynon Taff. If some authorities can manage not to sack teachers, I question whether any authorities need to take such action.
  If local authorities manage their resources prudently and in a way that their residents have a right to expect, there is no reason why they should have to cut front-line services as a result of my settlement proposals.
  This morning, the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) and his Front-Bench colleagues, in their role as the chief gloom-mongers of Wales, were trying to spread despondency about the local government settlement. It is time that they recognised that it is incumbent on those who criticise the level of resources provided to say where they would obtain additional resources. Opposition Members have got themselves into the ludicrous position in which they call for higher spending on a wide range of items in particular, while maintaining that they would spend no more money in total.
  Such are the contortions taking place on the Opposition Benches that the hon. Gentleman has even had to resort to defending my budget. He said in the Grand Committee on 4 December that it meant "cuts", the consequences of which "would be dreadful". However, the day after the shadow Chancellor's famous speech last month, the Western Mail said of the hon. Member for Caerphilly:
  "He said the figures were open to debate as to whether there was a cut or an increase."
  That is the light in which we must judge anything he says about cuts during the debate. Not only does he not agree with me; he does not even agree with himself.
  If the hon. Gentleman does not agree with the settlement that I propose, let him say what settlement he proposes. The figures for each local authority which we are debating tonight are the product of two factors, and two alone: the first is the total available for local government spending, and the second is the standard spending formula by which that money is distributed. Anyone who votes against the measures tonight is implying that he is unhappy with the total, or the formula, or both.
  Last night, the Opposition voted against the parallel English reports, because they said that they disagreed with the formula by which the money was shared out. Tonight, however, we are debating a Welsh settlement, before which the Welsh Local Government Association, with its clear Labour majority, specifically asked me not to change the formula.
  The formula is agreed with Welsh local government, including members of the Labour party. The formula, as I have said, has been worked out by the Welsh Office and the Local Government Association, in close consultation and by agreement. It therefore cannot be the formula which troubles Opposition Members tonight, unless they are telling me that the leaders of all the Labour-controlled authorities were wrong.
  The only other factor up for debate is the total sum available. That could be increased only by reducing other Welsh Office programmes, given the cross-party

  865
  agreement on the total Welsh budget—a budget that already assumes large and continuing reductions in the running costs of the Welsh Office and the non-departmental public bodies.
  To vote to increase the settlement, while also stating that the Welsh Development Agency would be a high priority, that the money for an assembly would be found within the block, and yet that the total budget would remain the same under a Labour Government, is ludicrous double-speak. If Opposition Members vote against the settlement while maintaining that they need no compensating reductions elsewhere, people sitting at home in Wales tonight will be able to smell the hypocrisy oozing out of the No Lobby.
  I am the first to acknowledge the importance of local authority services to the communities they serve, and to the people of Wales as a whole. That is reflected in my settlement proposals. A 2.3 per cent. increase in standard spending is fair in the context of the overall level of resources available and the needs of other public sector organisations, including the health service. It enables local government to maintain its services, provided that authorities are ready to set clear priorities and to pursue new opportunities to save and raise money. I commend the settlement to the House.
  7.26 pm
  Mr. Ron Davies: I shall deal first with the central thrust of the Secretary of State's argument. I shall vote against his proposal—and encourage my right hon. and hon. Friends to do likewise—because I believe the settlement to be deeply damaging. Let me assure the Secretary of State that there is no agreement whatever on the Welsh Office budget.
  It would be dishonest for me or any of my colleagues to urge local government in Wales to spend over budget in the coming financial year in the hope or expectation that an incoming Labour Government could bale them out in the middle of the financial year. I do not propose to be dishonest. That is why I and my hon. Friends have made it clear to local government that, if there is a general election that takes us into the next financial year, and local authorities have overspent, they cannot look to the Welsh Office to bale them out. That is our clear position.
  The Welsh Local Government Association has made it clear that it is deeply unhappy with the settlement. I have no doubt that my right hon. and hon. Friends who represent Welsh constituencies have been in touch with their leaders and local authorities, who will have impressed on them the deep dissatisfaction of Welsh local government with the settlement.
  Mr. Hague: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the coming year. He was quoted in the newspapers as saying that he agreed to the total Welsh Office spending plans for the next two years. That applied to total Welsh spending and to the Government's total spending plans. Was he misquoted? If not, and if he wanted to spend more on the local government settlement at any time in the next two years, would he not have to reduce other spending programmes?
  Mr. Davies: The Secretary of State is deliberately misquoting me. I have never said that I agree with the settlement, but I recognise that it is the settlement that will apply in the next financial year.
  866
  After 18 years of Conservative government, if I were Secretary of State I would not expect local government to cope with the burden of cuts that the Government have imposed. I do not agree with the settlement and I do not want it. I can tell the Secretary of State directly: I believe that the settlement is inadequate and unfair to local government. I believe also that the Government are playing politics with local services and the jobs of people in the public sector. Education will bear the brunt of the cuts that the Secretary of State has put before the House this evening, which will result in the loss of 1,000 teaching jobs in Wales in the coming year. How on earth could I, or any right hon. or hon. Member who represents a Welsh constituency, agree with that package?
  Mr. Rod Richards rose—
  Mr. Davies: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. Many of my hon. Friends wish to contribute to the debate and, if the hon. Gentleman wishes to make his own speech, no doubt he will seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If any other right hon. or hon. Members who represent Welsh constituencies wish to intervene, of course I shall consider giving way.
  I make it clear to the Secretary of State that I have ambitions for local authorities to become dynamic and independent. I want them to promote economic development, conserve their environment, plan communities, educate children and care for the infirm. Year after year, the Government have undermined the ability of local councils to achieve those goals. The Government have placed duties on councils and then removed the resources needed to meet their obligations.
  In the past 10 years, central Government expenditure in Wales has increased by 71 per cent. in real terms, while local government expenditure has increased by only 43 per cent. While central Government expenditure has more than kept pace with inflation, local government expenditure has failed to do so. Local government has experienced a real reduction in available resources, services have been cut, and council taxes continue to rise. It is a typical Tory trick: pay more and get less.
  That is precisely what will occur under this settlement. Services throughout Wales—particularly education—will be cut. The Secretary of State is fond of quoting the Western Mail. I refer him to its report of 27 January, which forecast the loss of 750 teaching jobs. If this settlement is approved tonight, there will be an average increase of 8 per cent. in council tax across Wales—or £40 extra tax for every council tax payer in Wales.
  The Secretary of State boasted this evening about how well Wales is supposedly doing under his stewardship compared with the rest of the country. I remind him of Westminster city council: it is up to its eyes in sleaze and corruption, and is one of the richest boroughs in London. If Welsh local authorities were funded on the same basis as Westminster, band D council tax in Wales would be reduced by a staggering 33 per cent. Local government has been the Government's whipping boy and, as the British people have voted consistently for Labour councils, the Government have responded by whipping those councils even harder.
  At the heart of the argument between us is the performance of the British economy under the Conservatives. The simple fact is that Conservative

  867
  economic policy has failed and, in typical Tory fashion, the price must be paid in homelessness, crumbling schools, deteriorating health care, and divided and alienated communities. The people of Wales know that only too well. Welsh gross domestic product is 16 per cent. below the United Kingdom average, and it has shown no improvement after nearly 18 years of Tory rule. Economic failure has resulted in an inability to control the nation's finances. Our national debt is almost £400 billion—double the level when the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) became Prime Minister.
  Interest payments last year were more than £25 billion—more than three times the size of the total Welsh block—and the public sector borrowing requirement in 1995–96 amounted to more than £30 billion. Even in the fifth year of supposed recovery, the PSBR is still unacceptably high at £27 billion. The balance of public expenditure is out of control. Instead of investing for the future, improving infrastructure and promoting the economy, education and training, public expenditure is increasingly used to meet the social cost of failed economic policy. Education expenditure in Wales has increased by 36 per cent. in the past 10 years; social security expenditure—largely the cost of idleness enforced by Government policy—has increased by 43 per cent.
  The Secretary of State claims that his priorities for the coming year are economic growth and the national health service, but he has provided no details of those additional resources nor of how they are allocated. He has not told us how his decisions will affect other programmes in the Welsh Office total spend. He has not yet published his Department's report, so how does he expect me to propose amendments to it? He and his predecessors have tried constantly to mislead the people of Wales about the true level of Government spending in Wales. They have elevated media manipulation to an art form: they have leaked, briefed and dissembled. Last December, the Secretary of State had the effrontery to announce an inquiry into the publication by the Western Mail of expenditure figures that his own office had leaked.
  If we accept that the Secretary of State's stated priorities are economic development and health, will he acknowledge that local government has a vital role to play in enhancing economic growth—including projects such as LG—and in protecting the health of the Welsh people? What share of the alleged resources for economic growth and health has he given to local government? That is a straightforward question, and we are entitled to an answer. I invite the Secretary of State to intervene and provide that answer.
  Mr. Hague: I shall intervene, but not on that point. The hon. Gentleman made an entirely unsubstantiated assertion about the source of a leak from the Welsh Office. I have established an inquiry into the matter and the report is imminent. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about it, and to anyone else who is interested—including the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), as he is obviously curious about the findings. There is no evidence
  868
  for the hon. Gentleman's assertion that the information was leaked by my office. He should therefore back up his assertion or withdraw it.
  Mr. Davies: I have no intention of doing so. The figures were prepared by the Secretary of State's Department for his use. They were not divulged to anyone else. How could anyone outside the Department have released those figures? It is a simple matter: they were the Secretary of State's figures and he had exclusive control of them. They were prepared by his office for his use. No one other than officers of his Department could have accessed those figures.
  Mr. Hague: When the hon. Gentleman says that the figures were leaked by my office, he clearly implies my personal office. The standard of his accusations and of his debate this evening are a sad reflection on his leadership of the Labour party in Wales.
  Mr. Davies: Is the Secretary of State saying that the figures were leaked not by his own personal office but by someone in the Welsh Office?
  Mr. Hague: We are having an inquiry.
  Mr. Davies: How can the Secretary of State be sure that his private office did not leak the figures if, as he now claims, the inquiry is not complete?
  Mr. Hague: I asked the hon. Gentleman to substantiate his accusation regarding civil servants—who cannot answer for themselves in this place—and he cannot do so. That is highly irresponsible conduct, which is exactly what we have come to expect from the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Davies: I am afraid that the Secretary of State's performance is woeful. The figures were prepared by his Department for subsequent publication. They were available only to civil servants and politicians in his Department—nobody else could have accessed them or leaked them. The Secretary of State is responsible for his Ministers, political advisers, media officers and other civil servants in his Department. Someone in his office leaked the information, deliberately and maliciously, to the Western Mail.
  Mr. Richards: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek guidance on what the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) has been saying for some time. Is it in order for an hon. Member—
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: This is a foolish point of order. Sit down.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am trying to listen to the hon. Member's point of order.
  Mr. Richards: The hon. Gentleman's body temperature is higher than his IQ—on the centigrade scale.

  869
  Is it in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for an hon. Member to make unsubstantiated accusations in the House against officers of the Crown? [HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down and do not be silly."] I recall Madam Speaker saying that she deprecated attacks on civil servants by hon. Members.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members are responsible for their own speeches.
  Mr. Davies: I invited the Secretary of State to give a straightforward answer to my question. What share of the alleged additional resources for economic growth or health has he given to local government? If he cannot answer that question now—I realise that local government finance is complex, and perhaps he has not had time to master it—will he write to me with that information?
  Mr. Hague: I am happy to answer the hon. Gentleman's questions all evening. It amazes me that he is so resistant to more Welsh Question Times in the Grand Committee, given that he is so keen to ask questions in the House.
  The increased resources for economic development and for health that I announced are channelled through the health authorities, the Welsh Development Agency and the Development Board for Rural Wales. Local authorities often work in partnership with those authorities and agencies, so there are important spin-offs for local government. The resources are not specifically channelled through local authorities. That is the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question, and I am perfectly happy to answer any other questions that he may have about the Welsh Office budget and local authority finance, but that may keep us here for a long time.
  Mr. Davies: I am grateful to the Secretary of State, because that is precisely the answer that I knew he would give. His Department fails to acknowledge the crucial strategic role that the Welsh Office and local government could play together in tackling the economic and interlocking problems of our communities, such as unemployment and idleness, under-achievement, poor housing, poor environment, poor standards of public behaviour and poor health. It is the Welsh Office's failure to understand that and to work with local authorities that has caused so much resentment and frustration in Welsh local government under his regime.
  We need a coherent, strategic partnership, but that is the last thing that we will get from a Government who are obsessed with short-termism and media manipulation.
  Mr. Sweeney: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davies: No, I have given way to the Secretary of State and I want to make progress.
  Mr. Sweeney rose—
  Mr. Davies: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a little while.
  The Secretary of State has just claimed that total standard spending has increased by 2.3 per cent., but that is at best misleading. He knows full well that the true increase is only 1.6 per cent., which is below the level required to keep in line with inflation. He tried that trick
  870
  in the Welsh Grand Committee last year. When challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), he said:
  "It is no good taking out this or that to make the figures look different. The total figure is rising by 2.6 per cent."—[Official Report, Welsh Grand Committee, 4 December 1996; c. 14.]
  The Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones), in his letter to the chair of the Welsh Local Government Association on 15 January 1997, admitted that the true increase is only 1.6 per cent. We have the Secretary of State's version—a 2.6 per cent. increase—and his hon. Friend's version, a 1.6 per cent. increase. Which of those two figures represents either the true position or the Government's position?
  We all know that a host of adjustments will have to be made before the truth is uncovered. Expenditure provision in the settlement is insufficient, not only to meet pay and price inflation, but to enable local authorities to maintain services at the current level in the face of rising demand, especially in schools, community care and the fire service.
  The Secretary of State also claimed that aggregate external finance has increased by £64.1 million. Does he agree that, if both last year's damping schemes are included, external finance for local authorities in Wales increased by only £43 million, which is less than required to keep pace with inflation?
  The Secretary of State's decisions will mean yet further council tax increases for the people of Wales. The increases will be 8 per cent. on average, with many Welsh authorities facing increases of nearly double that figure. In Ceredigion, the increase is 9 per cent., which is £49; in Torfaen it is 15 per cent., which is £65; in Merthyr it is 15 per cent., which is more than £74; and in Denbighshire it is more than 16 per cent., which is £80.
  Those council tax figures are part of a deliberate, long-term plan to increase the level of council tax in Wales, and there is no use the Secretary of State denying it. In a letter dated 7 November 1995 to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), the Secretary of State confirmed that that is his long-term plan. His very words were:
  "I believe that over time local authorities in Wales should raise a higher proportion of their income from council tax. The 11 per cent. increase is the result of this approach."
  We should have no illusions about this settlement. When council taxes go up, it is because the Welsh Office and the Treasury intend them to go up. The 8 per cent. increase in Wales far exceeds the 6 per cent. increase for England that the Government announced yesterday. Further evidence is provided by the fact that revenue support grant now accounts for 54 per cent. of local government spending, whereas 10 years ago it was 64 per cent.—10 per cent. more.
  Mr. Rowlands: My hon. Friend returns to the point with which we began the debate, about the balance between central and local government expenditure and taxation. A marginal change in central Government support to local authorities leads to a disproportionate increase in council taxes. Any increase in local taxation is unfair, especially to poorer communities such as he and I represent. The burden of taxation is heavier on poorer communities.
  Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend is right. He represents Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, which includes part of my

  871
  local authority area of Caerphilly. That local authority faces horrendous consequences as a result of this settlement. It is grappling with budget cuts of £8 million, as are other local authorities. The local authority of my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) is one of the smallest, but it faces cuts of £6 million or £7 million in its annual budget.
  The consequences must rest on the Government's shoulders. There will be real and severe cuts across the whole range of local government services, especially services that are trying to meet the cost of economic and social failure. The settlement will affect local authorities that are trying to invest in and improve their communities to generate wealth and job opportunities, and to build for the future. The Government are so short-sighted that they do not understand the role that local authorities play, and they will not work in partnership with them. It is all part of the Government's strategy to make council tax payers pay more. The 1p cut in the standard rate of income tax in last year's Budget will be more than cancelled out by council tax increases resulting directly from this settlement.
  In addition, the capital settlement has been cut by £66 million. That money is needed for investment.
  Mr. Sweeney: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davies: I shall give way in a moment.
  The capital settlement has been cut by 13 per cent. in cash terms, and by more than 15 per cent. in real terms. Is that not typical of the Government? They are irredeemably short-termist, and look only as far as the next election: they do not even have the courage to face that election.
  Mr. Sweeney: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He said some time ago that he would give way in a moment; then he said that he would give way in a little while; then he said that he would give way in a moment. Since then, he has responded to two other interventions.
  I wanted to take up a point in the hon. Gentleman's speech—I hope that he can still recall it—when he contrasted the increase in education spending with the increase in social security spending, implying that the increase in social security spending had been excessive. What cuts in social security does he propose in order to increase education funding? If the hon. Gentleman's party were to take office, and if the social chapter were to be introduced, how much more would he have to spend on social security—or cut benefits?
  Mr. Davies: I shall give the hon. Gentleman a direct answer. In Wales, some 30,000 people under 25 are unemployed. I want them to return to productive work. I want them to have the self-respect and discipline that comes from the opportunity to work for a living—an opportunity that the hon. Gentleman and the Government he supports have denied to generations of young people
  872
  in Wales. When we provide young people with that opportunity—with the ability to be self-sufficient, and to work for themselves—the social security bill will fall.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davies: No, I will not. Many of my colleagues want to speak. The Minister will be able to speak—he will wind up the debate—and I want to finish my own speech so that the debate can continue.
  The reality of the settlement is that total standard spending has been cut in real terms, Welsh Office support has been cut in real terms, and the capital spending programme has been slashed in both real and cash terms. Not only are resources being reduced; responsibilities are being increased. How can the Secretary of State expect local authorities to meet the cost of inflation in pay and prices? Will he confirm that a 3 per cent. increase in teachers' pay—mentioned in leaks in Sunday's newspapers—will cost Welsh local authorities nearly £20 million extra next year, and that the settlement makes inadequate provision for that increase?
  Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that the expenditure forecasting group, in which both his officials and local government officials took part, estimated that central Government initiatives, through legislation and policy, will require extra spending of £129 million next year—on top of inflation? Does that not mean that, in real terms, the settlement means a cut of 3 per cent., or even more, in the budgets of Welsh local authorities next year?
  Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that his vacillation, and that of his Department, over the technical adjustment of the notional amounts in the capping rules for the nursery voucher scheme has bedevilled this year's settlement? Why does he not accept that nursery vouchers are wasteful, inefficient and particularly unsuited to Wales, as evidenced by the overwhelming number of representations against the scheme made to him and the single, solitary letter in support?
  Does the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the new local authorities have had to make substantial savings in the current year to meet the continuing cost of reorganisation, and that they are having to deplete their reserves to maintain existing services—if they can? He should recognise that, and he should admit that this is a dreadful capital and revenue settlement. No doubt hon. Members will wish to illustrate the effect that it will have on their local authorities. It is clear that the Secretary of State does not realise that the financial base of the new local authorities in Wales is already precarious, and it will be weakened further by this harsh settlement.
  Mr. Richards: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davies: No, I will not.
  It is time for the Secretary of State to admit that his decision will impose an unmanageable outcome for local government, and to acknowledge that that is bound to result in damage to our local communities. It is time for him to accept that his policies are flawed and lacking in coherence. It is time for him to accept that his budget decisions betray a lack of understanding of, or sympathy for, the needs of the people of Wales.

  873
  The settlement reflects the failure of Conservative policies, and itself fails to provide a platform on which to build for the future. Since 1979, local government in Wales has struggled to serve its communities well, despite the handicaps inflicted on it by successive Welsh Office Ministers. Welsh councils have had enough of this tired, incompetent, feckless, dishonest Government. Like the rest of the country, however, they will have to wait for the general election and the next Labour Government. The sooner that comes, the sooner we can start the long climb back to ensure honesty and decency in the provision of public services in Wales.
  7.54 pm
  Sir Wyn Roberts: I am glad to have the opportunity to comment on the settlement, but I do not know whether to be reassured or perturbed by the fact that the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) is prepared to accept so much with which he disagrees. It makes me wonder what else he accepts, but disagrees with.
  The settlement is, once again, constricted—as it should be, if we are to keep inflation under control and the overall budget deficit within manageable proportions. It is indubitable that there are public pressures to let public spending rip, but we all know that would be wrong, and, if it happened, it would end in tears of contrition.
  One of my local councils, Gwynedd, has written to me, commenting—very sensibly, in my view—on the position, as seen by its finance and policy committee. The committee estimated its needs at nearly £120 million next year, if services of the present quality are to be provided; but it will be capped at £115.7 million. Its grant from central Government is £95.3 million—which is not ungenerous, at 82 per cent. Interestingly, the council does not propose to spend to the capping limit, because, it says, that would mean a council tax increase of 11.3 per cent. It is a good council, in the sense that it does not regard the capping limit as a target.
  With commendable restraint, the council has expressed a wish to keep its increase to what it thinks will be the Welsh average—between 8 and 9 per cent. That, however, will mean alarming reductions in expenditure, which the council spells out in its letter. It will be interesting to see what final conclusions the full council reaches on 6 March, but one thing is clear: the severity of the cuts that it may impose will depend greatly on the extent to which it is prepared to raise money locally, and, of course, on what it believes it can raise locally—what local people can afford.
  With the present Parliament coming to an end and a general election looming, I am more concerned about the future of local government finance than with the past. In particular, I am concerned about the Opposition's proposals to do away with capping and return local business rates to local control. In my view, both moves would be retrograde. One thing is clear from the deliberations of Gwynedd council, and its decision not to spend up to the capping limit: it, at least, has got the message about the need to restrain spending, and I commend it for that. The abolition of the cap, as proposed by Labour's document "Renewing Democracy, Rebuilding Communities"—published in September 1995
  874
  and confirmed in yesterday's debate by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson)—would send local authorities a very different and destructive message.
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned Gwynedd council twice. Perhaps he should have told the House that the council had to raise its tax by 25 per cent. last year. To impose a similar tax this year would be totally unrealistic. It could not be paid anyway, could it?
  Sir Wyn Roberts: The council managed 25 per cent. last year, but interestingly it has decided that it could not raise the rate by the figure that might have been suggested to it, and that it would rather keep the rate at the Welsh average. That shows responsibility on its part.
  I am also critical of the proposal of the hon. Member for Caerphilly to return the business rate to local control, because we all surely remember what happened under the last Labour Government when local councils controlled the rate. Businesses were caned and destroyed by high rates. They were easy to hit, because owners had few votes compared with domestic ratepayers. I hope that the Labour party has grown up even since 1995—I refer again to its document. I shall listen carefully to the winding-up speech of the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) for, I hope, a denial of Labour's intention to abolish the national uniform business rate, the burden of which the Government have alleviated in last November's Budget, certainly in relation to small businesses.
  The Labour party also proposes, I understand, to end compulsory competitive tendering. That, too, is regressive. The Government are only now beginning to succeed in persuading authorities of the undoubted cost benefits to their consumers of acting in an enabling rather than a direct-provider role. It would be a shame if we were to take a step backwards to the position where, frankly, services were provided primarily for the benefit of local authority trade union employees, rather than the ratepayers who pay for them.
  I assure Opposition Members that I am not alone in not wishing for a return to that position, which, I hate to remind them, finally led to the winter of discontent, when there were mountains of uncollected rubbish and even unburied dead, and the last Labour Government fell out with trade union leaders, who refused to listen to them and to their pleas for restraint.
  I have been reading Lord Callaghan's "Time and Chance", which contains a first-class account of what I have been talking about. We have always maintained that capital receipts from the sale of council houses and other property should for the most part be used to reduce existing debt, thereby reducing the debt interest burden on ratepayers, but the Labour party believes that those receipts should be spent.
  I have read recently that the Labour party is adhering to that policy. If so, it must explain, if it can—I do not believe that it can—how it can allow that without failing to reduce the nation's debt burden as a whole. Welsh local authorities' outstanding loan debts on housing and non-housing services run to hundreds of millions of pounds, as the table on page 17 of "The Local Government Finance Report (Wales) 1997–98" shows.
  It is clear that, whatever local authorities' financial problems may be, they will be as nothing compared with the problems should the Labour party gain power. If the

  875
  Opposition's devolution plans are approved by Parliament, there will be even less money for local government and less power too, as the assembly arrogates to itself more and more of the powers now exercised at local level. That will certainly happen.
  It is now of course fashionable to malign the quangos, the non-departmental public bodies, but we should never forget that they were largely the invention of the Labour party, which believed that local authorities were inadequate to perform the nationwide tasks that needed to be performed in different sectors. Tourism and economic and industrial development are good examples.
  Latterly, the Labour party seems to have repented and reverted to supporting the local authorities that it controls, but I do not believe for a moment that its repentance will last for long, once it has its party commissars and apparatchiks on the NDPBs.
  Mr. Richards: My right hon. Friend has expressed his concern about the Labour party's proposal to create an assembly in Cardiff. Is he doubly concerned about the effect of an assembly in Cardiff on his constituents in north Wales? Is he not alarmed by the statement of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), who said that the assembly would not have tax-raising powers initially, which implies that the Labour party's plans are similar to those in Scotland, in that a Welsh assembly would have tax-raising powers?
  Sir Wyn Roberts: All parts of north Wales and mid-Wales fear that, because of the sparsity of their populations, they would be dominated by an assembly in south Wales, representing as it inevitably would the bulk of the population, which is located in the south.
  On my hon. Friend's second point, I do not think that we have heard the end of the Labour party's plans for an assembly, and I would not be surprised if, even initially, it had tax-raising powers. I am sure that, if there is a Scottish Parliament with tax-raising powers, there will be a cry from the assembly men in Wales that they should have a similar power.
  Mr. Ron Davies: I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman keeps raising this argument. We have made it absolutely clear that the Labour party has no proposals to give tax-raising powers to the assembly.
  Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman assumes that he and his party can carry any proposal for an assembly through the House without change. Again, I ask him to go back to our debates in the 1970s to find out just how radical the proposed changes were—they were carried in the House, resulting in the defeat of the then Government, so he must not assume that he can dispose whatever he proposes. It is not up to him; it is up to Parliament to dispose.
  Mr. Davies: I am not assuming anything. All I propose is to put to the people of Wales the question whether they should have their own assembly. If they vote yes, I am sure that the House will wish to accommodate that wish.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Passing reference to an assembly is one thing, but talking about it in detail is another.
  Sir Wyn Roberts: I accept your guidance, of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the hon. Member for Caerphilly simplifies a complex issue, as he will find it to be.
  876
  I was saying that the great danger is that NDPBs, like the Welsh tourist board and the Welsh Development Agency, will do little of value and substance, except pander to the whims of the their political masters.
  On the settlement, I have read the police authorities' representations. The reduction in their capital expenditure is compensated for by additional money for extra officers, plus an increase in revenue—not far short, it seems to me, of what they wanted. Their strongest plea is to be included in the formula working group. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales can accommodate them in that wish. Overall, I agree with him that his proposals
  "provide local authorities with a fair level of funding in 1997–98 given the overall level of resources available and other spending needs."—[Official Report, 28 January 1997; Vol. 289, c. 159.]
  I shall be happy to support him in the Lobby.
  8.9 pm
  Mr. Allan Rogers: I have never heard so many "opposition" speeches by Conservative Members. One would think that we were in government, as we shortly shall be, and that the Conservatives were in opposition. The Secretary of State and the right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts) were more concerned with Labour proposals than with their own. The right hon. Member for Conwy introduced the issue of a Welsh assembly. It is an interesting subject and I am sure that there will be many interesting debates on it, but enough of that for this evening.
  I was disturbed by the Secretary of State's speech, because only in his last sentences did he talk about the services that are provided by local government. I accept that, in the early part of his speech, it was incumbent on him to outline his proposals and the finance related to them. However, I wish that he had said more about services and about how the money is to be applied to them.
  Local government is about providing services to people, whether they live in deprived or in wealthy communities. It is about the direct services that people need. Instead of indulging in yah-boo tactics, we should get down to talking about our communities and the services that they need. I should like to outline the position as it is seen by my local authority, Rhondda Cynon Taff, which covers the constituencies of two of my hon. Friends as well as mine. I shall look at one aspect of local government to highlight what we are debating.
  The Government's proposals will have a substantial effect on Rhondda Cynon Taff council. There is no point in the Secretary of State saying, "It is up to the councils to make the cuts," because the reality is that there will be cuts. In my communities they will lead to the loss of 100 teaching jobs, and about 120 jobs will be lost in social services. Social services jobs have to be translated into issues such as the closure of a sheltered employment facility and a children's resource centre and less assistance to the disabled and disadvantaged who are living at home. Those are just some of the effects of the cuts.
  The housing service will be forced to reduce support for the homeless. There will be a reduction in child care provision. The peripatetic music service, for example, and other services that should benefit our children will be cut, and that will make the schools much poorer.

  877
  In discretionary areas, the adult education service will be almost destroyed, as will discretionary awards for students. That will affect mature students who perhaps take advantage of other courses and then want to go to university or college. Figures can be bandied about for ever, but they mean that there will be cuts in services, often affecting the most vulnerable people.
  In the second part of my speech, I shall look at the service that is provided for those with learning and disability problems. It is provided jointly by social services, health authorities and local NHS trusts working, in many cases, with voluntary and independent providers such as Mencap. Such services are laid on local authorities by the Government and, in the past 18 years, the Government have put extra duties on local government and have an obligation to fund them. The Government say that they can be paid for from local resources, but they cannot.
  The transfer of some local government functions to central Government has been mentioned. There is an argument for that when central Government continually place obligations on local authorities, fund them initially, subsume the funding into the general rate support grant and then squeeze it off.
  Disadvantaged people come within the framework of five pieces of legislation: the National Assistance Act 1948; the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990; the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995; the Chronically Sick and Disabled Act 1970 and the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986. Those Acts place obligations on local authorities and they cover the areas that will have to be cut because of central Government settlements such as this. The Mental Health Acts of 1983 and 1985 are also relevant to the provision of services for the unfortunate members of our community.
  Beyond the specific legislation passed by this institution, the Welsh Office has laid down guidelines. For example, in 1983 it set out key principles for those with learning difficulties and said that disabled people and those with problems have the right to live an ordinary pattern of life within the community. That is one of the Secretary of State's guiding principles. The guidelines stated that such people had the right to be treated as individuals and to have individual assessment of needs, and added that provision should be made to fulfil those needs.
  The 1983 guidance was updated just two years ago, in 1994, by the Welsh Office document entitled "Welsh Mental Handicap Strategy". It reiterated the key principles and stated that there had to be an individual plan for everyone and that a range of care and support should be provided. It stated that there should be help to obtain real jobs for most adults and that there should be a range of accommodation to include provision for the resettlement of people who were living inappropriately in mental hospitals. Such provision will be savagely cut if the provision of accommodation for the whole community is cut.
  The people I have mentioned depend on support to live in the community. People who have been incarcerated in mental hospitals, sometimes for many years, cannot be allowed to drift into the community, let loose without proper support. This Government and previous Governments have placed responsibility for that support
  878
  on local authorities. If they want local authorities to do the job, they should provide resources. Not just this Government, but every Government have to do that.
  There is no point in treating local authorities like political footballs. If we are to have a proper system of devolved government, we must allocate to it the resources that are needed to do the job that Parliament has asked it to do. The Secretary of State's proposals are not good enough to allow local authorities to do that. People with learning and disability problems have the right to independence, dignity and the same quality of life as those who have full use of facilities and faculties and are fully able to participate in society. To help them, we must harness the resources not only of local authorities but of other institutions.
  We should set up community support teams consisting of social workers, community nurses, psychiatrists, psychologists and occupational therapists. In addition, we must provide proper medical care, including that which people with learning and disability problems require over and above that of the ordinary members of society. Those are the obligations and complexities of providing for those whom we have said should be in the care and responsibility of local authorities. If the Government cannot will that money to local authorities to carry out those functions, they are failing in their duty and in their responsibility to the people of Wales.
  8.19 pm
  Mr. Walter Sweeney: I should like to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for once again securing a generous settlement for Wales, compared with that for England. The aggregate external finance that he has announced represents a 2.6 per cent. increase over last year, and it is about 1 per cent. more than the increase announced for England.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: With that generous settlement, how many jobs does the hon. Gentleman expect will be lost in his local authority?
  Mr. Sweeney: That will be a matter for the local authority to determine, because my right hon. Friend has left with local authorities the discretion, provided that they do not exceed capping levels, to determine how much council tax people will pay. That discretion will apply in Vale of Glamorgan as it will across Wales. I should expect Vale of Glamorgan to look for ways of getting better value for money and of providing better services for a given amount, and not, for example, to waste money on titivating the reception area of its civic offices, on which an enormous amount appears to have been spent.
  When council tax demands are sent, my right hon. Friend and all Conservative Members will no doubt be castigated for not giving enough money to Vale of Glamorgan. Let the local authority put its house in order. If it manages to run Vale of Glamorgan responsibly, I am optimistic that service and job cuts, to which the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) has alluded, will not have to be made.
  Aggregate external finance for Wales amounts to £880 per man, woman and child in Wales, which is £150 more per head than in England. AEF represents 88 per cent. of total standard spending, which on any reckoning is an extremely high percentage. I shall not be at all surprised

  879
  if, when Labour-controlled local authorities send out their council tax demands in a few weeks, they attempt to blame the Government for the increases that they will undoubtedly impose; but local authorities will of course be free to set the council tax of their choice.
  Mr. Llwyd: Subject to capping.
  Mr. Sweeney: Subject, of course, to capping. It is interesting to note that Opposition Members do not seem to like capping. Perhaps that is not surprising, as we all know that Labour-controlled Governments, just like Labour-controlled authorities, tend to act irresponsibly when spending is involved. In the past few days, we have received assurances from some Labour Members, who are not in the Chamber for this debate, that Labour will not attempt to increase spending in the next two years. However, the tone of Opposition Members' speeches today suggests that they assume that central Government are not providing enough money for local authorities. The clear implication is that a Labour Government would provide more.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) that we need answers from the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies). We need to know how much extra money he would spend on behalf of a Labour Government this year and in the year after; but, of course, he has said nothing. It is much easier to stand up and rant at the Government than it is to set out one's own policies, for which one could be blamed.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts) has rightly stressed that Government spending must be kept under control to maintain a strong economy. Indeed, if we are to maintain the sustained growth, low inflation and low interest rates of which the Government are rightly proud, we must reduce borrowing and continue the Conservative policy of lowering income and capital taxes. It is therefore important for the Government to encourage restraint in local government spending. Against that background, the Secretary of State deserves to be congratulated on his success, in what must have been extremely tough negotiations with the Treasury and with his Cabinet colleagues, in driving a hard bargain on behalf of the people of Wales.
  In the longer term, I believe that it would be right for a larger proportion of the cost of local government to be borne locally. That would increase accountability and induce a greater sense of financial responsibility, even among Labour councillors not renowned for their careful housekeeping. However, under the current system, it is plainly an important part of the Secretary of State's role to battle for the largest possible share of the taxation cake for the people of Wales. He deserves the thanks of all people living in Wales for screwing an extra £150 per head out of central Government taxes compared with what people in England received.
  I am thankful that more hon. Members representing English constituencies are not in the Chamber for this debate, because, were they to realise fully the effectiveness of my right hon. Friend in those Cabinet discussions, I fear that they would be up in arms and would attempt to cut the amounts provided to Wales.
  Sir Wyn Roberts: Is my hon. Friend aware—I think that I am right in saying this—that the abolition of
  880
  capping might result, at a conservative estimate, in the spending of an additional £1.5 billion? Does he agree that that would be very inflationary?
  Mr. Sweeney: My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. Opposition-controlled local authorities clearly would like to have us believe that money spent by local government is somehow different from that spent by central Government and that it should not appear in public borrowing figures. Time and again, we hear the argument, "Allow us to spend all our receipts from council house sales," notwithstanding the fact that the authorities borrowed the money to build those houses and have not paid it back.
  You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have already ruled that this is not the occasion for a full-scale debate on Labour's proposals for devolution in Wales. However, it would be wrong for me to conclude my remarks without pointing out that, if we did not have the strong voice that we have in our Secretary of State, we would not have secured this settlement for Wales. If we were to have the assembly proposed by the Labour party, the danger would be either that we would lose our Secretary of State entirely, or that he would be emasculated and no longer able to speak in the interests of the people of Wales with the strong voice that he now possesses.
  I can see you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, looking at me as if to say—
  Mr. Llwyd: "Shut up".
  Mr. Sweeney: Just so. [Laughter.] I shall therefore finish on this note: let us say no to devolution; let us keep our Secretary of State for Wales; and let us look forward to generous and effective leadership in future.
  8.27 pm
  Mr. Llew Smith: I was brought up to believe—my socialism reflects it—that investment should go where need is greatest, and I believe that that should be reflected in the settlement. If such an element of fairness were introduced into the settlement, my constituency of Blaenau Gwent would be one of the greatest recipients. Whatever measuring rod one uses to measure need and poverty, Blaenau Gwent almost certainly would be near the head of the league.
  Just last week, the Government's statistical office accepted that Blaenau Gwent has the lowest levels of household income and wages in Wales. We have never recovered from the closure of the coal industry and the rundown of the steel industry. The lost jobs have not been replaced with similar ones. In addition, male unemployment in my constituency is unacceptably high, especially if one examines the real figures rather than those that the Government have fiddled about 30 times. The Government would have done far better to invest in creating jobs than to concentrate their investments in the dole queue.
  Linked with unemployment and low wages is the problem of ill health. In Blaenau Gwent, the level of heart and respiratory illnesses and, indeed, cancers is far above the national average. The number of deaths from heart disease is exceptionally high in my constituency—we are not far behind Scotland, which has one of the worst rates in Europe. The 1991 census showed that 41 per cent. of

  881
  families in my constituency had a member suffering from a long-term illness or a disability which affected how that person lived his life.
  The same census showed that some 40 per cent. of the houses in Blaenau Gwent were built before 1919 and were in need of repair. We also have one of the lowest levels of car ownership in any of the valleys in south Wales, which will make it especially difficult for us to take advantage of the LG investment in Newport unless we reintroduce the train service which served that community so well for many a year.
  Mr. Rogers: My hon. Friend makes an important point. New industries may come to the coastal areas of south Wales, but people from the valley communities will face a virtual penalty of £20 to £25 per week in travel costs. That means that the jobs are not, in effect, well-paid.
  Mr. Smith: It is certainly difficult to get from the north to the south of the valleys, just as there are difficulties in moving from one valley to another. Someone living in an area of high deprivation who cannot afford his own transport will certainly have his chances of finding employment limited.
  To digress a little, I remember a past chief executive officer of Gwent health authority drawing up plans for the ambulance service in my constituency. He brought along a map, and although none of us had a PhD in geography, we had to tell him that the map was flat whereas the area had valleys. The same kind of logic applies in relation to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers).
  I could repeat the type of figures that I mentioned earlier, but I think that I have said enough to highlight the deprivation faced by many people in Blaenau Gwent. What is the Government's response? It is to treat the most vulnerable people with disdain. That is certainly the case in the settlements that we are debating.
  Sir Wyn Roberts: I really cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to get away with that. The standard spending assessment for Blaenau Gwent is £65.268 million and its external support is £62.9 million. He really cannot expect more generous treatment than that.
  Mr. Smith: It is convenient that the right hon. Gentleman should intervene at this point, as I am about to deal with the settlements for last year and for this year and how they affect my constituency. My conclusion—and that of the people who make up that community—is, to say the least, somewhat different from the right hon. Gentleman's. For instance, in our first budget as a county borough we had to make cuts of £5 million—and that was in addition to the £2 million that we had to take from our reserves. We also had to increase our council tax by some 25 per cent.
  Cuts were made across the board by reducing social services after-care, cutting much-needed building maintenance and closing a cinema. Charges were also increased substantially. This year we have no reserves on which to call. It is estimated that the council tax will rise by 16 per cent. and that cuts of £6.3 million will have to be made. Within the past year, there have been cuts of £11.3 million in the two budgets to which I referred, and we have taken £2 million from our reserves. Clearly, this has hit some of the most vulnerable people.
  882
  As the Secretary of State was reminded by the placards that greeted him when he visited my constituency yesterday, those cuts represent about 20 per cent. of the money to be wasted by the Government on the royal yacht. The Government clearly regard the royal yacht as a greater priority than education or social services. In education, social services, economic development, highways, finance and leisure, the effect will be the same: cuts and more cuts. In the forthcoming year, cuts will total approximately 10 per cent. I may be old-fashioned, but I was brought up to believe that it was the task of local authorities to provide local services, whereas the Government believe that the role of local authorities is to dismantle those services.
  The Secretary of State visited my constituency yesterday to meet the Heads of the Valleys Standing Conference. Perhaps he would like to return to my constituency and meet some of the people whose lives will certainly be blighted by the cuts. The council has not yet taken any decisions, so the Secretary of State could still examine the options that it faces. They include what is to happen to the elderly and most vulnerable if the home care service is reduced, or to those youngsters in education whose future will be even bleaker if teachers are made redundant and school budgets cut or cash-limited because of increased expenditure on items such as salaries.
  Related problems include changes in the cost of school meals and the possible removal of the price subsidy, the rationalisation of nursery schools, a reduction in school buildings maintenance and a reduction in home-to-school or home-to-college transport. Leisure services could be hit by the closure of facilities such as swimming pools and by cuts in highways maintenance. The list of services affected is endless. Although the council has not decided where the cuts will be made, it recognises that all services have to come under scrutiny—none is immune from cuts.
  The Government want to create the impression that the cuts are the fault of inefficient Labour-controlled local authorities, but people in communities such as mine are far too sensible to believe such nonsense. They know that the real reason for the cuts is that the Tories do not believe in public services—and even if they did, their expenditure is restricted by the convergence criteria of the single currency. Neither the Tories nor the single currency have any relevance to our communities: that feeling is reflected in the opinion polls, and it will soon be reflected in the polling booths.
  8.38 pm
  Mr. Roy Hughes: We are debating the Welsh revenue support grant reports, but it is necessary to consider them in the context of Welsh local government and its structure following the recent reorganisation.
  The reorganisation of local government is a costly business, but there have been two major reorganisations in Wales in just over 20 years. They were both carried out by Conservative Governments. I suggest that we have still not got the right structure.
  I shall illustrate the absurdity of the present structure with a blatant example. Before the recent reorganisation in Gwent, we had one director of education; now we have five. That is just one example, and I could cite many more. Such arrangements are wasteful, extravagant and unjustifiable. Compare that with the parsimonious

  883
  revenue support grant settlement that the Government are trying to foist on Welsh local authorities. It all goes to show that the Conservative party has never understood Wales. That is why it has always fared so disastrously at the polls at parliamentary and local government level.
  Mr. Sweeney: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hughes: No, I am not giving way.
  Having willed the end, the Government have a moral duty to provide the means, so that adequate and efficient local government services can be provided for the Welsh people. That is not happening.
  Mr. Lawrence Nippers, Newport's director of finance, is an experienced and much respected local government officer. He wrote to me on 31 January, pointing out that the RSG settlement for next year has been a massive disappointment to the new unitary councils in Wales. He says:
  "Our spending on both revenue and capital is being squeezed …
  Newport, in common with almost all other councils in Wales, is being permitted to spend an additional 1.8 per cent. next year".
  That increase, he says,
  "is insufficient to meet the cost of pay and price inflation. … the pay review bodies are considering awards at over 3 per cent. for some groups of public service employees."
  Mr. Nippers goes on:
  "For Newport the permitted increase of 1.8 per cent. equates to approximately £2 million extra spending capacity."
  Of that, £450,000 goes to the new combined fire authority. That more expensive figure replaces what went to the former Gwent fire brigade. Some of us bitterly opposed the break-up of Gwent fire brigade. This is just another example of the Government's feckless handling of public finances and services in Wales.
  An additional £1 million or so goes in waste disposal charges for Newport,
  "arising from the enforced privatisation of our waste disposal service and the Government's new Landfill Tax,"
  says Mr. Nippers. One does not need to be an authority on local government finance to realise that there is precious little left to meet the cost of pay and price inflation for all Newport services, let alone any leeway to make improvements.
  Newport has a reputation as a well run council, with one of the lowest council tax levels, but its expenditure is capped so low that it has one of the worst primary school pupil-teacher ratios in Wales. Mr. Nippers says:
  "We are unable to maintain the current standard of our services despite major efficiency savings."
  Serious attempts are being made to reduce expenditure on all services and to give priority to the education service and social services. Education in Newport now seems to be in a desperate plight. Representatives of the council, teachers, governors and professionals in the education service wrote to the Secretary of State on 19 November last year, asking him to meet a small deputation to discuss the difficult situation. In his reply, the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans), said that such a meeting would serve little purpose.
  884
  A further letter has now been sent to the Secretary of State. I urge him to respond to Newport's pleas. With the arrival of the LG investment from Korea, with all its likely spin-offs, Newport needs perhaps above all else an efficient, well funded education service.
  All manner of cuts are now envisaged in other services, some affecting disadvantaged people. Home care, day care facilities, meals on wheels and school meals are all possible targets, as are school transport, clothing grants to pupils and student grants. One social services residential establishment may be forced to close. Grants to outside bodies are also under threat.
  Gwent theatre, for example, which does wonderful work in the community, could lose because of the Government's diktat, as could Newport Women's Aid. Newport's director of finance summed up the position, saying that the Secretary of State
  "has short-changed the new local authorities."
  I have represented Newport for the past 31 years. I say in all sincerity to the people of Newport, "Don't blame your local authority and its elected representatives for this situation. Put the blame squarely where it belongs—on this sadly discredited Conservative Government."
  My constituency straddles two authorities—Newport, which I have already referred to, and what is now known as Monmouthshire county council. Monmouthshire has recently been complimented by external auditors on its prudent financial decisions. It might be called a lean and well-managed authority, but it, too, has been put under great pressure by the RSG settlement.
  Monmouthshire county council covers a relatively prosperous area of Wales, but, as council leader Graham Powell pointed out to me, it is expected to provide the same level of services as any other, but with £11 million less than it would receive if it were funded at the Welsh average. A further irritant to the council was the decision of the Welsh Office to cut its provisional settlement by a further £423,000. The cuts will lead to an absurd situation, bringing about reductions in services, likely redundancies and increases in council tax. Is it any wonder that there is so much concern about the situation?
  That is not the whole story. The Government are cutting other aspects of local authority expenditure. Last Friday, my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) and I were asked to meet the chairman of Gwent magistrates, Mr. David Turnbull, together with his vice-chairman and the clerk of the magistrates, Mr. Brian Forster. They told us of the difficulties they had experienced over the proposed building of a new magistrates court in Newport. It was to be built in a part of Newport that badly needs redevelopment. The area is known as the old coalyard site and is owned by Newport county borough council.
  Negotiations had reached an advanced stage when, under the new private finance initiative guidelines, on 29 July 1996, the Lord Chancellor notified the local council that the project was way down the list of new building schemes to be phased into a private building programme. That does not say much for the PFI method of financing public projects.
  The present magistrates court is in a 60-year-old building. There are no facilities for the disabled. Witnesses are not separated, due to inadequate facilities. Magistrates are concerned about their safety, because they have no separate entrance. Even possible new recruits to the bench have been deterred by the inadequate facilities.

  885
  If there is much further delay, the site could well be used for other purposes. I urge the Minister to notify the Secretary of State, as the principal spokesman for Wales, and ask him to intervene to get the project off the ground.
  The current position is most distressing. There should be a partnership between local government and central Government. Instead, after 18 years of Conservative government, local decision making has been eroded, and we have dictatorship from the centre. Local government should be given back the powers it has lost, and I trust that the incoming Labour Government will take early steps to bring that about.
  8.50 pm
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: This evening sees the annual ritual of special pleading by hon. Members who are concerned about the finances of their local authorities. However, our ritualistic complaining belies a serious problem—the precarious position of Welsh local authorities. Furthermore, their difficulties are no fault of their own. For the past five or six years, heavy expenditure cuts have been imposed on local government year on year. One is tempted to ask where it will all end.
  It is no secret that central Government view local government with distrust and even disdain. That could be because there are so few Tory-controlled councils in Wales. The process has continued for some 18 years, and the House has passed countless pieces of legislation curtailing the powers of local government. There have been more than 100 such measures in the past 18 years, in a steady, unrelenting erosion of local government powers and responsibilities.
  It is small wonder, therefore, that that has gone hand in hand with ever-deepening cuts in local government finance. The dead hand of central Government is truly upon local government, and it is time that we all realised what is happening.
  It has been said that, if we want people to act responsibly, we should give them responsibility. The corollary to that is that we have witnessed diminishing powers, financial support and morale in local government. This year's settlement, alas, is no exception to the general rule.
  Conservative Members may seek to intervene and make the point that some 80 per cent. of standard spending is provided by the Exchequer in comparison with a lower figure for England, but that simply underlines the fact that Welsh local government is even more in the ever-tightening grip of the Exchequer.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in the neighbouring parts of rural Wales that he and I represent, the big lie that local authorities are to blame for cuts in local services is no longer believed by anyone?
  Mr. Llwyd: That is absolutely true, and it will be further understood in the coming weeks and months, and rightly so. There is no doubt that, when people say that central Government have been judged unfairly, they are talking palpable nonsense. If central Government had even a modicum of respect for local government, they would redress that balance. I agree entirely with the hon. and learned Gentleman.
  886
  Welsh local authorities are responsible authorities—not for them flagship projects, but rather a real concern for the delivery of everyday essential services. Even the most basic ones are under threat from this year's settlement. When one meets representatives of local government, they often ask where the cuts will stop.
  My authority and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) is a case in point. I met the chief executive of Gwynedd council last week. The picture he painted, although realistic, was a dismal one. I shall not repeat what the right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts) said earlier, as his figures were accurate.
  Put simply, the council requires £119.9 million in 1997–98. The spending limit set by the Secretary of State is £115.7 million, and the council will receive only 82 per cent. of that, or £95.3 million, in rate support grant. Therefore, the council will need to cut its budget by more than £4.2 million to meet the Secretary of State's figure.
  Should Gwynedd spend up to the maximum, £20.4 million would have to be raised from council tax, which would mean an increase of 11.3 per cent. The right hon. Member for Conwy made a reasonable argument. It would be totally unreasonable to expect the council to impose a large increase in council tax following a 25 per cent. increase last year. There is only so much that people can suffer in any part of Wales and throughout the British Isles.
  Thankfully, Gwynedd, like many other councils, received a special additional grant of nearly £2 million from the Welsh Office. However, that is for the current year, and it will not be available for 1997–98. Gwynedd has resolved to attempt to keep the council tax increase low, or at least to the average for Wales—between 8 per cent. and 9 per cent. There will be a shortfall of £4.5 million, and the council has resolved to make cuts amounting to £4 million and to find the remaining £500,000 from the balances.
  As it is a highly responsible authority, Gwynedd will seek to find as much as possible of the money for the deficit by cutting administration and seeking to be still more efficient. It must be remembered, however, that last year the same council cut £1 million in administrative costs, so the future will be bleak.
  The council has agreed that there should be a 6 per cent. cut over all departments, and some departments will have to face additional cuts. I do not like scaremongering, but Gwynedd is considering cutting teaching jobs, which account for a large part of the education budget. That will be inevitable.
  I am not trying to make unreasonable points, but Gwynedd will face cuts in teaching staff, leisure, culture, planning, highways and social services. There will be direct cuts of 3 per cent. in the school budgets, cuts in home care services and the closure of some homes for the elderly. The council will also be cutting its attempt to promote the local economy—something much heralded by the Secretary of State earlier, and rightly so. Unfortunately, Gwynedd will therefore have to reverse its enlightened policy in that regard.
  It grieves me that, as the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) said, the least able people in society will come out worse in this spending round. Those with special needs, those who benefit from the community care budget, the elderly and the infirm will bear the brunt of

  887
  the cuts. Coupled with cuts in education, we are taking a retrograde step in many ways, about which I am very concerned.
  The Welsh Office settlement of 1.9 per cent. is, of course, below the rate of inflation—despite what the Secretary of State said. It seems that no effort is being made to ensure a fair, reasonable settlement for Welsh councils. In addition to the drastic cuts that Gwynedd faces to which I have referred, I am very concerned that it will have to make cuts in other areas that are yet to be decided. Such decisions will be made on 6 March.
  Another authority that impinges on my constituency and the constituencies of the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) and the right hon. Member for Conwy is Conwy borough council. I have recently spoken to members and officers of that council and been told that the council will have to find cuts totalling at least 6.5 per cent.—with no service protection—of this year's budget, amounting to £5.2 million.
  After taking into account pay inflation and other demands on services, a further cut of £2 million will have to be found to meet the capping target. There will have to be cuts of £2.4 million in education, £1 million in social services, £400,000 in highways expenditure and £1.4 million in other miscellaneous areas. I greatly regret that, inevitably, teaching posts are under threat.
  In addition, reductions in maintenance are planned, and, since the capital programme cannot sustain capitalisation of such costs for 1997–98, there will also be a cut of £500,000 from that source. It will not be possible to recognise fully increased demands on social services to offset the proposed cuts, which will result in proposals including increased charges for a wide range of services and reduced grants to the voluntary sector. Again, that will impinge on and affect the most needy people in our society.
  It is also envisaged that there will be early voluntary retirement, with staff not being replaced, increased charges, reductions in grounds maintenance, and so on. The balance of savings will undoubtedly be found through further job losses, more increases in charges, and reductions in services.
  The increase in the SSA does not seem to come anywhere near recognising demographic changes and normal inflationary pressure—ignoring the fact that no provision has been made for pay inflation. A late change in the SSA has resulted in Conwy borough council having to find even cuts than those anticipated, raising further questions about the SSA model and system. Adjustments in nursery vouchers will cause more problems. Additional aggregate external finance, although much heralded by the Secretary of State, is not a substitute for increased spending power.
  After it has saved £7 million, the council tax will be cut by 1 per cent.—not because the council chose to do that, but because more AEF has been put into the system. Conwy's director of finance concludes his submission to me by saying:
  "All in all, the 1997–98 RSG settlement has to be one of the worst ever settlements for local government and, therefore, the local taxpayers."
  In Ceredigion, the story for the council in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) is equally
  888
  serious, with cuts totalling £4.2 million required to bring the budget to within 1 per cent. of the cash limit, and a projected serious loss of jobs—at least 40 to 45 in central departments, and an inevitable consequent decline in the level of service being offered. As one might expect from a cardi council, a responsible and cost-effective authority is being forced into providing a shoestring service to the public, which is very worrying for and damaging to ordinary people who live there.
  Mr. Cynog Dafis: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the situation in Ceredigion. It is well understood in Ceredigion that the reduction of 1p in the standard rate of income tax is being paid for by the reduction in the level of service and an unreasonable increase in council tax. That will be worse next year if damping comes to an end without any compensatory increase through an adjustment in the SSA. Will he join me in requiring that the SSA must reflect the higher cost of service delivery in rural areas?
  Mr. Llwyd: I agree entirely—that is probably the system's biggest deficiency, and it needs addressing.
  Ynys Môn county council is also in a serious position. It will suffer an 11 per cent. cut in standard credit approval, and an 18 per cent. cut in housing. There will be cuts of 2.7 per cent. on the revenue side in education, meaning 20 teaching jobs lost; planning services will be cut by 6.6 per cent.; buses and public transport services will be cut and fares increased; public protection will be cut and public conveniences closed; road sweeping and beach cleaning will be cut; and there will be a 6.6 per cent. cut in social services. It has been decided that the council will try to protect children's services, but people with special needs will be badly hit. To say that the council is between a rock and a hard place is to understate the case.
  Mr. Llew Smith: I am sure that, like myself, the hon. Gentleman is totally opposed to public expenditure restraints or cuts, but will he accept that there is logic in the Government's position—that, if one accepts the convergence criteria for the single currency and the restrictions on public expenditure, that must show itself in the amount of money that goes to local authorities?
  Mr. Llwyd: I do not want to get into the European argument at this point.
  The nursery voucher scheme—ill judged and half-baked—will put further pressure on Ynys Môn's budget, and the much-heralded council tax reduction scheme has had little effect, adding nothing to the council's finances.
  The future is therefore extremely bleak. What is unacceptable is that those forced cuts come side by side with the second annual 1p income tax cut. Cutting taxes is fine when necessary services are protected, but can never be justified when education, social services and transport are being ceaselessly cut. The shadow Chancellor has said that he will abide by the present Budget for the next two years, so my question is: why vote Labour?
  The Labour party, in its craven urge for power, has sold out, and left thousands of Welsh people in its wake. I trust that the people of Wales will realise that they are being

  889
  sacrificed on the altar of Labour's dream of power. Labour has taken Wales for granted once too often, and the British Labour party has shown that it is far more interested in city types and the well-off of the south-east than in the ordinary working men and women of Wales.
  I trust that, when these dreadful and painful cuts are made throughout Wales, the Welsh people will realise that the British Labour party in Wales has no core values any more and no regard for the interests and well-being of the ordinary people of Wales. I trust that the people of Wales will realise that in the months to come.
  It is now clear to the people of Wales that there is only one serious party that opposes these cuts—Labour is not prepared to stand against them, and the Tories are hell-bent on making them. Both Labour and the Tories agreed to cut 1p off income tax last year and this year. We voted against that on principle.
  If the people of Wales want a party that is committed to protecting their interests, the choice is clear. If there is a Labour Government and an increase in Plaid Cymru representation in the House, we will bring pressure to bear to force the Labour party to think again about the interests of the people of Wales, which it is now selling down stream.
  9.7 pm
  Mr. Don Touhig: For the people of Wales in general, and for my constituency in particular, this financial settlement will prove to be severe in the extreme. It will have dramatic consequences for the level of services that Welsh local authorities provide, and it will mean that my constituents will pay more in council tax for a significantly reduced level of services.
  The services provided by local councils such as mine—the county borough of Caerphilly—are vital to sustain the very quality of life itself. When we step outside our front gate, we walk on a pavement provided by the local council; we drive our cars on roads maintained by the local council; our children—or those of most of us—are educated in schools built by the local council; we swim in leisure centre pools operated by the local council; and our elderly relatives receive meals on wheels in a scheme funded by the local council. All those services are now at risk.
  Yesterday the leader of Caerphilly county borough council, which cut £12 million from its budget last year, told me that it now faces a further £8.5 million cut in the coming financial year. That means that there will have been £20 million-worth of cuts in the first two years of the authority's existence. Cuts in school budgets in Caerphilly could cost up to 100 teaching jobs, class sizes will increase, and the school meals service is under threat. Young people wishing to go on to higher education may not receive the appropriate grants.
  I spent 20 years as a councillor before entering the House, and I have always supported and worked to protect the education service in particular. A council can cut a road programme; a town centre bypass may be deferred; motorists may be angered and frustrated, but at a later date the money may be found, the bypass will be built, and people will be satisfied. We cannot cut a child's education and put something back in five years' time. Yet that is the prospect that the children of the people I represent face in the coming year.
  890
  The social services in Caerphilly borough will have to make severe reductions in home care budgets, and those who depend on such services and already have to pay for some of them will face increased charges. There may be cuts in refuse collection services and reductions in council house repairs. Highways and grounds maintenance also face the axe. Despite all that, my constituents face a 15 per cent. hike in their council tax. Other hon. Members have mentioned the damping grant. Without such a grant, my constituents would face a 30 per cent. increase in their council tax this year.
  At Question Time last week, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), the Prime Minister said:
  "we have the most successful economy, with the highest growth and the best inward investment record, in western Europe."—[Official Report, 28 January 1997; Vol. 289, c. 150.]
  My constituents' response to that will be to ask, "If the country is doing that well, why are we sacking teachers, cutting social services and asking the public to pay more for services?"
  I will tell my constituents why: we are paying the price for the failure of Tory economic policies over the past 18 years—policies which meant that billions of pounds of North sea oil revenue, and billions more pounds in income from the sale of former public utilities, were used not to invest in infrastructure, public services or our children's future, but to give tax-cutting bribes before each general election. There can be no clearer illustration of the failure of Tory economic strategy than the fact that the British people will now be paying more tax than they were when the Tories took office in 1979. The results of the failure to invest those billions of pounds in our country's future prosperity are now being seen throughout the country.
  In a recent report to Caerphilly councillors, chief officers said that the Secretary of State's announcements
  "paint a very bleak picture for all local authorities in Wales … It is inevitable that there will be severe reductions in both revenue and capital spending coupled with double figure increases in council tax."
  The problems faced by my local council can be summed up as follows. The standard spending assessment has been increased by 1.6 per cent. and the capping limit by 1.8 per cent.; yet Caerphilly county borough council believes that it needs an extra 6.5 per cent. in spending for the coming year. Why is that? It is because it faces, among other things, inescapable increases in expenditure arising from demographic and legislative changes.
  The council needs £118,000 next year because of increased pupil numbers. It needs £274,000 to comply with transport legislation, such as that on seat belts. It needs £60,000 to administer the nursery voucher scheme and £50,000 as a result of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. It also needs £500,000 to implement additional legislation affecting social services, and £361,000 for the landfill tax.
  Instead, the council will have to make cuts of £8.5 million. Those cuts have yet to be determined in detail, but they will inevitably result in severe reductions across all departments, including sensitive front-line services provided by the education and social services departments, with the consequent loss of jobs. Even so, council tax increases are in prospect: 10 per cent. in the former Rhymney Valley district and 15 per cent. in the former borough of Islwyn. The non-housing capital

  891
  programme may be cut by 12 per cent., and the council house capital programme by 25 per cent. The urban aid and housing improvement grants scheme part of the capital programme may be cut by 35 per cent. Set against that, the true year on year increase in Government grant is but 2 per cent.—well below the rate of inflation. It stretches credulity to the limit, and it is impossible to reconcile that increase with Government's pronouncements which use terms such as "a good settlement" and "extra funding for education."
  I have no doubt that we shaill hear the same old hoary tale from Ministers that there is no need for councils to increase taxes, that the settlement is fair and that if taxes increase it is all the fault of local councils. I say to the Government what any Welsh housewife would say: "You can't spend what you haven't got." The plain fact is that the Tory Government dislike and distrust local government; that is why local government finances are now largely controlled by central Government.
  There are three ways in which the Government keep total control of local government finances. Central Government, not local government, now determine the level of public spending and the level of external finance available to support local councils' revenue budgets. Central Government, not local government, determine the maximum level of spend for local councils through the capping regime. Central Government, not local government, determine the allocation of borrowing approvals to finance capital expenditure. It is a case of the old saying, "He who pays the piper calls the tune."
  Given those controls, it is central Government, not local government, who must take responsibility for the key public services that my council is being forced to cut and for the hike in council tax. Very soon the public will have an opportunity to pass judgment on the Government. I believe that the people of Islwyn—who sent me here after a by-election two years ago in which the Tory candidate received 3.9 per cent. of the vote and lost his deposit—will have their day, like others across Wales who have suffered under the Tory Government. The Conservative party will pay a price at the polls for its failure to invest in public services. It will be a heavy price, but the Tories will richly deserve to pay it.
  9.16 pm
  Mr. Alex Carlile: I begin by apologising for being late for the beginning of the debate. My lateness was the exact equal of the lateness of one of the few direct trains from north Wales. The fact that it is direct does not make it punctual, and regular travellers on that route say that it is extremely rarely punctual. That is just another symptom of what has happened to us in recent years.
  I suspect that many of us taking part in the debate feel a sense of deja vu or even of deja vu upon deja vu. We have all been here before, year after year, talking about the Tories' meanness in the local government settlement. This debate is a distant democratic fiction to the people who live in Montgomeryshire, which I represent, in the area represented by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) and perhaps in every other part of Wales. Here we are, supposedly democratically discussing the local government settlement for Welsh
  892
  communities, without the power to amend it, to examine it in Committee or to scrutinise it in any meaningful way. We have the power to put forward in a few minutes—as we all do, understandably—the views of our constituents, but without the expectation of being listened to.
  When I leave this House, as I shall in a few weeks—
  Mr. Richards: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Carlile: The hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) has abuse in his nature. One of the most offensive things about this House is having to sit opposite him and watch him perform in that revolting way. He is an insult to the intelligence. However, I will return to the subject of the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Many people in Wales cannot reconcile the fact that they elect councillors and Members of Parliament but apparently have no power whatever—even by logical argument—to influence the outcome of the Government's deliberations as to what local services they are provided. The fact that 90 per cent. of local government finance is provided by central Government is very bad for local government and for democracy in Wales. I am pleased to say that I belong to a party which has always believed that less money should come from central Government and more money should be raised by local taxation, for which locally and regionally elected representatives would be accountable and for which they would answer to their electorate. Surely that is the only logical way of providing democratic local government and making it possible to debate these issues seriously.
  I am puzzled by the Government's performance. They tell us that the economy is so successful that we have reached a new prosperity. They tell us that such has been the outstanding ability of the Government that we can have income tax cuts, but with the other hand they are taking away local services. In the rest of my speech I shall tell the House what constituents say to me about the results of the rate support grant settlement.
  Mr. Rogers: The hon. and learned Gentleman has advanced the novel idea that local government should be the collector of taxation for central Government. He should bear in mind the fact that most of the functions that local authorities perform are imposed on them by central Government.
  Mr. Carlile: The way in which those functions are performed by local government is very much a local issue, and in common with most of our partners in Europe I believe that raising local taxes—such as a local income tax—to pay for local facilities is much more logical than the bizarre system that we have in this country. No doubt we shall be arguing that case in future.
  I was about to tell the House what people are saying in rural Montgomeryshire, in rural Powys, about the effect of the settlement. They tell me that there is less money for the elderly and for people with learning difficulties, for the mentally ill and for all those who need assistance from their local council.
  The two learning difficulties hospitals in my constituency, Bryn Hyfryd and Llys Maldwyn, are to close shortly. It is right that they should close, but the people with nursing qualifications who have skilfully looked after patients at those hospitals rarely obtain jobs

  893
  in the new facilities to which those people are sent. It is absurd—even offensive—that the people who have learnt over years the skill of dealing with problems such as bedsores and other physical ailments will no longer be able to provide such nursing care to the people who in the past were judged to need it. The reason? There is not enough money to employ them.
  Rural roads are also affected by the settlement. Like many hon. Members, I had some farmers to dinner at the House last night. Almost the first thing that they complained about was the condition of the roads and the way in which it has been affecting dairy farmers this year. It is illustrated by human situations such as the fact that in Powys more milk tankers have skidded off the road this year than last year because there is less money for gritting roads. That is a real effect on people, and it is quite cynically determined by the Government.
  Schools are being forced into a vicious circle by the rate support grant settlement. In Newtown in my constituency, the high school, which is far from being one of the worst schools in Wales—it has a pretty good record on the whole—is being forced to cut teachers, partly because many parents are sending their children to more distant high schools which they have chosen. However, as teachers are lost from Newtown high school, the school will inevitably suffer further difficulties, which will make it less popular among parents, and so it goes on. As a result, the high school in the biggest town in my constituency will be forced to become a poorer school, despite the fact that its head teacher has a clear sense of direction.
  The contribution made by local government to police and fire services means that they are less able to purchase new technology such as closed-circuit television—which country towns now unfortunately need because of the increase in violent crime—so we have a reduction in our quality of life.
  As for other forms of crime prevention, traditionally we have had a good level of probation services throughout north and mid-Wales, but probation services are now running hard even to stand still. A more realistic picture is probably that they are now going backwards and are less able to provide the sort of support services that are needed and which lead to crime prevention.
  The real poor relation of local government is consumer protection and trading standards. As it happens, in my legal practice over the past 25 years I have been heavily involved in matters concerning the application of false trade descriptions and other related issues. Even 10 years ago, most Welsh counties could provide a high quality trading standards and consumer protection service. It is now a Cinderella service, and whose fault is that? It is the fault of the Government.
  Those are real examples of what real people in Wales—not Ministers blustering from the Dispatch Box at the end of a short debate—see as happening as a result of Government policies. I suspect that, after all these years of Conservative government, the Conservative party has probably visited defeat on itself. There is now a mindset among many people which says that so much has been cut that, whether they like the Conservative party or not—I suspect that most of them do not, and rightly so—there must be a change of Government, because the balance has gone too far in the other direction.
  9.26 pm
  Mr. Rod Richards: The local government settlement was made in a tight financial climate. Given the circumstances, it was fair, and we must remember that all local authorities in Wales agreed to it. As several Opposition Members have said, although the economy is now going strongly and is the strongest in Europe, we must bear it in mind that we have recently come out of a deep recession. The public sector borrowing that was required to maintain services at an acceptable level at that time must be repaid in times of plenty, and those are the circumstances in which the local government settlement has been made.
  I therefore compliment my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the settlement that he achieved with the local authorities and on his presentation this afternoon. It was in contrast to the presentation of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), who I notice has just scuttled out of the Chamber before I reach the key point in his speech—[HON. MEMBERS: "He is here."] He has scuttled to the Back Benches, where he expects to be after the general election.
  The hon. Gentleman gave a poor presentation. Indeed, I could have found a much better debate had I gone to Caerphilly Co-op, but that is another matter. He said that, if there were a Labour Government, they would not break the expenditure totals in Wales in their first year in office. Even though pressed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Caerphilly would give no such assurance for the second year of a Labour Government. I invite the hon. Gentleman to make his position clear. He said that an incoming Labour Government would not break the expenditure total in Wales in their first year. Is that the case in the second year—yes or no? I invite the hon. Gentleman to say so now.
  The hon. Gentleman has declined my invitation. The right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) has made it clear that an incoming Labour Government would stick to the Government's expenditure targets for two years. Does the hon. Member for Caerphilly want me to write to the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East to tell him that there is a breakaway movement in Wales, and that the hon. Gentleman refuses to give such an assurance? I again invite the hon. Gentleman to make his position on Wales clear. Is it the same as the position stated by the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East for the rest of the United Kingdom?
  The hon. Gentleman may laugh, but the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East may not. If the hon. Gentleman intends to break the Government's expenditure targets for the second year, and the right hon. Gentleman intends to stick to his statement, the subvention to Wales from England would be increased, which would mean a cut in Government expenditure in England. Is that what the hon. Member for Caerphilly intends? Does he or does he not agree with the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East that he will stick to the expenditure target in Wales in the second year?
  It is evident that the hon. Member for Caerphilly is once again out on a limb in relation to his party leadership. I am sure that we shall return to the matter, and I assure him that I shall return to it when the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East is occupying the Opposition Front Bench.
  9.32 pm
  Mr. Donald Anderson: It is a sad fact that, when there are two routes to a political destination—the high road and the low road—the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) will invariably choose the low road.
  I shall make but one general point and one point in relation to my constituency. On the general point, of course there is a ritual in these debates: as they sink to their knees, Conservative Members say that we have never had it so good and that Wales is fortunate to have a Secretary of State who has brought back the goods yet again; we point out that, at local level, there is an impact on the services that our people properly expect.
  The political context in which we now operate is that there has been an almost complete meltdown in Conservative representation in local government in Wales, so the Government do not have a constant reminder of how the folks at local level are feeling the effect of cuts. The Government live in a vacuum, away from where ordinary folks live, move and have their being. After the general election, there may well be such a meltdown at central Government level in Wales, and there will be no one from Wales on the Conservative side of the House.
  I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) about one clear fact that I appreciate after many years in the House. In spite of the Government's public relations efforts, the people of Wales point the finger of blame not at their local authorities—which are all non-Conservative—but at central Government. They realise who are the real villains of the piece. They see the reduction in the proportion of rate support grant for local government spending from two thirds in 1993–94 to just over a half now, and the real cuts of 25 per cent. in housing renovation grants over the past three years. Housing capital provision has been cut by a quarter in the past three years. The people of Wales see the impact of the Government's policies in the failure of councillors to provide much-needed services—for example, ridding houses of damp and providing affordable housing for their sons and daughters.
  The settlement will impact on Swansea city and county council, which will have to increase council tax by 5 per cent.—4 per cent. of which is a result of damping for the rest of Wales. That is only part of the new burden that the Government have imposed on local authorities. My council faces more than £1 million in additional expenditure as a direct result of legislative changes for which it was not allocated resources. For example, the landfill tax has meant a net expenditure increase of £500,000, and an expensive reorganisation of the fire service has occurred against the wishes of the local authority. That is a double whammy; the council did not want those policies, but must now deal with their financial effects.
  The pay increase for teachers looms. The budget does not take it into account, although it will have a substantial impact on local government expenditure. The settlement will mean a loss of about 175 teaching posts in my constituency, and the £11 million reduction will mean cuts in school budgets, home helps and road maintenance work.
  896
  There is intense anger in my city because the Government have approved no new transport schemes. That has had a disastrous effect on Hafod in my constituency, which will suffer as a result of the failure to complete the Swansea valley route. Real spending cuts are perceived by the Welsh electorate as a direct result of Government policy, not the fault of local councillors. They will adversely affect the services that our people expect. The Chancellor's claim that things are good will be met with the cry from the Welsh electorate, "If things are so good, why are they so bad for us and for local government services?"
  9.36 pm
  Mr. Barry Jones: I look back fondly to the tenure of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) as Secretary of State for Wales. The shadow Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), made a shrewd speech tonight, and I am happy to support his remarks. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) made the essential debating point when he said that, within a generation—little more than 20 years—two great reforms of local government were enacted, and the latter reform was totally under-resourced. Those local government reforms were very costly, and their consequences will be apparent for years to come.
  I had hoped that the settlement would allow my county of Flintshire to avoid cutting education resources. The council leader, deputy leader and chairman of finance are anxious about the prospect of losing teacher posts. I know that headmasters, staff, governors and parents in my constituency do not want to lose one teacher—they want more, not fewer, teachers.
  The housing scene is a battlefield as a consequence of the Secretary of State's cuts. I had hoped that he would release more council house sales receipts, which would generate extra jobs for those who repair and modernise homes in my constituency and throughout Wales.
  I emphasise that point, because the poor and the elderly had an extremely rough time during the desperately cold weather that we suffered at the turn of the year. Tens of thousands of houses throughout the Principality were very cold and almost impossible to live in. Those homes require double glazing and new doors, and the whole housing fabric needs to be modernised. The Secretary of State should have made that a priority when he arrived at this grant settlement.
  I believe that, when the day comes, the Welsh people will take electoral revenge, unprecedented in its savagery.
  9.39 pm
  Mr. Win Griffiths: We have had a wide-ranging debate, in which my hon. Friends the Members for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith), for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes), for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig), for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) and for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) graphically explained why the local government settlement will result in deep cuts in services, while at the same time forcing local authorities to increase their council taxes beyond the rate of inflation.
  The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) described the way in which

  897
  their authorities were savagely affected by the local government settlement. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy spoilt his remarks by his unjustified attack on the Labour party's desire to seek power for the betterment of everyone and not just the few, which is a characteristic of the Government's policies.
  Unfortunately, the contributions of the hon. Members for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) and for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) and that of the right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts) were characterised by an unnecessary and unjustified attack on my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies). The personal abuse that one or two Conservative Members sought to pile on him was totally unjustified, because he was showing clearly the dramatic effects that the settlement will have on the provision of services in Wales.
  It is all very well for the Secretary of State to talk about the thousands of millions of pounds and the increases of 2.6 or 2.3 per cent. that he has obtained, and about the wonderful job that is being done—his hon. Friends duly backed him up. My hon. Friends the Members for Islwyn and for Swansea, East contrasted his talk about the dynamic, thriving, prospering and wealthy economy of Wales with the impact that the settlement will have on people in Wales.
  The rate of increase of the settlement is lower than the inflation rate. It is part of the plan to continue to reduce the revenue support grant and central Government support for local government. In the past three years, the revenue support grant has lost its real value by 7.1 per cent. With the savage capping criteria on top of that—except for last year—virtually every council in Wales has had to increase its council tax above the rate of inflation.
  I carried out a survey to which 19 local authorities in Wales responded. In 12 of those 19, the council tax D band was being increased by between 3.5 and 15 per cent. A further four authorities were facing small increases, and three were making cuts, which, perversely, because of the capping criteria, also meant that they were having to cut the services that they provide to their people. This year's local government settlement really is a mess.
  Let us look at the impact on the budget, and on services. Many local authorities are trying to protect schools budgets. Six are increasing them; seven have made sure that schools budget cuts are less than the cuts covering the whole authority. My authority of Bridgend will suffer a 2 per cent. cut in the schools budget, but there will be cuts of more than 6 per cent. in other departments. All that is being forced on authorities by the settlement that has been foolishly lauded by some Conservative Back Benchers.
  According to the survey, 12 authorities estimated that they were likely to lose about 770 teachers. Four thought that they would have no losses; three had not yet settled the matter, and from three I had no information, but, having looked at press reports, I counted another 299 possible teacher job losses. That amounts to well over 1,000. Not all those losses may come to pass, of course, because some schools may choose to use some of their reserves to keep teachers in post for another year. Nevertheless, class sizes are increasing.
  The Welsh Office's own figures show that in 1992, when the Prime Minister was re-elected, 56,411 children in mainstream primary schools in Wales were in classes of more than 30. In the last year for which figures are
  898
  available, 1995–96, the figure had risen to 69,873. That is an increase of 24 per cent., or more than 13,000 children. That is how efficiency gains are secured in education: more children have to be put in front of teachers. There has been a reduction in the teaching work force, while the number of pupils has increased.
  It is not just a case of increases in class sizes, however. Local authorities have not enough money for school maintenance or school security: the Government are not providing any additional funds. Transport costs are also a problem. We are told by the office of Her Majesty's chief inspector that the teaching of Welsh is hampered by a lack of resources, and we are told by the National Confederation of Parent-Teacher Associations that teachers and parents in England and Wales are raising more than £100 million a year for books and equipment. The nursery voucher rule changes have had an adverse effect on many Welsh authorities.
  There has been a 20 per cent. increase in pupils with statements in respect of special educational needs. Other costs relate to the teachers' pay award, early retirement, the increasing number of free school meals, the requirements of the national curriculum, school transport, the Welsh Language Act 1993, the code of practice, changes in the superannuation rules and the administration of nursery vouchers. All that amounts to a bill of nearly £80 million, but the Government have taken no account of it.
  Housing is also affected. There has been a 24 per cent. real-terms cut in housing renovation grants since 1994–95, and an 18 per cent. cut since last year. There has been a 24.5 per cent. real-terms reduction in housing capital provision over that three-year period, and a 16 per cent. cut since last year. As for homelessness, since 1979—surprise, surprise—the number of cases of people being accepted as homeless in Wales has nearly doubled, from just over 4,500 to just over 9,000.
  Local authorities have a direct interest in housing association budgets, because of allocation policies. In December 1995, the Secretary of State said that he was giving Tai Cymru a social housing grant of £85 million, which would "globalise" into £150 million with private sector finance. Last December, he said that he was giving Tai Cymru £60 million, which would "globalise" into £100 million, yet in both years there were going to be 3,000 housing starts with 50 per cent. less money available. The right hon. Gentleman obviously needs to go into housing when he completes his time in Parliament after the next general election.
  The fire service in south Wales is badly underfunded. It has problems over the pension scheme. The number of call-outs has been increasing annually at 10 per cent. Capital needs are not being met. It is going to have great difficulty in providing the high service level that is needed, particularly when its training needs under the Health and Safety Executive improvement notice will cost more than £1 million a year for the next five years, and that was following the tragic deaths of two firemen in Blaina. I would have thought that the Government would make provision for those needs, but they plainly have not.
  I hope therefore that, even at this stage, the Government will reconsider the total of Welsh Office expenditure and decide that there is a case for giving greater priority to education and other local government services that are provided for people in Wales.
  9.50 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): I am grateful for the welcome that has been given to the settlement by my right hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts) and by my hon. Friends the Members for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) and for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards). I even wish to note a rare appearance by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile).
  The debate has removed what little credibility Opposition Members had. The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) argues that a settlement that increases money for local government, providing councils with £1,000 per person to spend and £880 per person in grants to support that spending, is wholly inadequate, yet we are told that there would be no increase in public spending under a Labour Government. When the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) is asked how much extra he would give local government, he cannot or will not answer. Nor will he tell the House what other expenditure he would cut to give local government more, so as to stay within the reported spending plans of the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown). We must not forget that funding for a Welsh assembly would also have to be found.
  Concerns have been expressed about the council tax level and the iniquities of the capping system without any explanation of how council tax and public expenditure would be controlled if capping were abandoned. My right hon. Friend the Member for Conwy speculated on the cost in increased spending and increased council tax. I hesitate to give him an answer on that point. I fear that the sky would be the limit, with Labour local authorities let loose, but I rush to agree with him about the consequences of business rates again being the property of local authorities, as the Labour and Liberal parties want. The rates are going up only 2.2 per cent. this year, and that is for one fifth of small businesses. The rates of the other four fifths are being frozen. We can imagine how much rates would go up otherwise.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has made it clear that he is providing £16.6 million to limit council tax increases to 15 per cent. The majority of council tax increases will be considerably lower than that. I noticed that the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) was rightly concerned about unemployment and other social factors in his constituency. I was surprised that he did not welcome the £4 million to damp the increase that his council is imposing on his constituents. After all, the average Welsh council tax for 1997–98 should be about £200 less than in England, but, at 88 per cent. of total standard spending, Government support in Wales is already proportionately higher than in England and in Scotland.
  Governments who adopt a prudent approach to public finances cannot operate on the basis of wish lists. That is the only way in which to describe Opposition Members' arguments tonight. As my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan reminded us, the obvious implication of their arguments is increased total standard spending, increased spending unstrained by capping and increased central Government support to keep down council tax levels. If the hon. Member for Caerphilly has any sums, I have to conclude that they do not add up, and the best thing we could do is give him a nursery voucher.
  900
  The nursery voucher scheme has been criticised. The scheme furthers our commitment to parental choice and it does not disadvantage local government. Local authorities still retain the discretion to provide pre-school nursery education for four-year-olds, but will benefit from the receipt of voucher income. If parents are content with the provision that is being offered by the maintained sector, there is every reason to suppose that they will send their children to council-owned establishments. There is already evidence to suggest that some local education authorities in Wales are expanding their provision.
  The Government's decision to base the nursery voucher adjustment base budgets on the populations of one to four-year-olds in local authority areas rather than on the number of four-year-olds in maintained schools was taken only after two separate consultation exercises. Local authorities differed in their views on the most appropriate basis, but the majority of responding authorities took the view that the adjustment should be based on the one-to-four-year-old population. That is in line with the needs indicators that are used for under-fives in the standard spending assessment formula that was agreed by the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government Finance and it avoids penalising authorities that have chosen to invest in nursery education.
  The hon. Members for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) and for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) spoke about education. I am reminded of Labour's stunt today of claiming that 1,000 teachers are to be sacked in Wales. That was a unique criticism by Labour of Labour councillors in Wales. There are exceptions, but they are the people making the decisions. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) was concerned about 100 teachers being sacked in his authority, but I fear that he is out of date. He should have read Saturday's Western Mail, because it stated that his council is seeking not to do that. If Rhondda Cynon Taff, Denbighshire and Carmarthenshire can seek to ensure that no teachers are sacked, why should any local authority in Wales choose to make sacking its priority?
  I tried to intervene on the hon. Member for Caerphilly because I wanted to question him on statistics that he quoted. He said that local government spending over the years had gone up by only 43 per cent. and that education spending had gone up by only 36 per cent. If he had understood his own statistics, he would have recognised that he was giving evidence of cuts in education that have been inflicted by Labour councillors in Wales. He said that he wanted to help young people. I wanted to ask him why, if he is sincere in that, he does not join in condemning Labour councillors whose first priority is to cut the number of teachers. It is Labour's sacred cows that we should be sacrificing, not our children's future.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Conwy was concerned about representation on the police formula working group. I happily tell him that I welcome such representation and that it is also welcomed by the Home Office. It is now a matter for Welsh authorities to take forward with their colleagues in the convention of local police authorities. Since 1 April, spending on the police in Wales has gone up by some 20 per cent. Before that date, spending was set by county councils, usually Labour. For some, the change over the past two years has been a rescue, especially in south Wales, because Labour starved the police of funding. The chief constable of south Wales has spoken about the extra officers that he could

  901
  take on with the money that he has available. The commander of the Vale division has been able to point out how he has reduced crime because of extra officers in the Vale of Glamorgan.
  I recently attended a demonstration of the closed circuit television that is operated by the police in Cardiff city centre and I soon realised the desirability of extending that facility. On two successive Saturdays, schoolboys from Llanishen high school were robbed in arcades in Cardiff. I must not exaggerate the point, but my son was one of the schoolboys who were robbed. All that reinforces the fact that we were right to take over the funding of the police in Wales from Labour councils, which starved them of money.
  The settlement is a prudent but right package that will enable local government to maintain essential functions, if they act responsibly and cost effectively. The hon. Member for Caerphilly has called it unfair and inadequate, but he offered no policy in its stead. We heard a diatribe about failed economic policies. I shall not reply at the same length, but if the hon. Gentleman is concerned to improve the economy how could he dare to impose the social chapter, the minimum wage, the Welsh assembly and all the other job-destroying policies of his party?
  Let us consider the difference between what Labour says and what it does when it has power. Labour claims that education has priority, but it cuts teachers. It professes to be interested in law and order, but it starves the police of money. Labour says one thing, but it does another. It is hypocrisy to such an extent that Labour Members cannot even control their own temporal lobes. The Government are presenting the right settlement to the House today, in stark contrast to the absence of policy from the Opposition. I commend it to the House.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 304, Noes 251.

  Division No. 67]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Boyson, Sir Rhodes

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Alexander, Richard

  Brazier, Julian

  Alison, Michael (Selby)

  Bright Sir Graham

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Brooke, Peter

  Amess, David

  Brown, Michael (Brigg Cf'thorpes)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Ashby, David

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Burns, Simon

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexharn)

  Butcher, John

  Baker, Kenneth (Mole V)

  Butler, Peter

  Baldry, Tony

  Butterfill, John

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Carlisle, John (Luton N)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)

  Bates, Michael

  Carttiss, Michael

  Batiste, Spencer

  Cash, William

  Bellingham, Henry

  Channon, Paul

  Bendall, Vivian

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Clappison, James

  Biffen, John

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochf'd)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Booth, Hartley

  Coe, Sebastian

  Boswell, Tim

  Colvin, Michael

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Congdon, David

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Conway, Derek

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Bowis, John

  Cope, Sir John

  902

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Higgins, Sir Terence

  Couchman, James

  Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)

  Cran, James

  Hogg, Douglas (Grantham)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Horam, John

  Curry, David

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Davies, Quentin (Starrf'd)

  Howard, Michael

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Howell, David (Guildf'd)

  Day, Stephen

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Devlin, Tim

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Dicks, Terry

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensb'ne)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Hunter, Andrew

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Hurd, Douglas

  Dover, Den

  Jack, Michael

  Duncan, Alan

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)

  Dunn, Bob

  Jessel, Toby

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Dykes, Hugh

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Eggar, Tim

  Jones, Robert B (W Herts)

  Elletson, Harold

  Jopling, Michael

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'ld)

  Key, Robert

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  King, Tom

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Knapman, Roger

  Evennett, David

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Faber, David

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Knox, Sir David

  Reid, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Kynoch, George

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Forman, Nigel

  Lamont, Norman

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lang, Ian

  Forth, Eric

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Fowler, Sir Norman

  Legg, Barry

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Leigh, Edward

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Freeman, Roger

  Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)

  French, Douglas

  Lidington, David

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Lilley, Peter

  Gale, Roger

  Lloyd, Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Gallie, Phil

  Lord, Michael

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Luff, Peter

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Garnier, Edward

  MacGregor, John

  Gill, Christopher

  MacKay, Andrew

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Maclean, David

  Goodlad, Alastair

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Madel, Sir David

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Gorst, Sir John

  Malone, Gerald

  Grant, Sir Anthony (SW Cambs)

  Mans, Keith

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Marland, Paul

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Marlow, Tony

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Gummer, John

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Hague, William

  Mates, Michael

  Hamilton, Sir Archibald

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Mellor, David

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Merchant, Piers

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hannam, Sir John

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Harris, David

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  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

  903

  Page, Richard

  Stewart, Allan

  Paice, James

  Streeter, Gary

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Sumberg, David

  Patten, John

  Sweeney, Walter

  Pattie, Sir Geoffrey

  Sykes, John

  Pawsey, James

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Pickles, Eric

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Porter, David

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Portillo, Michael

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Thomason, Roy

  Rathbone, Tim

  Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)

  Redwood, John

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Renton, Tim

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Richards, Rod

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Riddick, Graham

  Townsend, Sir Cyril (Bexl'yh'th)

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Tracey, Richard

  Robathan, Andrew

  Trend, Michael

  Roberts, Sir Wyn

  Trotter, Neville

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

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Viggers, Peter

  Rowe, Andrew

  Waldegrave, William

  Rumbold, Dame Angela

  Walden, George

  Ryder, Richard

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Sackville, Tom

  Waller, Gary

  Sainsbury, Sir Timothy

  Ward, John

  Scott, Sir Nicholas

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Watts, John

  Shephard, Mrs Gillian

  Wells, Bowen

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Sims, Sir Roger

  Whittingdale, John

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Widdecombe, Miss Ann

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsf'ld)

  Wilkinson, John

  Soames, Nicholas

  Willetts, David

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Wilshire, David

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Spicer, Sir Jim (W Dorset)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macdesf'ld)

  Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Wood, Timothy

  Spring, Richard

  Yeo, Tim

  Sproat, Iain

  Young, Sir George

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Stanley, Sir John

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Steen, Anthony

  Mr. Matthew Carrington

  Stern, Michael

  and Mr. Anthony Coombs.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Blunkett, David

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Boateng, Paul

  Ainger, Nick

  Bradley, Keith

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Allen, Graham

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Alton, David

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Burden, Richard

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Byers, Stephen

  Ashton, Joseph

  Caborn, Richard

  Austin-Walker, John

  Callaghan, Jim

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Barnes, Harry

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Barron, Kevin

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Battle, John

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Bayley, Hugh

  Canavan, Dennis

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Cann, Jamie

  Beggs, Roy

  Carlile, Alex (Montgomery)

  Beith, A J

  Chidgey, David

  Bell, Stuart

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Benn, Tony

  Clapham, Michael

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Benton, Joe

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Clelland, David

  Berry, Roger

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Betts, Clive

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  904

  Cohen, Harry

  Ingram, Adam

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)

  Corbett, Robin

  Jamieson, David

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Janner, Greville

  Cousins, Jim

  Jenkins, Brian D (SE Staffs)

  Cox, Tom

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & D'side)

  Cummings, John

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try SE)

  Jones, Dr L (B'ham Selly Oak)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd SW)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jowell, Ms Tessa

  Darling, Alistair

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross C & S)

  Davidson, Ian

  Kennedy, Mrs Jane (Broadgreen)

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Denham, John

  Litherland, Robert

  Dewar, Donald

  Livingstone, Ken

  Dixon, Don

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretf'd)

  Dobson, Frank

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Loyden, Eddie

  Dowd, Jim

  McAllion, John

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Macdonald, Calum

  Eastham, Ken

  McKelvey, William

  Ennis, Jeff

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Etherington, Bill

  McLeish, Henry

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  MacShane, Denis

  Fatchett, Derek

  McWilliam, John

  Faulds, Andrew

  Madden, Max

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Fisher, Mark

  Mandelson, Peter

  Flynn, Paul

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Foster, Derek

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Foulkes, George

  Martlew, Eric

  Fraser, John

  Maxton, John

  Fyfe, Mrs Maria

  Meacher, Michael

  Galbraith, Sam

  Meale, Alan

  Galloway, George

  Michael, Alun

  Gapes, Mike

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Garrett, John

  Milburn, Alan

  George, Bruce

  Miller, Andrew

  Gerrard, Neil

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Gilbert, Dr John

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Godsiff, Roger

  Morley, Elliot

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Gordon, Ms Mildred

  Morris, John (Aberavon)

  Graham, Thomas

  Mowlam, Ms Marjorie

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Mudie, George

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Mullin, Chris

  Grocott, Bruce

  Murphy, Paul

  Gunnell, John

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Hain, Peter

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Hardy, Peter

  O'Hara, Edward

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Olner, Bill

  Heppell, John

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Orme, Stanley

  Hinchliffe, David

  Pearson, Ian

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Pendry, Tom

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Home Robertson, John

  Pike, Peter L

  Hood, Jimmy

  Pope, Greg

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Powell, Sir Raymond (Ogmore)

  Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Prescott, John

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Primarolo, Ms Dawn

  Hoyle, Doug

  Purchase, Ken

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Hughes, Robert (Ab'd'n N)

  Radice, Giles

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Randall, Stuart

  Hutton, John

  Raynsford, Nick

  Illsley, Eric

  Reid, Dr John

  905

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Rogers, Allan

  Thurnham, Peter

  Rooker, Jeff

  Timms, Stephen

  Rooney, Terry

  Tipping, Paddy

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Touhig, Don

  Rowlands, Ted

  Trickett, Jon

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Turner, Dennis

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Vaz, Keith

  Sheerman, Barry

  Walker, Sir Harold

  Sheldon, Robert

  Wallace, James

  Shore, Peter

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Short, Clare

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Simpson, Alan

  Watson, Mike

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Smith, Chris (Islington S)

  Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Snape, Peter

  Winnick, David

  Soley, Clive

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Spearing, Nigel

  Wray, Jimmy

  Spellar, John

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Squire, Ms R (Dunfermline W)

  Steel, Sir David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Ms Angela Eagle and

  Stevenson, George

  Mr. Thomas McAvoy.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Local Government Finance Report (Wales) 1997–98 (HC 218). which was laid before this House on 3rd February, be approved.
  It being after Ten o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the remaining Questions required to be put at that hour.
  Motion made, and Question put,
  That the Special Grant Report (Wales) 1997 (HC 219), which was laid before this House on 3rd February, be approved.—[Mr. Peter Ainsworth.]
  The House divided: Ayes 254. Noes 124.

  Division No. 68]

  [10.14 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Burns, Simon

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Butcher, John

  Alexander, Richard

  Butler, Peter

  Amess, David

  Butterfill, John

  Arbuthnot, James

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Cash, William

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Channon, Paul

  Baker, Kenneth (Mole V)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Clappison, James

  Bates, Michael

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Beggs, Roy

  Coe, Sebastian

  Bellingham, Henry

  Congdon, David

  Bendall, Vivian

  Conway, Derek

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Cope, Sir John

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Couchman, James

  Booth, Hartley

  Cran, James

  Boswell, Tim

  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

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Brazier, Julian

  Devlin, Tim

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Brooke, Peter

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Dover, Den

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Duncan, Alan

  906

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Knox, Sir David

  Dunn, Bob

  Kynoch, George

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Eggar, Tim

  Lamont, Norman

  Elletson, Harold

  Lang, Ian

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)

  Legg, Barry

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Leigh, Edward

  Faber, David

  Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lidington, David

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lilley, Peter

  Forman, Nigel

  Lloyd, Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lord, Michael

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  Luff, Peter

  Forth, Eric

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Fowler, Sir Norman

  MacGregor, John

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Maclean, David

  Freeman, Roger

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  French, Douglas

  Madel, Sir David

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Malone, Gerald

  Gale, Roger

  Mans, Keith

  Gallie, Phil

  Marland, Paul

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Marlow, Tony

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Garnier, Edward

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Gill, Christopher

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Mellor, David

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Merchant, Piers

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Gorst, Sir John

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Grant, Sir Anthony (SW Cambs)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Needham, Richard

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Gummer, John

  Newton, Tony

  Hague, William

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hamilton, Sir Archibald

  Norris, Steve

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Page, Richard

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Paice, James

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Patten, John

  Hawkins, Nick

  Pattie, Sir Geoffrey

  Hayes, Jerry

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Heald, Oliver

  Pickles, Eric

  Heath, Sir Edward

  Porter, David

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Portillo, Michael

  Hendry, Charles

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Heseltine, Michael

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hicks, Sir Robert

  Redwood, John

  Higgins, Sir Terence

  Renton, Tim

  Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)

  Richards, Rod

  Hogg, Douglas (Grantham)

  Riddick, Graham

  Horam, John

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Robathan, Andrew

  Howard, Michael

  Roberts, Sir Wyn

  Howell, David (Guildf'd)

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

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Rowe, Andrew

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Ryder, Richard

  Hunter, Andrew

  Sackville, Tom

  Jack, Michael

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)

  Shephard, Mrs Gillian

  Jessel, Toby

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Sims, Sir Roger

  Jones, Robert B (W Herts)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsf'ld)

  Jopling, Michael

  Soames, Nicholas

  King, Tom

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Spicer, Sir Jim (W Dorset)

  Knapman, Roger

  Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Spring, Richard

  907

  Sproat, Iain

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Waller, Gary

  Stanley, Sir John

  Ward, John

  Steen, Anthony

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Stern, Michael

  Waterson, Nigel

  Stewart, Allan

  Watts, John

  Streeter, Gary

  Wells, Bowen

  Sweeney, Walter

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Sykes, John

  Whittingdale, John

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Widdecombe, Miss Ann

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Wilkinson, John

  Thomason, Roy

  Willetts, David

  Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)

  Wilshire, David

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Townsend, Sir Cyril (Bexl'yh'th)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macdesf'ld)

  Tracey, Richard

  Wolfson, Mark

  Tredinnick, David

  Wood, Timothy

  Trend, Michael

  Yeo, Tim

  Trotter, Neville

  Young, Sir George

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Viggers, Peter

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Waldegrave, William

  Mr. Matthew Carrington

  Walden, George

  and Mr. Anthony Coombs.

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Ainger, Nick

  Gunnell, John

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Hain, Peter

  Alton, David

  Hardy, Peter

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Heppell, John

  Ashton, Joseph

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Home Robertson, John

  Barnes, Harry

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Beith, A J

  Hoyle, Doug

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Boateng, Paul

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Bradley, Keith

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Hutton, John

  Burden, Richard

  Illsley, Eric

  Caborn, Richard

  Ingram, Adam

  Callaghan, Jim

  Janner, Greville

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Jenkins, Brian D (SE Staffs)

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Jones, Barry (Atyn & D'side)

  Carlile, Alex (Montgomery)

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Chidgey, David

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Clapham, Michael

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross C & S)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Lewis, Terry

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Lithetland, Robert

  Cohen, Harry

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Corston, Ms Jean

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try SE)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Dalyell, Tam

  McLeish, Henry

  Davidson, Ian

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  Maxton, John

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Meale, Alan

  Dixon, Don

  Michael, Alun

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Dowd, Jim

  Milburn, Alan

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Eastham, Ken

  Morley, Elliot

  Ennis, Jeff

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Etherington, Bill

  Mudie, George

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Mullin, Chris

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Fatchett, Derek

  O'Hara, Edward

  Faulds, Andrew

  Olner, Bill

  Flynn, Paul

  O'Neill, Martin

  Fraser, John

  Orme, Stanley

  Gerrard, Neil

  Pickthall, Colin

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Pike, Peter L

  Gordon, Ms Mildred

  Powell, Sir Raymond (Ogmore)

  Graham, Thomas

  Prescott, John

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  908

  Reid, Dr John

  Vaz, Keith

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Walker, Sir Harold

  Rooney, Terry

  Wallace, James

  Rowlands, Ted

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Simpson, Alan

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Spellar, John

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Steel, Sir David

  Wray, Jimmy

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Thumharn, Peter

  Mr. Don Touhig and

  Timms, Stephen

  Mr. Martyn Jones.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Special Grant Report (Wales) 1997 (HC 219), which was laid before this House on 3rd February, be approved.

  Local Government Finance (Wales)

    Local Government Finance (Wales)
    Resolved,
    That the Limitation of Council Tax (Relevant Notional Amounts) Report (Wales) 1997–98 (HC 220), which was laid before this House on 3rd February, be approved.—[Mr. Peter Ainsworth.]

    Artists' Resale Rights
    Resolved,
    That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 7050/96, relating to the resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of art, and supports the Government which is not persuaded that there is a case for the introduction of this proposal into the United Kingdom.—[Mr. Peter Ainsworth.]

PETITION

  Carers (Respite Breaks)
  10.27 pm
  Mr. Richard Burden: There are an estimated 100,000 people in Birmingham who care for others and the petition that I am presenting has been compiled by the West Heath Carers Association in my constituency. It is in support of the right of carers to have short-term breaks. More than 350 people from Birmingham, Northfield and the surrounding areas have signed the petition, which reads as follows:
  To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
  The Humble Petition of the people of Birmingham Northfield and the surrounding areas Sheweth That to ensure these essential services, disabled people and their carers have the right, following assessment, to short term (respite) breaks.
  Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House pass a bill in like terms to the Disabled Persons and Carers Bill [Lords], presented in the last session of Parliament, to legally enshrine the right to assessment and subsequent short term (respite) breaks.
  And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.
  To lie upon Table.

  Rural Housing (Scotland)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peter Ainsworth.]
  10.28 pm
  Mr. James Wallace: I am pleased to have secured this Adjournment debate on rural housing policy in Scotland. Many of the organisations associated with housing in Scotland, such as Shelter, the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations and the Chartered Institute of Housing in Scotland, have been trying in recent months to raise the political profile of the housing issue. It is important to do so in a context that shows that housing is not an issue that operates in isolation.
  Housing has implications for health, in that there is a proven link between poor housing and disease; and for education, in that children can lose time at school through housing-related ill health or difficulty in doing homework in overcrowded homes. There is a relationship between housing and crime, in that cheaply built and poorly maintained homes are more prone to break-ins; and between housing and employment—for example, in the costs to the construction industry resulting from any reduction in investment in housing. I hope that by holding this Adjournment debate on Scotland's rural housing policy, we can make some small contribution to the wider debate.
  The problems of urban housing are usually obvious. Those of rural housing tend to be scattered over a large area, and are therefore not so obvious to view. But the figures highlight the serious extent of a problem that, unless it is adequately addressed, could quickly develop into a serious rural housing crisis.
  I shall start by sketching in some of the background. Scottish Homes invests 20.2 per cent. of its annual funding budget in Scotland's rural areas, although 28.8 per cent. of Scotland's households are within those areas. About 22 per cent. of all rural homes require repairs costing £2,500 or more, compared to 10 per cent. of urban houses. Rural home owners are twice as likely as owner-occupiers in large towns and cities to live in damp conditions.
  Despite the fact that they account for only 29 per cent. of Scottish households, local authority areas defined as rural account for 39 per cent. of dwellings assessed as below tolerable standard. Indeed, one of the most recent surveys pushed the "below tolerable standard" estimate in an area of Skye and Lochalsh from 8 per cent. to 22 per cent. of the housing stock; and in several other Scottish rural areas, more than 20 per cent. of the housing is below tolerable standard.
  Officially recorded homelessness in rural Scotland rose by 63 per cent. between 1989–90 and 1995–96. The comparable figure for urban Scotland was a much lower, but still unacceptable, 36 per cent. Those are average figures, but especially high increases have been recorded in Western Isles, in Orkney, Angus and Lochaber, and in Kincardine and Deeside. In all those areas, homelessness has more than doubled in the six-year period that I mentioned.
  Then there are the problems that can so easily be overlooked—for example, the number of people who are obliged to live in caravans. That can sometimes disguise

  911
  the real extent of housing need. A report prepared for Shelter in 1993, entitled "A forgotten problem", found that caravan dwelling was seen as a predominantly rural housing solution for about 4,000 Scottish households.
  Caravans are seldom the accommodation of choice—a fact that my constituency surgeries often bear out. Apart from the heating problems and the dampness encountered in caravans, insurance cover can sometimes be impossible to find, with all the consequences that that brings for families trying to put things together again after their caravans, furniture and property have been destroyed by wind or other bad weather.
  Recently, a constituent drew to my attention the fact that concessionary electricity tariffs were unavailable for some caravan dwellers, because their connection was via the council rather than directly with Scottish Hydro-Electric. People already disadvantaged by low incomes find themselves further disadvantaged when they cannot get access to concessionary tariffs.
  Many of the problems of rural housing are associated with low income, especially with the combination of low income and higher costs, including higher housing costs. It is a well established fact that, in many rural parts of Scotland, the costs of transport and the general cost of living, including the price of ordinary household goods, is much higher. For people on low incomes, that means that there is even less of their income left to meet housing costs.
  I am talking about areas of low income, of seasonal employment and of high living costs. Rural households have less income to meet those higher housing costs. Rural areas account for 20 per cent. of all homelessness applications, but 27 per cent. of those result from mortgage default.
  In addition, the cost of owner-occupation is often increased because of the external demand for housing. Houses up for sale in rural areas are often advertised in the national rather than the local press. In the Argyll islands, one quarter of the housing stock consists of second or holiday homes, while social housing for rent accounts for less than 16 per cent.
  Even when there is social housing for rent, the availability of less than 100 per cent. housing association grants makes private loan finance a necessity, so rents are pushed higher. To that we must add the consequences of recent and proposed changes in housing benefit. In Scotland's rural areas, the incidence of private rented accommodation is well above average, much of it at relatively high rents.
  New rules from next October will restrict benefit for single people under the age of 60 to a single-room rent. I was advised earlier today by the housing department of Orkney Islands council that that has already prompted a number of private tenants in Orkney to do a simple calculation to work out that they will not be able to afford their current accommodation, so they will present themselves as homeless. In turn, that has implications for landlords, who have been encouraged until now to let their premises, but who may well find that they cannot attract tenants at the levels of rents that they have been charging until now.
  Against that background, there are two key aspects of Government policy that I wish to challenge this evening. First, there has been a significant cut in funding for
  912
  housing investment over the past year and next year. It is my understanding that the Scottish Homes approved development programme for housing associations and private developers will be down by 25 per cent., from £280 million to £210 million, in 1997–98.
  I am sure—because I have been through these debates before—that the Minister will tell us in his reply that, on Budget day, the Secretary of State gave another £43 million to Scottish Homes, and that Scottish Homes has managed to find about £30 million through housing stock transfers. He has claimed in a letter to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) that, over this year and next year, Scottish Homes will invest over £500 million in housing development.
  I understand that, if the investment had remained at the 1995–96 level, it would have been about £650 million. Certainly the information from the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations, and from housing associations in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), is that the associations all expect a decrease in the funding available for housing investment in the year ahead.
  We cannot take that money out of housing investment without consequences in terms of the number of new units started, or without reducing what can be done to try to tackle the condition of Scotland's rural housing. It will also have consequences for construction firms—many of which are small community businesses—which are facing job losses as a result of cuts in housing expenditure. Linked to that is the problem faced by many local authorities, who see the capital receipts from the sale of council houses going up to 75 per cent. These sums have to be applied to pay off accrued debt on housing.
  Surely it would be far better to allow the local authorities an opportunity to determine their own priorities. Under its own proposals—and without any prompting from the Government—Orkney would have paid off its housing debt within the next 12 to 14 years. It now finds that tenants who have waited patiently for some refurbishment and have been told that it would happen next year will be seriously disappointed. In Shetland, some £500 million is expected to be lost from the refurbishment budget, thereby knocking out of sync a long-prepared programme to try to catch up on the refurbishment that was not done at the time of the oil boom.
  In Shetland, the Western Isles and Highland, the Government have indicated in principle a willingness to commute debt, and that is very welcome. A lot of the detail has still to be worked out, and I very much hope that whoever is sitting on the Treasury Bench after the election will honour that commitment in principle and ensure that the detail is satisfactory. Although the expectation with regard to investment through Scottish Homes is that the pain will be shared equally when Scottish Homes divides up the cake, may I ask the Minister tonight if he will consult Scottish Homes about showing a bias towards rural housing associations?
  I do not think that I need declare an interest but—in case it is necessary—I declare that my wife is a vice-chairman of the Orkney housing association, and I have had my ear bent at first hand on this issue. However, I know that all rural housing associations in the Highlands and Islands, and other parts of rural Scotland, feel strongly about the matter.

  913
  Since Scottish Homes launched its rural initiative in 1990, it has—according to a recent review—invested £311 million in rural Scotland, resulting in more than 10,400 starts. It has made an important contribution to care and repair and it has managed to get leverage of private finance, which has increased over the years. Without that rural initiative, I accept that the position would have been worse.
  Notwithstanding that, as I said earlier, the consultant who conducted that review of Scottish Homes' rural policy concluded
  "that a rural share of 20.2 per cent. of Scottish Homes national investment is not commensurate with a 28.8 per cent. share of households, and a much faster rate of new household formation Moreover, the disproportionate cut in rural investment approved for 1996/97 is hard to reconcile with these trends. It is recommended that Scottish Homes both increases the rural share of its spending and articulates a clearer rationale for the geographic distribution of its expenditure."
  I extract two points to justify my plea for favoured treatment. First, it will reverse a disproportionate cut in 1996–97, and, secondly, it will address the issue of much faster rate of new household formation.
  The review to which I have referred highlights trends projected into the next century, which show proportion and household numbers increasing faster in rural Scotland than urban Scotland. In the Highlands and Islands and Grampian district, household growth between 1992 and 2001 is estimated at 12.7 per cent., and in Lothian and Borders it is estimated at 10 per cent., compared with the Scottish average of 7.7 per cent. A rationale for geographical distribution would undoubtedly favour those areas; I ask the Minister to encourage such an approach.
  The second key point concerns the Government's obsession with home ownership, and its target setting of 60 per cent. home ownership, against which it seems that all other objects must take second place.
  I have no ideological objection to home ownership, which is a necessary feature of any liberal democracy. The objection is to an obsessive ideological pursuit of the aim. Liberal Democrats did not oppose the principle of the right to buy, but we have pointed out the wisdom of allowing local authorities flexibility to maintain a balanced housing stock. What I heard earlier today shows that that view is justified: Orkney Islands council must place a newspaper advertisement in an attempt to find suitable accommodation for a family with special but not exceptional needs, because it no longer has any accommodation suitable for adaptation in its own housing stock.
  I ask the Minister, in the case of Scottish Homes, to allow much more local discretion and flexibility for districts and housing associations to determine the balance of their own areas between low-cost home ownership and public rented housing at affordable rents. The review of Scottish Homes' rural policy recommended
  "that Scottish Homes gives primary emphasis in rural areas to the provision of affordable rented housing, although low cost home ownership should continue to be promoted in areas where there is sufficient and identified demand as a secondary priority. The guiding principle here should be local flexibility to respond to local circumstances, and efficiency targets should permit this."
  In turn, the Scottish Homes district plan for Highlands, Islands and Grampian concluded:
  "The highest priority district objective is to increase the supply of low cost rented housing whether through direct provision or bringing redundant dwellings back into use.
  914
  We will concentrate the provision of general needs housing for rent in rural areas where there is currently low provision of local authority or assured tenancy housing. This will be provided through the funding of housing associations/co-operatives."
  I have received representations from the Orkney housing association and the Hjaltland housing association in my constituency to the effect that, although the local district office in Inverness is well seized of the point, and sees the need to increase the supply of low cost rented accommodation, the indications they get of directions from on high, either from the board of Scottish Homes or—probably more likely—from Ministers, are that the drive towards a greater share of home ownership must go on.
  That is happening against the following background. In Orkney, owner-occupation already stands at more than 65 per cent., in Dumfries and Galloway at 60 per cent., in Argyll and Bute almost 55 per cent., in Highland 55 per cent., in Borders more than 53 per cent., in Shetland 52 per cent., and in the Western Isles almost 77 per cent. There are already substantial levels of home ownership in much of rural Scotland. I repeat the recommendation from the review of Scottish homes rural policy:
  "the guiding principle should be local flexibility to respond to local circumstances".
  There are many other connected issues, which we could discuss all night; instead, I shall write to the Minister about them. The problems relating to rural housing are deeply serious. The market has not brought about a solution, especially for people on low incomes, who cannot afford to rent or buy. For many, the alternative may be to leave their native community, with all that that means for rural services, such as education, in the areas that they leave behind. Investment in rural areas and a greater emphasis on affordable rented housing are two key ways of tackling that problem. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some encouragement in this direction tonight.
  10.43 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Raymond S. Robertson): First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) on securing this Adjournment debate this evening. It gives us an opportunity to discuss, albeit briefly, rural housing. If he wishes to raise other issues, he should write to me, and I shall ensure that he gets a very speedy reply.
  I shall begin by outlining some key features of the Government's approach to housing. Obviously, those involve extending choice and developing policies that address people's aspirations. That approach is the same for both urban and rural Scotland. Our objectives are to promote greater housing choice; to assist and enable the provision of an adequate supply of housing; to promote improvement in housing quality; and to seek a more effective use of resources in housing.
  Our belief in home ownership is rooted in the view that to be a home owner is a fundamental aspiration of the vast majority of people. I was therefore somewhat concerned to hear what the hon. Gentleman had to say about home ownership. Surveys suggest that 70 to 80 per cent. of households would ideally like to be home owners, and we wish to enable as many people as possible to achieve that aim. We can therefore take

  915
  great pride in the fact that owner-occupation in Scotland has increased dramatically, from 35 per cent. in 1979, when the Government first took office, to 58 per cent. at the end of 1995.
  I am still firmly of the view that local authority tenants in rural areas who aspire to become home owners should have every opportunity to purchase their homes. However, we recognise that there are special housing problems in rural areas. The Government fully acknowledge those, and adequate provisions exist within the right-to-buy
  916
  We also asked Scottish Homes, as one of its first priorities after it was set up in 1989, to draw up a policy to address the special problems of housing in rural areas. As a result, it operates a number of schemes that can help with the problems associated with housing in rural areas. Those include shared ownership schemes, which are used extensively in rural Scotland, and can be particularly beneficial in helping local people enter home ownership in pressurised housing markets.
  Rural home ownership grants are also available to help people on modest incomes to build their own homes or renovate an existing building.

  917
  As I said, the Arkleton centre at Aberdeen university reviewed Scottish Homes rural policy in the light of experience, the White Paper entitled "Rural Scotland: People, Prosperity and Partnership", and the reorganisation of local government. Of course the review identified a number of aspects in which improvements might be made, but the thrust of its findings was mainly positive.
  The review found that Scottish Homes rural policy has had a considerable impact on rural areas, acting as a catalyst for the development of strategies to meet the wider needs of rural communities. Investment in housing association provision has made a major contribution to improving the variety of housing options for people in rural Scotland. The policy has succeeded in encouraging private developers to build in rural areas, where they would not otherwise have operated because of narrow profit margins.
  Scottish Homes support for local housing associations and local housing agencies has played an important role in supporting community development and involvement. The rural programme contributes directly to employment and economic development in rural areas, and has the potential to support economic development strategies indirectly. The formulation of an explicit rural policy is widely seen as a model.
  The review is on-going. If the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland wishes to contribute to it, he may do so directly to Scottish Homes or through me. He mentioned the need for investment in rural council housing. Housing has had to play its part in a tight public expenditure round.
  Mr. Wallace: Before the Minister leaves the rural homes policy review, how does he respond to the clear recommendations in the review? Scottish Homes does not seem to be giving resources to rural areas commensurate with the number of households in Scotland's rural areas. It is recommended that the primary emphasis must be on the provision of affordable rented housing, with local flexibility to take account of the need to achieve a proper balance between low-cost home ownership and rented accommodation.
  Mr. Robertson: As the hon. Gentleman knows, Scottish Homes has considerable licence as to how it operates. I meet the chairman and board twice a year to review the strategic objectives. The rural review is one of the subjects that will be discussed when we meet soon. I am happy to feed in the hon. Gentleman's comments.
  As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, this year's public expenditure survey is tight, and housing has had its share of cuts. The reduction in resources arises from the requirement for local authorities to set aside 75 per cent. of the receipts from house sales next year rather than 50 per cent., as we envisaged originally. That change results from the overriding need to tackle the burden of debt. Despite the controls on the use of capital receipts that were imposed last year, local authority housing debt has continued to rise, and the average debt per house has also increased. We believe that further steps should be taken to reduce the burden of indebtedness.
  Following that change in the receipts rules, I decided that it was no longer sensible to issue housing allocations on a gross basis. In future, local authorities will receive a net allocation for housing investment, and I announced
  918
  the allocations for 1997–98 before Christmas. That brings capital allocations for council housing into line with the position on non-housing capital. It has an added advantage in that, for the first time, I was able to respond to the request by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to issue housing capital allocations before authorities set their rents.
  The total net allocations for 1997–98 amount to £171.9 million, and are higher than those issued to authorities in 1996–97. In addition, on the basis of councils' own estimates, I would expect them to generate useable receipts of between £50 million and £60 million next year in order to augment their investment. The change in the rules on receipts set-aside means that some redistribution of resources has been necessary to protect those authorities, such as Orkney, that are most reliant on receipts. That has worked to Orkney's advantage, because the gross estimated resources available are higher than the central planning assumption on which the council planned its forward capital programme.
  I accept that that change has reduced the net resources available to Shetland by some £266,000. In determining the distribution of the resources available for investment, I decided that it was necessary to spread the impact of the change in set-aside rules equitably over all authorities. The redistribution of the net ensures that all authorities are able to meet their forward legal commitments, taking account of each council's own estimate of the capital receipts that it expects to generate next year. In the main, the councils' estimates were consistent with our own, but my Department will continue to monitor the situation to ensure that no council can exploit the new method of allocating resources by deliberately underestimating receipts.
  The hon. Gentleman suggested that it would be sensible to link set-aside to the level of debt in each authority, but I cannot accept that, as it would be too complicated to operate a different regime for each authority. In any event, authorities with lower debts, such as Orkney, stand to benefit if they become debt-free more quickly. I believe that considerable scope exists for authorities to increase investment levels by involving the private sector to a greater degree than occurs at present. Authorities should therefore be considering the potential for transferring stock to other landlords outwith the necessary constraints of the public sector.
  As the hon. Gentleman is aware, I visited Orkney last September, and this was one of the main items of our discussion with the council. I welcome the consideration that the council is giving to transferring its stock to a new landlord, and I hope that it will take forward that idea in consultation with my officials. After all, the transfer of the council's stock to a new landlord not only would facilitate increased investment in the existing stock, but potentially could produce a substantial receipt of which any surplus remaining after debt redemption could be invested in the provision of new rented housing.
  I appreciate that the transfer of housing stock to an alternative landlord would be a difficult matter for Shetland Islands council at present.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Eleven o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Members' Staff
  Members' Staff
LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT
  Magistrates Courts
  Magistrates Courts
PRIME MINISTER
  Chequers
  Chequers
  Engagements
  Engagements
  Lockerbie
  Lockerbie
  Ministerial Severance Payments
  Ministerial Severance Payments
DEFENCE
  Joint Services Command and Staff College
  Joint Services Command and Staff College
  Cigarettes (Service Personnel)
  Cigarettes (Service Personnel)
  Arms Sales (Turkey)
  Arms Sales (Turkey)
DUCHY OF LANCASTER
  Admiralty House
  Admiralty House
  Ministerial Committees
  Ministerial Committees
ENVIRONMENT
  Housing
  Housing
  Rented Accommodation
  Rented Accommodation
  Packaging Waste
  Packaging Waste
  Regional Government (South-East)
  Regional Government (South-East)
  Local Government Finance (Manchester)
  Local Government Finance (Manchester)
  Contaminated Land
  Contaminated Land
  Environmental Information (Open Government Code)
  Environmental Information (Open Government Code)
  Air Pollution
  Air Pollution
  Local Government Finance
  Local Government Finance
  Local Government Finance (North Yorkshire)
  Local Government Finance (North Yorkshire)
  Ministerial Visit (Redbridge)
  Ministerial Visit (Redbridge)
  Local Authority Appointments (Indemnity)
  Local Authority Appointments (Indemnity)
  Non-departmental Bodies (Appointments)
  Non-departmental Bodies (Appointments)
  Nuclear Waste
  Nuclear Waste
  Swansea Canal
  Swansea Canal
  Waterways (Safety)
  Waterways (Safety)
  UN General Assembly
  UN General Assembly
  Government Office for the South-West
  Government Office for the South-West
  Energy Conservation (Pensioners)
  Energy Conservation (Pensioners)
  Planning Consents
  Planning Consents
  Local Authority Pension Schemes
  Local Authority Pension Schemes
  UN Environment Programme
  UN Environment Programme
  EC SAFE Programme
  EC SAFE Programme
  Opencast Mining
  Opencast Mining
  Green Belt (Harrow)
  Green Belt (Harrow)
  Noise Act 1996
  Noise Act 1996
  Council Leaseholders (Service Charges)
  Council Leaseholders (Service Charges)
  Access to Information
  Access to Information
  Storm Damage (North Devon)
  Storm Damage (North Devon)
  County Councils (Statutory Functions)
  County Councils (Statutory Functions)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  European Court of Human Rights
  European Court of Human Rights
  Burma
  Burma
  Satellites
  Satellites
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Crime Reduction Measures
  Crime Reduction Measures
  Crime and Detection Statistics
  Crime and Detection Statistics
  Telephone Taps
  Telephone Taps
  North-east Regional Crime Squad
  North-east Regional Crime Squad
  Prison Governors
  Prison Governors
  Prison Suicides
  Prison Suicides
  Colchester Young Offenders Institution
  Colchester Young Offenders Institution
  Consultants
  Consultants
  Cornwall and West Plymouth Euro-constituency
  Cornwall and West Plymouth Euro-constituency
  Coroner Procedures (Muslim Communities)
  Coroner Procedures (Muslim Communities)
  Sean O'Callaghan
  Sean O'Callaghan
  Disabled Access (Police Stations)
  Disabled Access (Police Stations)
  Metropolitan Police
  Metropolitan Police
  Ethnic Minorities (Hong Kong)
  Ethnic Minorities (Hong Kong)
  Whitemoor Prison
  Whitemoor Prison
  Asylum Seekers
  Asylum Seekers
  Secure Units
  Secure Units
  Geoffrey Thomas
  Geoffrey Thomas
  Prison Inspectorate Reports
  Prison Inspectorate Reports
  Murderers (Publications)
  Murderers (Publications)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION
  Rwanda
  Rwanda
EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT
  The Ridings School
  The Ridings School
  Departmental Publicity
  Departmental Publicity
  Assisted Places Scheme
  Assisted Places Scheme
  Surplus Places
  Surplus Places
  Jobseekers (Benefit Sanctions)
  Jobseekers (Benefit Sanctions)
  Pupil Referral Units
  Pupil Referral Units
  Beijing Platform for Action
  Beijing Platform for Action
  National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education
  National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education
  Low Pay Scheme
  Low Pay Scheme
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Post Offices
  Post Offices
  Departmental Publicity
  Departmental Publicity
  Privatised Companies
  Privatised Companies
  Imperial Weights (EU Directives)
  Imperial Weights (EU Directives)
  Satellites
  Satellites
  Nuclear Safety
  Nuclear Safety
  Exotic Animal Imports
  Exotic Animal Imports
  European Union (Investment)
  European Union (Investment)
  Business Links
  Business Links
TREASURY
  Employment Statistics
  Employment Statistics
  National Savings
  National Savings
  Added Value
  Added Value
  Manufacturing Industry
  Manufacturing Industry
  Single Currency
  Single Currency
  Unemployment (Financial Effects)
  Unemployment (Financial Effects)
  Spend to Save Programme Bids
  Spend to Save Programme Bids
  Royal Yacht
  Royal Yacht
TRANSPORT
  Rail Routeing Guide
  Rail Routeing Guide
  Jubilee Line Extension
  Jubilee Line Extension
  Buses
  Buses
  Fifth Freedom Cargo Charters
  Fifth Freedom Cargo Charters
  Commercial Pilots
  Commercial Pilots
  Freight Handling, Ostend Airport
  Freight Handling, Ostend Airport
  Birmingham Northern Relief Road
  Birmingham Northern Relief Road
  Coastguard (Staff)
  Coastguard (Staff)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  BSE
  BSE
  Certified Herds Scheme
  Certified Herds Scheme
  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance
  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance
  Stilboesterol
  Stilboesterol
  Food Safety
  Food Safety
  Wildlife (Arable Areas)
  Wildlife (Arable Areas)
  Beef Stocks
  Beef Stocks
SOCIAL SECURITY
  Child Support Agency (Logo)
  Child Support Agency (Logo)
  Independent Tribunal Service
  Independent Tribunal Service
  Invalidity and Incapacity Benefit
  Invalidity and Incapacity Benefit
  Benefits Fraud Hotline
  Benefits Fraud Hotline
  Departmental Costs
  Departmental Costs
  Golf Links Estate (Fire Compensation)
  Golf Links Estate (Fire Compensation)
  Classroom Assistants
  Classroom Assistants
  Benefits in Kind
  Benefits in Kind
SCOTLAND
  Eye Tests
  Eye Tests
  NHS Auditing
  NHS Auditing
  Executive Pay (Water and Sewerage Authorities)
  Executive Pay (Water and Sewerage Authorities)
  Management Allowances (GP Fundholders)
  Management Allowances (GP Fundholders)
  NHS Trust Remuneration
  NHS Trust Remuneration
  Hospital Waiting Times
  Hospital Waiting Times
  Council Duties
  Council Duties
  Local Government Finance
  Local Government Finance
  Woodlands
  Woodlands
NATIONAL HERITAGE
  Arts Forum
  Arts Forum
  National Lottery
  National Lottery
  Sports Council
  Sports Council
  History Museum
  History Museum
  World Cup 2006
  World Cup 2006
WALES
  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Departmental Publicity
  Departmental Publicity
  Conferences (Ministerial Participation)
  Conferences (Ministerial Participation)
  Pensioners (Care Homes)
  Pensioners (Care Homes)
  Severn Trent Water Authority
  Severn Trent Water Authority
  Road Traffic Mileage
  Road Traffic Mileage
  Poll Tax Arrears
  Poll Tax Arrears
  Rural Dentists
  Rural Dentists
  Welsh Language
  Welsh Language
  Tourism
  Tourism
  Teachers' Pensions
  Teachers' Pensions
  School Funding (Flintshire)
  School Funding (Flintshire)
  Planning Appeals
  Planning Appeals
  Marshalls Food Group Ltd.
  Marshalls Food Group Ltd.
  Special Schools (Residential Places)
  Special Schools (Residential Places)
  Meningitis
  Meningitis
HEALTH
  Mental Health
  Mental Health
  Hospital Emergency Cases Report
  Hospital Emergency Cases Report
  Chief Medical Officer
  Chief Medical Officer
  Cottage Hospitals
  Cottage Hospitals
  Mixed-sex Wards
  Mixed-sex Wards
  Public Health Laboratory Service
  Public Health Laboratory Service
  Prodigy Programme
  Prodigy Programme
  Consultants
  Consultants
  General Practitioners
  General Practitioners
  Accident and Emergency Units
  Accident and Emergency Units
  Aspartame
  Aspartame
  Butane Gas Lighters
  Butane Gas Lighters
  Dental Health (Children)
  Dental Health (Children)
  Royal London Hospital Trust
  Royal London Hospital Trust
  Tuberculosis
  Tuberculosis
  Parkinson's Disease
  Parkinson's Disease
  Dental Services
  Dental Services
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Publicity
  Publicity
  Beef Special Premium
  Beef Special Premium
  Department of Education Offices, Rathgael
  Department of Education Offices, Rathgael
  Casement Three
  Casement Three

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Liverpool.
Viscount Downe (Lord Dawnay)—Took the Oath.

Felixstowe: Rail Links
Lord Marlesford Lord Marlesford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that the present rail links with the Port of Felixstowe are adequate to move the growing container traffic between the port and main-line rail network and, if not, what steps they propose to modernise this part of Britain's transport system.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, I understand that there is sufficient capacity within the existing railway network to accommodate up to four further trains a day via Felixstowe. In the first instance, it will be for Railtrack, in discussion with the port and freight operators, to determine whether a commercial case exists for infrastructure improvements on that section of the rail network.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, may I coax my noble friend to show a little more interest on behalf of the Government in that crucial part of Britain's transport system? Does he recognise that not only the Port of Felixstowe but also an important part of the nation's economy, as well as small matters like the countryside, are facing a crisis due to the fact that only 17 per cent. of the 1 million containers that go to and from Felixstowe by land are carried by rail? The users would like to have an increase of over 70 per cent. between now and the year 2001, from 176,000 containers to 300,000, and by the year 2005 to 500,000 containers—nearly triple. The Government's White Paper published in April last year indicated a desire to see more goods being transferred from road to rail. Does not the Minister recognise therefore that the Government have a responsibility and he cannot merely say that it is all about privatisation?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I agree with a great deal of what my noble friend said. The Government are interested in that area—witness our rail privatisation programme. That has produced more investment and allowed more opportunities for that to occur. In the first instance it is for the parties involved—Railtrack and the operators, in discussion with the port operators—to determine whether there is a commercial case for improving the line and for additional investment. If the operators and Railtrack wish to pursue further
1526
investment in the line but there is not a commercial case, it is open to them to apply to the Government for a freight facilities grant.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, will the Minister for once stop wallowing in self-complacency? Did he listen carefully to what his noble friend said? He said that there is a prudent case for a substantial increase in facilities in that area which is supported by business both in the private and what is left of the public sector and by ordinary citizens in the area. When will the Minister come to the Dispatch Box and start talking serious sense for once?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I am talking serious facts. In the short time that Railtrack has been in the private sector it has delivered record levels of investment. It must be for the parties to work closely with those involved to determine whether or not there is a commercial case for upgrading the line. If there is not a commercial case, it will be open to them to apply for a freight facilities grant. No such application has been made.
Lord Cochrane of Cults: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that Railtrack has plans in quite an advanced state for improving the access to the Port of Felixstowe, which was originally owned by the Felixstowe Dock, Harbour and Railway Company Limited? It therefore has better possibilities for railway traffic than many other sites.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, considerable work has been done on examining plans and proposals as to how, technically, the line may be upgraded. We must not pre-empt that process. The parties are still in discussions and we look forward to the results.
Lord Balfour of Inchrye: My Lords, as an expatriate Scot now resident in East Anglia, I should declare an interest in this matter, even though it is environmental rather than pecuniary, and for the well-being of the Port of Felixstowe. Does the noble Viscount know whether any consideration has been given to tunnelling under the Orwell for the line to connect with the Great Eastern Line south of Ipswich?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I shall have to write to the noble Lord on the question of tunnelling and provide him with any information that I have.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, the noble Viscount suggested that he is satisfied with the investment by Railtrack. That is not the view of the regulator of the industry. Also, can the Minister influence Railtrack on its charges for use of the track, from which it is making substantial profits? That would reduce the cost of access to the track for freight traffic and encourage freight traffic on to rail?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, there are two important points to make in relation to the noble Lord's final question. First, the charges are already regulated by

1527
the independent regulator to which he referred. Proper returns need to be able to be obtained in order to generate further investment in the line. One must be careful how one pursues the argument advanced by the noble Lord.
In relation to investment by Railtrack, I said that in the short time that the company has been in the private sector it has made record levels of investment. There are no two ways about that. The regulator examined the proposals that Railtrack put forward and its performance towards them and concluded that it had not met its targets. Railtrack said that it will try harder and is setting up the machinery to spend the money that it has promised to spend.
Lord Derwent: My Lords, I declare an interest as a director of the Port of Felixstowe. Is my noble friend aware that the port for its part has expressed great willingness, both to Railtrack and to the Government, to make the necessary investment inside the port in order to put more traffic on to the railway? Those talks are ongoing. Is my noble friend willing to use his influence on all concerned with the railway industry to stress the importance on environmental grounds of putting as much traffic as is practicable on to the railway, which means providing the necessary track facilities?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, first, I welcome the partnership between the port operator, the operator of the freight services—Freightliners—and Railtrack in addressing this issue and in deciding what the best way of improving the capacity, which everyone wants to do, might be. Secondly, the fact that the Government wish to encourage more freight onto the railway is already very well known indeed. It is the stated policy of the Government. That is, for instance, why we have the freight facilities grant to which I referred earlier.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, are we to understand that the Government are standing aside on this issue and that the answer of the noble Viscount to the second part of his noble friend's Question; namely,
"what steps they propose to modernise this part of Britain's transport system",
is "no steps"? Is the answer that the Government will just stand aside and let other parties deal with this matter?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, as the noble Lord will know, Parliament passed the Railways Act which privatised the railways, therefore putting these matters directly in the hands of privatised companies. However, the Government also set up a structure by way of which we can influence the process. We have the freight facilities grant, which 1 have detailed, which is in place for instances where there is no commercial case for an improvement—an additional investment to a line or the infrastructure—yet there are significant environmental benefits. In that way the Government are still significantly involved. We stand ready to examine applications for such a grant when they are received.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, is the Minister not being a little complacent? Is it true that
1528
the EW&S and other freight companies are thinking of either using Felixstowe, which would greatly increase the demand on the existing railway track, or using the roads, which is something we surely do not want to see happen? If that company starts up in competition, we want it to use rail and not the roads. I understand that only minor works would be needed to increase the capacity of the railway track into the port, involving merely lengthening the overtaking places and changing the signalling. Could not the Government for once anticipate that and be ready for it when the expansion comes?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, discussions are in place between commercial companies on how best to improve this infrastructure. There are a number of different ways in which it could be done. I understand that Railtrack is looking very closely at this process. It is not for us to pre-empt that.

Ex-service Personnel: Deafness
2.47 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they propose to introduce new legislation on noise-induced deafness affecting ex-service personnel.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, I do not intend to introduce legislation. The law requires that we follow medical advice. The medical facts are not in doubt: hearing loss due to noise and hearing loss due to age are no more than additive. The advisers to the RNID not only endorse our current medical advice to that effect but say that the evidence on which it is based has been available and accepted by outside experts for a long time. We accept this, which means that some past awards have been based on incorrect advice. However, we shall honour past awards in such cases, despite their lack of foundation.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I welcome his admission that he was wrong in telling the House two weeks ago that the change was due to a change in medical opinion and his admission that there is now no change in medical opinion? That is what the experts have been telling him all along. Will he now accept the view of the experts that under the present regulations virtually no ex-service personnel will be able to win a claim? That cannot be the will of Parliament. Is he aware that these experts say that the reason is that the Government are focusing on hearing loss rather than disability? They say that Ministers are making a very serious mistake in trying to equate a 50 decibel hearing loss with 20 per cent. disability. They say that a much lower 32.5 hearing loss is the equivalent of a 20 per cent. disability. Can we not all get together—the Minister, the experts and the ex-service personnel—and try to knock out a fair and reasonable solution?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the open letter which I received from the medical experts concentrated very much on the question of my assertion that there had been a change in medical opinion. As I have explained, I now fully accept that their current view has been held for a long time. The other issues are not included in the open letter; I hope very much that they will be part and parcel of a discussion which I hope to have. I have invited Mr. Graham Downing, chairman of the Royal British Legion, to lead a delegation to meet me to discuss all these matters. I expect and hope—as always in my discussions with the legion—that we shall be able to resolve any remaining differences between us.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that much public misunderstanding arises because a large proportion of what are called "war pensions"—and these are being claimed in this case—are received deservedly by people who have not been involved in a war but who have sustained injuries attributable to their service in peacetime, often within Britain? As battle casualties on the scale of a world war have, fortunately, not occurred for over 50 years, is there now a case for dropping the term "war pension" and substituting an accurate description such as the Armed Forces disability pension?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, with my noble friend's considerable experience in these matters, he makes quite an important point. It is certainly true that it would be more accurate to call the pension which my department gives to disabled ex-servicemen a disabled ex-serviceman's pension because many of the disabilities can arise in normal peacetime business as part of the Armed Forces as well as to those for whom the scheme was originally intended; namely, people like my noble friend who suffered their injuries in battle.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the Minister say how great an increase there has been in applications for pensions for deafness as I happen to know that there has been a great increase? Is that not a much stronger reason for the Government than any medical evidence they have collected?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, in recent years there has been a considerable increase in applications for a disablement gratuity—it would not be a pension—for noise-induced hearing loss, often at very low levels. In fact, something like two-thirds of claims relate to levels between 1 per cent. and 5 per cent. So there has been an increase. The issue we are talking about today is whether or not there has been deterioration. All the medical evidence shows that there is no further deterioration once the person is removed from the source of the noise.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, in view of the extreme care which the services now take to protect people from noise, is my noble friend satisfied that some of the damage is self-inflicted through attending discotheques, given the enormous noise that has to be put up with?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my noble friend makes a valid point as regards young
1530
servicemen today. I am sure, and I am assured, that the military take every possible precaution to ensure that young servicemen wear ear protectors when they are within the sound of heavy gunfire. That should prevent the injuries which occurred in the days before we realised the effect of noise on hearing. As my noble friend rightly points out, many young people—servicemen and non-servicemen—are, I suspect, damaging their hearing because of the very loud noises they appear to relish coming from fancy equipment.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that his remark that he will contact the Royal British Legion will be very welcome throughout all our branches? On behalf of the Royal British Legion I thank him most sincerely.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Molloy. I have frequent contact with the Royal British Legion and with other organisations like the British Limbless Ex-Servicemen's Association, the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association, and so on, all of whom work very well for disabled ex-servicemen in particular. I am pleased to have been able to arrange a meeting with the Royal British Legion on 12th March.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the Minister told the House on 21st January that, on the basis of research by Professors Lutman and Davis, medical opinion "has changed". We challenged the Minister's assertion. Professors Lutman and Davis then wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, saying that the Minister was wrong. The letter stated:
"There has been no change in medical opinion".
Therefore, the Minister had inadvertently misled the House. In the light of that evidence—I am sure that noble Lords will wish to hear it—will the Minister do as we asked on 21st January and review the medical evidence and all the other evidence thoroughly; otherwise, to quote Professors Lutman and Davis—
Noble Lords: Order!
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: —on whose evidence the Minister relied:
"If that is not done the result will be a grave injustice to tens of thousands of ex-servicemen and women whose hearing has been damaged"?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, clearly the noble Baroness came with her question prepared and, regardless of what I said, she was going to read it out. The situation is as I have said. As a result of the open letter, my advisers have looked at the earlier scientific literature. We now accept that the current view of the medical experts has been held for some time. We have not held that view for that length of time. Therefore, we are changing to their view which they have held for a long time. I would have expected the noble Baroness to applaud my acceptance of the view of the medical experts, but, as I said to her, I am also having a meeting at which I hope to discuss these matters.

Telephone Number System
2.56 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will encourage the organisations responsible to devise a system of telephone numbers which will enable the changes now stated to be necessary to last for at least 40 years.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, the Government recognise the importance of the continued availability of telephone numbers to meet the rapid growth in consumer demand. After extensive consultation, Oftel's proposals are designed to provide a balance between stability and flexibility in order to meet customers' needs into the 21st century.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for his reply. As it was only a few years ago when many numbers were changed, at great inconvenience, and the impression was then given that these would last for a long time; and as changes are expensive for the users, can wider variety be introduced to enable more permutations of reasonable length to be created by using, for example, the alphabet or perhaps, in addition, the better known letters of the Greek alphabet?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, my noble friend is correct. It is about two years since the additional digit was added. Even at that time, Oftel warned that a shortage of numbers would emerge in various parts of the country, including London. After consultation, which has recently been revealed, the general view was that there should be a single telephone code for London. If it had been handled in a different way, two codes would have applied to houses which might have been next door to each other. I envisage that at some point in the future there will be a partial return to the use of what are described as "alpha-numerics" in dialling. However, I regret that the current numerical codes no longer coincide with cities, or parts of them, which I suspect he may recall. I would not be surprised, for example, to see in London at some time in the future the code 020 for Harrods, McDonald's or Pizzaland. However, that is a different approach to the one that I believe my noble friend would like.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I know how difficult it is to forecast, and my record is as bad as anyone's. But Oftel's record sets a standard beyond anything almost anyone could conceive. That has imposed enormous costs on both individual households and firms. Unless I misheard the Minister in endeavouring to reassure us, his exact words were that the situation would be so, "into the 21st century". It is only four years to the 21st century, which means that we are going to have this mess again. His noble friend suggested 40 years, which seems to be a fairly reasonable length of time.
1532
As regards the elementary algebra involved, it is about 10 minutes' work to get this matter right. I am not quite sure about the equipment, but I do not believe that a resolution of this matter can be so hard. Oftel has made a terrible mess of this and the rest of us are now being seriously inconvenienced, as will our successors. We should like—and this is what the Minister's noble friend is suggesting—the Government to suggest to Oftel privately that it might do something about it. Is that not reasonable for your Lordships to ask?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the addition of a further digit opens up something like 9 billion numbers. Therefore, there is no real risk of numbers running out within the United Kingdom for the foreseeable future. However, the problem has not been that there is not a sufficient range of numbers, but that most people wish to have a code which they recognise as applying to their own geographical area. I was seeking to explain the under-estimation that Oftel made that the numbers 0171 and 0181 were going to be used up early in the next century.
The original proposal was to have yet a third code for London. That met with some real resistance. The proposal now is to have a single code, 020, with the other digits following. That seems to be the preferred solution. There are plenty of numbers. As the noble Lord said, it is probably correct that Oftel underestimated the growth in demand for telephone numbers, which have risen from something like 3.5 million in London in 1990 to 7 million by 1997, and I understand that it is anticipated that there will be something like 12 million telephones in London by the first decade of the next century.

The Business Community and Political Parties
3 p.m.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the recent statements by the Deputy Prime Minister concerning the Commission on Public Policy Research and British Business are representative of the Government's attitude to the business community.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe): My Lords, my right honourable friend spoke for the whole Government in setting out our achievements in making this country the enterprise centre of Europe. He also made clear the political affinity of the Institute for Public Policy Research.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that when the Deputy Prime Minister made those comments, he clearly implied that a number of leading British industrialists and businessmen were Labour stooges, referring in particular to the heads of GEC, British Airways, Sainsbury, and Legal & General? Does the Minister also agree that the Deputy Prime Minister implied that defence contracts which may be secured in

1533
the future by GEC might be under threat? Does that indicate that the Deputy Prime Minister—and therefore the whole Government—support British business?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the Deputy Prime Minister made absolutely no attack on the businessmen involved in the commission's report; nor did he imply what the noble Lord has just stated. My right honourable friend was making a simple point about the parentage of the report. The commission was set up by the Institute for Public Policy Research, which is an overtly Left-wing body. The commission was funded by the IPPR and was based in the institute's headquarters. The IPPR jointly owns the copyright. Therefore, it is hardly surprising that the report takes the view that it does on the social chapter and the minimum wage, a view which most business people—and the CBI and the Institute of Directors—clearly do not share.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that the Deputy Prime Minister's attack on the windfall tax was fully justified? Does he further agree that the so-called "fat cats" will not in any way be penalised unless they are still shareholders, and that those who will be penalised under the proposed windfall tax are millions of ordinary shareholders who had a contract with the Government that the value of their assets would not be diminished in that way? Is it not further the case that the whole affair is wicked and rampant legalised theft which may in any case be ruled out of order by Europe?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I agree with a great deal of what the noble Lord has just said. My right honourable friend was criticising Labour Party policy for its failure to come clean on the windfall tax. The Labour Party will not tell us which companies would be affected or how much it would cost. It will not comment seriously on the effects on ordinary consumers and shareholders. It is perhaps no coincidence that there is a resounding silence on the subject in the report also.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, if no attack was intended on the businessmen involved, does the Minister agree that the high degree of consensus between the commission's report and the Labour Party indicates that Labour is the right party to work with British business for the future prosperity of this country?
Earl Howe: My Lords, in a number of respects the report is an uncontentious document. It contains quite a lot of what one might call "motherhood and apple pie", but it is also interlaced with recommendations that are key elements of Labour Party policy, such as the social chapter and the minimum wage. Some businessmen have felt able to sign up to that. However, the document has also been used to create the impression that UK business as a whole backs the Labour Party's policies. The generality of business in the UK does not back those key distinguishing features of Labour policy. My right honourable friend sought to expose that.
Lord Lawson of Blaby: My Lords, did my noble friend have the good fortune to read the excellent article
1534
in yesterday's edition of the Financial Times by Sir Ronald Grierson, who writes with great experience as the former head of the then Labour Government's industrial reorganisation corporation and who was subsequently a senior director of Britain's largest manufacturing company, in which he pointed out that there was absolutely nothing new in that report and that it was merely a regurgitation of the corporatist benevolent nonsense which caused such damage to this country's economy throughout the 1960s and 1970s?
Earl Howe: My Lords, my noble friend makes an extremely important set of points. I commend that article to all noble Lords.
Lord Richard: My Lords, is the Minister aware that neither we, the IPPR, the business community nor the country as a whole normally take the meanderings of the Deputy Prime Minister seriously, but that when the right honourable gentleman said so elegantly yesterday in relation to the Wirral, South by-election that the Government were about to receive a kick in the teeth, we accept that he may unwontedly have stumbled into accuracy?
Earl Howe: My Lords, it is also my right honourable friend who is conscious that it is this Government who have delivered the best economic circumstances for many years which offer unparalleled opportunities for business. I believe that the electorate of the Wirral will focus on that very fact.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, can the Minister inform the House of the date of the Government's policy change with regard to the windfall tax? As the Government themselves levied a windfall tax on the banks, at what stage did they change their view and decide that a windfall tax is a bad thing?
Earl Howe: My Lords, as I recall, the background to the windfall tax on the banks was a climate of extremely high interest rates. My noble friend the then Chancellor took the decision that it was right to levy a tax in those circumstances.
Lord Peston: My Lords, is the Minister aware that his answers are extremely puzzling to some of us? I wonder whether he has read the report, which I hold in my hand. I have read it and one of the puzzling things about it is that I could not find a single word in it about the windfall tax so I am not quite sure how that issue has been brought into this Question. However, that is by the way.
The reason that I rise to my feet is that the Minister said that the report is full of Labour Party policy. When I read it, I thought that it was full of Tory Party policy—in other words, it sounded like a reasonably well-balanced document. Indeed, if somebody had asked me its provenance, I would have said that it almost certainly came from the Deputy Prime Minister. That is why many of us are so completely bewildered by the right honourable gentleman's attack on the document; it is pure Heseltine.
Earl Howe: My Lords, one only has to read the foreword to the report to understand the impression that it is trying to create. It refers to a politically balanced set of commissioners reaching conclusions with a broad objective appeal. The reality is different: the report is co-authored by a body whose trustees are leading spokesmen of the Labour Party.

Justices of the Peace Bill [H.L.]
3.8 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill consolidates the provisions of the Justices of the Peace Act 1979. The 1979 Act has been substantially amended by subsequent legislation, notably legislation concerned with local government and by Part IV of the Police and Magistrates' Court Act 1994.
The 1979 Act is concerned with the appointment and organisation of justices of the peace and justices' clerks and the administration of the magistrates' courts. As well as amending the 1979 Act, Part IV of the 1994 Act made further provision about those matters, which is reproduced in the Bill. The 1994 Act, among other things, strengthened the role and accountability of magistrates' courts committees and put on a statutory footing Her Majesty's Magistrates' Courts Service Inspectorate.
Your Lordships may wish to be reminded that the principal statutory provisions governing the jurisdiction of, and proceedings in, magistrates' courts are to be found in the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980. Those provisions are not consolidated by the Bill.
My department has consulted widely in the course of the preparation of the Bill among organisations and others affected by the provisions consolidated by the Bill. The Bill will be referred in the usual way to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills if your Lordships are content to give it a Second Reading. I am sure that the House will wish to join me in expressing thanks to the draftsman of the Bill at the Law Commission for her valuable work in preparing the Bill. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a second time, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

Firearms (Amendment) Bill
3.10 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Extension of s.5 of the Firearms Act 1968 to prohibit certain small firearms]:
Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 15, after ("weapon,") insert ("a single shot weapon,").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1 I remind the House that I have an interest, which I have declared on several previous occasions. I first raised this issue in Committee when I explained that a single shot handgun was not suitable for use as a weapon as the user would have only one shot whereafter he would be vulnerable to attack. I also demonstrated that a single shot pistol was no more powerful than a shot pistol which was exempted from the general ban on handguns by virtue of a Government amendment.
My technical advisers, who have forgotten far more about these matters than I will ever know, have given me a terrible wigging. It is apparent that a .410 shot pistol is far more powerful than a 9 mm pistol. At Committee stage the Minister raised several points that I had not considered when tabling my original amendment. It would be possible to modify a self-loading pistol so that it became a single shot weapon. After it was approved it could relatively easily be modified so that it could again be a multi-shot pistol. Furthermore, I was not really thinking of a single shot Browning-type pistol but a pure target pistol.
The amendment I have tabled deals only with a pistol designed and constructed to be single shot. It would also have to be designed and maintained for target shooting. This stops imaginative owners converting such weapons from target pistols to combat-type pistols. My motivation is to develop a new full bore single shot shooting discipline. It would be a discipline that concentrated on high accuracy and very low rates of fire. I do not believe that such a discipline exists at present, but we could start one and lead the world in it.
The Minister pointed out that there were not many single shot pistols in existence and that the proposal would not help many people. However, my objective was not to help anyone in particular; it was to create a new opportunity for safe shooting.
We have some very big and interesting fish to fry today. Unless another noble Lord is desperate to make a contribution, I believe that we should move on. I have no intention of pursuing this matter. I simply ask the Minister, without any obligation on her part, to consider tabling an amendment at a later stage. I shall be interested to hear what the noble Baroness has to say. I beg to move.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, this amendment would permit, as the noble Earl said, single shot handguns of whatever calibre to be exempted from the general prohibition on handguns and to be allowed to be held at home. This runs counter to the proposals set out in the Bill that all multi-shot and single shot handguns other than small calibre pistols should be prohibited, apart from a very few narrowly defined exceptions. There are also the exemptions set out in Clauses 2 to 5 of the Bill covering those working in slaughterhouses, the humane killing of animals, those using starting pistols at athletic meetings and trophies of war. Those handguns may be held according to the conditions on the owner's firearms certificate. Apart from such cases, I see no grounds for

1537
allowing any single shot handguns to be exempted from the ban. Keeping such handguns at home would pose a great risk to the public.
I shall reflect on everything that is said in the course of today's proceedings, but I cannot promise the noble Earl that I will go away and table an amendment at the next stage.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her comments on my amendment. The situation is perfectly satisfactory. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh Lord Clifford of Chudleigh moved Amendment
No. 2:
Page 1, line 15, leave out ("small-calibre pistol") and insert ("pistol using low power cartridges").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 2 I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 5. The amendments are related. It is wise to understand that no matter what clauses may be agreed at any stage there are 2,500 weapons illegally imported into this country. That figure was referred to in the other place by Mr. Frank Cook. It had been supplied to him by two senior officers of different constabularies.
Throughout the debate on the Bill in this House and in the other place there have been quotes, and misquotes, from Lord Cullen's recommendations. Some of us are qualified to talk on the subject; others are less qualified. However, we have a duty in this House to the public at large to return the Bill to the other place amended so that it is acceptable both to those who wish to continue the sport of target shooting and those who wish to tighten the law to make the handling of firearms safer. It is important that we make the Bill as practical and policeable as we can, thus ensuring public safety.
The Government have accepted that the sport of target shooting will continue by allowing within the Bill the ability of clubs to use firearms that use .22 rimfire cartridges. I quote the standard Home Office statement:
"In the Bill, therefore, we seek to preserve competitive handgun shooting, while providing at least the same degree of public safety as Lord Cullen recommended. We propose to continue to permit .22 rimfire handguns".
The amendment enables us to preserve target pistols and cartridges of no greater muzzle energy than the .22 rimfire in a great number of competitions that would otherwise be eliminated. It will allow our national and international shooting team to practise with these pistols and, as a result, no doubt win in competitive shoots—a view that I know is shared by the noble Lord, Lord Howell. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, made the point most succinctly to the Minister during the first day of the Committee stage. He said that we simply could not turn up in Manchester and beat the world. He was appalled by the thought that our national teams at the Commonwealth Games in Manchester in 2002, should be allowed to compete in this country but not to practise here.
The amendment is simple, practical, possible and policeable. The Bill sets a power threshold for legally held .22 rimfire pistols. These are to be kept at shooting
1538
clubs under the most stringent security. Whether disassembly or segregation of parts is to be allowed I leave to amendments, which I shall support, to be moved by other noble Lords. If one accepts, as do most experts, that the benchmark or datum for such power measurement is muzzle energy one sees a very interesting correlation. Certain .22 rimfire cartridges generate more muzzle energy than the .32 and .38 wadcutter cartridge. For example, the .22 WRF cartridge with a competition load of 40 grains has a muzzle energy of 185. The long range .22 has exactly the same muzzle energy—165—as the .38 special wadcutter.
There are three types of .22 cartridge that exceed the muzzle energy of the .38 wadcutter. I can assure your Lordships that the figures have been verified by Fultons of Bisley and by Richard Munday and his co-author Jan Stevenson who wrote the authoritative book Guns and Violence: The Debate Before Lord Cullen. The essential point is that all these .22 rimfires will remain legal under the present Bill while, at huge cost to taxpayers in compensation, we will be prohibiting pistols generating weaker muzzle energy. It is the .38 wadcutter that is the firearm used by most target shooters. There is no logic in that.
With this amendment we accept what the Minister calls "The line in the sand" precisely where the Government have drawn it, but we seek simply to ensure that it is drawn consistently. It is not how fat a bullet might be, but the power with which it is fired. Prior to today's Report stage of the Bill, I canvassed the opinion of a number of noble Lords. One critique was, how do you stop people who self-load their cartridges from overloading, that is to say, putting a larger charge of powder in the cartridge during the loading process? That is a very relevant point. I believe it would be very simple to police, in one or two ways.
First, portable chronographs are available and are widely used already by clubs and ranges to verify the loads of cartridges during match competitions. Fullbore ranges are sufficiently few that it would not be difficult for the police, with chronographs, to run random muzzle energy checks. Moreover, the matches that could be legally shot with low power cartridges would offer no incentive to load higher, indeed quite the reverse, for lower recoil, as a result of a low power cartridge, offers a competitive edge. The Firearms Act already employs muzzle energy limits to define the licensing of airguns and there is no reason why this system should not be extended to cartridge firearms. There are 43 constabularies in the UK and, as each of these chronographs costs £100, the outlay is insignificant. One might add that should a club member be found to have illegal cartridges, then draconian measures could be taken, not only against the member but also the club. This would, I am sure, make the club doubly vigilant in its own policing.
The second means of policing would be for clubs to use only legally manufactured cartridges. All ammunition would have to be kept in a secure arsenal segregated from the club. On the range all cartridges to be fired would be signed for in a club or police register. All spent cartridges would be collected and signed off

1539
against the initial entry. The spent cartridges would be destroyed. The scrap casings would then be sent to the manufacturers for recycling. The clubs would be able to defray some of the cost on the scrap value. This method would be expensive for the clubs, but I suggest that most clubs would be prepared to pay the extra cost to keep this honourable sport from dying. Of course, if amendments relating to the segregation of pistol parts were accepted, then there is no reason why self-loading should not continue.
Some of your Lordships are aware that I am a disabled shooter. Luckily, I am not totally blind but, as a result of an accident some years ago, I do have difficulty in seeing things immediately around me. Bumping into furniture and sometimes people is a forte of mine, for which I apologise. I am, although I say it myself, a reasonable shot with a shotgun, at times. I do not target shoot with a pistol, but hundreds of truly disabled people do, some of them to great effect. We in this country can boast the only disabled shooter in the world who has won three gold medals in three consecutive games. There are 50,000 disabled shooters in this country and they will be listening to us while we speak this afternoon and in further debates on this Bill.
This amendment, with your Lordships' support, would allow the disabled shooters to continue with their sport which is in many cases a lifeline to their enjoyment of life. They can compete with their able-bodied friends on level terms in the full knowledge that nobody is giving them an advantage.
Finally, there is the question of cost. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, has tabled an amendment which is specific to this issue. We have heard during the passage of this Bill horrific figures bandied about in relation to compensation. The Minister has, when questioned, been unable to give accurate figures for the final bill to the taxpayer. We have heard sums of £150 million, £300 million, £500 million and even £1 billion to £1.5 billion as a possible final cost. When one hears of the shooting organisations and the manufacturers both here and abroad that are engaging counsel to challenge the Government in the European Court, I fear that the final figure may exceed the latter end of the scale. There is no doubt in my mind, and I am sure in many others, that the taxpayer will not be amused at such a spend by the government, of whatever political persuasion. This amendment will drastically reduce the bill for compensation, by allowing for the retention of the .38 wadcutter, which, as I have said, has a lower muzzle energy than the .22 rimfire.
I started my speech with the words,
"the amendment … is simple, practical, possible and policeable".
The Minister herself has indicated that if other ways can be found to make exemptions which do not threaten public safety the Government will give serious consideration to them. I believe that this amendment should be given serious consideration. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I supported the Government throughout the Committee stage of this Bill but, having heard the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, move this amendment, I hope that my noble friends on the Front Bench will give it very careful consideration and perhaps undertake to consider it between now and Third Reading. He has made a very important point.
We are dealing here with those weapons which are to be exempt from the prohibitive provisions of the Bill. Among those provisions is the small-calibre pistol, which is defined as not exceeding .22. If I may just add to what the noble Lord said, I remind your Lordships that a powerful .22 pistol can be more destructive—perhaps one should say even more destructive—than a pistol using a low-powered cartridge of greater calibre, such as the .38, as the noble Lord mentioned. Therefore, I believe that he has made out a case for the inclusion of the low-powered cartridge pistol.
The only extent to which I disagree with him is in cutting out the exemption of the .22 pistol. That is unthinkable. After all that we have gone through I believe that we should keep that exemption in the Bill and not leave it out as he has proposed, but that we should add this new exemption. I hope that my noble friends on the Front Bench will give an undertaking to consider this very carefully.
Lord Monson: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Clifford of Chudleigh does, of course, have logic on his side. The kind of guns he specifies are indeed no more dangerous than .22 pistols; indeed, in some cases, they are probably less dangerous. However, politics, as I am sure he will appreciate, is the art of the possible. It is rather late in the day to introduce an amendment which exempts guns larger than the .32 wadcutter, to which we shall come in a moment.
Subject to what he thinks about the proposal made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, I wonder whether my noble friend might think about withdrawing his amendment and coming back on Third Reading with an enabling amendment which would empower a future Secretary of State to introduce, by order, provisions allowing for the exemption of those guns after taking expert advice, subject to affirmative resolution.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, it is extraordinary that foreigners will be allowed to come in with their larger calibre pistols and to shoot at the Commonwealth Games in Manchester. They will of course have to come in under the same safety and security conditions. Then they will meet the British, who will never have been allowed to have them in their hands, who will score zero. What a lot of Herberts we will all look! We will have to compete with a pistol that we are not allowed to have. They will come in and say, "We are allowed to shoot, but you poor chaps are not to be trusted with them". Can you beat that?
I am glad that the noble Lord talked about the disabled gold medallists. It is the one sport in which they can compete on equal terms. We hear about public

1541
opinion. All my information is that public opinion has swung away from wanting to do away with pistols. I have talked to many people, but I have met no one who wants to get rid of pistols. Every man and woman I have met in various walks of life feels that the Bill is absolute nonsense. I have met no one who supports it. There is no public opinion behind it. It has just been pushed forward by a lot of political activists on the strength of emotion. I support the amendment, and I hope my noble friend takes it to a Division.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, Amendment No. 2 includes in the definition of a small-calibre pistol those which fire cartridges of low power equivalent to .22 rim-fired cartridges. I am grateful to the noble Lord because he discussed the amendment with me before the proceedings on the Bill. I appreciate the sentiment behind the amendment, but it would allow—this is the difficulty—pistols to be stored which were capable of firing much higher powered cartridges as well as .22s.
The Government have made their position clear. Only small calibre pistols chambered for .22 rimfired cartridges should be permitted to be stored and used in the secure conditions of a pistol club licensed by the Secretary of State. The proposals in the Bill have been prepared carefully to allow for those circumstances, thus providing a safety valve to allow the sport of target shooting to continue in safe surroundings.
It is not right at this late stage of the Bill to change that position in such a drastic way as to introduce handguns which might also be capable of firing much more powerful cartridges. I know the noble Lord's intention, but my advice is that that would be the case. The Government's duty is to address public safety. The amendment, although restricting muzzle energy no greater than .22 rimfired cartridges, would nevertheless allow clubs to possess higher calibre guns which are capable of firing more powerful cartridges and would undermine that protection. Therefore, I cannot accept the amendment.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, what is the difference in terms of legality between a legitimate weapon and a legitimate piece of ammunition, because, as she rightly says, those weapons are capable of firing more powerful ammunition, but that is in itself illegal?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in considering the issue of public safety, one is considering also the scope for circumvention. We are just saying that with a single gun, albeit restricted in law to a particular muzzle energy, nevertheless the scope for circumvention, for using the same weapon for higher muzzle energy, is considerable. It is that risk that we have taken into account when saying that we cannot accept the amendment.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. The advice that I have been given by experts in this field does not accord entirely with the advice that the Minister has received. The very
1542
point of Amendment No. 5, which I linked with Amendment No. 2, is that it would enable the Government—to use that phrase—to look more favourably on the amendments. I do not believe, and I have been so advised, that if one considered this as part of the legislation, and policed it as such, no matter what size the gun, the waddage, the energy, because it is restricted to .22, it will not mean that one can adapt a larger weapon into being that much more powerful. Would the Minister like to consider that before I press the amendment?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my understanding is that the gun itself would be capable of firing higher muzzle energy. It is because the same weapon is capable of firing higher muzzle energy that it would be restricted, of course, in legislation. The words on the page would restrict it, but the scope for practical circumvention is too great when considering public safety.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, we must consider what was said before the Minister replied. There are certain types of ammunition which are illegal. They would illegal under the Bill. Later we shall be discussing an amendment relating to segregation. "Disassembly" is a term which has been used previously. Disassembly is where you just put something in front of you. Segregation is where you have one part in one place and one part in another place. I agree with and will support that amendment.
I hope that the Government will understand that if you segregate the weapon—as I said when I moved the amendment—you also segregate the ammunition. You will then be protecting the public. It does not matter if we have larger guns; they will be segregated. The ammunition that they can fire will be restricted. As the Minister said, the line has been drawn and assigned and cannot go any further. The waddage is of a particular size. No matter what size gun, it will not go any harder or faster. It will not damage anybody or anything except for a target at 25 yards. That is the way I am trying to put the matter forward for the benefit of every target shooter in this country and abroad and every member of the public.
On Question, amendment negatived.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 11, leave out ("5") and insert ("7").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 9, 10, 11, 21, 23, 39, 43 and 50. These are minor and technical amendments. They have the sole purpose of clarifying the existing wording of the Bill. There are no policy implications, and so I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh Lord Clifford of Chudleigh moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, leave out lines 14 and 15 and insert—
(""(1A) In this Act "a pistol using low power cartridges" means—
(a) a pistol using cartridges which generate no greater muzzle energy than .22 rim-fire cartridges; or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment negatived.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Clause 4 [Races at athletic meetings]:
Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 7:
Leave out Clause 4.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, we return briefly to the issue of Clause 4 of the Bill, the exemption of handguns used by race officials to start races at athletic meetings. I cannot understand why this exemption has been made. It is absolute madness and inappropriate. These handguns are not what I understand to be starting or blank-firing pistols and do not come under any form of control under the 1968 Act; they are fully serviceable, full bore handguns. For technical reasons they are of the largest calibre, typically .455—almost half an inch in bore diameter. There are many other ways of obtaining the bang, the flash and the smoke that are apparently necessary for starting races. I am not concerned about the use of blanks, but the gun is a real firearm, nearly always a revolver because a blank will not easily make a self-loading pistol reload automatically.
A number of disasters can and have occurred even with pistols firing blanks. I give one example, a suicide reported in the American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology in 1990, reference 11(4), pages 285 to 290. Put simply, a young woman who was depressed committed suicide by discharging an 8 mm blank directly above her heart. The autopsy revealed no metallic particles from the cartridge but her heart was still destroyed. That would suggest that blanks are not harmless.
Army requirements are that blanks should not be fired at less than 25 metres range: other military personnel should be at least 50 metres away and civilians 100 metres away. The rules also state that directing staff should wear ear defenders. I wonder why?
I invite the House to consider what could go wrong at an athletic meeting. Noble Lords will recall the vicious, unprovoked knife attack on the tennis player Monica Seles which caused her serious physical and mental injuries. A madman with similar incomprehensible motives to those of Hamilton goes to a prestigious athletic meeting with 12 rounds of .455 ammunition, overpowers the race official, takes his handgun away and slips in the first six rounds. I leave the rest to your Lordships' imagination. I beg to move.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, you can be dangerous with anything. The only safe object to allow people is a wooden spoon—and that must not be too long because it could go down someone's throat. You can make
1544
anything dangerous. You cannot argue that you have to do away with every type of gun, knife or anything else because it is dangerous if used the wrong way. It has been suggested that a hand rail should be put around the British Isles to ensure that nobody falls off. That is what we are trying to do here.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have had to do some strange things but I have not yet had to defend putting a handrail around the British Isles.
The noble Earl raised this matter in Committee. I explained that Section 11(2) of the Firearms Act 1968 allows the starter of an athletics race to have a pistol in his possession without a police firearms certificate in order to start the race. Under the Act a person who wishes to buy or own a pistol for that purpose or to keep at home requires a firearms certificate in the usual way.
Clause 4 of the Bill ensures that athletics starters can continue to keep and use starting pistols in that way. Starters use blank rounds, but I understand that it is important to have a working pistol so that there is both a report and a flash. Every major championship, including the last three Olympic Games and the last Commonwealth Games, has made use of starting guns. The only major exception of recent years was the 1995 World Championships in Gothenburg where an alternative starting apparatus was used. There were, I understand, difficulties in the sprint events when the apparatus proved unreliable. Anyone who takes sport seriously will know that if the starting gun is unreliable it creates enormous problems for the competitors, particularly at that level.
We are discussing the issue with the British Athletics Federation. I recall the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, saying that it cannot be beyond the wit of man to devise another method. We are talking with the BAF about that and the federation itself is addressing the issue. It is considering alternatives to pistols for starting races. If an alternative practical method can be found we will reconsider the position.
The Government are not aware of any case where the concession in the law for starting pistols has caused danger to the public. I hope that the noble Earl will not press the amendment.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. I welcome too the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough. The Minister is obviously content with the clause and I do not wish to weary the House. I hope that there are no serious incidents this summer. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
Clause 7 [Shot pistols used for shooting vermin]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 9 to 11:
Page 3, line 28, after ("have") insert ("the shot pistol").
Page 3, line 29, leave out ("a shot pistol") and insert ("it").
Transpose Clause 7 to after Clause 3.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 8 [Having small-calibre pistol outside premises of licensed pistol club]:
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 3, line 38, at end insert ("unless the pistol complies with subsection (2A) below.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 12 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 14 and touch on Amendment No. 15, in the name of my noble friend Lord Swansea, which is an amendment to my amendment. I shall speak mainly to Amendment No. 14, the disassembly or segregation amendment.
Amendment No. 14 is very similar to the amendment which I and other noble Lords supported in Committee on 16th January, at cols. 327 to 337 of the Official Report. We have made two changes to the amendment since the Committee proceedings. First, we have limited its scope to pistols chambered to .22 or smaller rimfire cartridges. That is in response to fears voiced by my noble friend the Minister, at col. 338, that our original amendment would have led to calls to allow high calibre pistols also to be disassembled. My noble friend was not necessarily correct in that assumption but the new wording should meet her fears.
As an amendment to the amendment, my noble friend Lord Swansea proposes Amendment No. 15 which would extend the calibres covered by disassembly to .32 wadcutters as well as to .22. The object of that exercise is to include calibres used in the Commonwealth Games and the Olympic Games in the disassembly amendment.
The second change made to our earlier amendment allows the Secretary of State discretion to specify another component part, instead of or in addition to the slide assembly or cylinder, which will be kept in the licensed premises. This is to meet the practical requirements of disassembly of the very few makes of pistols not covered by the other arrangements. It is a refinement which meets the fears my noble friend the Minister expressed on 16th January.
Your Lordships would not wish me to repeat all the arguments used in Committee in favour of disassembly. We showed how the Government, in the face of overwhelming evidence, had shifted from their original stance, which was that disassembly was not practical, to the equally unreal spectre of illicit spares being kept at the homes of law-abiding citizens in flagrant contradiction of the conditions set out in their firearm certificates. So far, the Government have not attempted to dispute the fact that it is far easier for what they call a "determined and motivated individual"—presumably one bent on criminal activity—to acquire a whole pistol in the underworld than it is for him to go through the unnecessary procedure of acquiring a spare part which might not even fit his weapon.
In her speech resisting our amendment in Committee, my noble friend the Minister said that she was worried that regular dismantlement might impair the accuracy of many .22s. I can assure your Lordships that the weight of expert evidence, as supplied, for example, by Mr. Colin Greenwood of the Firearms Research
1546
Advisory Service, is that that is not so. Mr. Greenwood feels that the lone gentleman who advises the Home Office in that respect is wrong.
Be that as it may, if for any reason owners do not want to disassemble their pistols or cannot do so, they will not be able to benefit from this amendment. They will have to keep them as whole weapons in accordance with the rest of the Bill. So my noble friend's remarks on that occasion display her usual and admirable concern, but they are not a relevant objection to this amendment, especially in its redrafted form.
In her remarks on 16th January my noble friend the Minister went on to raise the objection that it would be difficult to police a dismantlement system in clubs. She gave three examples of such difficulty: first, that a qualified armourer would need to check the bona fides of a component part at the time of storage and would need to know what components the owner was entitled to have. However, there is no greater difficulty in identifying a bona fide component part than a whole gun. The extent of ownership will also be known as it will be declared on a firearm certificate.
It may be that an additional but unnecessary safeguard in this respect could be added to the Bill on Third Reading. This could be to require both the frame and its spare parts to bear the weapon's number. I gather that that is usually what happens anyway, but it might give the Government extra comfort if it were to be made mandatory. Perhaps the Government would care to come back with a suitable amendment on Third Reading or, alternatively, I would be happy to do so. Anyway, I hope that we can discuss it.
My noble friend's second fear about policing dismantlement in clubs was that an owner could deceive a club official at the time of storage by depositing a deactivated component part instead of a working part of the same make and model. But that is based on a highly contentious idea that deactivated weapons are not easily identified. In fact, deactivated weapons undergo a stringent process in order to render them incapable of firing a bullet. All component parts are deactivated, for instance, by cutting away two-thirds of the slide rail and all require a distinctive proof mark issued by the Birmingham or London proof houses. I have photographs which illustrate these points. Anyone used to handling guns will easily be able to spot the difference.
My noble friend's third objection was that there would have to be a considerable bureaucracy in managing the system inside clubs. But it is not clear why a dismantlement system should be any more bureaucratic than the system envisaged under the Bill. Depositing component parts will work in exactly the same way as depositing whole guns. The Bill already requires a club to keep a pistol register which would record details of the pistols stored at the club, its owner and any removal from the premises. The same details would be required of component parts.
My noble friend raised one more defence of her position against the disabling amendment during our Committee proceedings. In mentioning it I have to say that, with the obvious inadequacies of all their

1547
arguments exposed, the Government have now moved away from scientific clarity and appear to rest their case on unsubstantiated opinion. I quote my noble friend the Minister yet again:
"The main reason for rejecting this option"—
that is, disassembly—
"was that we do not believe that any form of disassembly would provide a guaranteed measure of assurance against the possible misuse of the pistol by a determined and motivated individual".—[Official Report, 16/1/97; col. 338.]
There is no supporting evidence to back up this opinion, other than the self-evident point that no measure of any kind can be an absolute guarantee against possible misuse. All the Government's objections are met once it is recognised that at the commencement of the Act all pistols will be subject to assessment by the police. A complete inventory of pistols and component parts exists today on firearm certificates. All pistols not conforming to the Act will have to be surrendered and removed from the certificate. Exactly the same applies to component parts. Thereafter, all that is required is for the police to notify the club of any changes in the member's certificate.
I trust it is now clear that none of the Government's objections to dismantlement stand up to scrutiny. Before concluding, perhaps I could be permitted a very brief comment on Amendment No. 13 which follows this group of amendments on the Marshalled List. Amendment No. 14 would create a right under the Bill and there would be no offence if its conditions were complied with. Under Amendment No. 13 the rules, when they emerge from the Secretary of State, might be delayed or be so stringent as to negate the effect of the proposal.
Amendment No. 14 is less bureaucratic. It provides for the generality and leaves the Secretary of State a residual power in case of difficulty. If he does nothing, the clause would still operate, but Amendment No. 13 would require the rules to be made and they could be very complex, including perhaps storage in more than two parts. If Amendment No. 14 were not to find favour with my noble friend on the Front Bench or eventually with your Lordships, of course I would support Amendment No. 13. However, I fear that it is not as helpful as Amendment No. 14.
Disassembled pistols all over the country will be far safer than arsenals of weapons waiting to be burgled. That is where the "determined and motivated individual" so promoted by Her Majesty's Government will strike, not in Alice in Wonderland procurement of unreliable and non-existent spare parts in the underworld.
Disassembly will allow thousands of clubs to continue to operate. It will save their sport for thousands of people, both able-bodied and disabled, and it will save the taxpayer a huge but unquantifiable sum. It was the preferred option of Lord Cullen and it meets the central purpose of the Bill, which is to separate the owner from his pistol except within licensed premises and thus to do what can be done to prevent another terrible tragedy such as occurred at Dunblane. I very
1548
much hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench can accept our amendment today. If she cannot, I hope that your Lordships will support it in the Division Lobby. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, we have two very similar amendments on the Marshalled List. They are both designed to have largely the same effect. I am anxious to avoid two debates so I shall speak in this debate. If necessary, I shall move my amendment, speak to it, explain its advantages and then seek the opinion of the House.
The time has now come for the House to decide what we are going to do with the Bill which, as drafted, will practically eliminate the sporting use of pistols while providing a negligible increase in public safety. The other problem with the Bill is that it is unaffordable as not only will compensation have to be paid for the actual guns to be melted down, but also—and quite rightly—compensation will have to be paid to the clubs that will be destroyed and to certain individuals who would otherwise be bankrupted.
We believe that a system of disassembly, dismantling, segregation—call it what you will—provides the solution. Both our amendments—that is my Amendment No. 13 and the noble Lord's Amendment No. 14—concern only small calibre, that is to say, .22 pistols, although the case that will be presented is equally valid for full bore pistols.
In Committee the Chamber has already shown that it can compromise on this Bill. The Committee divided at least twice and decided upon compensation for clubs but not businesses. It may be helpful if I first remind the House of the problems connected with handguns. I suggest that there are four problems. First, although there is little concrete evidence, the police fear that people are acquiring handguns as a means of personal protection. Rightly or wrongly, that is contrary to public policy. With certain exceptions the public are not supposed to use firearms to protect themselves as that is the province of the police. With good reason the police are apprehensive of further increases in the number of people having their own guns available for immediate use but having some lawful pretext to obtain them such as target shooting.
Secondly, to obtain a licence people will join a shooting club, which is, after all, a pleasant activity. After a period they will qualify for their own certificate. Their motivation is not immediately apparent, especially if they occasionally turn up at the club. That is not unlikely as the clubs have a pleasant social environment. The only problem is that their motivation is contrary to public policy but nothing illegal is happening.
Thirdly, there is the problem of theft of legally held handguns. While there is a vast number of guns with no history of legal ownership, there is a tiny minority which were stolen from legal owners. Having a sporting gun of any kind creates some increased security risk, but perversely the very qualities of a pistol—concealability and transportability—which make it attractive to further criminal acts also contribute to its security.

1549
Fourthly, there is the problem of suicides and accidental or even deliberate shootings either by the owner, a relative or a friend. The system of disassembly that we shall describe can overcome all these problems, as nowhere will there be a complete privately owned pistol except when in use at a club and for certain exemptions specified elsewhere in the Bill. The Bill, as drafted, seeks to solve the problem in a different way to that specified in our amendment. No handguns will be privately held but .22 pistols will be held in a few arsenal type clubs, with possibly several hundred complete guns in one place. The Government have admitted that few, if any, clubs will be able to afford the necessary security arrangements, thus causing there to be fewer clubs but with a huge concentration of firearms, making them even more attractive to criminals.
At this stage I wish to explain how our amendment works and how it meets the difficulties identified with previous amendments debated in this House and in another place. The amendment gives the power to the Secretary of State to make rules as to which parts of a small calibre pistol, that is, a .22, will be left at the club and which parts will be stored elsewhere. It is an extremely flexible provision. My provisions are almost identical in effect to those in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson. Under my amendment the Secretary of State would be able to provide that a particular model or type is not suitable for dismantling and that provision is not qualified in any way, as the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, explained. This is practically the only way in which my amendment differs from that of the noble Lord.
I can and will support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson. He has made an excellent job of moving it. However, I doubt whether the House will accept it, if he chooses to test the opinion of the House. If the House does not accept the noble Lord's amendment, I shall move my amendment and briefly explain its advantages. I shall then seek the opinion of the House.
Lord Monson: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, has made an excellent case for Amendments Nos. 12 and 14. I have added my name to Amendment No. 14. A formidable body of my noble friends on these Benches have put their names to Amendment No. 13 which has already been effectively spoken to by my noble friend Lord Attlee. As he has pointed out, it also relates to disassembly. However, as has also been pointed out, it is an enabling amendment. The problem with that is that it might be many months, or indeed many years, if ever, before a future Secretary of State took advantage of its provisions. In the meantime perhaps 70 or even 75 per cent. of .22 pistol clubs would have collapsed because of not being able to afford the cripplingly heavy security provisions that storage of fully assembled pistols would necessitate. Therefore any action by a future government would be too late.
It is worth recalling once again the overwhelming advantages of accepting one or other disassembly amendment, preferably the first, of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson. It would enable many more sportsmen and
1550
sportswomen to continue with their sport. It would save the taxpayer huge sums of money and above all it would be much safer for the public.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, I do not wish to rehearse the arguments that were made at the Committee stage. As we have a free vote on this matter those of my noble friends who might wish to hear my advice can do so now. I feel strongly that the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, would greatly extend the use and availability of handguns. I ask my noble friends to support the Government in opposing that amendment.
I feel much less strongly about the amendment spoken to by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, which allows the Secretary of State to make rules. Those rules can relate to where the different parts of the weapon are kept and to the make, model and fire power—if that is the right word—of the weapon. If my noble friends wish to abstain or support the noble Earl, I have no objection to that.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, some Members of your Lordships' House may remember a famous American baseball coach who had an imperfect grasp of the English language, or indeed any other language, and who once said that in watching his team lose yet another game he had a sense of déjà vu all over again. I have had a similar sense listening to the exchange so far. It seems to me that the arguments for and against this policy of disassembly, or dismantlement, or segregation—as the noble Lord, Lord Clifford, put it—have been made over and over again. We have heard the arguments and we are now in a position to make up our minds about them.
I must, however, confess also that I have a certain amount of confusion in my mind at the way in which this matter is being handled. We have had one amendment tabled and proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson. We have heard speeches in favour of that amendment which seemed to be criticising it. However, that is the way that the grouping has been drawn up and we have to abide by that. I wish to say only that it seems to me there must be a measure of agreement with what Lord Cullen said in his report; namely,
"The option—that is to say the option of disassembly—which is open to the least objection on the grounds of practicality is the temporary dismantling of self-loading pistols and revolvers by the removal of major components".
We have heard some powerful arguments to support the view of Lord Cullen.
I wish to make two brief points before resuming my seat. They have already been made but they should be considered carefully. This dismantlement option would allow people to continue to practise a harmless and absorbing sport without potential danger to the public. If the Bill remains in its present form, thousands of people will be deprived of that harmless recreation.
There is a further aspect. The noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, made the point eloquently. I refer to the impact of this legislation on the disabled. Pistol shooting is one of the few sports in which the disabled

1551
can compete on the same footing as the able-bodied. Shooting for the disabled began in this country; we were the initiators of it. It is now a worldwide sport at paraplegic and other games all over the world. It would be a final irony if the legislation meant that we were now the only country to be eliminated from international competition in this field.
Although I am slightly confused by the procedures today, I shall support the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, if he presses his amendment to a Division. If he is defeated, I shall hope to support my noble friend Lord Attlee when he moves his amendment.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I support both amendments. Originally I had intended to support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Pearson. However, I understand the merits of both although I comprehend the confusions that have been discussed.
It is with a little suspicion that I support the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, in view of the fact that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was more persuaded towards Amendment No. 13 than Amendment No. 12 in the name of my noble friend Lord Pearson. Knowing the noble Lord's attitude to guns in general, I suspect that his reasons for supporting that amendment are not quite the right ones, and not those of many who support my noble friend's amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have no attitude to handguns. I have only an attitude to public safety.
Earl Peel: My Lords, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, on several occasions during discussion of the Bill he has expressed his opposition to anyone holding handguns. I do not think that he can get away with that kind of remark.
I support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Pearson. We had a lengthy and comprehensive discussion in Committee. I believe that I am right in saying that virtually every person who spoke at that stage supported the concept of disassembly.
As the Bill stands at present, if handguns are kept as one assembly in clubs, with the necessary and stringent controls, there is always the danger that any criminal or terrorist will be able to have access to large arsenals. The one great advantage of the amendment is that we split the gun into its various parts. That makes a great deal of sense.
On a more general point, a great number of people will be affected seriously by the Bill and feel hard done by through what I can only describe as the intransigent attitude of the Government. I should have thought that this was a good opportunity for my noble friend to display to those people that she has given the matter considerable thought. The arguments put forward about safety are real and proper. The outcome of my noble friend's amendment for those people would be considerable.
1552
I very much hope that the Minister will accept the amendment. If it comes to a Division, I hope that noble Lords will support my noble friend. Amendment No. 12 is a well thought out, comprehensive and good amendment.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I much regret that I was unable to be present in your Lordships' House during the earlier stages of the Bill. I shall speak only briefly now. First, I believe that one of the symptoms of indifferent legislation is when the government of the day find it almost impossible to make any important concessions for fear that the whole edifice will fall apart.
Secondly, shock and horror, deep and profound as they were following Dunblane, are not the best of counsellors when it comes to solving problems. I believe that the Government's proposals in the Bill should be judged by the yardstick of how far they are likely to protect young children or other vulnerable people from the actions of people who are either wicked or mad.
If a measure makes a modest contribution, if any, to such an end then I believe that interfering with other people's perfectly peaceful pastimes is not justified. In having to devise a measure which would protect, safeguard and prevent such events ever happening again, and at the same time satisfy public opinion, I believe that the Government were wise to appoint Lord Cullen, and to ask him to look at the matter in depth, quietly, and to report. I have never been able to understand why, having received a perfectly sensible and lucid report from Lord Cullen, they did not follow that advice.
Before my noble friend the Minister finally rejects either Amendment No. 12 or Amendment No. 13, I hope that the noble Baroness will reflect seriously upon how far anything in the Bill will be effective in securing the purpose which everyone must deeply desire. I conclude on this note. There are other, more effective and far more devastating ways of doing harm to vulnerable people in schools or elsewhere than could be done with the minor weapons with which she is now dealing.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I support the Cullen option. I am sorely disappointed that the Government were unable to bring forward some provision along those lines since Committee stage. Such was quite clearly the preponderant view of your Lordships' House and the gravamen of the mass of correspondence that your Lordships received from perfectly ordinary, law-abiding people from all walks of life.
I shall vote for both amendments. I have no compunction in doing so. I feel that it is a matter of one's duty. When another place makes a hash of legislation, the country comes to us. At least we should do what we can without wrecking the principle of the Bill.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I, too, regret that I have been unable to attend previous stages of the Bill. However, I wish to say a few words on the two amendments. I support them as a result of practical experience in Northern Ireland.

1553
In Northern Ireland we have just as many weapons throughout the community. Over the past years the security forces have had many weapons of the type referred to in the provision, and of the type required by terrorists. However, those weapons have to be dismantled within the home and disassembled. Because the parts are separated there has been no case, so far as I am aware, of a planned attack to obtain a partly disassembled weapon without knowledge of where the second part was hidden. If these amendments are passed, one part would be held in a safe place well away from the location of the disassembled part. However, there have been occasions over the years when weapons were taken from a central place in a fully assembled state. I therefore support the amendments. I believe that they would give the greatest feeling of protection to a well-informed public. If they are not well informed they will be sceptical of such a measure.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, at Second Reading I drew my noble friend's attention to the view of the small clubs in the area where I live which will have to close because they have no premises in which to keep their weapons. My noble friend's amendment would very much improve the situation for those clubs. Members would be able to keep their weapons at home but absolutely safely because parts would be disassembled and kept elsewhere. That would help shooters enormously. Under my noble friend's amendment any weapons would still be small bore but could be kept at home. I believe such a measure to be absolutely safe. I have in mind the anxieties of many people in the area where I live. This is a good solution. I am comforted by the fact that it is Lord Cullen's preferred option.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, there are two voices from this side of the House. My noble friend gave his powerful opinion; mine is very much less powerful, indeed a very weak opinion so far as numbers are concerned. Nevertheless, I believe that it should be expressed. I have heard the arguments; I am impressed by them. I do not need to rehearse them further. My point is that if the amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, were passed, it would help to take some of the heat out of the severe arguments that are taking place. If the Government accepted the amendment, it would make pistol shooters feel that their views were being heeded and that the Government now recognise that they are not the monsters so often depicted but perfectly respectable, hard-working members of the community, innocent of any crime that would justify the draconian measures now being taken against them. That is worth repeating several times over, although that is not my intention.
It has been shown beyond doubt that dismantlement is workable. We have heard the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough. If anybody should know, he should. He knows that dismantlement is workable and that it is safe when coupled with proper enforcement of the law. We must always remember that it was failure to enforce the existing law which led to Thomas Hamilton
1554
possessing guns. Dismantlement would provide a regime that was safe; and the Bill would still provide the most rigorous gun control regime in the world.
I want to emphasise the savings in cost that would arise if dismantlement were to be agreed. I put it to my noble friends in particular, since it is likely that a Labour government will pick up the tab for compensation and that the amount could turn out much higher than presently estimated, that it is in their interests to support the amendment. Indeed if the Government had any sense, they would welcome it with open arms. It would get them off the hook. I do not want to be unkind to them; I am not an unkind person. However, I fear that they have the closed minds and moribund senses that afflict those who are too long in office.
Nevertheless, I have a dream that a glimmering of understanding of the issues and consideration for those who will be so badly affected by the Bill will penetrate the fog of confusion that surrounds Her Majesty's Government and that they will see the light and accept the amendment. If not, I trust that this House, as it so often does, will pass an amendment which brings justice to pistol shooters and those connected with the sport and, in doing so, enhance public safety.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, the crucial issue in the Bill is framed in these two amendments. In his report Lord Cullen undoubtedly gave as his first option the dismantling of guns. In their response the Government said that they had received advice from forensic science advisers to the Home Office that that option was totally impracticable. That is the great issue in relation to the two amendments.
If such a measure is impracticable from a safety point of view, then the Government are right. On the other hand, there are the expert comments in so many letters received by Members of this House regarding the option which Lord Cullen believed to be a practical answer to the problem—or at least the most satisfactory answer. Having pointed out how totally impossible it was to prevent the madman or evil-doer getting through the net, he chose the other option; namely, dealing with the weapon. That, he believed, was the correct way to deal with the problem. However, as I understand it, he had not heard the evidence from the forensic science advisers to the Government. It is very important for the Minister to deal with the disadvantages and adumbrate exactly what they are.
This is a matter which eventually the elected House should and will decide. The issue for this House is whether we give Members in the other place an opportunity and a reason to reconsider Lord Cullen's advice and that received by the Government from forensic science advisers whom they are bound to turn to. If the advice is as strong as has been suggested, it cannot easily be discarded.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, when the Government proposed the Bill they reached some general conclusions which noble Lords may feel were rather expensive. Some may agree; some may disagree. The amendments under discussion, particularly the proposal of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, do not seek to counter those general

1555
conclusions. All they say is: let the policies that the Government have decided to adopt be implemented in a way that is less expensive, which must be desirable for everyone, and in a way that is less intrusive and burdensome. It would be very sad if my noble friend were to say not only that the Government will insist on their general principles as set out in the Bill but that they will also insist on the Home Office having its own way as to exactly how the legislation is carried out. Frankly, I suspect that the collective knowledge and expertise in your Lordships' House is every bit as great as in the Home Office.
4.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I should like to ask a question, the answer to which may materially assist me in deciding how to vote. My general questions are very much like those of my noble friend Lord Hooson.
Once a weapon has been disassembled, is it possible to take a disassembled piece from one weapon and fit it together with the body of another weapon to make one composite new weapon or do the disassembled pieces have to be fitted together in the original combination?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 12 and 14 in the name of my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch propose that pistols and other handguns would be disassembled for storage. The owner would retain the larger part of the gun—the carcass or frame—to keep safely at home and leave a vital working part, most usually the barrel in the case of a pistol, or the cylinder in the case of a revolver, for secure storage at their club.
The Government have given much consideration to this issue and I am particularly grateful to my noble friend for coming to see me recently, together with an independent expert, to offer advice on this subject.
We, of course, understand the importance of disassembly, certainly as far as individual shooters are concerned. However, the Government remain of the view that, as we said when this issue was debated before in this House, it would be wrong to take this approach. The Government have in this House and in another place explained the dangers to the public of allowing handguns to be held at home, even when disassembled.
This is not a technical argument. Experts may differ on this subject but the Government entirely accept that most handguns can be disassembled by removing the barrel, slide or cylinder and that the average owner can then put them back together so that they are safe to use.
A few guns, as Lord Cullen acknowledged at paragraph 9.86 of his report, cannot be treated in this way. But the Government's main argument against disassembly is that it does not provide a sufficient measure of assurance to the public against the possible misuse of a pistol by a determined individual.
Under a disassembly scheme it would have to be the responsibility of the club to ensure that the detached component parts were lodged safely and securely and that they were always handed in when they ought to be.
1556
I would expect that clubs would strive to meet their responsibilities under these new arrangements, and that would have to be reflected in the terms of their licence. But, if they were not acting responsibly, it might be difficult for the police to detect that until something went seriously wrong, by which time it could be too late.
Another difficulty is the fact that detachable component parts such as pistol barrels and slides and revolver cylinders are small and easily concealable. There would inevitably be scope for an owner who had a mind to do so to remove one illicitly. He might or might not attempt to substitute a lookalike instead; if he did, he might or might not succeed in doing that.
Some owners will of course have more than one component part for their pistol; or it would be possible for others, intent on doing so, to adapt a component part taken from a deactivated gun so as to deceive their club, however briefly, into believing that it was the genuine component of the original gun.
Any scheme of this sort would open up a range of possibilities for abuse by somebody who was minded—and one might say even wicked enough—to do so. The Government have taken advice from the Association of Chief Police Officers in England and Wales. Its letter concludes that,
"disassembly is thought to be incapable of being policed".
The Government have always accepted that the majority of firearm certificate holders are honest and law abiding; but we must not forget that Thomas Hamilton and Michael Ryan both held their guns lawfully on certificate. Either could have been capable of obtaining or concealing component parts had the disassembly approach been in force.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, my noble friend is talking about people who cheat. People who want to obtain pistols by cheating can perfectly well obtain them by going into Glasgow or London. Surely we are here talking about genuine firearms people who wish to keep their firearms certificates and have no intention of cheating.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in a way my noble friend almost makes the case. There are many different views about this matter. The Government simply stand on their case that not disassembling but having the gun and the moving parts in one place reduces the risk of the whole variety of ways of circumvention that I have referred to.
A number of points were raised during the course of this important but relatively short debate. The first was the risk of burglary. Clubs with large supplies of gun parts could still be targeted by criminals and one cannot rule out the possibility that the underworld would be interested in or attracted by such supplies.
The key argument used here for disassembly is that one can thereby reduce the level of security at a gun club which would enable it to survive after this Bill is on the statute book. But it is inconceivable that one could have very large quantities of moving parts of guns held in the community that would not be attractive to burglars, just as supplies in any commercial venture would be attractive to burglars, wherever there is a market.

1557
As to security at the clubs, there would still be the need to have a sophisticated method of keeping component parts of handguns safely stored. Clubs would also need to be extremely vigilant about an individual—just one individual—bent on removing a small component part which would allow reassembly of the gun at home.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, perhaps I may reiterate a small point which I have already mentioned. So many guns come into this country every week. Most people who read the newspapers will know that a trial is taking place at present of a road rage case where the man concerned telephoned for a gun, obtained a gun within an hour and shot the people who had bumped the back of his car. There is no point in talking about disassembly and putting guns into firearms clubs when there are those 2,000 illegal weapons. It is far better to have things segregated than to have a position whereby a terrorist or a bandit could go into a gun club and take a weapon as one piece.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we shall have to agree to differ on this point. The noble Lord makes an important point about the number of illegal weapons in this country. We do not know how many there are; it can be at best a guess. However many there are, it is our view that, if guns are taken out of circulation—it is the Government's proposal that the whole of the gun, parts and all, should be taken out of circulation—those guns that are in circulation become much more conspicuous, which makes it easier for the police to identify illegal weapons in the community. That is a point either agreed or not agreed between us, but it is a point which the Government have taken seriously.
The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, raised an important matter. The degree to which disassembly is a practical proposition is a matter that was raised by Lord Cullen. He was equivocal on this. I do not deny the point made by noble friend Lady Carnegy that Lord Cullen said that that would be a preferable option, but he went on to say, "if it is a workable proposition".
In paragraph 9.111 of his report Lord Cullen said that it must be a matter for Parliament to decide what the ultimate solution should be. In his recommendation 24 he specifically invited the Government to consider the practicability of disassembly as an option. We have given thought to that and we have considered the practicability of it as an option. Not all noble Lords will agree with the Government's conclusion to that consideration, but we considered that it was not a practical proposition and rejected it.
I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Peyton spoke as he did. The Government have given a good deal of thought to the issue, as they were invited to do by Lord Cullen. As the Minister responsible for this Bill, I continue to discuss the passage of each stage of the Bill; I have continued to listen to noble Lords; I have dealt with all the correspondence and made most of the correspondence available to all other noble Lords; I continue to play devil's advocate with many of the points raised during the debate; and in addition I personally sought expert advice from a person nominated by my noble friend Lord Pearson—it was his choice—and found that meeting most
1558
valuable on this point. I return to the point that we did what Lord Cullen asked us to do—that is, give serious consideration to these matters—and we came to the conclusion that is well known to noble Lords.
Perhaps I may turn to Amendment No. 13 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. The arguments in principle against disassembly are the same. The noble Earl suggests that his amendment would be better and more effective. But it would require complicated rules about which guns could or could not be dismantled. It would also be a recipe for confusion and misunderstanding. The task of those such as the police who would have to distinguish between those guns which could be disassembled under the rules and those which could not, would be even more difficult. I refer again to the views of the Association of Chief Police Officers: disassembly is incapable of being policed.
The version of the noble Earl in relation to disassembly would make policing of the system impossible, with different rules applying to different makes or models. I cannot see how that offers a practical way forward.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, my amendment is designed to provide maximum flexibility for the Secretary of State, who will, in a few months, have to implement the legislation. He can make exactly what rules he wants.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Earl is right. However complicated the solution may be, the Government can find a way to produce guidelines for it. I am suggesting that the noble Earl's solution would be complex. We discussed the matter with the police and the police took the view that it would be difficult—in fact, they do not believe it to be a manageable proposition. I am putting that forward as a counter argument.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked a straight question about the interchangeability of parts—not for the gun to which the parts belong, but for another gun. That is technically possible. I am prepared to accept expert opinion—it does vary on this matter—that it would be with some difficulty. The parts would not fit easily, but that it is technically possible is absolutely right, and parts can be interchanged.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I should bring to the attention of the House that this is the Report stage of the Bill. All noble Lords have had the opportunity of speaking. It is time that my noble friend the Minister was able to finish her reply to all the points made.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. The Government have taken the view that the protection of the public should be the priority. I do not have to remind noble Lords why we are here and why this Bill is before the House: it is because of the massacre of young people in Dunblane. The Government have a duty to address this issue and have done so. We are now discussing means to ends rather than whether or not the Government should do anything at all.
The safest position must be to ensure that the entire gun is stored in secure, licensed pistol clubs and to take them out of general circulation. I must therefore urge my noble friend not to press the amendment.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken on this amendment and am gratified to hear that nearly all of your Lordships support it.
I was also gratified to hear the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, say that the Labour Benches will be given a free vote on the matter. However, I take issue with one point that he made; that is, that the adoption of Amendment No. 14—I believe I heard him right—would extend greatly the number and use of handguns as opposed to what might happen under Amendment No. 13. I have to put it to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that what we are talking about is not extending the number of handguns that would be in use under my Amendment No. 14; it is more that we would leave fewer people deprived of their legitimate sport and more able to continue with it if we accept the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is the same thing.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, it is not the same thing. The noble Lord is suggesting that fewer people would be able to continue shooting under Amendment No. 13; otherwise, I do not see the point of his intervention.
The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, referred to the experts in this matter. I can confirm that my noble friend Lady Blatch was good enough to interview Mr. Greenwood of the Firearms Research and Advisory Services yesterday. I believe she found his evidence helpful. We all agreed that it was a pity that the Government had not heard Mr. Greenwood's evidence in person before.
The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, and my noble friend Lady Blatch referred to the other place; that is, that the elected House should decide this matter. That is true. But your Lordships may be aware that in the other place the issue of segregation was raised but not put to the vote. It was always deferred to the next stage. It was raised in the Committee stage of the Whole House of the other place on 18th November but was then left to the standing committee. It was then deflected with a promise of further information. At Report stage in the other place it was raised again but was deemed—this is the important point—to be more suitable to be considered in greater depth when the Bill entered your Lordships' House, as it has now done. There were at least eight honourable Members from all sides of the House who supported it and took that view.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, and my noble friend Lady Blatch in reply, said that most guns can be disassembled, as suggested by the amendment. Mr. Greenwood was extremely convincing yesterday and said that the figure is that at least 98 per cent. of the guns that we seek to cover can be disassembled. The idea of an owner hiding a small part of a pistol about his person is not very realistic. The pistol itself is not very big; that is why it is being separated from the
1560
rest of the firearms. And I must repeat to your Lordships that my noble friend did not answer the point that it is easier to obtain another weapon in the underworld than it is to find difficult spare parts which cannot fit one's weapon.
My noble friend finally prayed in aid the police. I am advised that only the Superintendents' Association agreed with the idea that central storage can be effective. I am reliably advised that it offered no evidence for that view. On the other hand, the Parliamentary Home Affairs Committee in the other place and the Association of Chief Police Officers, having set out the pros and cons of central storage, concluded that the risks from central storage were far greater than the risk of keeping firearms at home and they preferred the latter option, subject to suitable provisions. They did not even ask for the amendment.
I should conclude with what my noble friend said in relation to the report of Lord Cullen. Lord Cullen wisely goes this way and that in the body of his excellent document. But his conclusion is inescapable. In recommendation 24 he said that,
"Consideration should be given to restricting the availability of self-loading pistols and revolvers of any calibre which are held by individuals for use in target shooting preferably, by their disablement".
Those are the words which the Government have ignored, "preferably by disablement". I hope that your Lordships will support Lord Cullen's view. My noble friend knows that it is not easy for me to ask for the opinion of the House against the position that she is taking. But on this occasion I have to do so.
4.48 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 12) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 153; Not-Contents, 139.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Ackner, L.

Carlisle, Bp.

Ailesbury, M.

Carnarvon, E.

Alderdice, L.

Camegy of Lour, B.

Aldington, L.

Camock, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Chalfont, L.

Ampthill, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Annaly, L.

Clancarty, E.

Arran, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh,L.

Attlee, E.

Clitheroe, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Congleton, L.

Blake, L.

Comwallis, L.

Blease, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Boardman, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Brain, L.

Crathome, L.

Braybrooke, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Brentford, V.

Croham, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Crook, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Cross, V.

Burnham, L.

De Saumarez, L.

Burton, L.

Denham, L.

Butterworth, L.

Derwent, L.

Caithness, E.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Calverley, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L

1561

Downshire, M.

Norfolk, D.

Ellenborough, L.

Norrie, L.

Elles, B.

Northboume, L.

Elton, L.

Northesk, E.

Erroll, E.

Northumberland, D.

Exmouth, V.

Ogmore, L.

Feversham, L.

Onslow, E.

Fitt, L.

Palmer, L.

Gage, V.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Gainsborough, E.

Pearson of Rannoch, L. [Teller.]

Geddes. L.

Peel, E.

Gisborough, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Glasgow, E.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Gray,L.

Quinton, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Reay, L.

Harris of High Cross, L

Rennell, L.

Hemphill, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Hertford, M.

St John of Bletso, L.

Holderness, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Saltoun of Abemethy, Ly.

Howell, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Hussey of North Bradley, L.

Simon, V.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Hylton, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Spens, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Stallard, L.

Dchester, E.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Inchyra, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Kimball, L. [Teller.]

Swansea, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Swinfen, L.

Kintore, E.

Swinton, E.

Kitchener, E.

Taveme, L.

Knutsford, V.

Temple of Stowe, E.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Teviot, L.

Leigh, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Liverpool, E.

Thurlow, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Tollemache, L.

McNair, L.

Vemon, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Vinson, L.

Marsh, L.

Wade of Chorlton,L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Warnock, B.

Mersey, V.

Weatherill, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Wharton, B.

Monson, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Moran, L.

Wilson of Tillyorn, L.

Mottistone, L.

Wrenbury, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Wyatt of Weeford,L.

Moyne, L.

Wynford, L.

Munster, E.

Yarborough, E.

Newall, L.

Zouche of Haryngwortn, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Carlisle, E.

Acton, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Addington, L.

Carter, L.

Addison, V.

Chadlington, L.

AiIsa,M.

Chalker of WaIlasey,B.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Chelmsford, V.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Astor, V.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Cockfield, L.

Balfour. E.

Courtown, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Cowley, E.

Bellwin, L.

Cranbome, V. [Lord Privy Seal.j

Beloff, L.

Cuckney, L.

Berkeley, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Blatch, B.

Davidson, V.

Bowness, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Byford, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Cadman, L.

Denbigh, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Demon of Wakefield,B.

1562

Digby, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Donoughue, L.

Mackay of Clashfem, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Dormand of Easington, L.

Dubs,L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

McNally, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Ferrers, E.

Merrivale, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Methuen, L.

Gallacher, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Geraint, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Gladwin of Clee,L.

Mountevans, L.

Glenamara, L.

Murton of Lindisfame, L.

Goschen, V.

Nicol, B.

Gould of Pottemewton, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Paul, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Pender, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Peston, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Haskel, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Hayman, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Hayter, L.

Rawlings, B.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Renton, L.

Henley, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Rotherwick, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Russell, E.

Home, E.

Sainsbury, L.

Hooper, B.

St. Davids, V.

Hooson, L.

Seccombe, B.

Hope of Craighead, L.

Serota, B.

Howe, E.

Sewel, L.

Hughes, L.

Shepherd, L.

Inglewood, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Jeger, B.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean. B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Taylor of Warwick. L.

Judd, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Lindsay, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Lockwood, B.

Trumpington, B.

Long, V.

Turner of Camden, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Wallace of Saltaire,L.

Lucas, L.

Westbury, L.

Luke, L.

Wilcox, B.

McConnell, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Wise, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.58 p.m.
[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 4, line 4, at end insert—
("(2A) A pistol shall not be a small-calibre pistol for the purposes of this section provided—

(a) the slide assembly or cylinder or other component part specified under subsection (2B) below has been removed and stored on the premises of a licensed pistol club; and

(b) the firearms certificate for the pistol specifies premises other than the licensed pistol club specified in paragraph (a) above at which the remainder of the firearm shall be stored.

1563
(2B) If he is satisfied that it is necessary in the interest of public safety, the Secretary of State may by order specify a component part other than the slide assembly or cylinder to be stored at a licensed club, and may do so in respect of a particular model or type of pistol to which this section applies.
(2C) This section applies to pistols chambered for .22 or smaller rim-fire cartridges.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I now call Amendment No. 15 as an amendment to Amendment No. 14.
Lord Swansea Lord Swansea moved Amendment No. 15 as an amendment to Amendment No. 14:
Line 16, at end insert ("or a pistol, chambered for use with a centre-fire cartridge which is not more than 1.1 inches in length inclusive of the missile and which uses a missile not more than .32 inches in diameter, which is of a description prescribed in rules made by the Secretary of State.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment extends the scope of the calibres to the .32 wad-cutter cartridge, which is a very low-powered cartridge. It is widely used in international competitions—not in the Olympic Games, but in the Commonwealth Games, and in other international events. It is a very low-powered cartridge. It employs what is referred to as a wad-cutter bullet. That is a bullet with a flat nose and punches a clean-cut hole in a paper target. The bullet is seated entirely within the case so it does not project beyond its mouth.
It has been stated by the Birmingham Proof House that this cartridge cannot be loaded above a certain velocity without exceeding safe pressures, which are very important points for target practice. There is no reason to exclude this type of pistol and to confine ourselves to .22 rimfire pistols. This would be the only centre-fire cartridge which I envisage being employed and it is very low-powered.
It has been stated by Mr. Warlow, who is the foremost scientific adviser, that he has no knowledge of a cartridge of this calibre being used in any crime in the past 25 years. It is comparable in velocity and in its striking energy to the .22 long rifle cartridge. There is a fractional difference between the two. It is a very effective weapon indeed and very popular for target shooting. I beg to move.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I support Amendment No. 15 in the name of my noble friend Lord Swansea. Your Lordships will see that this amendment merely extends subsection (2C) of my amendment, which confined it,
"to pistols chambered for .22 or smaller rim-fire cartridges".
As regards the general effect of my noble friend's amendment, it is to extend that to .32 wad-cutter cartridges, thus extending it to those calibres which are used in the Olympic and Commonwealth Games. This is an amendment which lies easily with Amendment No. 14, which we have just agreed. Therefore, I ask your Lordships to accept it.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, in supporting my noble friend Lord Swansea, when my noble friend comes to wind up, will she confirm to the House that in the past 40 years there has been no single instance of a .32 wad-cutter being used in crime? Will she also confirm to the House that the muzzle velocity of the .32 wad-cutter pistol is exactly half that of a .22 rim-fire? The .32 wad-cutter has a muzzle velocity of 700 feet per second as against 1,200 feet per second of a .22 rim-fire. It is purely and simply a very accurate, low-velocity target-shooting weapon, which is favoured and used in the Commonwealth Games and at all major international shooting competitions.
I hope that your Lordships will look with sympathy on my noble friend's amendment. As my noble friend Lord Pearson said, in fairness to our competition shooters we should pass this amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, used unfortunate words. He said that the amendment now before us "merely extends" the application of his Amendment No. 14. For those of us who believe that the Bill has already been weakened by Amendment No. 14, to "merely extend" it, as proposed, would be even worse.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, perhaps we may extend just a modicum of reason. We cannot allow reason to go totally out of the window. Here is something which is less than the .22. Surely there is an argument for getting rid of the .22 and allowing the wad-cutter to remain.
Lord Monson: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that this amendment extended the Bill. But as the Government's own firearms advisor, Mr. Warlow, has already admitted, the power of the .32 wad-cutter is no more than that of a .22. If this amendment is not agreed, British competitors in the Commonwealth Games will be the only people in the entire Commonwealth who are not allowed to practise for the games on their own home ground. They will have to go to France, Belgium or somewhere else to practise and that would be absolutely shameful. I hope that your Lordships will support this amendment.
The Earl of Errol: My Lords, I should like to ask one question. If this calibre of weapon is banned, can we host the Commonwealth Games again?
Lord Brain: My Lords, perhaps to prevent a reply that the Minister may make, I shall make it clear that the wad-cutter cartridge is totally different from any pointed bullet cartridge used in other forms of pistol shooting. It should be very easy for any police officer to be instructed in the total difference. It was demonstrated to me yesterday that a wad-cutter cartridge would not load into another form of

1565
.32 pistol. Equally, a normal cartridge does not load and operate effectively in a wad-cutter and would be a great danger to the user of the wad-cutter. I support this amendment.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I believe that it is necessary to specify specifically ".32 S & W Long" for the simple reason that in both cases the length referred to is that of the cartridge case of one inch, but with the bullet in it it is a little bit more than that.
A noble Lord: It is flush.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the aim of Amendment No. 15, tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Swansea, would permit centre-fire pistols chambered for .32 cartridges to be held at licensed clubs in addition to .22 rimfire pistols. The Government's position is well known. It is that all handguns are to be banned except for small calibre pistols. That is because there is a case for allowing only a limited number of handguns to be held in secure conditions. Without that outlet some target shooters might be inclined to go underground, thus increasing the risk to public safety.
There are concerns that by exempting one type of .32 calibre handgun, loopholes will be created so that all guns of such calibre will be freely available. Other .32 calibre pistols capable of firing high velocity rounds several times more powerful than the .22 rimfire and wad-cutter cartridges could be allowed through. Many .32 calibre automatic and pocket pistols are used in crime. But there is also the possibility of handguns already chambered for this particular cartridge being technically modified to fire the more dangerous round. That would constitute a very serious risk to public safety.
I say to my noble friend Lord Kimball, that he is absolutely right on both points when one refers strictly to the wad-cutter. My information is that the wording of this amendment is not strictly related to the wad-cutter. It is open to wider interpretation. That is the difficulty in reconciling what has been said in support of this amendment and what the amendment actually provides. It is for those reasons that I believe we should maintain the strict stance that the Government have maintained throughout this Bill. Therefore I ask that the amendment is not pressed.
Lord Monson: My Lords, the Minister said that the .32 wad-cutter can be illegally modified to take a more powerful type of .32 cartridge. Does she not agree that if that were to happen it would endanger the life—certainly the limbs or the right hand—of the person who had illegally modified and fired the gun?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not sure. Did the noble Lord say that it would endanger the limbs of the person doing the modification?
Lord Monson: My Lords, if fired, yes—because the gun would probably explode in his hand.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I understand the point that the noble Lord is making. It came up in one of the discussions that I have had on these matters with an expert. I do not think that the issue is whether the wadcutter can be modified. I believe that an interpretation of the wording could include other .32s, which links in with the point made by the noble Lord earlier. The interpretation of the amendment would go wider than the wadcutter. Other .32s are capable of firing at a velocity several times higher than that of the wadcutter.
Earl Peel: My Lords, my noble friend agreed with everything that was said—
Noble Lords: Order!
Earl Peel: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I believe that my noble friend agreed with everything that was said by my noble friend Lord Kimball, but she went on to say that she thought that the amendment was faulty in some way. That being the case, is my noble friend suggesting that she might be prepared to come back with another amendment at Third Reading to overcome the difficulty? Therefore, might we not expect something to be brought forward?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I can never give an answer to the question which my noble friend invites me to consider, unless it is "without prejudice". My answer to my noble friend Lord Kimball was in response to the words that he used. He asked whether there were any examples of wadcutters being used in crime. The answer is, very definitely, no. However, the amendment goes rather wider than the description of a wadcutter.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, with the leave of the House—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, with the leave of the House—
Noble Lords: No!
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I have already come to the Dispatch Box once this afternoon to remind noble Lords that this is Report stage. This amendment stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Swansea and it is probably time that he made a decision on what to do with it.
Lord Swansea: My Lords, I am somewhat disappointed by the reply given by my noble friend

1567
on the Front Bench because it has been shown quite conclusively that the wadcutter in .32 calibre is of very low power. Indeed, it is only fractionally more than that of the .22 long rifle cartridge. I am not able to accept my noble friend's reply, so I seek the opinion of the House.
5.12 p.m.
On Question, Whether Amendment No. 15, as an amendment to Amendment No. 14, shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 102; Not-Contents, 158.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Kimball, L. [Teller.]

Ailesbury, M.

Kintore, E.

Ampthill, L.

Knutsford, V.

Annaly, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Arran, E.

Leigh, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Liverpool, E.

Boardman, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Brain, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Braybrooke, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Broadbridge, L.

Monson, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mottistone, L.

Burton, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Carnarvon, E.

Munster, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Newall, L.

Carnock, L.

Norfolk, D.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Norrie, L.

Clancarty, E.

Northumberland, D.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Ogmore, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Onslow, E.

Cocks of Hartdiffe, L.

Palmer, L.

Congleton, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Cornwallis, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Peel, E.

Craig of Radley, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L

Crook, L.

Quinton, L.

Cross, V.

Rathcavan, L.

De Saumarez, L.

Reay, L.

Denbigh, E.

Rennell, L.

Derwent, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Shrewsbury, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Simon, V.

Elles, B.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Erroll, E.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Exmouth, V.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Feversham. L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Gisborough, L.

Swansea, L. [Teller.]

Glasgow, E.

Swinfen, L.

Granard, E.

Swinton, E.

Gray, L.

Taveme, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Teviot, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Tollemache, L.

Hemphill, L.

Vernon, L.

Hertford, M.

Vinson, L.

Holderness, L.

Wharton, B.

HolmPatrick, L.

Wrenbury, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Hylton, L.

Wynford, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Yarborough, E.

Inchyra, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

1568

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Hayman, B.

Acton, L.

Henley, L.

Addington, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Addison, V.

Hollis of Heigham. B.

Ailsa, M.

Home, E.

Alderdice, L.

Hooper, B.

Aldington, L.

Howe, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Hughes, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Hussey of North Bradley, L.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Inglewood, L.

Ashboume, L.

Jeger, B.

Astor, V.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Jenkins of Putney. L.

Attlee, E.

Judd, L.

Balfour, E.

Kennet, L.

Bellwin, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Beloff, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Berkeley, L.

Kitchener, E.

Birdwood, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Blatch, B.

Lindsay, E.

Blease, L.

Lockwood, B.

Bowness, L.

Long, V.

Bridgeman, V.

Lovell-Davis. L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Lucas, L.

Butterworth, L.

Luke, L.

Byford, B.

Lyell, L.

Cadman, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Carlisle, E.

Mackay of Clashfem, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Chadlington, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Chalfont, L.

McNally, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Mar and Kellie. E.

Chelmsford, V.

Marlesford, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Mason of Bamsley, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Cockfield, L.

Merrivale, L.

Courtown, E.

Mersey. V.

Cowley, E.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Cuckney, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Mountevans, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Murton of lindisfame, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Nicol, B.

Dean of Thomton-le-Fylde, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Denham, L.

Paul, L.

Demon of Wakefield, B.

Perry of Walton, L.

Devonport, V.

Peston, L.

Digby, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Donoughue, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Downshire, M.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Rawlings, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Rees, L.

Feldman, L.

Renton, L.

Ferrers, E.

Renwick, L.

Fitt, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Russell, E.

Glenamara, L.

St. Davids, V.

Goschen, V.

Saltoun of Abemethy, Ly.

Gould of Pottemewton, B.

Seccombe, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Serota, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Shepherd, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L

Sudeley, L.

Hamwee, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Temple of Stowe, E.

Haskel, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Thomson of Monifieth. L.

1569

Tope, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L

Wilcox, B.

Trefgame, L.

Trumpington, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Williams of Elvel,L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Winston, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment No. 15 disagreed to accordingly.
5.21 p.m.
On Question, Amendment No. 14 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Firearm certificates to be subject to special conditions]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 4, line 42, at end insert—
("(4) Subsections (1) and (3) above apply in relation to a visitor's firearm permit as they apply to a firearm certificate.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 16 and 24 in my name close a loophole in respect of visitors to this country from overseas.
The Bill provides that anybody who has a firearm certificate for a small-calibre pistol for target shooting must keep it in a licensed pistol club and cannot have access to it outside club premises. If he wishes to have it elsewhere, for instance because he is taking part in a competition at another club, he must obtain a police permit under Clause 10 of the Bill allowing him to give the pistol to somebody else to move it on his behalf. As the Bill stands these arrangements do not apply to a person who has obtained a visitor's permit under Section 17 of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 to allow him to visit this country from overseas with a small-calibre pistol. The amendments correct that anomaly.
Section 17 of the 1988 Act requires that visitors' permits for firearms must be applied for not by the putative visitor himself but by somebody resident in this country acting on his behalf. The chief officer of police must then satisfy himself that the visitor has a good reason for possessing the firearm in this country and that there will be no danger to public safety.
The amendments will make it clear that where the visitor seeks permission to bring a small-calibre pistol with him into this country he is not entitled to have it in his possession at any place other than a licensed pistol club specified on his permit. The visitor would not necessarily have to be a member of that club. But the amendment should make sure that visitors from overseas are treated in the same way as firearm certificate holders in every other respect.
Carriage of the pistol into and out of this country, and between clubs in this country if need be, will have to be undertaken by a third party under police permit, as would be the case with any other target shooter's small-calibre handgun.
A visitor coming to this country will need to have a sponsor already here who will arrange with the police for a permit to be issued. Any visitor who had not made appropriate arrangements in advance and who attempted to bring a firearm into the country would be committing an offence. The firearm would be subject to seizure by HM Customs.
In the light of these arrangements I urge the House to accept the amendment.
Lord Brain: My Lords, I ask the Minister to clarify one point. Clause 9(1) provides that the holder must be a member of a licensed pistol club specified in the certificate and that the pistol must be used only at licensed premises. I understand "used only at licensed premises", but does it mean that the visitor must go through all of the complications of being proposed and seconded to be made a member of a club? Does he have to be on the register of the club before the application is made by the sponsor to the police for permission for the firearm to be brought into the country? Further, someone who is officially allowed to transport firearms may have them available for inspection when he meets someone at a port. I find it difficult to understand how the transportation arrangements will be made. Does he need a full certificate because he is carrying, but does not own, the firearm? What is the certification position on the transportation of firearms, in particular foreign firearms? The same question may arise in relation to British-owned firearms.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, many of the arrangements to which the noble Lord refers must be made in advance. If someone comes to this country, perhaps to shoot in competitions, he must abide by all the rules as he reaches the shores of this country. It will be necessary for a third party to make the arrangements. For example, if a team is coming to shoot it will be necessary in advance for a third party to be authorised to pick up the firearms and deliver them to a safe place for the purposes of the competition. All of that will be subject to the conditions of the licence in advance of their arrival. They simply cannot arrive in this country with firearms and board a train, bus, car or plane. The noble Lord appears to be shaking his head. I do not know whether I have failed to answer his question.
Lord Brain: My Lords, with the leave of the House and no disrespect to the Minister, I believe that she has missed my point. I fully accept what she says about the need to have all of this arranged. But I am trying to probe the arrangements that have to be made; that is, whether the individual has to be made a fully elected member of the club, as her amendment implies. How can the person who is responsible for the transportation have the correct authorisation when he does not necessarily know the person concerned possibly because the matter is being arranged between club secretary and club secretary? In particular, how will he be allowed to transport a firearm that belongs to a person overseas? Will he have to hold a full certificate for that firearm in this country because he is carrying that firearm? One has the ambiguous situation that if he needs a full certificate he is not a third person.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I return to my original answer. The noble Lord specifically asked what transportation arrangements could be made. First, reasons would have to be given as to why a person was

1571
coming to this country with a firearm. Secondly, the police would have to satisfy themselves that there was a sponsor receiver in this country.
Lord Brain: My Lords, I understand that. My point is—
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we are at Report stage. Perhaps I may finish my answer. If the receiving sponsor is a club we will make it possible for someone who is not a registered member legitimately to shoot in that club. The arrangements can be made in advance of that person coming to this country. But all of the arrangements for transporting the firearms to the receiving club once they have arrived at the shores of this country will be third party arrangements. The situation would be exactly the same as it would be for a registered member of a club. The details of how one would arrange for the sponsor to grant temporary membership to a visitor to this country would be dealt with under the administrative arrangements following the passing of this Bill.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5.30 p.m.
Clause 10 [Permits to have small-calibre pistols outside licensed pistol clubs]:
Lord Harmsworth Lord Harmsworth moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 4, line 43, after ("pistol") insert ("or for a pistol of a specified calibre under section (Police and military shooting clubs: specified exemptions)(1)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 17 and speak also to Amendments Nos. 18 to 20, 26 and 32. The substantive amendment is Amendment No. 32. The other amendments are consequential. First, I should like to apologise to my noble friend the Minister for introducing this amendment at this stage of the Bill. I would have preferred to move it at Committee stage, but the Bill has proceeded at a fast pace and the spur to action on my part arrived on my desk only on the first day of the two Committee days. It was then too late to do anything about it, especially as I had not anticipated speaking on this subject.
The last time that I was involved in gunnery and shooting, including pistol shooting with weapons that would be prohibited under the Bill, was in 1958. However, I believe that these amendments are of the utmost importance.
Since Amendment No. 14, the amendment on disassembly, has been agreed by your Lordships, it may well be that what I want in terms of my own amendments has been satisfied by that amendment. I shall look carefully tomorrow at the position, but it is always possible that that amendment may be substantially modified or overturned in another place. I must therefore press on with my amendments, with the leave of your Lordships. I do not want these amendments of mine to be left high and dry.
The Bill has been prompted and overshadowed by the tragedy at Dunblane. Dunblane has indeed focused everybody's mind on some method of limiting future similar occurrences. I wonder whether, in concentrating almost exclusively on that dreadful scenario, we have not to a certain extent lost sight of other possible future equally dreadful scenarios and whether we are ensuring through this legislation that we will not be as prepared to deal with them as we might have been. What I have in mind are incidents where police or military marksmanship may be of the utmost importance, possibly in the case of hostage taking, kidnaps or armed robbery, where members of the public are in danger—even, heaven forbid, children, as in the case of Dunblane. It would be foolish and irresponsible of us to do anything now in the heat of the moment that would prejudice a successful outcome in situations where skilful gun handling in the worst possible circumstances might be absolutely crucial. I truly believe that without these amendments we are risking just that.
The Bill places serving police officers and serving military personnel, when off duty, in exactly the same position as every other member of the public. That means that a policeman, soldier, sailor or airman who shoots in his spare time in his police or military shooting club or elsewhere would be confined to using .22 weapons, despite the fact that he may use large-calibre weapons when on duty.
These amendments are designed to allow serving police and military personnel to continue to be able to practise their skills when shooting at their own expense in their leisure time with full bore pistols, just as they do when serving. Some of your Lordships may consider it palpably absurd that officers and others who use or might in due course use large-calibre handguns as firearms officers or recruits to such squads and their military counterparts should not be trusted with these weapons while practising in their leisure time.
I believe that there are considerations much more compelling than that. My noble friend the Minister has had the courtesy to send me the Government's reactions to my proposals that police and serving military personnel should be effectively exempted from the Section 5 provisions of the Bill, which relate back to the original Act. I am told:
"Off-duty police officers and members of the Armed Forces are private citizens and should be subject to the same obligations as other citizens. Police firearms officers, and members of the Armed Forces receive a high standard of training while on duty and there is no necessity for that training to be supplemented by practice during off duty hours".
I simply do not believe that is either right or represents a realistic approach to problems which, with the leave of the House, I shall explore.
Any shooter will tell the same story. One never gets enough practice. That was certainly the case in my Army days as a national serviceman. I hesitate to think what would have happened if I had been asked to fire the service revolvers or Browning pistols with which we were issued accurately in anger, possibly in crowd scenes with innocent bystanders, on the limited amount of training that the Army was able to give us. In those days ammunition was expensive and was therefore

1573
rationed in training. It still is. Large calibre pistols were particularly difficult to handle, and my advice from the police has done nothing to dent that opinion; they still are.
I was told recently of a particular exercise by one police constable who is a firearms officer in my county of Dorset: he only got the double-tap technique right after extensive practice in his police shooting club in his leisure time and at his own expense. This officer is a much commended public servant whose skill, courage, commitment to duty, professionalism and outstanding teamwork in dealing with extremely violent offenders have led to successful prosecutions for serious armed robberies. Some of your Lordships will recognise that wording. He tells me that practising with a .22 as an aid to using a 9mm. pistol in operational work provides useful basic training but it is no substitute for the full-bore pistol of the type used in service.
The Government's view is that training is adequate. The firearms training on pistols for this officer might amount to once every two or three months. In his own time at his police shooting club he would be able to practise on a 9mm. handgun once a week. Here is a man, not wholly untypical, who augments his service training by a factor of five or six times, at a conservative estimate.
It is recognised that serving members of the Armed Forces and police who have their own firearm certificates and their own handguns are among the most proficient in their service shooting. The ability of instructors especially to practise off-duty with a variety of weapons is particularly worth while.
What numbers are we dealing with? We are dealing with a very small percentage of the 60,000 shooters there are estimated to be. It is very difficult to arrive at a figure because of cross-pollination but I do not believe we are talking about more than 5 or 10 per cent. of the total leisure shooting population, taking the police and the armed services together. The figure does not matter; the message does. One is talking about very few.
The case for allowing serving members of police and military shooting clubs to continue as before is overwhelming. Such people will have been closely vetted. Furthermore, they are continually monitored by their immediate supervisors. But perhaps most important of all, these clubs are fertile recruiting grounds for, in the case of the police, firearms officers. There is a shortage of firearms officers. In the case of the Dorset police I know for a fact that it is sometimes difficult to recruit a sufficient number. I believe that position may be the same in some other forces.
I do not suggest that the large calibre of the weapon shot in police or military shooting clubs is a sine qua non so far as recruitment is concerned, but there must inevitably be an association. Any possible recruit to the firearms squad in a police force may well prefer to know, first, what capabilities he or she may have on the full-bore weapon before committing themselves to going down that road.
Extensive discussion with many police and military referees who have been good enough to go over the ground with me show that the status quo after the Bill in certain respects will not be tenable. There are areas where my amendments reflect change.
So far as the storage of weapons is concerned, I am forced to the view that these weapons must be stored, unless the amendment of my noble friend Lord Pearson remains on the statute, in police or military armouries. The normal rules relating to storage would apply for these weapons as though they were service weapons. The transfer from one location to another of large and/or small-calibre service-member-owned pistols would be by authorised club officials and with the permission of the chief officer of police, as in the Bill. These amendments determine that police and military serving shooting club members who at any time wish to surrender large-calibre pistols should be compensated as if they had surrendered the weapons under the terms of the 1997 Act.
I am not sure whether that provision is more than merely declaratory. It may be that it is, strictly speaking, unnecessary. The Secretary of State may already have the powers in the Bill that I seek, which are to cater for a policeman, say, owning his own large calibre handgun at the age of 21 and shooting with it until he retires. He would then automatically become ineligible to continue to possess it, but he would nevertheless receive compensation for it under the amendment. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister will advise whether those extra powers are necessary.
If police or military serving shooters presently shooting a range of weapons now wish to confine themselves to .22s, they would receive compensation for large calibre weapons surrendered, just as would anyone else under the terms of the Bill.
I regard this group of amendments to be narrow in their application. They leave untouched the great majority of the Bill's provisions. I am concerned by other aspects of the Bill, as indeed are many other noble Lords, but I confine myself to what I regard as an imperative safeguard against a dreadful and different type of Dunblane, where police marksmanship might make all the difference between disaster and a better outcome.
My amendments affect a small percentage of the shooting population who will be practising their skills under the enhanced safety requirements provided by the new legislation. I hope that your Lordships will agree with me that conditions of weapons storage and transfer provide complete safety, or as much as man can devise, and that those serving personnel, vetted and continually monitored as they are, are of a trustworthiness that should give one few qualms, and that the effects of allowing police and military club members to continue to use large calibre pistols when shooting off duty can only be to the advantage of the public, not just so far as concerns costs but also public safety.
We must not jeopardise the shooting ability of marksmen who may be called upon successfully to protect the public, be they children or adults, in a totally different type of Dunblane in the future.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I support the amendment, and declare an interest as I am a serving TA officer, although the difficulties described by the noble Lord do not present me with a problem. He made an important point. I do not know whether the amendment is effective because I have not studied it. I would like to know whether the Minister has consulted the MoD and what it thinks about it. The noble Lord raised an important point. It would be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say. My advice to the noble Lord is not to push the amendment.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I should like the Government to think carefully about this amendment. It is essential that members of the Armed Forces and police officers who possess guns to defend this country or to deal with criminals should be real marksmen who can hit the target that they want to hit, be it the tyre of a car so as to bring it to a halt or, at worst, be able to wound, not necessarily kill, a violent criminal. That can be achieved only by a tremendous amount of practice. Military and police personnel must be able to have that practice so as to become proficient.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, the amendment is important. It is another example of the unintended consequences flowing from the Bill. No one can argue against the necessity that those who have to use guns in the way described, whether police or service marksmen, should be as trained and as accurate in their use as they possibly can be.
The point at issue is whether the amount of training they receive in service time does or does not meet that essential requirement. No doubt the Minister will be able to advise us on that. It is important that when such people are required to carry out those responsibilities they are as completely and fully trained and as competent in marksmanship as they can possibly be made to be.
Lord Brain: My Lords, I support the amendment from a different angle. I was talking to the owner of a pistol range yesterday who told me that the Devon police force had its own range under its headquarters. The problem is that at the moment it is not available for those officers to use in their off-duty hours. In the past they have been able to use his range and his similar pistols to acquire the proficiency and expertise that they feel are lacking.
I realise that the provision is not an extension to use a private range, but it draws attention to the need for police ranges to be available in off-duty hours to those officers who want to improve their efficiency.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 17, 18, 19, 20, 26 and 32 tabled in the name of my noble
1576
friend Lord Harmsworth concern licensed pistol clubs used by police or military personnel. I, too, consider that it is of the utmost importance—it cannot be overstated—that serving members of the police and Armed Forces should be sufficiently well practised to ensure their proficiency whenever they are called upon to operate under the conditions for which they are trained in firearms. I agree with what my noble friend and all other noble Lords, including the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, said, when they spoke about the importance of having operational proficiency for serving members of the Armed Forces and the police. What we are talking about here are means to ends. There is no way that the Government would contemplate any compromising of the operational practice that is needed to provide that level of proficiency for members of the police and the Armed Forces.
Serving members of the police and the Armed Forces will receive training in firearms use on the same basis as they receive training in other skills needed to carry out their work effectively. The level of training required to achieve an acceptable standard is, and must be, a matter for the police and the Armed Services. In the case of the police, that is decided by an ACPO Joint Standing Committee on the Police Use of Firearms which takes advice both from police firearms officers and experts in the training field.
At present, police and military personnel can also form private target-shooting clubs on the same basis as any other group of shooting enthusiasts. It is to those clubs that the amendments refer. Although such clubs are composed of serving and retired service personnel, they are subject to approval by the Home Office departments in the same manner as civilian clubs. Many members may also handle pistols in their professional capacity, but many do not. Likewise, those who shoot as part of their work are not obliged to shoot at a club in their spare time.
Under the provisions of this Bill, clubs for higher calibre pistol shooting will be abolished. The arguments on that issue have been discussed extensively and I need not repeat them here.
The amendments would permit private sporting pistol clubs based around police and military personnel to continue as at present when other such private clubs are abolished. The amendments would also permit their members to claim compensation at any time in respect of higher calibre handguns which they had continued to use at those clubs after the general prohibition on them had come into force. That would be a financial obligation on the public purse which would remain in perpetuity.
The Government believe that it is right and proper to distinguish between those who need prohibited weapons to carry out their work and those who use them for sport and pleasure. The police and the armed services would clearly fall into the former category. However, neither police officers nor service personnel have ever been allowed to shoot for sport in a private capacity with prohibited weapons. It would be wrong in principle to make such a distinction for pistol shooting.

1577
The Government decision to restrict the possession of higher-calibre handguns by civilians was made on the clear understanding that the vast majority of gun club members are honest, law-abiding and reliable. Many of them are themselves retired service personnel or police officers. It would be invidious to suggest that any serving soldier or police officer should be allowed to shoot higher-calibre pistols for pleasure but civilians of impeccable character should be forbidden to do so.
The Government are aware of the argument that police firearms officers might need to practice shooting skills in their spare time in order to reach a proper level of skill for their work, and therefore disbanding police shooting clubs would pose a risk to public safety. This argument is not sustainable.
It is clearly essential that police officers should receive an appropriate level of training in the skills needed to carry out their work effectively. This is especially true of firearms training, where any weaknesses might pose a grave risk to the public and to the police officers concerned. I take very seriously the point made by my noble friend Lord Harmsworth when he said that sometimes that craftsmanship and accuracy can prevent a much greater tragedy. If weaknesses are identified in existing arrangements for formal training then the obvious solution is to improve that training.
It would clearly be wrong to accept a level of formal training which is inadequate and rely on any deficiencies being remedied by each officer having the spare time, skill and judgment to deal with this on an ad hoc basis.
For those reasons I hope that my noble friend will not press the amendment. I give him the assurance that the provisions of this Bill will not compromise the levels of training which are appropriate to ensure that our service personnel and policemen are adequately trained.
It will of course be for the police and service personnel to determine the operational use of such clubs and there may need to be some adjustment because there may be a blurring as regards when a policeman is or is not on duty. It will be very important that the line managers of policemen and servicemen ensure that they are provided for and that their training is adequate for the job.
I am not sure who asked me whether we had discussed these matters with the Ministry of Defence and the police. We have been discussing all aspects of the Bill with the police but we have not spoken to them on this particular point. I assure the House that we will take note of your Lordships' views on this matter before the next stage of the Bill. We have had no representations from the Association of Chief Police Officers or the military to say that they will not be able to continue training after the Bill is passed. We have assumed that they are well aware of this Bill and that if it presented difficulties in providing operational training for serving personnel they would have made the point. I will make sure we are proactive in obtaining the views of both military chiefs and the Association of Chief Police Officers.
Lord Harmsworth: My Lords, I am very disappointed by my noble friend's reply. It may help
1578
her if I quote a statement made not very long ago by Lieutenant-General Sir Peter Duffell, the former Inspector General of Doctrine and Training. He wrote—and I précis:
"Precision is all important—whether it be in making sure that the enemy is hit with the first shot (in modern warfare you seldom get a second chance) or in ensuring that innocent bystanders are not hit … Not only do many members of the Armed Forces benefit from being able to join civilian clubs to practise on ranges with which they are familiar but the civilian clubs … provide us with training in coaching techniques. In recent years these techniques have been developed largely in the civilian sector as the clubs have been able to devote considerable time and effort to the subject which we have been unable to match with the pressure of our limited resources".
I am far from satisfied that it is not wholly to the benefit of the public that this additional large-calibre shooting practice experience for serving members is catered for. Nevertheless, my noble friend Lord Pearson's amendment on disassembly would meet what I require if it remains in an acceptable form. I reserve the right to bring this matter back at Third Reading after I have had a chance to look at it in the context of the overall new picture. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 18 to 20 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 5, line 18, leave out ("recognised") and insert ("designated").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Swansea Lord Swansea moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 6, line 10, after ("order") insert ("on the advice of the recognised governing body of the sport").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 22 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 86 on the same subject.
This clause deals with police permits for gun owners to take part in competitions. The Bill states that competitions should be recognised and this is an opportunity to insert in the Bill the wording in the amendment,
"on the advice of the recognised governing bodies of the sport".
The National Pistol Association, the National Rifle Association and the National Small-bore Rifle Association could all have their detailed calendars for the season wiped out. They are in the best position to provide the Government with details of what competitions should be recognised. They have been organising shooting competitions for generations, and it is not clear why the Home Secretary should now wish to decide which competitions are recognised and which are not. The shooting world is extremely concerned that although the Bill will allow some form of pistol shooting to continue, the number of competitions in which one may shoot will become severely restricted. Like any other sport, our best shooters rely on regular competition to reach the necessary standards to represent this country at international level.
There will be a lot of unnecessary bureaucracy. A number of competitions are held throughout the year for the various tiers of competitors. The national squad

1579
meets about six to eight times per year; it is drawn from the English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish squads which meet regularly for training sessions. There are regular county meetings and competitions and at club level there can be more than 30 meetings per month. The Home Secretary would have to approve each competition before permits could be issued. This seems unnecessary since the Bill already provides the power for the police to refuse permits for attending competitions. If the competition is not properly organised the police will simply not grant a permit.
My noble friend Lady Blatch indicated during Committee stage that the Home Office was sympathetic to the intentions of this amendment but could not be bound by any advice received. This amendment would require the Home Secretary to consult the people who organise such competitions year in and year out. Thus, there is no reason why it should not be accepted on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have some sympathy with the aims behind Amendments Nos. 22 and 86 tabled by my noble friend Lord Swansea and I believe that we are able to meet my noble friend's concerns without the need for such amendments. The target shooting competitions that may be designated by the Secretary of State as a "proper purpose" for applying for a permit that would allow a small calibre pistol to be taken outside a licensed club will need to be carefully considered.
Before reaching his decision the Secretary of State would consult the appropriate authorities for their views. The difficulty with the amendment, however, is that the "governing bodies" are not defined, and it would therefore be difficult to say at what point the appropriate advice can be said to have been obtained. Nor am I sure whether it is quite right to think in terms of a single recognised body. There may be several bodies covering different competitions or events such as the Home Countries Association (the respective Smallbore Shooting Unions in England, Scotland and Wales) and the National Smallbore Rifle Association, as well as other bodies, including those that may arise in the future.
In the light of this possibly ambiguous situation, I hope that my noble friend will accept my assurances that we will meet his concerns and that we shall contact the most appropriate bodies for their advice before designating specific shooting competitions and that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Swansea: My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend's reply, but if she reads in Hansard my opening remarks, she will realise that I did mention three national governing bodies. Those are the very bodies which I hope the Government will consult. Indeed, I very much hope that they will do so. However, given my noble friend's assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 23 and 24:
Page 6, line 10, leave out from ("such") to end of line 11 and insert ("target shooting competitions as he thinks fit").
Page 6, line 12, at end insert—
("(10) This section applies to a person holding a visitor's firearm permit relating to a small-calibre pistol as it applies to a person holding a firearm certificate, except that any application for a permit under this section by the holder of a visitor's firearm permit shall be made to the chief officer of police who granted the visitor's firearm permit.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Swansea Lord Swansea moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 6, line 12, at end insert—
("(10) A person aggrieved by the refusal of a chief officer of police to grant a permit under this section or by any condition imposed on such a permit may, in accordance with section 44 of the 1968 Act, appeal against such refusal or condition.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment deals with the right of appeal against the refusal by a chief officer of police to grant a permit for a pistol to be removed from storage for whatever purpose. The powers given to the police under Clause 10 are very extensive. Without a permit, the owner of a small calibre pistol is effectively confined to its use in one named club where it is stored. If he wishes to repair it, take it to a competition on other premises, sell it or have it for any purpose outside the club he needs a permit. The permit can be subject to any conditions that the police care to impose, including limits of time. The police can impose conditions as to the person other than the owner who is to take possession of it. It is not difficult to imagine circumstances where unreasonable costs may be incurred by a requirement to use certain security forces for transport.
This is an important amendment particularly with regard to our best shooters who need to compete shoulder to shoulder with other shooters around the country on a regular basis. It is quite outside the principles of natural justice that there should be no right of appeal. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: My Lords, as the right of appeal exists under the 1968 Act, there would seem to be no reason in justice or logic why it should not also be granted under this Act. I trust that the Government will accept the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend's amendment would have the effect of giving any applicant for a permit to take his pistol out of a licensed pistol club the right of appeal to the Crown Court or the sheriff's court. This would be to treat those applying for permits in the same way as applicants who have their firearm certificates refused or revoked.
The criteria for the issue of these permits are given in Part I of the Bill. These include having the pistol repaired or maintained by a registered firearms dealer; enabling it to be used in certain competitions; and, of course, selling it. We shall be covering the control and issue of permits in some detail in the Home Office guidance document that will be issued to the police.

1581
I am not sure how many permits would be issued by chief officers, nor the most common reasons for their issue, but it is clear that in most cases they will need to be issued for a specific occasion or time. If for good reason the chief officer refuses the permit, the original point of the permit application is likely to have been lost because of the time that it would take.
Permits will not be like firearm applications, as the owner will continue to have access to his gun inside the licensed pistol club of which he is a member. I do not think that it is right that every person whose permit is refused should have the automatic right of an appeal to the Crown Court or sheriff's court. We believe that such decisions should be left to the judgment of the police. Therefore, I cannot agree to my noble friend's amendment.
Lord Swansea: My Lords, I am extremely disappointed by my noble friend's reply. I say that because, in every other circumstance that your Lordships can envisage, there is the right of appeal against a refusal by the police to grant a permit. My noble friend's reply is most unsatisfactory and I may, therefore, return to the matter at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 [Payments in respect of prohibited small firearms and ammunition]:
[Amendment No. 26 not moved.]
Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Lester of Herne Hill moved Amendment No. 27:
After Clause 14, insert the following new clause—
COMPENSATION SCHEME FOR FIREARMS DEALERS
(" .—(1) The Secretary of State shall, in accordance with a scheme made by him, make payments to persons who on 16th October 1996, were wholly or mainly carrying on business as registered firearms dealers under the 1968 Act, in respect of any loss of business directly caused by the prohibition contained in section 1.
(2) A scheme under subsection (1) above shall provide for payments to be equivalent to one year of after-tax profits of the business, based on the average after-tax profits from the audited financial statements of the business for the three financial years before the passing of this Act as calculated by a qualified person.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2) above—

"business" means only the business or that part of the business directly affected by the prohibition contained in section 1; and

"qualified person" means a person eligible for appointment as a company auditor in accordance with section 25 of the Companies Act 1989.

(4) A scheme under subsection (1) above may—

(a) restrict eligibility for receipt of payments to claims made within a period specified in the scheme;

(b) provide for the procedure to be followed (including any time within which claims must be made and the provision of information) in respect of claims under the scheme and for the determination of such claims.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the above amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 28. Our reasons for tabling the amendments are that on these Benches we believe that an important principle of fairness is at stake. When Parliament enacts legislation to prohibit the sale or use of a product, with the
1582
inevitable result that those engaged in the licensed economic activity of manufacturing or dealing in the product will have their business destroyed or substantially impaired, we believe that there should be fair compensation for those whose licences have become worthless and whose businesses have been ruined or severely blighted. In the memorable words of the eminent American jurist, Oliver Wendell Holmes, we believe that we are in danger of forgetting that a strong public desire to improve the public condition is not enough to warrant achieving the desire by a shorter cut than the constitutional way of paying for the change.
Under the Bill as it stands, the owner of a prohibited firearm will receive compensation at market value for the handgun and its ammunition and for any ancillary equipment which has been rendered obsolete by this measure. The operator of a target shooting club, forced to close because of the Act, can apply for compensation to cover any loss arising out of debt, mortgage, lease or other liability. So the gun owner and the gun enthusiast who run the shooting range will suffer no appreciable financial loss. They will lose only the very real pleasure that they derive from a pastime which is now to be outlawed.
By contrast, the manufacturer or dealer whose service they support will lose a livelihood built up over many years and will receive nothing except the market value of his current stock. There is no reason in principle or logic to justify differentiating so starkly between compensating for the loss of the right to own a firearm and compensating for the loss of the right to carry on a licensed business as a firearms dealer. Indeed, the firearm dealer's loss of livelihood is much more severe in its impact than is the loss of the right to use a handgun. The loss of a livelihood in a licensed business is as much of an interference with the peaceful enjoyment of one's possessions and property as is the loss of the right to use land, to own shares or to use a firearm.
It would be a matter for reproach, I suggest, if Parliament were to appear to be more concerned with the fair treatment of the gun enthusiast than of the firearms dealer, yet that is the position under the Bill as it now stands. Our amendment seeks to redress the balance and to entitle firearms dealers to a modest—some might say parsimonious—level of compensation. The amendment aims to achieve a fair balance between concern for public safety and the general interest of the community and concern that this section of the business community should not have to bear an excessive and unfair burden.
The amendment provides for compensation to be paid to registered firearms dealers. Under the 1968 Firearms Act any person who sells, transfers, repairs, tests or approves firearms as a trade or business is a firearms dealer and must be registered as such. A registered firearms dealer receives a certificate of registration renewable every year. If a person goes out of business, his name must be immediately removed from the register. The 1968 Act provides the categories of commercial activity in firearms that are permitted. All these constitute the class of owners of business concerns who stand to lose their livelihood as a direct result of the

1583
ban imposed by this Bill. There is a range of different occupations that this amendment will assist: the specialist dealer in the retail market, the secondhand dealer, the wholesaler or importer, the person whose business it is to convert or customise imported guns to a customer's specification, and the manufacturer of handguns. Under the 1968 Act the chief officer of police may refuse to register an applicant unless he is satisfied that he will engage in business to a substantial effect or as an essential part of another trade or business.
Nevertheless, there are some dealers whose trade in prohibited firearms constitutes only a small portion of the business. In the case of these traders, clearly the prohibition will involve a correspondingly smaller loss relative to their total profits. We do not consider that these dealers need to be included in the scheme. The effect of the law on such dealers is akin to the normal loss sustained by businesses when the state interferes to regulate their trade. They are not in the exceptional class which needs to be compensated by the state. That is why the words "wholly or mainly" are included in the amendment so as to delimit the class of firearms dealers who deserve in fairness to be compensated. The words "wholly or mainly" will give the Secretary of State the necessary degree of latitude in drawing up the scheme.
I now turn to the basis of compensation. Compensation under this amendment—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, did I hear the noble Lord say that the 1968 Act covers manufacturers as well as dealers?
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, that is right. The definition of registered firearms dealer includes manufacturer. I now turn to the basis of compensation. I do not apologise to your Lordships for taking this carefully because it is important to see how carefully modulated this amendment is and what it does and does not do.
Compensation under this amendment is deliberately put at a modest level sufficient to cushion the effects of the ban on firearms dealers while, hopefully, they find other means of gainful economic activity. The Australian scheme referred to in Committee two weeks ago is far more onerous to the taxpayer and far more generous to the firearms dealer. Compensation is assessed in Australia by valuing the business prior to the coming into force of the legislation based on the audited accounts of the past three financial years and by valuing the business after the coming into force of the legislation by estimating what future profits there would have been had the legislation not been introduced. This is a complex, technical and costly exercise because it seeks to assess what would have been the future profitability of the business taking into account a whole variety of variables. The final figure of compensation under the Australian method can be as much as between six and nine times the annual earnings of the business.
By contrast, our amendment chooses a much simpler and much less costly method than does the Australian scheme and is designed to provide some recompense for the hardship suffered as a result of the speedy and totally
1584
unexpected demise of a licensed means of livelihood. The amendment provides that firearms dealers are to be paid at the rate of one year's after tax profits based on an average of the past three years of audited financial accounts. The lump sum should not be in itself subject to tax. This amendment is also narrowly restrictive in another sense. It does not date the loss from before the Dunblane tragedy in March 1996, nor even from the time at which the Government responded to the Cullen Report on 16th October 1996. It dates the loss for which compensation is payable from the time of the passing of the Act.
I am of course aware that the business has declined significantly since March 1996, but I have taken into account the fact that current stock will be valued at market price, not at cost price, so there is already an element of loss of profit in the compensation payable under the Bill as it stands. The scheme sets compensation at one year's after tax profits. This should provide a breathing space for those who may in time be able to diversify and rebuild their business. It will provide some fairly meagre relief for those unfortunate enough to have to close down.
If I may say so, we as legislators need to take account of the exceptional circumstances surrounding the passing of this law. Had it not been for the Dunblane tragedy, the Bill would not have been so quickly conceived. Indeed it might well not have come about at all if Dunblane had not dramatically focused public concern about violent crimes involving the misuse of firearms. Registered firearms dealers lawfully carrying on their business with certificates issued by the police should surely not be treated unfairly as scapegoats for Thomas Hamilton's madness.
Our amendment will doubtless be criticised for its parsimony. The scheme is deliberately devised, as I have tried to explain, to be the minimum necessary to achieve a fair balance and avoid an excessive burden either on firearms dealers or on the general body of taxpayers. I gather there may be some 650 registered firearms dealers whose business will be severely prejudiced by this legislation. They estimate that 2,180 jobs will be lost and as many as 350 businesses will be totally wiped out. Most of these are small or medium-sized businesses. Staff have already been laid off and in some cases business is at a standstill. One manufacturer wrote that having built up a business over 30 years he had £300,000 worth of equipment that is now valueless and had to pay rent to store the guns that he will have in due course to surrender. There is little prospect of his developing an export market.
These are not trivial matters that we can simply shrug our shoulders as utilitarians and say, "It is a price worth paying for the greater public good". For a small group of people the law will involve terrible hardship. It is not accurate to claim that there are no precedents for paying compensation to businesses adversely impacted by government legislation. There is a national compensation code which applies where local authorities and government acquire land, property or businesses. It is currently being applied to businesses forced to relocate or to extinguish as a result of the Channel Tunnel rail link legislation. Since 1993 the

1585
Government have had in place a European Community decommissioning scheme for registered fishing vessels and estimate that by the end of this year they will have paid a total of £50 million in grants to fishermen whose vessels have been decommissioned. The Government are offering the rendering industry £118 million for the loss of its market.
The Government have accepted that the Bill does not merely regulate the use of arms. That is why the Bill provides compensation to the owners of prohibited handguns, ammunition and ancillary equipment. But the Government have argued that there is a difference of principle between the loss of the right to use handguns and the loss of the right to make or sell them. Neither the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, nor of senior Commonwealth constitutional courts, including the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, supports such an arbitrary distinction.
Much of the point of the government argument derives from the distinction they seek to draw between regulation of an industry in the interest of public safety and compulsory acquisition or nationalisation of an industry. The imposition of higher standards of health and safety may indeed impose new costs on industry which it may find financially burdensome. No one would sensibly argue for the state to be required to give compensation on each such occasion. But when a dealer is prohibited from selling the product which forms the core of his business and, what is more, his licensed business, he loses his customers and his business, and the legislation can no longer be called mere regulation.
In the words again of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes,
"When protection is qualified the natural tendency of human nature is to extend it more. While property may be regulated to a certain extent if regulation goes too far it will be recognised as taking. This is a question of degree and therefore cannot be disposed of by general propositions".
The European Court of Human Rights has consistently interpreted Article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention as normally implying a right to compensation, not only for the outright taking or compulsory acquisition but for coercive measures interfering with the enjoyment of one's property or controlling its use in the general interest. The European Court has also interpreted the scope of protection given by Article 1 broadly to include not only land and chattels but also the economic interests connected with the running of a licensed business. The Privy Council has adopted a similarly realistic and generous approach to what is meant by "property" and an "interference".
Parliament has a wide margin of appreciation in meeting the obligations imposed on the UK by the guarantee of the right to the peaceful enjoyment of one's possessions under Article 1 of the first protocol. If the amendment is passed, I believe that it will pass muster under the convention as providing fair though not full compensation. If the amendment is rejected, I believe that there is a serious risk that the European Court of Human Rights will in due course decide that the legislation is unfair in its effect and lacking in a sense of proportion in this important respect. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: My Lords, my original instinct was to support Amendment No. 31 in the name of the noble
1586
Earl, Lord Peel, which provides for the possibility of proper compensation. However, I am not convinced that subsection (2) of the noble Earl's amendment is correctly drafted, although admittedly that could always be rectified at Third Reading.
More importantly, as I ventured to remind noble Lords earlier today, politics is the art of the possible. I suspect that the other place would for a variety of reasons reject the idea of full compensation, immoral though that rejection would be, in my opinion. A quarter of a loaf is surely better than no bread. I think that Amendment No. 27, cleverly drafted with great expertise by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, as one would expect, provides an admittedly disappointing quarter of a loaf. The noble Lord used the word "parsimonious".
In parenthesis, perhaps I may express surprise that the European Convention on Human Rights, on which the noble Lord, Lord Lester, bases his amendment, apparently holds that one year's post-tax profits equals fair compensation. But if that is the case, so be it.
If the amendment is resisted by the Government and by the Labour Party, it is likely, as the noble Lord said, that the European Court of Human Rights will eventually force the government of the day—of whichever political party that may be composed—to produce a similar or possibly better answer. The difference is that it will be too late for many people who stand to go bankrupt and even lose their homes through no fault of their own. I hope that at the very least the House will support this extremely modest amendment, and, ideally, the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Peel.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, I agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said. I believe that his amendment is far too modest. Aggrieved people should go to Europe where there are strict rules on the matter: compensation is not only for a year but covers the loss of the business and the future profits that would have been made. I advise all those concerned to go to Europe where the Government will get a horrible caning, and serve them right.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I fully support that idea. I also support the noble Lord's amendment. I put forward an amendment in Committee which unfortunately was not accepted. As well as those who make pistols, there are those who make targets, gun cases, sights, holsters, gun cabinets, ranges, and so on. They, too, have to be looked after.
I wish to read a paragraph from two letters. One person says,
"We are in government owned property and are now unable to pay the rent. We cannot sell off much of the machinery because of its specialised nature and we cannot move out of the secure premises because we are storing firearms and component parts until they have to be surrendered".
Another letter states:
"As soon as the Bill comes into force I will lose my business at a stroke as it involves full bore hand gun equipment. 1 have been in the gun trade for 16 years and have no possibility of modifying my business to the .22 part of the trade. This will die anyway, whether

1587
it is legislated against or not. With my business I will also lose my house as it is collateral for the business overdraft. I feel at the age of 50 I will never work again. I always thought that small businesses like mine were the backbone of Britain".
Earl Peel: My Lords, I too support the amendment so far as it goes. There is no need to rehearse the arguments on compensation. We had a thorough look at the issue in Committee. In declaring an interest, I repeat briefly that I am president of the Gun Trade Association.
I say again how moved and surprised I was to hear the very strong feelings expressed at a meeting I attended of the Gun Trade Association shortly before the Bill came before your Lordships' House. Feelings are immensely strong. People have paid their taxes and rates but suddenly find that their businesses—many of them generations old—will be wiped out at the stroke of one Bill.
As the noble Lord rightly said, we have an obligation to do something. I think his amendment mean, but I understand the reasons, which he explained carefully. I should have thought that a five-year period would have been more satisfactory and more in keeping with compensation of this type. However, I agree that there are difficulties. The noble Lord gave examples where precedents have been set. I do not think that there is any doubt about that.
The noble Lord said that he thought one year would be sufficient time—I hope that I understood him correctly—for businesses to find other activities. I believe that the noble Lord is being extremely optimistic. I fear that most businesses will go because of the way the Bill is designed. Cost alone, I suspect, will prohibit businesses being able to trade in a successful and meaningful way. I do not believe that a year is sufficient time.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, was asked specifically by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, whether his amendment covered manufacturers. I believe that the reply was yes. My information is that the amendment would cover makers of pistols but not necessarily makers of parts, ammunition or cases. They may be a relatively small part of the compensation package; nonetheless they are important. Any guidance that the noble Lord can give on that point would be greatly appreciated. I support his amendment although I believe that it is far too narrow for the purposes for which it is designed.
6.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, is a very skilled advocate. He did not spare the House any part of his argument for the amendment. It is also fair to say that, given its purpose, the amendment is modest. It could be described as providing, as he described it, relatively parsimonious compensation to licensed gun dealers.
I have practical objections to the amendment and objections of principle. My practical objection comes from my lifetime's experience of running a small business. I should certainly have had huge difficulty in my business in defining the after-tax profits of one part
1588
of it. If I were, for example, in the business of handguns and rifles, I should have great difficulty in saying what part of my profits came from handguns as opposed to rifles. It is a matter of allocation of overheads. That is always a question of dispute between accountants. Most small businesses simply do not have the kind of functional accounts that would be necessary in order to make that calculation. So I very much doubt whether the amendment would work in that sense. However, that is a relatively minor criticism and one that could be corrected.
Much more seriously, as the noble Lord acknowledged, we are talking about a spectrum. He used the words of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes: there is no general proposition to be made. So clearly it is proper, in terms of public policy, for some types of loss of business to be compensated for and some not. The noble Lord gave the examples of the fishing industry and the rendering industry affected by BSE. But for every one example on that side, there are hundreds, indeed thousands of examples on other sides. Every time there is a change in health and safety regulations, the businesses of manufacturers or dealers in some products which become unacceptable in health and safety terms are affected. Every time there is environmental legislation, manufacturers or dealers in products or equipment no longer deemed acceptable lose business, again without compensation. Every time there is a change in, for example, the food or drug regulations and the drug safety or food safety administration outlaws a particular product and says that it should no longer be placed on the market, somebody—a manufacturer, dealer or retailer—loses business. If we were to have compensation in all such cases, we should never make any changes in health and safety or environmental protection. We simply could not afford it. I gladly give way to the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord knows the difference between affecting prices—I am a farmer and I am affected when sheep prices go down—and destroying a business completely.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I know exactly how it is. But if the noble Countess, Lady Mar, wins her case and organophosphates are banned, are we seriously saying that the manufacturers of organophosphate sheep dips should be compensated for the loss of their business? Surely not.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, they are in chemicals. They will make the next type of sheep dip.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, people can change their businesses. Those who deal in handguns can deal in rifles. I am sorry, but I find this special pleading unacceptable. There is no special difference between handgun dealers and the hundreds and thousands of businesses that have to suffer changes in regulatory policy and in legislation both in this country and in Europe. If we were to compensate in all those cases, we should never make any change at all. These

1589
amendments, just like that passed earlier, now Clause 16, are deeply unacceptable. I ask my noble friends to oppose them.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, in rising to support this amendment, I wonder if I might suggest to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, that he invests in a copy of the book, The Castle of Lies, by Mr. Christopher Booker and Mr. Richard North, where he will see literally hundreds of examples of businesses that have been sent to the wall by over-regulation, too much bureaucracy and knee-jerk legislation.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I find it very difficult to take this. Here are spokesmen for a party which has accepted the closing down of businesses all over the country and the decline in this country's manufacturing industry and is not in the least concerned about those who lose their jobs; at the same time they are prepared to be concerned with the interests of 650 dealers. I find it quite unacceptable that people who spend the rest of their time opposing the European Community, namely, the noble Lords, Lord Monson and Lord Pearson, should now be relying on the European Court of Human Rights to defend their arguments.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, if the noble Lord had had a little patience, he would have heard me move on to condemn the destruction of those businesses as chronicled in The Castle of Lies.
As I say, I support the amendment. I agree with all noble Lords who spoke, including the mover, the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, that it is far too parsimonious.
I take a different view about the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights. Personally, I am ashamed that the British Parliament has to rely on what the European Court of Human Rights might or might not decide. Personally 1 think that we should not have to go anywhere near it. I am further ashamed to hear that this amendment, which many of us will be forced to accept this evening will be six or nine times meaner to these wretched people than what would have happened in Australia. I support the amendment; but I do so in the hope that we may be able to return to it at a later stage and make it more generous.
Finally, I do not want to nit-pick with the wording of the amendment, but what happens if a small business has just started up and does not have three years' financial accounts to be averaged to produce this measly average of one year of after-tax profits of the business? That may be a technical difficulty to which we may also need to return at Third Reading. But in the meantime, with great reluctance and with considerable shame, I feel bound to support the amendment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I suppose I am guilty of special pleading. My noble friend made that accusation against those who were speaking in favour of the amendment, and since I am one of them I must be guilty. But, frankly, I thought that special pleading was what Parliament was about. I thought that
1590
Parliament was available to people to make their pleas against what they consider to be injustice and in favour of themselves.
I support the amendment and I shall vote for it, even though it is much more modest than that debated in Committee. We must take what we can get and be thankful for small mercies in relation to this Bill. But undoubtedly, as so many noble Lords made clear, great hardship will be caused to a number of people. Whether it is a large number or a small number is irrelevant. If there is an injustice, it does not matter whether it is against 10,000 people, a million people, or one person. They are all entitled to redress. This modest amendment attempts to give them some redress. It is therefore worthy of the support of this House.
I do not want to repeat the speech that I made on this matter in Committee. However, we have to recognise that we are dealing with people who have built up businesses, often by sheer hard graft, over a long period of time. They are entitled to be considered.
It is ridiculous for the Government to say that there is precedent for their meanness. There cannot be any precedent for Dunblane. There is no precedent. So do not call into account precedent! In fact, many precedents have been cited which contradict the Government's view.
To those who say that other businesses have been adversely affected by legislation but do other things, I would say that we are not talking here of garages or houses affected by a road widening scheme. If you own a garage, you are compensated to the extent of the market value of your property and resettlement. In many cases the local or national authority will also try to find alternative premises for you. The fact is that there are still motorists who will want to buy petrol. Under the Bill many gun manufacturers will not be able to sell their guns because they are forbidden to do so. That is the difference. That is why the amendment deserves support.
I received a letter from a small manufacturer of guns, part of which I think I should read to the House. I sent a copy to the noble Baroness. John Slough, of London, sets out the problem:
"I would like to draw your attention to our factory which contains drawings, machinery and fixtures made specifically for the manufacture of full-bore handguns and spare parts. Also a purpose built testing range, strong-room and security system … We are in government owned property and are now unable to pay the rent. We cannot sell off much of the machinery because of its specialised nature and we cannot move out of the secure premises because we are storing firearms and component parts until they have to be surrendered."
What does one do about that? I sincerely hope that the noble Baroness can assure me that this poor man will be assisted out of the dilemma and difficulty in which he finds himself.
The other problem he faces is that his house is now at risk because it is mortgaged to support his business. He is not only going to be put out of business; he will

1591
be put out of his home as well. Is that what the Government want? Is that what noble Lords in this House are going to allow? I sincerely hope not.
Lord Zouche of Haryngworth: My Lords, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, within its limits. My concern lies with the thousands of individuals and small businesses which will lose their livelihoods as a result of this unjust Bill. To make matters worse, there is no provision to pay them fair and proper compensation.
In Committee my noble friend Lord Vinson summed up the feelings of many of us. He said:
"We should also bear in mind the lesson that I was taught at school; that the democracy in which we live is not only for the enforcement of majority will but also for the protection of minority rights".
My noble friend the Minister indicated at the time that there was no precedent for paying compensation for loss of business. Other arguments have been made on that point. Even if that were the case, surely it is not a good enough reason for not playing fair?
The Federal Government of Australia have passed new laws banning certain types of firearms. They are playing fair. Most importantly, dealers have been offered compensation for loss of business. The Australian Government are looking after their citizens; we are not looking after ours. What is wrong with us? We are taking away the livelihoods of good people and are not prepared to pay them fair and proper compensation. This House has an enormous responsibility to protect the rights of the minority. I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, when the Government decided upon the path they took, a big obligation was immediately imposed on what my noble friend the Minister described as the public purse but what I prefer to describe as the taxpayer's pocket. Given the Government's decision, I find it a little difficult to follow what they say about where compensation in principle begins and where it ends.
I listened intently to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. I do not understand why it is reasonable to compensate the individual who has to hand in a gun, which arguably is a very small part of his or her financial life, and not compensate a dealer or manufacturer for whom in certain cases it will be a very significant part of his or her financial life. It is finance that we are talking about.
I am therefore very inclined towards the amendment proposed by the Liberal Democrat Party. I wonder whether the savings to the taxpayer's pocket which will follow from the passing of the amendment on disassembly may perhaps pay for it.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, I agree totally with the amendment. I am very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, raised the European angle. As
1592
the noble Lord pointed out, the BSE and fishing crises have already dragged heavily on the purse which has been filled by the taxpayer and will continue to be filled to a certain extent. When it will break, I do not know.
The gun manufacturers Hekler & Kock, Beretta, Glock and Browning have already taken legal advice on action to be taken in the European Court against the British Government, of whatever party. I suggest that whatever the party to which we belong we should think very hard and consider the money that is needed for mental health institutions and the National Health Service generally. We should also consider the money that the police authorities will need for monitoring everything that the Bill is intended to achieve.
If the Minister and others on the Benches opposite had listened to what I proposed in my amendment, the necessity for compensation would have been avoided because it would have been paid for.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, Amendment No. 27 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, and the noble Lord, Lord Lester, together with Amendment No. 28, concern compensation for business losses by firearms dealers as a result of the Bill. In Committee I responded to a similar amendment, tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Gisborough and others, which would have made the Government liable for business losses ascribed to the prohibition of higher calibre handguns in the Bill.
The Government entirely recognise the strength of feeling on the issue, but the fact remains that for the Government to accept liability for business losses said to result from the introduction of legislation aimed at improving public safety would be unprecedented and would in our view set a seriously damaging and inhibiting example for the future.
Noble Lords have suggested that there are parallels here to the paying of compensation in relation to compulsory purchase orders. We accept that where the effect of government legislation is to deprive people of property or of the use of that property, then it is right that taxpayers collectively should pay those property owners for the value of that property. This principle has been a part of English law for many years. It also arises from our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights and is the principle which informs our compensation scheme.
However, the analogy cannot be extended to include compensation for business losses and other liabilities. Dealers' and clubs' premises and other assets remain theirs. There are no proposals to interfere physically with any property belonging to dealers and clubs beyond those items catered for by our compensation plans.
Noble Lords will know that the Government are committed to paying compensation at a fair market value as at before my right honourable friend the Secretary of State's announcement, repeated in this House, on 16th October, to people who hold firearm certificates for the higher calibre handguns which the Bill will prohibit.

1593
The Government will also pay compensation to owners for ammunition, including expanding ammunition which the Bill would prevent them from owning, and for other accessories and other ancillary equipment which they own and which have no use other than in connection with prohibited higher calibre handguns. Our discussions continue with the British Shooting Sports Council as to what those accessories will be and their values.
The Government will pay compensation to firearms dealers on the same basis as owners in respect of prohibited handguns and ancillary equipment which they owned or were contracted to acquire on or before 16th October 1996, which was the day when the Government announced that they intended to bring the prohibition into force. The scheme would be laid in draft form before this House and another place. The scheme could not be made until approved by a resolution of both Houses.
We intend to pay fair compensation to dealers for their lost stock. But the Government cannot go any further than that in relation to firearms dealers. The Government have taken their position on the possession and ownership of handguns and have done that in the interests of public safety and in the light of the dreadful incident in Dunblane and of the report of Lord Cullen's inquiry into it.
Firearms control is only one area in which the Government may be obliged to legislate from time to time in the interests of public safety. I cited during discussion of this issue in Committee the fields of transport, medicines, chemicals and pollution. The Government do not pay compensation for business losses in those areas, however severe they may be.
I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment, but perhaps I can refer to one or two points that were made. Much was made in regard to the issue of precedent. We do not accept that this undermines our argument. Each case is a special case. For example, renderers were referred to. They were paid grants because they are an essential part of the food chain. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, is aware of that because we discussed the matter at the last stage of the Bill.
Fishing boats were mentioned. But fishing boats had to be destroyed and we do not compensate fishermen for business losses. In relation to the position of the property Acts, a special case is when legislation goes back to the last century. It is a complex area and we do not believe that it bears on the present case. Reference was made to Europe. The Government are entirely satisfied that their proposals for compensation meet the requirements of European law and are in accordance with our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights.
My noble friend Lord Gisborough referred to, and read a paragraph from, a letter which was brought to my attention also by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. Both referred to different parts of the same letter. In the case of a manufacturer of prohibited handguns—the case mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart—the terms of the compensation scheme will
1594
not cover equipment in the area of the manufacturing of firearms. Ancillary equipment is defined in Clause 14(2) as equipment,
"for use in connection with firearms prohibited … and has no practicable use in connection with any firearm which is not a prohibited weapon".
That allows individual owners and dealers who hand in their ancillary equipment—a list will be drawn up and published after our consultation with the British Shooting Sports Council—to receive fair compensation. However, the scheme will not go as far as including the case mentioned in the noble Lord's correspondence; that is, it will not cover machinery and so forth for manufacturers as set out in the letter.
My noble friend Lord Peel referred to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lester. The amendment would cover the component parts of firearms or ammunition but not manufacturers of gun cases, targets or other ancillary equipment.
We were invited by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, to take account, as legislators, of the way in which the Bill came about. I should like to think, whatever side of the debate we are on, we are in no doubt as to the reason why we are discussing the Bill. Perhaps I may say that we, as legislators, should take account also of precedents and of the likely cost of such amendments which will not fall on the Government but on the taxpayers.
It was argued that the taxpayer will bear some cost for many of those concerned—those who are out of work and those who have difficulty with rents, their council tax and other things. The taxpayer at large will bear those costs. However, to take that burden yet further for the taxpayer and make this a special case when there are many cases, sadly, of people whose businesses have been affected by legislation in the past, is not acceptable.
I repeat a point made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. No government should be inhibited from addressing an issue of public safety by having to take into account the precedents that would be set by the passing of the amendment. I do not believe that we are in contravention of human rights; I certainly do not underestimate the pain, grief and anguish that is caused by the passing of this Bill. But we should never set our face against having to address the balancing issue of public safety.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to your Lordships, not only those who supported the amendment, but also those who spoke against it. It has been an important and interesting debate and I have learnt a great deal. I am also grateful to the Minister for the careful way in which she replied. Perhaps I can make a number of points.
First, I am struck by the fact that neither the Minister nor the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, sought to say that there should not be a principle of fair treatment of those whose businesses will be destroyed or blighted as a direct result of legislation. If they say that there is no such principle, then I must respectfully suggest that that is contrary to the whole range of constitutional decisions

1595
across the Commonwealth in those countries with the benefit and burdens of written constitutional guarantees of human rights. The reason why Australia is compensating as it is is that Australia has a constitutional guarantee of peaceful enjoyment of one's possessions and a right to compensation. That has been part of our system since Magna Carta.
Secondly, I am satisfied that the European Court of Human Rights requires compensation to be paid not only when there is an outright taking of property under what is called the deprivation rule in Article 1 but also under the "control of use" rule or the general rule at the beginning of Article 1. The court has made it clear that in all three situations, if regulation becomes so extensive and draconian, there must normally be a right to fair compensation as part of the balance to stop anyone bearing an excessive burden.
My third point is that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and the Minister that one must not allow the need to compensate to slow the steady march of progress whether it relates to environmental benefits, medicine or other legislation. The key point is that in the rare case where regulation is as excessive as it is here Commonwealth constitution case law and European human rights case law speak with one voice; that is, that there should be fair compensation.
I do not say that anything as mean as my amendment would satisfy the convention, but I hoped that it would. I believe that the European Court has shown itself to be realistic, indicating that where one's nationals are concerned full compensation is not required in quite the same way as with regard to aliens. That precedent was established by a Conservative government in the Lithgow case in defending Labour's nationalisation. That is how I see the situation. I do not follow the distinction sought to be drawn by the Government and by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, between different kinds of property. The question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, remains unanswered. In those circumstances, I think the best thing I can do is to seek the opinion of the House.
6.59 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 27) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 121; Not-Contents, 110.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Burton, L.

Addington, L.

Calverley, L.

Addison, V.

Carlisle, E.

Alderdice, L.

Carnock, L.

Annaly, L.

Clancarty, E.

Attlee, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh,L

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Clinton, L.

Balfour, E.

Clitheroe, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Congleton, L.

Brain, L.

Comwallis, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Burnham, L.

Craig of Radley,L.

1596

Crathome, L.

Mottistone, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cross, V.

Munster, E.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

De Saumarez, L.

Norrie, L.

Denbigh, E.

Northesk, E.

Denham, L.

Northumberland, D.

Devonport, V.

Ogmore, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Onslow, E.

Dunrossil, V.

Palmer, L.

Falkland, V.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Feversham, L.

Peel, E.

Gage,V.

Reay, L.

Gainsborough, E

Rees, L.

Gisborough, L.

Rennell, L.

Glasgow, E.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Hamwee, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Harlech, L.

Rodney, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Russell, E.

Harris of Greenwich, L. [Teller.]

St. John of Bletso, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Hertford, M.

Saltoun of Abemethy, Ly.

Holdemess, L.

Sandwich, E.

HolmPatrick, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Hooson, L.

Simon, V.

Howie of Troon, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Hylton, L.

Skidelsky, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Stockton, E.

Ilchester, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Inchyra, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Swansea, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Swinfen, L.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Temple of Stowe, E.

Teviot, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Kintore, E.

Tope, L.

Lawrence, L.

Tordoff, L.

Leigh, L.

Vinson, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L. [Teller.]

Weatherill, L.

Liverpool, E.

Whaddon, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Wharton, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Marlesford, L.

Wrenbury, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Methuen, L.

Wynford, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Yarborough, E.

Monson, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ailsa, M.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Aldington, L.

Dean of Thomton-le-Fylde, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Downshire, M.

Belstead, L.

Dubs, L.

Berkeley, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Blatch, B.

Elles, B.

Borrie, L.

Elton, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Feldman, L.

Byford, B.

Ferrers, E.

Cadman, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Goschen, V.

Chalker of Wallasey,B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Chelmsford, V.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Gray of Contin, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Courtown, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Cranbome, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Haskel, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Hayhoe, L.

David, B.

Hemphill, L.

1597

Henley, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Mountevans, L.

Hollis of Heigham. B.

Murton of Lindisfame, L.

Home, E.

Nicol, B.

Hughes, L.

Parkinson, L.

Inglewood, L.

Pender, L.

Jeger, B.

Peston, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Platt of WritfJe, B.

Judd, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Kitchener, E.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Knutsford, V.

Rea, L.

Lane of Horsell.L.

Renton, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Rotherwick, L.

Lindsay, E. Lockwood, B.

St. John of Fawsley, L. Seccombe, B.

Long, V.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Lucas, L.

Shepherd, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Stewartby, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Luke, L.

Sudeley, L.

Lyell, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

McConnell, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Tollemache, L.

Mclnlosh of Haringey, L.

Trefgame, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Trumpington, B.

Mackay of Clashfem, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Turner of Camden, B.

Wakeham, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Wilcox, B.

Mersey, V.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Wise, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
7.7 p.m.
Clause 15 [Parliamentary control of compensation schemes]:
[Amendment No. 28 not moved.]
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 8, line 8, at end insert ("or 16 below").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am in something of a quandary here. I was surprised when I arrived at half-past two this afternoon to find that the important amendments of the noble Earl Lord Peel, Amendments Nos. 30 and 31, had for some reason been grouped with the basically technical amendments in the grouping which starts with Amendment No. 29. It may be that the noble Earl will ask for his important amendments to be decoupled and speak to them separately. On the other hand, he may not. I cannot tell what he is going to do. So this gives me the only opportunity I may have to reply to the charge of inconsistency levelled against me by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, when speaking to the previous amendment. The noble Lord forgets that the European Court of Human Rights has nothing whatever to do with the EU. Having made that point rather belatedly, because the procedures of the House did not allow me to make it before, perhaps I may start with Amendment No. 29.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me, I of course acknowledge that, but he is against them both.
Lord Monson: My Lords, we can continue the argument at some other time.
1598
Amendment No. 29 is a technical amendment which is not likely to cause any problems. It is purely a minor and technical amendment, the purpose of which is to ensure that compensation for clubs and associations is included in the compensation scheme to be laid down by the Secretary of State under Part I of the Bill.
This is probably the right moment for me to speak to Amendment No. 79, with which Amendment No. 29 is perhaps slightly incongruously grouped. It is slightly more than technical. Amendment No. 79 seeks to clarify the valuation procedures for .22 pistols which are voluntarily surrendered under the Bill. Paragraph 11 of Schedule 1 gives the chief officer of police the power to refuse to make any .22 pistols delivered to him available for inspection,
"either by the certificate holder or by any other person".
A stubborn police chief could therefore refuse access to the surrendered pistol for the purpose of valuation. It is important to note that most of these small calibre pistols are the highly tuned competition weapons which are used in the Olympics and can be worth thousands of pounds each. The value of the gun depends on its condition, and it is vital for the purpose of fair valuation that it should be open to inspection. I beg to move.
Earl Peel: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will answer the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and we can deal with my amendment separately.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am in a difficulty. We spent a good deal of this morning speaking to every single Member who has tabled amendments today. My understanding was that there was full agreement for the grouping of these amendments and to de-couple them literally at the point of discussing them makes it very difficult for me because I treated them as a group of amendments and that is how I prefer to deal with them.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I quite accept what my noble friend has said. Therefore, I shall speak to the substantive amendment in my name, which is Amendment No. 31, along with the consequential amendments, Nos. 30 and 77. Amendment No. 31 seeks to make payment to those individuals,
"who have responsibility for any debt, mortgage, lease or other liability in connection with",
a business which has been forced to close as a result of this Bill. It is in line with an amendment passed by the House at Committee stage in the name of my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury which related to individuals who run clubs and associations. This amendment refers to businesses. It should be made clear that this amendment specifically deals with an individual's liabilities on the closure of a business and not compensation for loss of trade, which is an amendment that we have already dealt with. Therefore, it is not an open-ended commitment, it is very specific.
As an example, the London Armoury estimates that, of 2,600 registered firearms dealers, 500 deal in handguns only. The second-hand firearm market has also collapsed since Dunblane and the announcement of this Bill—not

1599
surprisingly. The effect of the Bill on some of these businesses will be devastating, which is a point that has been made many times before.
This Bill affects ordinary people who have conducted what has been up to this point a proper, lawful and well-regulated business activity. A number of examples have been given. I have two which I have extrapolated which sum up the situation. One ammunition manufacture, Roger Curtis, built up his business supplying ammunition to shooting clubs and to the police. He took out a £30,000 bank loan and sold his home to raise a further £36,000 to start his business, which had a projected annual turnover of £75,000. He has been forced into liquidation and has lost everything. This amendment would refer specifically to the bank loan of £30,000.
Another example is that of Mr. Rainford, the joint owner of the Nottingham Shooting Centre. He built up his business to the value of £400,000. It is now worth £1,000. Mr. Rainford explained:
"We are responsible for 17 years' remaining lease, which is currently £12,000 a year, plus £7.000 in rates".
These are considerable figures.
These people and many others will be left high and dry, liable for losses for a business which no longer exists. Quite rightly, your Lordships rectified the situation as regards individuals who run clubs and associations during the Committee stage of the Bill. Therefore, I hope that the House will take the same moral high ground and do the same for individuals who have debts hanging over them and their families because their businesses have been forced to close by this Bill. I remind your Lordships that we are talking specifically here about debt, mortgage, lease or other liability and not open-ended businesses.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, my difficulty with this amendment is in trying to piece it together to fit it into the jigsaw of the other provisions of the Bill, including Amendment No. 27, as amended.
As I understand it, the amendment seeks to compensate,
"a registered firearms dealer [or persons] engaged in the manufacture of firearms or ammunition which as a result of the provisions of this Act will be unable to continue to operate".
But subsection (2) refers to a "club or association". I assume that the intention of the amendment is to provide for compensation for dealers, as in subsection (1). If that is right, it can supplement Amendment No. 27, as the noble Earl has indicated, because the firearms dealers associations are calling for that kind of compensation. What the amendment does not do is to cover loss of business for those who are not forced to close down, so it is not an alternative to the amendment which has just been passed: it supplements it.
For what it is worth, my view is that it is time for the Government to take stock of the most rational way of securing compensation across the board. It is rather like the situation which has arisen with the
1600
Police Bill and the amendments that have been included in it by your Lordships' House. One needs to find a coherent principle and to ensure on a fair principle that no one is over-compensated or under-compensated. On that basis I support the amendment, but I hope that we can sort out any inconsistencies of approach as between firearms, loss of business, closing down and the effect under this amendment and try to produce a more coherent total scheme.
Earl Peel: My Lords, perhaps I may answer the noble Lord. As I explained, this amendment is a mirror image of an amendment that your Lordships accepted at Committee stage which dealt specifically with clubs and associations. This amendment extends the provision to businesses. I do not believe that there is any problem about the direction in which the noble Lord was trying to persuade the House.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I support this amendment. All the arguments have been gone over before. I hope that the noble Earl moves it and, if necessary, divides the House on it.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I also support this amendment. When my noble friend on the Front Bench replies, I imagine that she will say yet again that the Government do not give compensation for businesses and so on that are disadvantaged by government legislation which is brought forward in the interests of hygiene, public health or, as in this case, public safety. Could I ask my noble friend to bear in mind that this Bill does nothing for public safety? Everyone knows that it is a rotten Bill. Opinion is moving fast in the country. Indeed, we have it on the word of the chairman of the 1922 Committee that the other place very much regrets legislating in such haste, leaving the rest of us and the people who are affected by this Bill to repent at leisure.
Lord Zouche of Haryngworth: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend Lord Peel in this amendment. I do not want to repeat what I said earlier, other than that a lot of us are merely looking for natural justice for a minority group. I support the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I deal first with Amendment No. 29 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Monson. The terms of the compensation scheme in Clause 13, which deals with prohibited handguns and ammunition, or Clause 14, which deals with prohibited handguns and ammunition, or Clause 14, which deals with ancillary equipment, are of an entirely different nature to the type of payments for losses incurred by target shooting clubs or associations which are now part of the new Clause 16. In the case of handguns, ammunition and ancillary equipment, the compensatory payments will be in respect of material objects on which a value can be put. In some cases, it may be necessary to get more than one valuation,

1601
but eventually an objective value can be reached. The objects in question can then be taken away and disposed of as appropriate.
However, in the case of Clause 16 losses, which are defined in subsection (2) as any
"debt, mortgage, lease or other liability",
the work of identifying and validating individual losses would be enormous. Each case would have to be assessed on an ad hoc basis, with all financial details and supporting documentation having to be produced by the claimant. There is also doubt about what becomes of the capital assets involved. Are these to be kept by the claimant or given over to the state? If a mortgage is redeemed, who would take possession of the property involved?
Therefore, I cannot see that it would be possible to set out such a scheme for parliamentary approval. If this clause is to remain unamended as part of the Bill, there would be greater practical advantage in allowing the Secretary of State simply to deal with each claim under Clause 16 on an individual basis.
For some of those practical reasons, I am unable to accept the amendment. There is, however, an interesting anomaly. If somebody invested their own money—say, £100,000—in the business and lost it all, that person would receive absolutely nothing, but somebody with losses due to,
"debt, mortgage, lease or other liability",
would be compensated. I am sure that that is not meant to be a consequence of the amendment.
I now turn to Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 in the name of my noble friend Lord Peel. I set out at some length in response to the previous group of amendments the reasons why the Government do not intend to pay compensation to dealers for loss of business. I recall that that amendment has been lost to this House, but I do not propose to repeat those arguments.
I am now at a loss because I do not believe that Amendments Nos. 75 to 77 and Amendment No. 79 have been spoken to in this group. I was told this morning that those amendments were grouped with Amendment No. 29. They stand in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Lester, Lord Rodgers and Lord Monson, with Amendment No. 77 standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Peel. Are those amendments meant to be grouped with Amendment No. 29 or not?
Earl Peel: My Lords, I spoke to Amendment No. 77 when I spoke to Amendment No. 29—and, in the grouping, to Amendments Nos. 30 and 31.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, Amendment No. 75 is purely consequential on Amendment No. 27.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall first address Amendment No. 79 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Monson. This would affect the arrangements for small-calibre pistols which are handed to the police when the Bill comes into effect because their owners
1602
cannot immediately find a licensed small-calibre pistol club which they can join and in which they can keep their gun.
Schedule 1 has the effect that such pistols are treated as having been surrendered to the police if they remain in police custody after a transitional period. They may also be surrendered to the police before that. The Secretary of State will then make payments to their owners on an ex-gratia basis.
The schedule requires that while these pistols are with the police there is no obligation on the police to make them available for inspection. The police will keep the guns in proper conditions and there is no intention to deny owners access where they need it for valuation or other purposes. But a statutory requirement that the police make guns available whenever required could cause a considerable distraction for forces.
The same difficulty would, I am afraid, apply to a right of inspection for purposes of valuation for ex-gratia payment, as the noble Lord's amendment envisages, since owners who signify that they want to surrender their guns would be eligible for a payment at any time. There is, as I say, no wish to deny inspection for these purposes. Home Office guidance to the police will make that clear.
Finally, I would like to turn to the three amendments, Amendments Nos. 75, 76 and 77 which have been tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Rodgers, Lord Lester and Lord Monson, and by my noble friend Lord Peel in similar terms. The Government have some sympathy with intentions behind these amendments, since there would be a clear understanding that all the compensation payments due to be made under the Bill—of whatever sort—would be met by money provided by Parliament. That is only as it should be.
I hope that noble Lords will understand when I say that the Government have some trouble with the precise terms in which these amendments have been cast. We shall however give further consideration to how what currently stands as Clause 45 of the Bill might best be worded, and will, if we think it right, submit a further amendment when the Bill next appears before your Lordships' House. Therefore, I hope that Amendment No. 29 will not be pressed.
Lord Monson: My Lords, first, I am sorry that the noble Baroness thought that the groupings for today had been discussed and agreed this morning with everybody who had tabled amendments. Obviously, something went wrong, as invariably and inevitably happens from time to time. Nobody sought my opinion in advance, which explains why I suggested the decoupling which would obviously have been too difficult for the noble Baroness. I quite appreciate why she was opposed to it. I should also apologise for not having said anything about Amendment No. 76. I did not speak to it because it is purely a drafting amendment and I had supposed that it would be acceptable to the House. Obviously, we shall have to wait until later to see whether that is the case.

1603
As for Amendment No. 79, the Minister's reassurance is all right as far as it goes, but it is wholly dependent on the supposition that police chiefs will always be reasonable. I hope that they will always be reasonable, but it is does not invariably happen that way. Therefore, I may have to look again at that amendment and I may return to it at a later stage.
Amendment No. 29 is clearly not a purely technical amendment, as I had imagined it to be. I shall study the Minister's reply carefully but, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Peel Earl Peel moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 8, line 8, at end insert ("or (Compensation scheme for firearms businesses) below").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I must confess that I did not quite appreciate what my noble friend the Minister said. Was she saying that she would take away my Amendment No. 31, the substantive amendment, and the consequential amendments, Amendments Nos. 30 and 77, to reconsider them with a view to tabling her own amendments? Could she clarify that point?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, no. I was saying that I was not accepting the amendment.
Earl Peel: My Lords, that is what I suspected. Clearly, there is no point rerunning these arguments—we have done so enough times. In view of the fact that a similar amendment relating to clubs and associations was accepted by your Lordships in Committee, I feel that it is only right and proper that your Lordships should have the opportunity of expressing a view on these three amendments. I beg to move.
7.29 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 30) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 61; Not-Contents, 85.

Division No. 4

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Feversham, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Gage, V.

Annaly, L.

Gisborough, L.

Attlee, E.

Harding of Petherton, L

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Brain, L.

Hertford, M.

Burton, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Carlisle, E.

Howie of Troon, L.

Clancarty, E.

lddesleigh, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh,L.

Inchyra, L.

Clinton, L.

Kintore, E.

Clitheroe, L.

Knutsford, V.

Congleton, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Leigh, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Liverpool, E.

Cross, V.

Marlesford, L.

Denbigh, E.

Monson, L.

1604

Mottistone, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Norrie, L.

Skidelsky, L.

Northesk, E.

Stockton, E.

Northumberland, D.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Onslow, E.

Swansea, L.

Palmer, L.

Swinfen, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L. [Teller.]

Swinton, E.

Peel, E. [Teller.]

Temple of Stowe, E.

Teviot, L.

Reay, L.

Vinson, L.

Rodney, L.

Wharton, B.

Saint Oswald, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Saltoun of Abemethy, Ly.

Yarborough, E.

Sandwich, E.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Hemphill, L.

Acton, L.

Henley, L.

Aldington, L.

Home, E.

Anelay of St.Johns,B.

Inglewood, L.

Balfour, E.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Belstead, L.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Berkeley, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Bethell, L.

Lindsay, E.

Blatch, B.

Long, V.

Bridgeman, V.

Lucas, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Luke, L.

Bumham, L.

Lyell, L.

Byford, B.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Chalker of Wallasey,B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Mackay of Clashfem, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Clinton-Davis, L.

Colwyn, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Courtown, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Cranbome, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Miller of Hendon, B.

Cumberlege, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

David, B.

Mountevans, L.

Dean of Beswick,L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Nicol, B.

Denham, L.

Parkinson, L.

Demon of Wakefield, B.

Pender, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Donoughue, L.

Platt of Writtle,B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Rea, L.

Dubs, L.

Rees, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Elton, L.

Seccombe, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Selbome, E.

Ferrers, E.

Shepherd, L.

Fraser of Carmy llie, L.

Stewartby, L.

Gladwin of Clee,L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Goschen, V.

Sudeley, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Gray of Contin,L.

Tollemache, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Trefgame, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Trumpington, B.

Haskel, L.

Wise, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendment No. 31 not moved.]
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Report stage begin again not before twenty-five minutes before nine o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Recreational Aviation
7.37 p.m.
Lord Rotherwick Lord Rotherwick asked Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with the regulatory provision and range of available facilities for recreational aviation.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I initiate this debate today partly for personal reasons. I declare that I fly my own home-built Glasair II. I am a member of a number of flying clubs and squadrons. I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Goschen for being present to answer my questions, which are in three parts. I am also deeply grateful to all noble Lords who are taking part.
First, can my noble friend tell me when the new medical rules under the Joint Aviation Requirement (JAR) will apply to private pilot licences? Does he agree that the new medical regulations will result in the medical examination being too frequent, too complex and too expensive? Flying examinations are not cheap. Their increased frequency and complexity will financially hurt the average recreational flyer. As a result, recreational flyers will pay more to know about their health and have less to keep up their standard of airmanship.
Secondly, can my noble friend tell me the up to date situation about training in group-owned aircraft and permit-to-fly (P to F) aircraft? This is a complex area. I will do my best to make the situation simple and precise.
UK law does not class recreational aviation as a separate activity, unlike some other European countries. Flying activities are governed by the Air Navigational Order (ANO) and this dictates, depending on the nature of any remuneration involved, that planes fly in the private category or aerial work category. These two categories are known as general aviation. All the rest fly in the Commercial Air Transport category, known as CAT. In the past, group members wishing to use their own aircraft and pay a qualified instructor to help improve their flying were unable to do so unless their group-owned aircraft's private category was uprated to an aerial work category, an expensive and complex process. Owners of permit-to-fly aircraft were not able to do this at all. Although the pilot of a group-owned aircraft could pay an instructor to be checked out, revalidate his licence or renew his ratings, this was not the case for pilots of permit-to-fly aircraft. I ask the Minister to confirm that the Standing Advisory Committee on Pilot Licensing is intending to endorse a long awaited and much required change in the rules, enabling professional instructors to be paid to help private pilots in group-owned aircraft flying under a private category certificate or to be paid to help pilots in their aircraft being flown under a permit to fly.
Perhaps the Minister could set out any new initiatives in the planning process that will affect general aviation, under which recreational flying is included. The national picture is one that has caused great concern to the world of general aviation. Flying sites are being lost nationally and new flying sites are very difficult to open, for a number of reasons. First, there is no national policy on aerodromes. Secondly, general aviation is being
1606
"squeezed out" of larger commercial operations, such as Manchester, Birmingham and Humberside, by Commercial Air Transport (CAT) operators, forcing general aviation to seek bases on smaller sites. Such sites are simply not available to accommodate general aviation. Thirdly, existing general aviation sites are being put under increasing pressure to reduce their operations or have been threatened with closure, often due to a vociferous minority of local residents. The result can be enforcement action against the site owner with onerous limits placed upon flying activity or closure of the sites altogether. Fourthly, long established airfields have been redeveloped, such as the West Mailing, Kent, business park and residential development and the Burnaston, Derby, industrial development. Finally, local opposition has resulted in very few new flying sites being established. This situation is alarming, especially when viewed against the background of an almost constant number of aircraft being used by a wide range of general aviation operators.
The importance in the UK of general aviation, under which recreational flying comes, can be summarised. It provides pilot training at no expense to the British taxpayer. In the early 1990s, 43 per cent. of all commercial pilots entering the profession came via the club and private flying route. A heavy demand for pilots to serve the Commercial Air Transport sector is arising again. It broadens the range of available recreational and sporting facilities, such as gliding, parachuting and microlight flying, all of which have a place in the overall sporting picture at national level. Perhaps the Minister could also confirm, as a paraglider, that his sport has no interest in airfields, since it concentrates on looking for parasites. General aviation assists, inter alia, medical services, such as air ambulances and police services and the work of statutory undertakers such as aerial mapping. It is the essential element in the overall transport infrastructure, providing quick and easy access for business operators to move goods and services within the country and Europe, allowing the UK to compete economically in an international context.
The planning system we have today in the UK is a plan-led system (Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990). This means that increased emphasis has been placed upon the development plan policy by the local government officers, elected members and the planning inspectorate. It is therefore essential that there is a clear policy guidance regarding general aviation issues. This policy should emanate from central government in order that it can be disseminated through the system and be incorporated in structure and local plans. With clear policies in place, elected members will then be able to determine applications in the appropriate context. A lack of policy inevitably leads to confusion and, more often than not, refusal of the related application. A General Aviation Awareness Council survey of general aviation related applications, recorded during the five year period 1988-1993, indicated that 63 per cent. of applications were refused, compared to the "all applications" average of 14 per cent. refusal for the same period.
The GAAC undertook a further survey of all county and regional councils throughout the UK in order to establish, inter alia, how many authorities recognised general aviation in the structure/regional plan policy. A 91 per cent. response rate was achieved and confirmed fears that general aviation issues were not being given due consideration. There was no mention of general aviation in 60 per cent. of the nation's key planning documents. Of those policies in place, many were poorly worded and would do more harm than good to the future of general aviation.
At present the only national policy guidance comes in the form of two paragraphs (5.35 and 5.36) which are lost in PPG 13 Transport, a document geared primarily towards road-based transport. It is a good start, but not enough. Without a stand alone general aviation related policy statement or document, the issue will continue to be overlooked by county or regional and district or borough councils. The reality is that existing flying sites are being lost. In the case of the British Aerospace site at Hatfield, the local authority cited the lack of a clear government policy regarding general aviation as one of its reasons for not giving encouragement for the retention of the main runway for operational use. Another example is the action of Doncaster City Council in turning its airfield into a boating lake.
In conclusion, surely, while ensuring that safety in general aviation is not compromised, there must not be an overkill of bureaucratic rules that result in the decline of recreational flying. The excitement and enjoyment of flying over the United Kingdom's countryside must not be curtailed.
Central government should take a more proactive stance as regards general aviation and ensure that general aviation facilities are available to meet the nation's needs. I ask my noble friend the Minster to consider the following: first, more general aviation facilitites are needed. They form part of the nation's transport infrastructure. Secondly, planning procedures should recognise the need to retain general aviation aerodromes in view of their value to the local community for general transport services, for training and for leisure facilitites. Thirdly, the competitive disadvantages suffered by UK flying training organisations should be eased by removing the requirement for full rescue and firefighting services to be available at all training aerodromes. This is not a requirement in other EU countries or in America. Fourthly, it is essential that there is a national air traffic service that accords consideration to all airspace users. Fifthly, there should be a minimum distance between any new building development, particularly housing, and aerodrome boundaries. Sixthly, there should be positive provisions for general aviation facilities in county structure plans and in district local plans and airfields should be recognised in the planning process as open spaces that should be preserved rather than be seen as sites ripe for development.
Next, planning authorities should be given positive guidance on the measure and assessment of noise from general aviation operations and, to promote a quieter environment, the CAA could be more sympathetic in
1608
recognising the certification that other countries use, especially in the area of noise reducing propellers and silencers.
Finally, the CAA charter could perhaps be amended to extend its responsibilities beyond its existing regulatory powers to enable it to support general aviation in a more positive way, similar to the policy statement of the US Federal Aviation Administration.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, noble Lords will be grateful to my noble friend Lord Rotherwick for raising this important matter. I have to start by declaring an interest. I am the president of the Popular Flying Association which is the largest body within the recreational aviation sector. I am also president of the British Association of Aviation Consultants which has an interest in this matter.
As I say, the PFA is the largest body representing recreational aviators. We have some 8,500 members—a number which has been increasing steadily in recent years. We have delegated to us authority to issue permits to fly, as my noble friend correctly described them, for a number of smaller aircraft, including, I am proud to say, one built by my noble friend. I hope that it is as safe as he thinks it is and we believe it is.
The PFA of course has a major interface with the CAA. As my noble friend recognised, many of the issues that he touched upon in his speech are matters for the CAA, which I am sure my noble friend the Minister will correctly explain in a moment. The PFA has excellent relations with the CAA. Indeed, only recently I took what is now almost a routine delegation to see the new chairman of the CAA, Sir Malcolm Field. We were cordially received. More than that, we were constructively received, and had a most useful discussion with him and his senior officials.
But not all the problems confronting recreational aviation are matters for the CAA. At the top of the list, as my noble friend said, is the problem of airports and aerodromes for use by recreational aviators. There is a most serious shortage of such aerodromes. That is a matter for the Government and not for the CAA.
I recognise that an announcement made by Ministers not so long ago—I think that it was in the context of announcing the future of Farnborough—was a step in the right direction. It is too much to hope that any government would lay a duty upon local authorities to provide facilities for recreational and general aviation, but it is hoped that there could be more encouragement than there is at present. There are a number of local authorities around the country which are positively antagonistic to general aviation. A number of names spring to mind. Ipswich council, for example, just a few weeks ago closed Ipswich Aerodrome, which has been there for the benefit of general aviation and the people of Ipswich as a whole for very many years—since before the war, I believe. It decided suddenly a few weeks ago to close it. Closed it was on 31st December. It is to be hoped that the Ipswich authorities will agree to sell the aerodrome to interests which are, I know,

1609
interested in and willing to buy it and operate it as an aerodrome, although there has not been much sign of any enthusiasm for that step.
There are other aerodromes which have suffered equally from local planning difficulties. Crowfield in Suffolk was one not so long ago. I believe that has been partially although not wholly resolved. My noble friend referred to Burnaston near Derby which was closed a few years ago and is now completely lost to aviation interests.
One of the problems that has beset general aviation and the aerodromes that it needs has been the ill-informed lobbying that takes place. There is an organisation called the Airfields Environment Federation, which is nothing more than a political front. Unfortunately it received some public money. I hope and believe that that public money has now stopped. Those people were of no benefit to the local communities which they sought to serve, and they were seeking only, as far as I could judge, to further their own interests. Happily their influence is now waning, following the elimination of public money, as I now believe.
My noble friend referred to the current wholesale review of aviation regulations which is going on, I believe rightly, under the auspices of the Joint Aviation Authority, leading to what is called joint aviation regulations. My noble friend referred to the problems that are emerging from that forum with regard to the medical examinations to be required of private pilots. The fact of the matter is as I understand it, although this is not yet finalised, that increasingly frequent and demanding medical examinations will be called for for private pilots, without, we are assured—no one claims to the contrary—the slightest medical justification.
I do not know why it is that the British representative at the JAA negotiations agreed to those recommendations. I am told that when the French authorities saw what was happening they just said that they would not observe them. I hope that the CAA will be so guided. I am told that all the JAA regulations, as they are called, have to be approved by the European Commission. The Commissioner responsible for these matters is no less than Mr. Kinnock who now occupies the post that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, occupied with such distinction a few years ago. I hope and intend that we shall be able to make representations to Mr. Kinnock so that the European Commission does not approve those regulations, and that they do not then become imposed wholesale upon unwilling countries such as the UK, and that we shall be able to get our message across when we see him in due course. I should say that I have not yet told Mr. Kinnock that I want to see him. So if he is able to read this debate, I should not want him to think that I have any complaint about his attitude, because I have not yet approached him. I intend to do so in the near future.
Another matter causing some anxiety among the general aviation fraternity, and another matter for which the Government are indeed responsible, is the proposed privatisation of the National Air Traffic Service. I have
1610
no objection in principle to the privatisation of NATS or, for that matter, anything else, but we need to be assured that the interests of the general aviation community will not be trampled underfoot by that privatisation process when it comes forward in, it is hoped, the not too distant future.
Those are the principal issues that I wanted to put before noble Lords. My noble friend Lord Rotherwick raised a number of other detailed issues which I endorse. Recreational aviators are as entitled as anyone else to follow their leisure pursuits. Of course they, too, have a duty and obligation not to trample too roughly upon the community. Small aeroplanes are sometimes rather noisy, but I am glad to say that there have been many advances in recent years where the nuisance has been reduced or even eliminated. I hope that that can be reflected in a more flexible approach by the planning authorities when applications for the use of sites for those purposes go before them.
The House will be grateful to my noble friend for raising this matter. A number of issues have been mentioned. Many of them are indeed within the province of the CAA rather than my noble friend the Minister, but I, too, look forward to his reply.
7.58 p.m.
The Earl of Liverpool: My Lords, it is with great pleasure that I, too, express my gratitude to my noble friend Lord Rotherwick for giving us the opportunity to focus on matters affecting light aviation in this country. His Question refers to recreational flying, but as it may be difficult to see exactly where recreational flying ends and business aviation begins, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will forgive me if I allow my remarks to meander between the two.
I must declare an interest in that I, like my noble friend Lord Rotherwick, am a member of the Air Squadron which has a membership of 100 aviators. It will therefore come as no surprise to noble Lords to learn that I hold a private pilot's licence for fixed-wing and helicopter flying.
I have great admiration for my noble friend Lord Rotherwick because his enthusiasm for flying has led him to devote countless hours of his time to building his own aircraft. He should be very proud of his achievements. I have seen his Glassair II, and a very fine example it is. He has offered me a flight in it but so far I have not found time to take to the skies with him. However, I hope that this will soon be rectified.
My noble friends Lord Rotherwick and Lord Trefgarne have comprehensively covered issues concerning general aviation and I hope that my noble friend the Minister will forgive me if I indulge in an element of repetitiveness. General aviation performs a great service in this country. It is not, as is so often assumed, the rich playing with their toys. Many aspiring private pilots make huge sacrifices to learn to fly. Approximately 43 per cent. of all pilots entering commercial aviation were able to do so as a result of learning to fly at their local flying clubs. This training plays an important role and should be supported.

1611
Unlike America, we only permit flying training to take place at licensed airfields and too many of our airfields have recently been lost to development and have not been adequately replaced. It can be extremely difficult to redress this declining balance because local planning authorities are frequently swayed by a small minority who use noise pollution as an objection to establishing a new airfield.
It is all too often overlooked that airfields are essentially green, open spaces which live in harmony with the country landscape. If they become business parks or light industrial parks they create road traffic build-up and other pressures on the environment which may be more polluting or invasive than the transitory noise of an aircraft. An airfield can be returned to agricultural use fairly easily should the need arise, whereas that is all but impossible once development has taken place.
Business today needs good communications. Time is a valuable commodity, and light aircraft play an important part in maximising efficiency. Well-run airfields also provide local employment and promote a dynamic image to the regions they serve. But too many of our smaller airfields fail to promote such an image and their facilities are disappointing. That is because the high cost incurred in obtaining the licence for the airfield leaves little over to promote the image I am seeking. On the Continent, where an aerodrome's value to the community tends to be more readily understood, many facilities are provided by the local chamber of commerce. We could perhaps seek to emulate that in this country.
I turn briefly to the need for a helicopter landing site for London. It is true that Battersea exists, but it can take anything up to 40 minutes to get there from the City. The benefits of a heliport in close proximity to, or even in, the City of London would have an exponential effect on international business and inward investment in this country.
Returning to my earlier point about efficient use of time playing an ever-more important role in our lives today, a helicopter flight from Heathrow Airport to the City will take approximately seven minutes. If it then took another seven minutes to get to the office—making a total journey time of approximately 15 minutes—that would be a dynamic improvement on what is currently available at Battersea.
We should not overlook the fact that as the feelgood factor kicks in, the demand for landing slots at Battersea will exceed those available, thus making the need for a second heliport even greater. For those reasons I strongly supported the Thames Heliport plc application for a floating and moveable heliport on the River Thames and I was sorry that it was turned down on appeal. Will my noble friend the Minister tell the House what government thinking is on a second heliport for London?
To return to my earlier point about pilot training being permissible only at licensed airfields—a point made by both noble Lords who spoke before me—the cost associated with obtaining a licence for an
1612
aerodrome is onerous. Does my noble friend the Minister have plans to relax this rule? I look forward to his reply.
8.7 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, for initiating this interesting debate, and the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, and the noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, for their contributions.
I must declare an interest. I am the only Peer to participate in this debate who is not a pilot. I can claim to do this vicariously through my presidency of the British Airlines Pilots Association but I would not encourage anyone to put me at the controls of an aircraft on that basis. It would be different for political control.
General aviation is extremely important. This debate has ranged beyond recreational aviation, and it is just as well that it has. There are difficulties to which none of your Lordships who have spoken have alluded, and I will come to those in a moment. Unquestionably, general aviation and recreational aviation serve a very useful purpose—certainly as far as business and pilot training are concerned—and we must never lose sight of that fact.
Aviation policy should embrace these important components and I shall be interested to hear what the Minister says about that particular issue. Where does the issue fit in with the government's perspective about aviation? No doubt the Minister will also touch on the reasons for the relative decline in the number of licensed aerodromes as compared with the increase in general aviation which has taken place over the past decade or so. I accept that the impact of this on pilot training can be serious. On the other hand, other than in terms of criticising planning procedures, none of your Lordships referred to the environmental disadvantages which sometimes do accrue from general aviation and, in particular, training.
It was argued that, without undermining safety or requiring increased government funding, recreational aviation could be encouraged far more and that in turn this would enhance the number of military and civilian pilots, designers and engineers. That point was argued on behalf of general aviation to the Select Committee on Transport in the House of Commons a couple of years ago.
I am not convinced that the suggestions made in the name of deregulation are desirable. I do not wish to have any unnecessary red tape relating to this area or any other area, but the suggestions made in the course of this debate and in the submission of the General Aviation Awareness Council in December 1994 might well fit into this category. It has to prove its case; mere assertion is not sufficient. Nor am I convinced that the introduction of a further tier of licensing in the form of a restricted PPL which would allow pilots to operate in the local vicinity of their airfield would be justifiable. That was another point made by the General Aviation Awareness Council. I say that not withstanding the French experience of such restricted PPLs.
The point has been made that there ought to be less rigidity for medicals affecting the PPL. In the United States, FAA standards are designed to enable periods

1613
between medicals to be less frequent. So, notwithstanding that fact, is it right—and I ask the Minister this question, although I am not sure that he will be able to respond immediately—that no evidence in the air safety records in the US suggests that their safety record is less good than our own? Why do we not, like the FAA, use comparable cost-benefit analyses to secure a comparison? I am not committed to the view that we should do so, but I should like the Minister to tell me what the position is in that regard.
An interesting point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, concerning the powers of the JAA. The noble Lord may well know that those powers are under consideration, most particularly since the authority applied to establish quite substantial differences in its constitutional position. In relation to the issue affecting flight and duty time limitation, the JAA sought initially to assert—and the Commission has certainly taken steps to rebut that assertion—that it had the right to promulgate its regulations and expect the Commission simply to rubber-stamp them. I do not think that that is acceptable because I believe that the JAA would be arrogating to itself rights which it is not entitled to have under the treaty. I hope that the Minister will support that view.
On the question of cross-border flying requirements, as I understand it we still require general aviation aircraft, including microlight aeroplanes, to use either a Customs designated airfield or to register their movements with the police. It is legitimate to ask why such requirements are not extended to other forms of recreation; for example, motoring and yachting. What is the reason for that distinction?
In relation to the Government's proposal, which, it is to be hoped, has been abandoned or at least deferred for the foreseeable future and to which the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, referred—namely, to privatise NATS—can the Minister say whether the Royal Aero Club was consulted? Having responsibility for the oversight of sporting and recreational aviation activities in the UK, does the Minister know that it certainly should have been? Indeed, if it had been consulted, the Minister would have known of its hostility to the proposal. That seems to me to be a good example of where an organisation like the RAeC has reservations regarding a proposal which clearly could impinge on safety, on costs and on responsible freedom of movement in the air. It would be sad if the Government failed to consult the RAeC on the matter.
I turn now to the question of rescue and fire-fighting services. During the course of tonight's debate it has been suggested that such services are required on all aerodromes which are used for flying training and that that is unnecessary. It is said that it represents an unnecessary cost factor and the provision of resources in many instances, and should not, therefore, be mandatory at every aerodrome. Again, I am not convinced that such requirements should be abandoned—at least not without a most careful study. Like other Members of this House, I should like to hear from the Minister on that point.
1614
As regards the environment and planning, I believe that noble Lords who have spoken in support of general aviation should not underestimate the noise nuisance that is caused to residents who live near training aerodromes. I well remember going to Hamble in the late 1970s. Indeed, the course that is followed by such aircraft is unquestionably a disturbance. It has been argued that people should not buy houses situated close to existing aerodrome, and there is something in that view. The argument is that you do not have the right to complain if you come to the nuisance.
However, in other cases where it has not happened, it does not perform a service for general aviation to deny or deliberately underestimate what is a real problem for many people. In that connection, I gave the Minister notice of a question which I wish to raise; namely, how many private aerodromes used for general aviation are there in the United Kingdom? Further, how many of them refuse to recognise consultative committees? The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, has considerable knowledge about such committees, and, in the main, they are valuable. Nevertheless, they are seen by some rather narrow-minded aerodrome owners to represent a nuisance, in that they create an unnecessary constraint on the activities of the aerodrome. I believe that to be an unacceptable point of view, and, indeed, contrary to the interests of a functioning aerodrome.
I am sad that that point was not raised by the noble Lord who initiated the debate. Being perhaps a witness whose credibility is more acceptable, I beg of him and others to do so in the interests of ensuring that the pluses and minuses of the argument are put forward. However, having said that, we have had a useful debate and I have but one final point to make about Ipswich.
I have no personal knowledge of Ipswich, but the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, will realise that the Government have placed limitations on improvements and investments so far as concerns local authority airports. Coupled with the other restraints that are imposed on local authorities, I imagine that Ipswich airport was being run at a loss, or at least very close to the margin. Therefore, I do not wish to jump to a conclusion in that respect, which the noble Lord seemed to do. There may be very powerful reasons for the local authority taking the view that it did. However, as neither the noble Lord nor I have the facts within our grasp, I can say no more than that.
I thank the noble Lord once again. We have had a useful debate and it is right that the Government and the Opposition should take such points on board. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.
8.16 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I should like to begin by thanking my noble friend Lord Rotherwick for initiating this evening's debate on recreational flying. Indeed, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part. Certainly, a considerable amount of expertise on the subject has been displayed. For such a short debate a great many questions have been raised and I hope, therefore, that noble Lords will forgive me if I plough on and attempt to answer as many as I can.

1615
The House may wish to be aware that, as has already been said, I maintain a current private pilot's licence myself and have indeed been known to fly a paraglider.
The Government are very much aware of the valuable role which general aviation plays in the UK. I was pleased to see that this was a position that had universal support this evening. My noble friend Lord Trefgarne has already referred to the December 1994 Statement by the then Secretary of State for Transport, Dr. Mawhinney. The Statement said that,
"the Government recognise that General Aviation, and in particular business aviation, can bring economic and wider benefits to national competitiveness as well as to local and regional economies. The existence of aviation facilities can be a factor in business location, especially for international companies. The Government wish these benefits to be fully recognised in the planning system, alongside the environmental impacts".
I shall speak more about the planning system in a moment or two, but I believe that to be an important Statement.
Business and recreational aviation often exist at the same sites, but recreational aviation is of itself an important activity both in economic terms with aircraft manufacture sales, maintenance and flying training businesses, among others. Moreover, as we have heard, on many occasions it provides the first step on the ladder towards a professional flying career in the airline industry in which the UK is a world leader.
In terms of the planning and development of airports, it should be remembered that the Government are not responsible for the development of aerodromes. My noble friend Lord Liverpool raised the issue of heliports for London—of course, what applies to aerodromes applies equally to heliports. However, I would draw my noble friend's attention to the London Heliport Study which identified a number of technical issues which would need to be addressed at any future planning inquiry. It developed an effective method of measuring the effect of helicopter noise. The report did not make recommendations and it would be for a private developer to come forward with specific proposals.
My noble friend Lord Rotherwick rightly pointed to the pre-eminence of the plan-led system. Where my department can and does contribute to the process is by examining draft development plans to ensure that, where appropriate, provision is made for general aviation aerodromes. Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 on transport—with a section highlighting to planning authorities the economic benefits of general aviation and smaller airports—has already been mentioned. Other planning guidance, PPG24, also warns local authorities about inappropriate or noise sensitive development such as new housing in the vicinity of aerodromes. That again was a subject stressed this evening in your Lordships' House. However, in the field of planning, circumstances always vary from site to site and it is often not appropriate to be more prescriptive.
However, it is interesting to note that the number of licensed aerodromes has, I understand, remained close to its present total of just over 140 over the past few years. In addition, as we have heard, there are many unlicensed aerodromes as well as a number of
1616
hang-gliding, paragliding and balloon launch sites. Planning authorities need to be aware of both the benefits of general aviation and sensible ways of mitigating its impact—balancing the scales, as the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, stressed this evening. It is for that reason that I applaud the efforts made in this area by bodies such as the General Aviation Manufacturers and Traders Association, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association and the General Aviation Awareness Council. Those bodies raise the profile of the issue and of the debate.
It is perhaps not surprising that as larger airports attract more commercial traffic it is recreational aviation that may begin to suffer. To some extent this is an inevitable by-product of the success of liberalisation of aviation services and the greater use of regional airports for scheduled services. The Government do not direct that particular types of traffic or services should use particular aerodromes. We believe this is a matter for the owners and operators. I regret it is inevitable that recreational flyers will increasingly have to look to alternative sites because of this development of services at major airports.
The Government are also very much alive to the environmental impact of general aviation, particularly in terms of noise. This was one of the central issues which the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, rightly focused upon. The results of consultation exercises have drawn attention to the propensity for annoyance to be caused by light aircraft and in particular activities with a degree of repetition such as parachuting, aerobatics and circuit training. The latter is an essential part of the training process and underlies the need which most aerodrome operators fully appreciate to ensure that pilots are aware of prescribed circuit patterns and of areas where overflight must be avoided. The consultation identified areas where the present legislative framework could be improved. We proposed to introduce a new power of designation. This would require an aerodrome designated under it to prepare a noise amelioration scheme and agree it with a specified local authority. Of more importance perhaps for the majority of aerodromes, there would be new powers to help aerodromes to enforce their own voluntarily prepared mitigation schemes.
But within this framework I firmly believe that the right way to tackle these problems—which are fundamentally local problems—is at local level, by consultation and co-operation between the fliers and the overflown, often represented in residents' associations or environmental groups. My noble friend Lord Trefgarne mentioned the Airfields Environmental Federation. It is not for me to speak for that body but I have met it and at that meeting I was pleased to hear its assurance that it takes a positive attitude towards the debate on general aviation.
The issue of consultation committees was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. Clearly these are an important means by which this interface can occur. I think the specific question concerned how many aerodromes had refused to accept such committees. I am not sure that that is the right question to ask. A number are designated under Section 35 of the Civil Aviation

1617
Act, which requires them to set up adequate facilities for consultation. I understand that 50 are designated, but I can certainly let the noble Lord have a list if he wishes. The number that are not designated are the total minus 50. Some have only recently been designated and will set up their committees in due course.
My noble friend Lord Rotherwick asked about the silencing of light aircraft. Most light aircraft can meet the international standards without modification. However, as my noble friend mentioned, some states, such as Germany, have tighter standards which often involve the fitting of external silencers or specially designed propellers. There are drawbacks to these solutions as there is some evidence that they can have adverse effects on an aircraft's airworthiness, and safety must take priority.
I was also asked about the Civil Aviation Authority's charter. The duties of that body are set out in the Civil Aviation Act 1982 and other related statutes. Within these statutes no section of aviation receives the kind of positive support that my noble friend envisages for general aviation. That is quite right. That is the right approach for a safety regulator to take; that should be absolutely constrained within the law.
The possibility of the privatisation of NATS and other airspace issues were raised. We certainly agree that airspace planning and management are important issues which must be carried out even-handedly to ensure access to our airspace on a non-discriminatory basis. To this end the Directorate of Airspace Policy has been set up as an independent unit to act as the national airspace authority to plan and to promulgate all airspace arrangements; to advise on the environmental implications; to consider and when appropriate approve proposals for change from NATS or any other user or ATC organisation. The DAP is run jointly by the CAA and the MoD under directions from the two Secretaries of State and would remain in the public sector after the privatisation of NATS. GA is appropriately represented in the airspace debate and particularly on the principal consultative body, the National Air Traffic Management Advisory Committee chaired by the director.
The deregulation of aerodromes was mentioned by a number of noble Lords. This has been the subject of detailed industry consultation by the CAA. A report regarding that consultation will be sent to all respondents by the CAA soon. Briefly, the exercise did not find clear support for the removal of rescue and firefighting services, but indicated a need for clarification and simplification of requirements at the smaller licensed aerodromes. The CAA will invite industry representatives to begin discussions on the findings during February.
As part of its review the CAA investigated arrangements in Europe. While flying training at unlicensed aerodromes is permitted, it often still takes place at licensed sites within Europe either by choice or by default. Where it takes place at unlicensed aerodromes, there is usually some kind of local firefighting provision.
JAA medical rules formed an important part of the debate this evening. I can confirm that the new JAA medical requirements will result in a small increase in the number of medical examinations a UK private pilot's licence holder will have to undergo during the course of
1618
his flying career. The frequency of medical examinations increases with age to reflect the increase in medical risk that comes with advancing age. The main increase in the number of medical examinations required under JAR-FCL comes from the lowering of the threshold between annual and six-monthly examinations from the age of 70 to 65. While a private pilot will require 36 medical examinations between the ages of 30 and 70 under JAR-FCL compared with 28 under current rules, the bulk of the increase comes after the age of 65. That is an important point to bear in mind when making a comparison. Between the ages of 20 and 65 the number of medical examinations required for a private pilot will only increase from 25 to 28, so the difference is much smaller there.
The JAA medical requirements were agreed only after careful consideration by the medical experts of member states. In relation to electrocardiographs, urinalysis and pulmonary function the CAA believes that there could be scope for a relaxation of the requirements for private pilots. It is in the process of compiling further evidence on this issue and hopes to present it to the JAA next year. That may be beyond the scope of this debate.
The issue of training in group owned aircraft was another significant issue which was raised. It is somewhat involved. There are a few minutes in hand. Perhaps the House will permit me to give a reasonably detailed answer to my noble friend.
It is a requirement of the Air Navigation Order that aircraft flown for valuable consideration should have a certificate of airworthiness in the aerial work or transport category. However, provisions were introduced in the late 1980s to allow group ownership of private category C of A aircraft and of aircraft with a permit to fly. Under those provisions, group owners of an aircraft are allowed to contribute to the annual costs of any flying carried out provided that these financial contributions are the only form of valuable consideration in respect of the flight. Flying training can be undertaken in any class of group owned aircraft provided that the instructor does not receive payment. If instruction is given, the instruction may generally take place only in aerial work or transport category certificated aircraft. Owners have the option of upgrading a private category C of A to a higher class if they so wish.
The situation for individually owned aircraft is different. A general exemption exists to permit the sole owners of aircraft with a private category C of A to pay an examiner for a flying test. In addition, the CAA concluded an agreement with the PFA in May 1996 on the introduction of a pilotage coaching scheme. The scheme's objective is to improve safety standards among PFA members operating light fixed wing aircraft by allowing remunerated coaching to take place. It is restricted to aircraft that are in the sole ownership of the pilot receiving the coaching and cannot be conducted in aircraft that are group owned. That applies to aircraft operating with a permit to fly and is a concession to allow pilots to obtain experience of such aircraft while under professional supervision.
The CAA recognises that new members of a group owning permit to fly or private category aircraft may need to undertake some conversion training for that aircraft.

1619
This may be carried out by another member of the group or a qualified flying instructor although this activity is not flying instruction as defined in the relevant legislation. However, recognising the desirability of this process on safety grounds, the authority is actively seeking a means of permitting this to be carried out in all group owned aircraft including those with a permit to fly. I have to stress that any change in the requirements would not cover training for the grant or renewal of a licence or rating.
The Government recognise the value of recreational aviation and the need for suitable facilities. We also consider that environmental consequences are best resolved at local level. Although the CAA is responsible for the regulation of general aviation, it does so in co-operation with the sport's governing bodies. This keeps the regulatory burden to the minimum while at the same time ensuring that an acceptable level of safety is maintained.
The CAA is in the process of instituting a forum in which representative organisations can discuss matters of interest to the GA community. This group, which will be known as the GA Consultative Committee, will assist the CAA in the development of technical and operational policy with the aim of both improving safety standards and encouraging the development of general aviation.
This will help to build on the existing system whereby a number of leisure flying activities are now regulated jointly by the CAA and the relevant governing body. For example, the Popular Flying Association, of which the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, is president, has a high level of responsibility for standards of amateur built aircraft and gives recommendations to the CAA on the issue and renewal of permits to fly for such aircraft. The British Gliding Association has overseen conventional gliding activity for over 60 years through its own organisations and member clubs and its model is now being followed by the British Hang Gliding and Paragliding Association. The British Microlight Aircraft Association, the British Parachute Association and the British Balloon and Airship Club all also exercise a degree of regulation over their sport.
We value the important work of these bodies and their contribution in co-operation with the CAA to the attainment of the higher standards of safety in aviation.
I thank my noble friend for raising this important issue of general aviation this evening.

Firearms (Amendment) Bill
8.35 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
[Amendment No. 32 not moved.]
Clause 22 [Duration of licence and renewal]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 10, line 23, at end insert—
("(2A) An order under subsection (2) above reducing the period for which a licence may be granted or renewed shall only apply to licences granted or renewed after the date on which the order comes into force.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 33 tabled in my name specifically deals with the recommendation made in the Tenth Report of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation (1996-97 Session, HL Paper 26). It concerns the power of the Secretary of State in Clause 22(2) of the Bill to alter by order the length of pistol club licences from the six years decreed in subsection (1). Where this period is shortened, then, in accordance with the Select Committee's recommendation, those licences already in force should not be affected. Only new or renewed licences issued after the order comes into force would be affected. That is the purpose of the amendment and I commend it to the House. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 24 [Revocation of licence]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 11, line 6, at end insert—
("(ab) require the person or persons notified to surrender forthwith into the custody of the chief officer of police for the area in which the premises are situated any small-calibre pistols stored on the club premises;").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 34, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 35 and 36. The amendments address a gap in the Bill as to the arrangements for small calibre pistols which are kept at licensed pistol clubs.
Clause 9 of the Bill requires that any firearm certificate for a small calibre pistol shall, if the pistol is for target shooting, require that it be kept at a licensed pistol club specified in the certificate. An owner who breaches this condition of his firearm certificate commits an offence.
The pistol club licence will be granted by the Secretary of State and Clause 24 of the Bill will allow the Secretary of State to revoke the licence if he thinks fit. The question therefore arises of what should happen to the pistols if a club licence is revoked.
The amendments will allow the police to serve a notice on the responsible officer of the revoked club requiring him to deliver up any small calibre pistols held on the club premises.
The Government anticipate that in most such cases, unusual though we expect them to be, the police would visit the club to take the pistols away. The notice gives them the authority to do that. Alternatively, there is provision in Clause 10(3)(e) of the Bill for the chief officer to grant a permit allowing the responsible officer to arrange carriage of the pistols to the police by a third party.
The other question is what should happen when an owner, lawfully and properly, has been keeping his small calibre pistol at a club whose licence, for reasons which have nothing to do with him, is revoked. The amendments mean that the police would write to all the people who have firearm certificates or permits for small calibre pistols which are kept at the club requiring them to deliver up the certificate or permit within 21 days for amendment.
The documents will need to be amended to delete the club which has been revoked and to show that the pistol is to be kept at the member's new club if he has found one or by the police if he has not. The amendments also mean

1621
that the owner will not commit an offence by virtue of keeping his gun with the police under these circumstances. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 35 and 36:
Page 11, line 9, at end insert—
("(2A) Where the licence of a licensed pistol club is revoked by the Secretary of State under subsection (2) above, notice shall be given to each member of the club holding a firearm certificate or visitor's firearm permit—

(a) informing the member that the licence has been revoked; and

(b) if the chief officer thinks fit. requiring the member to deliver up his firearm certificate or, as the case may be, his visitor's firearm permit within 21 days of the date of the notice, for the purpose of amending it.

(2B) A notice under subsection (2A) above to a member of a pistol club whose licence has been revoked shall be given by the chief officer of police who granted the certificate or permit to that member.
(2C) The holder of a firearm certificate or a visitor's firearm permit granted in respect of a small-calibre pistol which is required by the certificate or permit to be kept at the licensed premises of a licensed pistol club shall not be guilty of any offence under this Act or the 1968 Act by reason only that the pistol continues to be kept at those premises after the licence has been revoked and before the pistol is surrendered in accordance with subsection (2)(ab) above.").
Page 11, line 10, after ("(2)") insert ("or (2A)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 25 [Exemptions from section 1 of the 1968 Act for officers etc. of licensed pistol clubs]:
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 11, line 22, at end insert—
("(3) A member of a licensed pistol club approved by the Secretary of State may, without holding a firearm certificate, use under the supervision of an officer of the club, for a period not exceeding 90 consecutive days, a small-calibre pistol and ammunition when engaged as a member of the club in, or in connection with, target shooting.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment returns to the important issue of newcomers who are interested in taking up pistol shooting. As drafted the Bill requires an individual to obtain a firearm certificate before that person has had an opportunity to try out the sport in a licensed club. That reverses the precedent in operation for rifle clubs since 1920 and will discourage many people from taking an interest in pistol shooting. The amendment enables a newcomer to be introduced to the .22 pistol before he or she finally decides to take up the sport and apply for a firearm certificate.
When I moved a similar, but much less tightly drafted, amendment in Committee, the Minister, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, said that the Government could not accept it, as it would,
"allow a person to join a club and shoot with pistols indefinitely without ever being vetted".—[Official Report, 21/1/97; col. 603.]
The Minister had a perfectly valid point.
This revised amendment closes that loophole, as it restricts an individual to shooting at a club without a certificate for a period of approximately three months (90 days). An individual will not be able to shoot "indefinitely" as, after that three months' period, he or she would be required to apply for a certificate if he or she wished to continue.
The other objection to the amendment has been the perceived threat to public safety. In Committee, the Minister said at col. 603 that,
"we do not believe that this is an area where public safety should be compromised".
Yet a newcomer to a club who wishes to try out a pistol will be constantly supervised on the range by a club official. My amendment specifically provides that that should be so. It will not allow a newcomer to possess a pistol outside the club under any circumstances.
Throughout the debates on the Bill the Government have given a firm commitment to .22 pistol shooting. Indeed, in Committee the Minister said:
"The shooting of .22 pistols has had an honourable place in Olympic competition since 1896. Tens of thousands of law-abiding citizens of this country"—
a point so well made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart—
"enjoy this activity perfectly legitimately".—[Official Report, 16/1/97; col. 307.]
If the Government can make this small but important concession, it would go a long way to encourage people to carry on that honourable tradition. I beg to move.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Mackay of Drumadoon): My Lords, I make it clear at the outset that since this issue was debated in Committee the Government have given further consideration to the matter in the light of what was said on that occasion. We have a certain degree of sympathy with what lies behind the amendment. However, we remain of the view that, notwithstanding the narrowing of the amendment, there are some difficulties with it.
Our concern remains that there may be an argument that it might permit an unsuitable and potentially dangerous individual to join a club without having been vetted for a firearm certificate by the police, and to do so in order to gain access to lethal club weapons, perhaps with a view to endeavouring to remove them from the premises.
On the other hand, as I have hinted, we see the force of the view that it is important to allow new shooters to enter the sport and that the Bill as it presently stands may make it somewhat difficult for them to do so. They would, at present at least, be restricted to the low-power air or carbon dioxide powered guns, as discussed on previous occasions.
It also appears that it may be possible to strengthen the procedures for the granting of firearm certificates by introducing some period of use of a gun before a firearm certificate is finally granted. For those reasons we have reached the view that it may be possible to accept an amendment along the general lines suggested by the noble Lord but only if certain changes are made to it. In particular, we would wish to pay attention and give consideration to the role of the police in supervising and being involved in the probationary use for a period of three months or whatever period is specified.

1623
Accordingly, on the understanding that we will give very careful consideration to whether it is possible to bring forward a Government amendment to meet that concern, I hope that it may be possible for the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment. I hope that he will recognise that we are allied to the concern that lies behind it. However, we are not satisfied that the amendment is the correct way forward.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his partial sympathy for the amendment. I appreciate that the Government wish to tidy it up. There is not a great deal of time between now and Third Reading. I understood the noble and learned Lord to say that the Government were considering bringing forward an amendment. I wonder whether he can indicate that there is a very good chance—as opposed to a slight chance—of the Government coming forward with an amendment of their own. It would be very useful to know that at this stage.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I have been in the business of law long enough to know that the assessment of percentages of risks is a fairly hazardous exercise. I can give an unequivocal assurance to the noble Lord that the Government will consider very carefully whether a suitable amendment can be framed. We recognise without qualification the concern that lies behind the amendment. Beyond that it would not be prudent for me to go. However, I give the noble Lord the assurance that, notwithstanding the shortage of time before Third Reading, the matter will be looked at anxiously. I can indicate that that process is already well under way.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I can understand why the Minister has to hedge his bets. However, with the assurance that the matter will be "looked at anxiously", which is a good sign, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 28 [Power of entry and inspection]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 12, line 43, at end insert—
("(1A) The power of a constable or civilian officer under subsection (1) above to inspect anything on licensed premises includes power to require any information which is kept by means of a computer and is accessible from the premises to be made available for inspection in a visible and legible form.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 64 to 66, 72, and 82 to 84. My noble friend Lord Shrewsbury raised the question of dealers being able to keep registers in a computer form during Committee stage. I undertook then to consider the issue further. These amendments would now bring into effect one of the recommendations made by the Firearms Consultative Committee in its second annual report (1990-91) and endorsed in its sixth annual
1624
report (1994-95). Amendments Nos. 82, 83 and 84 will enable firearms dealers to keep their compulsory register of transactions on computer if they wish. Consequential amendments will be needed to the Firearms Rules which lay down what information should be entered into a register and how it should be laid out. We shall consider what corresponding changes will be necessary to this secondary legislation as soon as possible.
The other amendments in my name, Amendments Nos. 38, 64, 65, 66 and 72, allow a police constable or civilian officer to require that the records held on computer be provided in a legible form so that a printed version may be taken away. This makes clear that the power in Section 4 of the 1968 Act, as amended by Clause 39, enables a constable or civilian officer to search with warrant the computer records as well as those kept in more traditional forms. They also clarify that anything may be seized by the police if they believe it is connected with the offence. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 30 [General prohibition of expanding ammunition etc.]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 39:
Transpose Clause 30 to before Clause 8.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 4. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 31 [Expanding ammunition etc.: supplementary]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 13, line 20, leave out subsections (2) and (3).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 40, 41 and 42 extend the scope of the present exemptions listed in Clause 31. In addition to the purposes already listed, expanding ammunition needs to be used in the other limited circumstances set out in this amendment: the killing of animals which pose a threat to human safety, such as an escaped bull or circus animal, and other animals such as hares or foxes which are not specifically killed in connection with the management of an estate, which is already covered by Clause 26(4)(b). In all these cases the chief officer of police will have to be satisfied about a certificate holder's intended use of expanding ammunition and the necessary conditions will be set out on the certificate. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 41 and 42:
Page 13, line 29, leave out from beginning to end of line 11 on page 14 and insert—
("(a) after the word "acquire" in the second place it appears, there shall be inserted the words ", or to sell or transfer"; and
(b) for paragraphs (a) and (b) there shall be substituted the following paragraphs—
"(a) he is authorised by a firearm certificate or visitor's firearm permit to possess, or purchase or acquire, any expanding ammunition; and

1625
(b) the certificate or permit is subject to a condition restricting the use of any expanding ammunition in connection with any one or more of the following, namely—

(i) the lawful shooting of deer;

(ii) the shooting of vermin or, in the course of carrying on activities in connection with the management of any estate, other wildlife;

(iii) the humane killing of animals;

(iv) the shooting of animals for the protection of other animals or humans.").

Page 14, line 11, at end insert—
("(7) For subsection (7) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
"(7) The authority of the Secretary of State shall not be required by virtue of subsection (1A) of section 5 of this Act for a person carrying on the business of a firearms dealer, or any servant of his, to have in his possession, or to purchase, acquire, sell or transfer, any expanding ammunition or the missile for any such ammunition in the ordinary course of that business.".").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 43:
Transpose Clause 31 to before Clause 8.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have spoken to Amendment No. 43 together with Amendment No. 4. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 32 [Transfers of firearms to be in person]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 14, line 13, leave out ("the United Kingdom") and insert ("Great Britain").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 44 I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 49 and 51 to 57.
The purpose of these linked amendments is to deal with the transfer of firearms outside the country. Under Clauses 33 to 35 certificate holders will be required to notify the chief officer of police when they transfer—that is, sell, let or hire, lend or give—or dispose of their firearm or shotgun or dispose of ammunition. The position of those certificate holders who transfer or dispose of their firearms, shotguns or ammunition outside the country is unclear. These amendments bring the position of such transferrals and disposals into the ambit of the Bill's provisions and will require the certificate holder to notify the chief officer in all cases, whether in Great Britain or elsewhere. There are a number of consequential minor amendments.
I ask the House to accept these amendments, which will clarify the position of overseas transactions involving British firearm certificate holders. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cottesloe Lord Cottesloe moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 14, line 14, leave out ("or ammunition").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 45, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 46, 47 and 48. First, I wish to make an apology and a belated declaration of interest which I omitted to make on an earlier occasion: I am President of the Bucks
1626
County Rifle Association, a life member of the National Rifle Association and a holder of both a firearm certificate and a shotgun licence.
I refer to Clause 32 and the four consecutive amendments tabled in my name. I believe that when the Home Secretary mentioned in another place on 16th October that the Bill would provide for restrictions on the movement of firearms by mail order no reference was made to ammunition. Ammunition is in fact one of the prohibited items which cannot be sent through the Royal Mail postal system. Existing legislation exempts common carriers from the requirement to hold a firearm certificate in order to carry ammunition. Much of the .22 rimfire ammunition used in the United Kingdom is distributed to rifle clubs across the country by parcel carriers.
As I understand it, Clause 32 requires that the transfer not only of firearms but also of ammunition to a certificate holder must be in person.
Distribution of ammunition by carriers is a proven form of recorded delivery. A prohibition on the customary method of distributing .22 rimfire ammunition will cause problems for many civilian rifle clubs which have ranges remote from registered dealers. These clubs have an historic and honourable role in supporting the defence of the realm. They provide facilities for cadets and military and police usage. A likely consequence of the restriction on delivery by carrier will be that these clubs will have to buy in and hold larger stocks of ammunition if journeys of some distance to collect it are made necessary by including the reference to ammunition in Clause 32. In itself, that may be less desirable for reasons of security and public safety than the controlled movement of ammunition by carriers who face financial penalty if they do not deliver properly the goods entrusted to them.
I have been in correspondence and conversation with the noble Baroness. I ask her to look again at the deletion of any reference to ammunition in this clause as it seems to me that its inclusion in this restriction could well have the opposite effect to that intended and do more harm than good. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I will address the four amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe.
The proposals currently in Clause 32 would require a person transferring a firearm or ammunition to another person who is not a registered firearm dealer or otherwise entitled to receive a firearm or ammunition without being a firearm certificate holder to do so in person rather than through the post or otherwise indirectly. These arrangements would ensure that only legitimate certificate holders, by virtue of an appropriate condition on their certificate, would be able to get hold of such materials.
The amendments tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, would remove ammunition from that requirement. This would give rise to concern that some people, without appropriate credentials, would be able to deceive others into providing them with ammunition. The potential danger is that it would be

1627
possible for large stocks of ammunition to be acquired in this way. We believe that that cannot be right. Ammunition in the wrong hands poses a serious threat to the public and I therefore hope that the amendments will not be pressed.
I say two things in addition. I thank the noble Lord for discussing this with me personally. I promise him that we shall continue to look at this issue and to read the particular concerns of the noble Lord—of course without prejudice to the outcome.
Lord Cottesloe: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply, in the light of which I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 46 to 48 not moved.]
Clause 33 [Notification to chief officer of police of transfers involving firearms]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 14, line 31, leave out ("the United Kingdom") and insert ("Great Britain").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 44. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 14, line 32, after ("1") insert ("of the 1968 Act").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 4. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 34 [Notification of de-activation, destruction or loss of firearms or ammunition]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 51 to 55:
Page 15, line 3, after ("Where") insert (", in Great Britain,").
Page 15, line 4, leave out ("holder of the certificate") and insert ("certificate holder who was last in possession of the firearm before that event").
Page 15, line 7, after ("Where") insert (", in Great Britain,").
Page 15, line 9, leave out ("holder of the certificate") and insert ("certificate holder who was last in possession of the ammunition before that event").
Page 15, line 19, after ("section") insert ("and section {Notification of events taking place outside Great Britain involving firearms etc.) below").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 51 to 55 were spoken to with Amendment No. 44. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 56:
After Clause 34, insert the following new clause—
NOTIFICATION OF EVENTS TAKING PLACE OUTSIDE GREAT BRITAIN INVOLVING FIREARMS ETC
("—(1) Where, outside Great Britain, any firearm or shot gun is sold or otherwise disposed of by a transferor whose acquisition or purchase of the firearm or shot gun was authorised by a firearm certificate or shot gun certificate, the transferor shall within 14 days of the disposal give notice of it to the chief officer of police who granted his certificate.
1628
(2) A failure to give a notice required by subsection (1) above shall be an offence.
(3) Where outside Great Britain—

(a) a firearm to which a firearm or shot gun certificate relates is de-activated, destroyed or lost (whether by theft or otherwise); or

(b) any ammunition to which section 1 of the 1968 Act applies, and a firearm certificate relates, is lost (whether by theft or otherwise),

the certificate holder who was last in possession of the firearm or ammunition before that event shall within 14 days of the event give notice of it to the chief officer of police who issued the certificate.
(4) A failure without reasonable excuse to give a notice required by subsection (3) above shall be an offence.
(5) A notice required by this section shall—

(a) contain a description of the firearm or ammunition in question (including any identification number); and

(b) state the nature of the event and, in the case of a disposal, the name and address of the other party.

(6) A notice required by this section shall be sent within fourteen days of the disposal or other event—

(a) if it is sent from a place in the United Kingdom, by registered post or by the recorded delivery service; and

(b) in any other case, in such manner as most closely corresponds to the use of registered post or the recorded delivery service.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 44. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 35 [Penalty for offences under sections 32, 33 and 34]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 15, line 23, leave out ("33 or 34") and insert ("33, 34 or (Notification of events taking place outside Great Britain involving firearms etc.)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 44. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 36 [Applications for certificates and referees]:
Lord Burton Lord Burton moved Amendment No. 58:
Before Clause 36, insert the following new clause—
ADMINISTRATION OF FIREARMS LICENSING IN SCOTLAND: ANNUAL REPORT
(" Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary for Scotland shall make an annual report to the Secretary of State on the administration of firearms licensing in Scotland, copies of which shall be laid before Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 58, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 59. The proposals which I put before your Lordships today should be a vital part of any firearms legislation. There seems to me to be an important omission from the Bill. No doubt I shall be told that we do not normally interfere with police administration, but I hope to explain to you why it is vital that something along the lines of these amendments should be included in this Bill.
Your Lordships will remember that on Second Reading it was made clear that neither Hungerford nor Dunblane would have occurred if the police had had proper procedures in place and they had been fully implemented. One would have expected action to be taken in this regard following Hungerford. However, if

1629
one looks at the 1993 report of the Inspectorate of Constabulary for England and Wales on the administration of the firearms licensing system, which was examined by Lord Cullen, it will be seen that there was scarcely one constabulary in England and Wales with proper procedures.
That report was a production supplied to Lord Cullen and listed in Appendix 5. It was taken into consideration by Lord Cullen. The draft as at February 1996 of the thematic report for Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary for Scotland on the subject of the administration of the firearms licensing system in 1995 was referred to in evidence. Lord Cullen was also provided with a later draft of April 1996. He states,
"1 was informed that the decision whether or not the report should eventually be published, would be taken when I had completed my deliberations".
We were told in Committee that the decision was that of Lord Cullen. However, when one reads it, one finds that the decision was not entirely his.
Following the Dunblane disaster, the three clubs with which Hamilton was involved had all their documents seized by the police for the Cullen Inquiry and for the fatal accident inquiry which followed. One can imagine the difficulty that the secretaries faced in administering the clubs without those papers. Indeed, if this Bill had been enacted, the three secretaries concerned could have been liable for either a six-month gaol term or a substantial fine. The clubs could have been closed down.
In spite of pressure from a Scottish lawyer and inquiries from my noble friend Lady Blatch, it was only on the first afternoon of our Committee stage that the Clyde Valley club eventually managed to get its papers returned. The other two clubs have still not received their papers. The Clyde Valley papers confirm that Hamilton was not a member of that club when he applied for his full-bore certificate. That does not appear to have been checked by the police. What remains in the papers belonging to the other two clubs, we do not know. The police seem unwilling to return the papers to the clubs, even though we have been told that the Procurator Fiscal instructed the police to do so.
On Second Reading we were told that there was no cover-up. That is probably correct in regard to the Home Office. But beyond the jurisdiction of my noble friend Lady Blatch there seems undoubtedly to have been a cover-up in Scotland. If not, why were the club's documents returned so long after they were required for the fatal accident inquiry? Why can we not see the two draft thematic reports, which, even if they are now out of date, would certainly have been relevant to the disaster?
My noble friend will no doubt say that there has been no cover up. But if the police have made a successful cover up, how are my noble friends on the Front Bench to know? That is probably what has happened. Your Lordships will therefore see why I feel it necessary to write into the Bill that the police must provide reports on the firearms jurisdiction from time to time which will be available for public scrutiny to ensure that proper procedures are being operated in all constabularies and, indeed, that the firearms legislation is being operated in a proper and realistic manner.
I do not know and have never met ex-deputy Chief Constable Douglas McMurdo, who resigned. I am told by people who knew him that he was a kindly man; he is now a man broken in spirit. I was told that he feels severe hurt that he has been made a scapegoat for matters for which others may well have been responsible. I feel it is vital therefore that there is proper control if we are to avoid another disaster. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, there needs to be better provision for co-operation between individual chief constables in different parts of the country. The chief constables appear to have been heads of their little departments and not interested in what goes on outside. In principle, Amendment No. 58 deserves support to make for greater co-operation, even to the extent of the cross-borders between England and Wales. Better co-operation in covering firearms legislation and anything to do with firearms might be a great improvement.
The Earl of Stockton: My Lords, while I disagree with my noble kinsman Lord Burton on the question of the cover-up, he put his finger on one specific point.
The degree of co-operation on the issue of firearms certificates between different police authorities varies enormously. I know of two cases where a certificate was refused with good grounds by one police authority. The individual moved to another area and was issued with the shotgun certificate for which he had previously applied.
Whether through this mechanism of the chief inspectorate or through another mechanism, we need a proper national register of all certificates that are issued. We need also to ensure that individuals are treated fairly and equitably by all chief constables and authorities.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, these amendments would require Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary for Scotland, and the Inspectorate for England and Wales to prepare annual reports. At present, in both Scotland and England, the inspectorate conducts a detailed inspection of each police force every three to four years—in Scotland the frequency is every three years and in England and Wales somewhere between three and four years.
All such inspections include the firearms licensing systems operated by individual forces. The report and recommendations arising from that inspection are published. One year later a performance review is undertaken to check on the individual force's progress in implementing the agreed recommendation. That too is published. In addition, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Home Secretary in England, can require the Chief Inspector of Constabulary to undertake specific thematic inspections, looking at subjects or themes in a sample of forces across the country rather than in one force in isolation.
Indeed, the Inspectorate of Constabulary for Scotland was in the course of producing such a thematic report about the administration of the firearms licensing system

1631
in Scotland when the tragic events at Dunblane occurred. In the light of what happened at Dunblane, that report was never completed. However, as I myself made clear to the House on a previous occasion, a draft version of that report was made available by the Crown to Lord Cullen to help him in the conduct of his inquiry. As I also made clear, that incomplete draft was overtaken by the holding of the inquiry, by the publication of Lord Cullen's report and the publication of the Government's response to that report, and by the measures introduced in the Bill which is currently before your Lordships' House.
All noble Lords present will be aware that Lord Cullen's report examined in considerable detail Thomas Hamilton's possession of firearms and the system of certification which operated in the central Scotland police area at the relevant time. That is set out in Chapter 6 of Lord Cullen's report, and I would invite noble Lords to study it further to refresh their memories of what it said.
The Government fully accept the importance of co-operation between chief constables in charge of different police forces. That happens regularly. In England there is an Association of Chief Police Officers and in Scotland there is an Association of Chief Police Officers. They meet together, they have committees which address issues of mutual interest and the two associations themselves meet from time to time. So that co-operation already exists. The point raised by my noble friend Lord Stockton is a valid one. It is important to have co-operation between police forces. That, I believe, goes on. I should have thought that all sides of the House would accept that, in the light of the Dunblane tragedy, police forces will ensure that it continues to carry on in as acceptable and full a manner as possible.
It is therefore against that background that the Government see no case for accepting the proposals set out in the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Burton that there should be an annual report each year for each force. That would involve a great deal of time and effort on the part of the inspectorate and those police officers seconded to it. It would also involve a great deal of time and effort on the part of the police officers involved in the individual forces. There is always a limit on the value to be gained from repeated inspections. People require to be allowed to get on with their work in the knowledge that inspections happen from time to time. They occur approximately every three years. In addition, there is an availability of thematic inspections as well. Therefore, I hope that all sides of the House will be satisfied that the amendments are not required.
Having said that, it is unfortunately necessary for me to refute once again the very serious allegations made by my noble friend Lord Burton. As I recall, when he made such allegations before, my noble friend Lady Blatch indicated in unequivocal terms that if they were to be insisted upon they ought to specify in what respects there had been a cover-up. Such an allegation is one which inevitably is directed at myself as the Lord Advocate who was responsible for instructing the
1632
inquiry which was necessary following upon the mass murder which Thomas Hamilton committed. That inquiry was carried out by the Procurator Fiscal at Stirling under the direct and daily supervision of one of the most experienced prosecutors in recent years in Scotland, the then Iain Bonomy, now Lord Bonomy.
I was kept in regular contact with what was going on. More importantly, that investigation took place in close consultation with Lord Cullen. Every document that was thought to be of any relevance was placed before Lord Cullen and it was discussed with him whether it was in the public interest that it should be made public. That applies to the partially completed report by Her Majesty's Inspector for Constabulary in Scotland.
Complaints are advanced on behalf of certain clubs that documents were seized from them. I say with the greatest respect to my noble friend Lord Burton that I would have thought that any gun club that had any actual or suspected connection with Thomas Hamilton would have voluntarily handed over its entire records without question or complaint. It may be unfortunate that they were kept longer than a particular club would have wished, but it is important to bear in mind that the police were not merely preparing for an inquiry; they were investigating a hideous mass murder. I seriously invite the noble Lord to put up or shut up unless he is prepared to come forward with detailed allegations and evidence to support these unfortunate allegations which he has made on more than one occasion.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Burton: My Lords, the reports to which my noble and learned friend has just referred have not been made available or acted on. The widespread differences in the administration of matters concerning firearms among the different police forces is well known. As I said, as regards Hungerford and until 1993, in England and Wales most forces had no proper procedures.
I do not know how much more evidence my noble and learned friend wants. We have now asked for four documents and we have not been given a particular reason why they have not been provided. We have not been allowed to see these documents. Similar documents for England were produced, but they have not been produced for Scotland: in fact, they have been refused.
As regards my noble and learned friend's remarks about clubs handing over papers, they were delighted to do so. However, they were seized and the clubs were not asked whether they wished to hand them over. The clubs would have liked to have had copies so that they could continue their administration, but they were not allowed to have them. It may be that that is as a result of the legal situation. I do not know. The clubs had no records for nearly a year. This Bill insists that the clubs administer themselves properly. If that is the case, and after this Bill has gone through, the club secretaries could be in serious trouble and quite rightly so. But they had no option because they have not been allowed to have their papers back.
Two of the clubs have still not had their papers returned. It is months since the inquiry took place. Why have their documents been withheld? The clubs had to

1633
employ a lawyer before the police returned the Clyde Valley papers. They showed that Hamilton was not a member of that club at the time he applied for his firearm certificate. I do not want to pursue this matter at the moment, but I hope that I have made the point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 59 not moved.]
Clause 36 [Applications for certificates and referees]:
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh Lord Clifford of Chudleigh moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 16, line 5. at end insert—
("(2A) For the purposes of this section referees shall be persons who—

(a) have known the applicant for a minimum of three years;

(b) are qualified members of a recognised profession;

(c) are not Members of Parliament or candidates seeking election or re-election to parish, district, regional, national or European office; and

(d) have not been convicted of any criminal offence.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I ask noble Lords to rectify one small error. At the end of line 2 after the word "persons" should be added the words "of repute". Clause 36 in Part III of the Bill rightly recognises the importance of the chief officer of police as the primary referee for a firearm certificate. That is the only position recognised by the current drafting of this part of the Firearms (Amendment) Bill.
In legislation so important to the safety of society one should regularise the referees who may sign the applicants' photographs and countersign their certificates. It is important in this House, and at this stage, that we make sure that those who countersign the applications are people who are not in a position where any amount of pressure can be applied to them. Members of another place, and those who aspire to become Members of that place, should be excluded from signing. They should not be placed in such an invidious position—in a position that is breathlessly close to the category investigated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan.
Perhaps I may give a resume of what happened in 1996. I refer to the Fifth Report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, on the possession of handguns. Mr. Walter Sweeney, a Member of another place, said:
"I think professional people who are asked to sign as signatories are often placed on the spot and feel embarrassed, particularly as you may have acted for someone for some time as a lawyer and then someone more or less demands as of right that you sign their certificate".
Your Lordships may be interested to learn that in the same report Chief Superintendent Mackenzie expressed concern that that was the case, and another Member of Parliament, Mr. Peter Butler, returned to the subject and elicited Sir Jerry Wiggin's comment:
1634
"we do all sign these things from time to time and I think it is very difficult"—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Order! The noble Lord is quoting from the Hansard of another place. It is against our custom to do that.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, I apologise. I was ignorant of that fact. I shall not quote any more, but I repeat that such pressures should not be applied to people who hold such a position. I beg to move.
The Earl of Stockton: My Lords, although I am not entirely convinced that the noble Lord, Lord Clifford, has worded his amendment altogether appropriately, and I remind him that manuscript amendments have to be notified to the Clerks before they are included on the Marshalled List and I am not sure whether that happened on this occasion—
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, I did that.
The Earl of Stockton: My Lords, I beg the noble Lord's pardon.
The noble Lord makes a serious point. On none of the last four occasions prior to the terrible events at Dunblane when I was asked to be a referee for someone applying for a shotgun certificate did the police check the details with me. On one occasion I was asked to be a referee by one of my employees. On another occasion I was asked by the son of a great friend of mine with whom I had been shooting for many years. Having reached the age of 18, the son required a certificate of his own.
In due course, we shall come to a related amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Peel. The provisions underline the point that the administration of the issue of licences for all kinds of weapons is sometimes slack or varied. That underlines the need to have a consistent national system which is properly administered and properly funded and which gives the real protection to the people of this country about which this Bill seems to be so concerned.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I should like to support the principle, but not the amendment. It would be difficult to refuse somebody by saying that he was not a person "of repute". People might not be willing to say that. Furthermore, a potential referee may not know whether the applicant had a criminal record.
There is probably a case for having two signatories rather than one—for requiring signatures from two Members of Parliament or, what is more likely, two magistrates. If there is just one referee, that person may not know the applicant but with another referee one doubles the likelihood of somebody knowing something about the applicant. I am afraid that I think that this amendment is totally defective. However, the principle is worth considering because the general situation could be improved.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot agree with the detail of my noble friend's amendment.

1635
I have no problem about the requirement in paragraph (a). That seems quite sensible. I have no problem about the requirement in paragraph (d), which is equally sensible and probably applies automatically in any case. But, frankly, I find paragraph (c) far fetched and I totally disagree with the requirement in paragraph (b), although I realise that to a large extent it simply replicates existing provisions.
Many years ago the Prime Minister said that he sought a classless society. There is nothing less compatible with the notion of a classless society than the implication that only doctors, lawyers, magistrates and so on are respectable enough to act as referees. In my view, any householder aged over 30, say, with a clean record who has lived at the same address for five or seven years should be capable of acting as a referee, whether he be a plumber, a post office clerk or even a trapeze artist.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I believe that the expression "Members of Parliament" excludes all of us because we are Members of Parliament. I cannot agree with that. Further, whenever I have witnessed a firearm certificate, the Lothian and Border police have contacted me about it.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I also come to the Dispatch Box as someone who was checked upon by my local police when I acted as a referee for a person who applied for a firearm certificate. The amendment would introduce on the face of the Bill detailed criteria about referees. I agree with my noble friends who have supported the noble Lord, Lord Clifford, on the principle that referees should be sound. The noble Lord has not said what kind of repute he has in mind. I insist that it should be good repute. There are other kinds of repute that I shall pass over very quickly.
Section 53 of the 1968 Act allows the Secretary of State to make rules about the procedures to be followed in applying for a firearm certificate. I believe that that would be the best place to set out the criteria. I shall not take up the time of the House by arguing about whether any or all of the criteria proposed in the amendment should appear in the rules themselves. There are already some well-tried and tested criteria in the firearms rules which may be an appropriate starting point. The countersignatory must be resident in the United Kingdom and have known the applicant for at least two years. He must be a Member of Parliament, minister of religion, doctor, lawyer, established civil servant, bank officer or a person of similar standing—and good repute—and not a member of the applicant's family.
I take note of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Monson. Clearly, they will be considered when the criteria are drawn up. But this is not a matter that is appropriate for the face of the Bill, even though the issue of referees is one that we will take very seriously. I suspect that in the wake of the dreadful disaster at Dunblane police forces throughout the land will be taking this matter very seriously, too.
1636
I say to my noble friend, who was concerned about a database, that that matter will be discussed in the context of another amendment in a moment. It will make a very real difference when there is data information which will enable one police force to communicate with another.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. I have no wish to press this matter. However, I wanted the principle to be understood. To help my noble friend, who says, quite rightly, that he is a Member of Parliament, I point out that he is not an elected Member of Parliament. It is the elected Members of Parliament who are worried about this issue. That is the point that I wish to put across. I accept that the other details are open to criticism. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Marlesford Lord Marlesford moved Amendment No. 61:
After Clause 37, insert the following new clause—
REGISTER OF HOLDERS OF SHOT GUN AND FIREARM CERTIFICATES
("—(1) There shall be established a central register of all persons to whom a shot gun or firearm certificate has been issued.
(2) The register shall—

(a) record a suitable identifying number for each person to whom a certificate is issued; and

(b) provide access on-line to all police forces and other agencies with access to the National Police Computer including, for those persons convicted of an offence for which a custodial sentence has been imposed, the prison authorities.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am delighted to be able to table an amendment that does no mischief to the Bill. It focuses on a matter which I believe unites us all. I refer to the desire to avoid a further Hungerford or Dunblane. One knows that this Bill, although at considerable cost, makes it less likely that there will be another onslaught with the use of a licensed pistol, for obvious reasons. Sadly, at the moment the Bill as drafted does next to nothing to make less likely an onslaught with a licensed rifle or shotgun. That is what my amendment seeks to do.
Perhaps we can pause for a moment to consider what would be the public reaction, given the events of Hungerford and Dunblane, if there were another criminal attack, not necessarily on the same scale but on a relatively small scale, with the use of a licensed rifle or shotgun. I emphasise "licensed". Throughout all our discussions we have been talking only about licensed weapons. What would be the cost to public funds of dealing with the emotional outrage which will understandably and rightly follow such an event? Both Hungerford and Dunblane were the result of disordered minds, to put it at its mildest, being given permission by the state to carry firearms. There was and is no proper central control to make that less likely.
That, of course, is what my amendment seeks to do. It seeks to set up a central register of all persons for whom a shotgun or a firearm certificate has been issued which would cover the remaining people who would under the Bill still be allowed to have pistols. The

1637
register would have some suitable identifying number. When I spoke to my original amendment at Committee stage, I suggested a national insurance number, but my noble friend said that there might be some difficulty about that. We need to move to a sensible numbering system for certain identification purposes but, in deference to my noble friend's earlier objection, I have changed that. Most important, it would provide access on line to all police forces and other agencies with access to the national police computer, including, for those people who have been convicted of an offence for which a custodial sentence has been imposed, the prison authorities, because it would have to be on line for them also.
I have been asking for this since before Dunblane. I have been raising my uncertainties about the whole system since 1995, and Dunblane was in March 1996. At the time when I first raised it the Home Office said that my proposal was both unnecessary and expensive. Now they have rather changed their tune and they are saying that they are considering it, but they are doing it their way.
I wanted to make sure that what I was proposing was not in any way already covered. Therefore I asked a Question and I was lucky enough to have a Written Answer from my noble friend only yesterday. I asked her whether the Government would list all those police authorities which keep their firearm and shotgun licensing records on computer and which do not, and what arrangements, if any, exist for direct electronic exchange of information between the databases concerned. Her most courteous reply was that she understood from the Association of Chief Police Officers in England and Wales and the equivalent association for Scotland that all but two of the 51 police forces in Great Britain keep their firearm and shotgun licensing records on computer. I do not know how the two that do not do so do it, but we may one day discover this. She went on to tell me that no force can exchange this information directly with another by electronic means; the capability does not exist. She ended by saying that the Government are currently discussing with ACPO the development of a computer system called PHOENIX which would make this possible. Frankly, I am afraid that is not good enough, and I will explain why.
Back in 1991 the Home Office set up a committee to look into this whole question of the administration of the licensing of firearms. That committee reported in November 1991 one of its conclusions. It was a committee with some police officers on it, chaired by the Home Office. Quoting from paragraph 26, it said:
"It became clear that Police Firearms Departments were not always notified that a certificate holder had committed an offence as the police dealing with the offence were not aware that the offender was a firearm or shotgun certificate holder. Such problems were therefore only noted at renewal time. It was therefore recommended that police information systems be developed to ensure that certificate holders and reports of incidents are routinely and quickly matched".
It goes on rather strangely:
"Such an information system already exists in Scotland and works well".
In a letter dated 18th November 1991—five years ago—to all police officers, the Secretary of State said that he accepted the whole report, which he thought was splendid. He was confident that the report represented the best practice for the operation of the firearms licensing system and commended the adoption of all its recommendations to all chief officers.
First, as I have said, nothing has happened; and, secondly, there is the curious comment in the report that it is already happening in Scotland. Perhaps I may be allowed to quote from the Cullen Report. Paragraph 8.21 states:
"In his evidence Chief Constable Cameron explained that there was a strategy in Scotland for police forces to work towards interaction. The computer systems used by the police forces in Scotland were not yet compatible".
What I am saying is that nothing has happened. This may be our last opportunity to get into the Bill something for which the technology exists. The driving licence and vehicle registration systems have been on line in Swansea since 1973. It is a tool without which, I suspect, the police would not be able to operate effectively today.
The setting up of such a register would be a most important contribution towards preventing the sort of people such as the killers at Hungerford and Dunblane from obtaining a licence. It would be a means of co-ordinating. There would be a better chance of picking up people with a firearm certificate who did something that they should not in some other part of the country, or when they were applying. It would be a far more certain way of making it less likely that people who were unsuited to do so would be able to hold firearms in this country. I beg to move.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, the noble Lord makes an important point. It is incredible that even members of the Metropolitan Police do not know when they attend an incident or are investigating a potential criminal whether there is a possibility of a legal firearm or shotgun being involved. They do know if they are involved with a motor car whose owner has a history of firearm offences, but if they are dealing with people who have no history of a firearm offence and who have only a legal firearm, they do not know. The amendment is appropriate.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I, too, support the amendment. I do not in any way wish to pour cold water over it, having said that I shall support it. But, as a matter of interest, I suspect that the amendment would not have made a great deal of difference to the case of James Hamilton because the Central Region already had the necessary information, which it should of course have used. That is by the by, but it is a point that may be worthy of making.
On the more general point, I question whether it is possible to have genuine control over who has and who has not got guns, and who is suitable to have a gun, without such a measure. I noticed that earlier my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate said that there is co-operation between different forces. That may be open to debate. But one thing is for sure. Here is a real chance

1639
to ensure that that happens. I thoroughly agree with my noble friend and I hope that other noble Lords will support him.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, is right when he says that the amendment does no mischief to the Bill. On that basis, looking around our Benches, I can say that I would not be advising any of my noble friends to vote against the amendment, not that my noble friend Lord Stoddart would pay any attention to anything that I said anyway. I am not sure about my noble friend Lord Kilbracken, who is also an independent spirit in these matters. But my noble friend Lord Morris and I will not be voting against the amendment if it is put to the vote.
As to whether this is the best or right alternative to the PHOENIX computer database, which the Minister described last time, it is a technical rather than a policy issue and I do not know the answer. When I asked in Committee, the Minister said that the PHOENIX database was already up and running. I now have to ask is it up and running and capable of doing this job? If it is not and a new database could come into effect earlier, then the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford's amendment would be preferable. But it is not an issue on which I have any expert knowledge.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, this amendment would have had little to do with the incidents we are talking about, nor with whether people are licensed to have pistols or any other weapons. However, it is surprising that the Government are so slow in coming to terms with information technology. Why are the Government so slow? In Northern Ireland we have computerised cattle tagging, which has been very significant in the fight against BSE. The Government recognise this and suggest that we should have had it previously. The Government do not like the idea of ID cards so they are not going to go down that line.
In Northern Ireland we have a computerised database for all firearms which is centrally held by the RUC. Every single weapon is numbered and held on it. We have simplified it further by not having a shotgun certificate and a firearm certificate but a simple firearm certificate with the number of every weapon that is held on it.
That is not just because of incidents such as Dunblane but because it makes the whole process much simpler. If a weapon is found, its owner can be traced almost immediately. If it has not been reported as being lost, then that person has infringed the law. If it is found, it can be determined whether it may have been used in a terrorist incident. Every single pistol has been forensically tested and its various particulars are held at the computerised centre.
A computerised system would be very straightforward. My firearms certificate has everything written on it that any policeman stopping me would wish to know. He knows where I am permitted to use my shotgun, how many cartridges I am allowed—and that cannot be altered because it is a computerised
1640
print-out. He knows exactly where I am allowed to use heavier calibre rifles; he knows if I have a personal protection weapon and where I am allowed to carry it; he knows that if I have one I am not allowed to buy more ammunition without the chief constable's permission. It is extremely straightforward and I cannot understand why the Government seem so frightened of information technology.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, as one who has loyally supported the Government today, I would urge my noble friend the Minister to give attention to this amendment. Many of us on these Benches are concerned about this. It is a practical amendment; we do not want some difficulty about handling the computers. Why not allow this amendment to go forward? It would cause enormous happiness on these Benches and I hope the noble Minister will agree to it.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, has made a good case for this amendment. What happens when the holder of a licenced firearm—and in particular a rifle or a shotgun—becomes mentally ill? For example, if he is either sectioned or certified, is there any co-operation between the health authorities and police authorities? If there is not, it is high time there was.
Lord Monson: My Lords, unlike most of the major amendments today—the pros and cons of which I have mulled over intensively over the past days and weeks—I have given very little thought to this one and I approach it with a completely open mind. I find myself persuaded by the powerful arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, and indeed by most other noble Lords. Therefore, I would have no hesitation in supporting the amendment if it were to go to a Division.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I rise only to say how pleasant it is to find myself in agreement with my noble friend Lord McIntosh for the first time today. Of course, I shall support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, on that happy note, perhaps I may also say to all my noble friends and to all noble Lords who have spoken that I need no urging on the matter; I absolutely agree with all that has been said. I believe that it will be a very valuable addition to the police in their work of licensing and issuing certificates. Indeed, I share all the enthusiasm that has been voiced. I agree that it is particularly important to create on-line access to such records so that a police officer finding someone with a firearm or shotgun can always check whether he is licensed to possess it, in the same way as the police can now check, for example, car licence details at any time.
However, as I said at Committee stage, I believe that the matter is one which is not suitable for primary legislation and is better dealt with by administrative

1641
means. At present, the information which is required for a national database is not held centrally but is kept by the police forces which issue the firearm and shotgun certificates.
I should point out to the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, that, of course, the example of the RUC is not the best one to use in this context because it relates to one police force the size of which is very different from the number of police forces about which we are talking in England and Wales. Of course, individual forces can do all the things to which the noble Lord referred in the force area, but the PHOENIX programme (about which I shall speak in a moment) will allow one force to communicate with another.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, with due respect to the Minister, information technology is not just about Northern Ireland; indeed, it is worldwide and instant. I look forward to a time when it can be used correctly.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I certainly agree with that too.
As my noble friend knows, we are discussing with the Association of Chief Police Officers in England and Scotland a system called PHOENIX which will be available to firearms licensing departments throughout Great Britain. The Phoenix Project Board reviewed its priorities in November 1996 and the work on a register of firearm certificate holders is high on the list of priorities for development.
It is the intention that PHOENIX will contain full up-to-date copies of all necessary police force firearm and shotgun licensing records. Other records which it is proposed that it should hold are criminal records information, local intelligence information and information about people who have had gun licences revoked or who are for some other reason considered to be unfit to possess a firearm. It will also enable the police to cross-check information about criminal convictions with holders of firearm and shotgun certificates to ensure that, if a certificate needs to be revoked following a conviction, this is picked up. It is envisaged that all police firearms licensing departments in England, Wales and Scotland will have on-line access to PHOENIX.
Perhaps I may point out to my noble friend that the amendment on the Marshalled List says, first:
"There shall be established a central register of all persons to whom a shot gun or firearm certificate has been issued"—
that is planned. Secondly, the amendment says that the register shall,
"record a suitable identifying number for each person to whom a certificate is issued".
I do not know the precise form that that will take, but there will be provision for identity as regards people holding firearms. Thirdly, the amendment goes on to say that the register shall,
"provide access on-line to all police forces and other agencies with access to the National Police Computer including, for those persons convicted of an offence for which a custodial sentence has been imposed, the prison authorities".
1642
I have already given an indication that that is the sort of information that would be held. So the difference between us is a narrow one.
I understand my noble friend's cynicism about how long we would have to wait for this service to come on line. However, that must be an operational decision. Indeed, the object of bringing the programme on line is the subject of detailed planning. I should tell the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that PHOENIX is in place and is up and running. Police forces are beginning to communicate across forces, but this programme for the licensing of firearms will have to be bolted on and that, of course, needs detailed planning. That process is not yet complete. When it is, and when the police determine that it is the next piece of work to undertake, they will get on and do it. As I said, the difference is a narrow one. It is a question of when rather than if. However, I agree with everything that has been said about the value of a national database.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I accept her assurances that the PHOENIX database is capable of achieving what we have discussed. However, my question is, when? I ask the same question of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. Whichever comes first wins my vote.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I cannot say when it will be. It is high on the list of priorities and it is being planned. The detailed planning is not complete and of course the matter is tied in with the availability of resources. However, that it will happen is not in doubt.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, why would it hinder the process if we included a measure in primary legislation?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, primary legislation is not the place to state simply that there should be a national database. That is not a dispute between us. To include that in primary legislation will not facilitate the measure any more quickly. No date has been mentioned. The noble Lord has not said anything about the availability of resources. Noble Lords simply cannot accelerate the planning process because it has to be gone through, it has to be thorough and it has to be correct.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, however, such a step would put pressure on civil servants and the system. If we included the measure in primary legislation, it would be given a high priority. That is the matter that is of concern to us.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I must tell my noble friend that such a measure would not achieve any of those things. For example, there is nothing in the amendment that states who will run this system. It simply states that a system will be established. I have told the House that a system will be established. It will be run by the police. It is the police who have the information and therefore it seems to me that the system should be run by the police. Does the

1643
noble Lord want to put on the face of this Bill a provision that makes no reference to a date, to how the system will be put in place, to who will set it up or to resources when there is already a plan to bring such a database into being?
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I am sure there is virtually nothing between my noble friend and myself. We agree on all these matters. However, there is a great difference between what I want to see happen and what the Home Office is likely to allow. We need a provision on the face of the Bill. As regards the points my noble friend made as to who should run the system and other considerations, I should be perfectly happy, if a provision were put on the face of the Bill at this stage, for amendments to be introduced at Third Reading or in another place to spell out more clearly the requirements. If the Government choose to use their PHOENIX system to fulfill the mandate of Parliament, Parliament will have to consider the matter but may not necessarily object to that. On the other hand, I must say that I have heard some pretty indifferent reports of the progress of PHOENIX. My noble friend's reply to me does not give me great confidence that PHOENIX is necessarily the vehicle for the rapid implementation of a system which I believe is urgently required.
I wish to test the opinion of the House as to whether this provision should be included on the face of the Bill.
9.53 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 61) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 57; Not-Contents, 53.

Division No. 5

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Alderdice, L.

Lawrence, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Liverpool, E.

Annaly, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Attlee, E. [Teller.]

Mar and Kellie, E.

Brain, L.

Marlesford, L. [Teller.]

Bridgeman, V.

Monson, L

Brookeborough, V.

Nome, L.

Burton, L.

Northesk, E.

Carlisle, E.

Northumberland, D.

Camegy of Lour, B.

Norton, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Onslow, E.

Clinton, L.

Palmer, L.

Congleton, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Peel, E.

Craig of Radley, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Crathorne, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Stockton, E.

Dubs, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Falkland, V.

Strathcarron, L.

Feversham, L.

Swansea, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Teviot, L.

Haskel, L.

Vinson, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Wade of Chorlton,L.

Hylton, L.

Weatherill, L.

Kilbracken, L

Wharton, B.

Kinloss, Ly.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E

Kintore, E.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

1644

NOT-CONTENTS

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Home, E.

Balfour, E.

Hooper, B.

Beaverbrook, L.

Inglewood, L.

Bethell, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Blatch, B.

Kingsland, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Knutsford, V.

Burnham, L.

Lindsay, E.

Byford, B.

Long, V.

Cadman, L.

Lucas, L.

Camock,L.

Luke, L.

Chalker of Wallasey,B.

Lyell, L.

Chesham, L. [Tetter.]

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Courtown, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Cumberlege, B.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Demon of Wakefield, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Mountevans, L.

Downshire, M.

Parkinson, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Ferrers, E.

Seccombe, B.

Gisborough, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Goschen, V.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Swinton, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Tollemache, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Trumpington, B.

Henley, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
10.1 p.m.
Earl Peel Earl Peel moved Amendment No. 62:
After Clause 37, insert the following new clause—
ESTABLISHMENT OF FIREARMS CONTROL BOARD
("—(1) The Secretary of State shall by order establish a Firearms Control Board.
(2) The Firearms Control Board shall have responsibility for advising the chief officer of police on the grant, renewal or revocation of any certificate under Part II of the 1968 Act in respect of a person residing in his area.
(3) The chief officer of police shall satisfy himself, on the advice of the Firearms Control Board, that applicants for certificates have complied with the requirements necessary for the grant of certificates under the Firearms Acts 1968 to 1997.
(4) An order made under subsection (1) above shall make such provision for the composition of the Board and for its procedures as the Secretary of State shall deem necessary.
(5) Fees for licences shall be payable to the Board.
(6) The Secretary of State shall have authority to give instructions to the Board in the exercise of its powers.
(7) An order under subsection (1) above shall be made by statutory instrument and any statutory instrument containing such an order shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, we discussed this amendment in Committee. I am delighted to say that I had support from all sides of the Chamber, with the obvious exceptions of my own Front Bench and the Front Bench opposite.
As I explained, the firearms control board is not a new concept. It has been examined on a number of occasions: first, in 1992 by the Home Office; then again in 1993 by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of

1645
Constabulary; thirdly, in 1996 by the Home Affairs Committee; and fourthly, it was fully endorsed by the Firearms Consultative Committee under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Kimball.
In Committee, I spent some time detailing the various comments and recommendations that emerged from those inquiries. I do not propose to go through them again in detail. The overall conclusions amount to much the same and were critical of the administration of the licensing provisions contained within the Firearms Acts. Generally speaking, they were considered to be inefficient and inconsistent, and it was considered that the police had not achieved the necessary standards of training in relation to firearms licensing.
This amendment would relieve the police of their duties so far as the assessment of an applicant's background is concerned, as to whether he or she is suitable to be in possession of a firearm—I refer to all firearms—and would cover all inspections and security matters.
However, there is another, most important point. Chief officers would not be asked to surrender the ultimate sanction as to who has or does not have guns in their area. The chief constable would still have the final say, having considered the recommendations of the firearms control board and having taken into account any past convictions, along with any relevant intelligence information which is available to him from his own force—and, following our acceptance of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, through other forces as well—through the proper computerised system.
It is generally agreed that such a scheme would have considerable advantages. First, it would provide a much greater level of consistency throughout the land. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary concluded in its report that,
"Licence applicants were subject to differing local requirements some of which bordered on the discriminatory",
and that the present service varied between "excellent" and "very inefficient".
I believe also that this new body would provide real experts, with experience based on proper training and with a full knowledge of firearms and their use. I am told that it would also relieve about 1,500 police officers from a duty which I am bound to say in many cases they do with a great deal of reluctance. It would allow them to concentrate on other tasks for which they are better suited and better trained.
The new service would operate in much the same way as do the Customs and Excise, traffic wardens and DVLC at Swansea—highly efficient operators working within a comprehensive working relationship with the police. There is no difference in that respect.
When we discussed this amendment at Committee stage, the Government were reluctant to accept my proposal for various reasons. The first was the cost. I should begin by saying that it has been difficult to obtain precise figures either for the start-up of the scheme or for future running costs. However, I am
1646
delighted to say that, in reply to a written Question, my noble friend has come back to me with some more specific figures which I shall refer to in a moment.
At Committee I pointed to the enormous disparity between regions in terms of administering the present licensing system. I hope your Lordships will excuse me if I quote the same examples; I believe they are quite important. For example, the cost of granting a firearms certificate in Cambridge was £12.61 and the cost of renewing it £13.55, whereas in Wales the cost of granting a firearms certificate was £29.29 and the cost of renewing it a mere £5.52. I think noble Lords would agree that that is quite a disparity. A very important point was made by the ACPO Multi-Force Scrutiny Study, which indicated that licences could be issued for considerably less than the fee charged at that time, which was £19.69.
I referred to my noble friend's reply to my written Question. The reply with regard to the operating costs of the firearms control board and the start-up costs was as follows: These are 1994 figures. The operating cost would be somewhere in excess of £10 million. That is only marginally more in real terms than the equivalent cost which I have for 1989 of £8.5 million. I do not think that represents a very real difference. In addition, I am certain that the Government's figure of £10 million will have taken into account additional duties of the firearms control board, which would include, for example, safety inspection of ranges, the administration of the control of explosives regulations, the co-ordination of the exchange of information and the movement of firearms between the UK and member states within the EU. My figure of £8.5 million did not include those figures, so the gap narrows. Furthermore, if we were to introduce such a system, it would release police to conduct other duties, which I believe they are more suitably adapted to deal with.
In addition, I suspect that the Government's figure of £10 million is based on the actual practice that existed in 1994 and not on the best practice, a point highlighted by the ACPO Multi-Force Firearms Scrutiny Study. That study identified that these costs could be considerably reduced if the system were more efficiently administered.
On the question of the establishment costs of the new firearms control board, my noble friend's response was that there would be a start-up cost of £4.1 million. That may seem a considerable sum, but, if one looks at the number of people who held a firearm licence or a shotgun certificate in 1995, it amounts to £795,500, which works out to a figure of just over £5 per person holding either a firearm licence or a shotgun certificate. That is not a great deal of money.
I make this point very strongly. I have consulted those bodies which represent shooting interests. They tell me that people who participate in firearms sports would be perfectly happy to pay an additional amount if they felt that a system was to come into force which was less prone to arbitrary decisions on the spur of the moment and would best serve the interests of everyone in minimising the risk of firearms getting into the wrong hands, which, at the end of the day, is surely what this is all about.
The second point raised by my noble and learned friend in his objection to my amendment at Committee stage was that the Government rejected the proposals on the ground that it would lead to duplication of effort because there would be a continuing need to involve the police in firearm licensing and liaison with the firearms board. However, I cannot follow that argument. The personnel of such a board would simply carry out the licensing work that police officers do at the moment. We would simply substitute one for another.
In regard to police involvement, of course the chief officer would have the final say—it is right that he should do so. If my amendment was worded in such a way that he did not, I am certain that my noble friends would be extremely upset and critical of it. I would agree with that. Therefore the chief officer has the final say, which depends on the information he receives from the firearms control board along with the information that he would receive from his own police force as to whether or not an individual was suitable to receive a licence. Again I refer to the examples of Customs and Excise and DVLC, where the system is working extremely effectively.
My noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate, when replying to my amendment in Committee, said,
"At the end of the day I am not sure that cost is important one way or another. The important thing is that the decision taker has the information he deems to be appropriate".—[Official Report, 21/1/97; col. 664.]
I entirely agree. I believe that with this amendment there would be a board of experts qualified to assess whether or not an individual is suitable to possess and handle a firearm. It would take into consideration all the relevant points. That recommendation would then be passed on to the chief officer who considers the application alongside any police information that is appropriate. Under this scheme the chief constable would have the best information available to him, thus ensuring that we have in place a system which reduces as best we can—we can do no more—the mistakes of Hungerford and Dunblane.
The present system has been severely criticised by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary in 1993 and again by the Home Affairs Committee in 1996. The amendment has the support of the Gun Trade Association, the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, the British Shooting Sports Council, the National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners' Association. Its principles were recommended by the Home Office itself in 1992. It is also unanimously supported by the Firearms Consultative Committee. All those bodies have felt for a long time that a major change is overdue. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not know whether this amendment is identical to the amendment the noble Earl moved in Committee; it seems to have the same effect. Of course there is a case for greater stringency across police forces in the way in which they handle applications for firearm certificates; of course we know from Dunblane that there are defects in the way in which different police forces deal with the
1648
problem. Indeed, one of the reasons why we are in favour of a total ban on handguns is because we know that those procedures will never be perfect and that the wrong people will slip through the net.
However, if the noble Earl's amendment is the same as it was in Committee, it is plain daft. The amendment sets up a firearms control board which will advise on every single grant, renewal or revocation of a certificate. The noble Earl has told us that there are 800,000 firearms holders. I do not know how many thousands, tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of grants, renewals or revocations that means in the course of a year. When I was proposing that there should be prior authorisation by a judge for around 2,000 applications for the power of intrusive surveillance on the Police Bill, I was told that that was double guessing and a duplication of effort. The noble Earl is seriously proposing that a firearms control board shall look at every single grant, renewal or revocation of a firearms certificate and then that the police shall have the responsibility and shall satisfy themselves that it has been done correctly. In other words, they have to do it again. To do a million things twice every year—even if it were 500,000 or 100,000—is—I use the word advisedly—daft.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, invites us to believe that this amendment is daft. But surely he will see that the immense amount of police time which at the moment presumably goes on these 800,000 grants, renewals or revocations of firearms certificates must be enormously expensive. Those who have been at the receiving end of this process, as many of us have, know that the police spend far more time on it than they want to. It is enormously expensive. If it were entrusted to the firearms control board, as suggested by my noble friend's amendment, it would save an unquantifiable sum of money.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord misunderstands me. The amendment says that the chief office of police has to be satisfied that it has been done correctly. How else can he do that other than by investigating each case himself?
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I think the noble Lord misunderstands. The chief officer of police would not have to go through the whole process again. He would merely have to consult on any information he had in exactly the same way as the police might object to the DVLA granting a licence to someone who perhaps had been found alcoholically in control of a vehicle. The police are perfectly happy to rely on the DVLA for that. They have their own system for that. No one suggests that that is an enormous duplication and that it renders the system inoperable. The amendment is immensely sound. I support it.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I cannot support the amendment. I am not keen on the creation of a UK-wide or a GB-wide organisation for this

1649
purpose. It is important that this activity is retained firmly in the hands of the police. They probably need to work up their skills at it. However, they have local knowledge and are under local democratic control. Certainly in the case of Scotland, our eight police forces ought to be doing this work and not a national body.
Lord Renton: My Lords, what worries me about the amendment is the over-centralisation of decisions. It is the chief officer of police, with his local knowledge, who is in the best position to make the decisions with regard to the renewal of firearm certificates. I have the greatest respect and sympathy for my noble friend Lord Peel on this occasion. However, the amendment puts forward a view that responsibility for detailed decisions requiring local knowledge should be centralised. I do not see the need for that. I would therefore be very surprised if I were to find that my noble friends on the Front Bench were able to accept the amendment.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am always a little fearful when I am confronted by a coalition and a cosy atmosphere of agreement between the two Front Benches with unease behind them. I say this with the utmost caution. In my experience those behind them quite often turn out to be right. When noble Lords on the Front Benches launch accusations of daftness on anyone sitting in the lower classes behind them who has the presumption to put forward an idea which is not entirely and immediately acceptable to them, I begin to get seriously worried, as I am on this occasion. I do not believe that my noble friend Lord Peel is entirely daft.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I did not say that the noble Earl was daft but that his amendment was daft.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am so grateful to have achieved something tonight and to have elicited from the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, the clarity of his view that in no way is he saying that my noble friend is daft.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I never did say that.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, my noble friend is far from daft. I do not believe that my noble friend would produce a daft amendment and I do not believe that he has.
I believe that there is a degree of common ground, but I do not know. In view of the things that have happened there is not entire satisfaction with existing arrangements. It is a very modest suggestion. I do not hear any noble Lord dissenting from that on either side of the House. I also understand that, since it is obviously vital that the police have some sort of standing in the matter, the chief constable will have the last word but that the real, heavy work will be undertaken by an independent body. I do not believe that the police will be in any way undermined. In practice, the chief constable may find himself possessed of very valuable allies on whose advice he
1650
can rely and who would provide, in the event of an error, at least some kind of excuse; namely, that he was advised to do something by much respected outside bodies and that it was not entirely his fault. As regards Dunblane, that situation might have been quite useful.
The last point I wish to make is about the Firearms Consultative Committee. I am not entirely familiar with the detail of the routine work that no doubt that distinguished and very able body carries out. I understand that it is a government body. I cannot see why the committee which, I understand, favours my noble friend's suggestion, and the Home Office, which is a kind of peripheral body as regards the committee, should not be willing to accept guidance in this matter. I have an awful, nagging fear that the Home Office is a place where people are very reluctant to open windows which might let in a little fresh air and some change.
The Earl of Stockton: My Lords, I wish to address the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. All the amendment suggests is that the work done by junior police officers be done by the board and its reports then submitted to the chief constable. That is not duplication, but substitution.
It is very important to remind the House of one of the basic changes that have taken place over the past 25 years in the issuing of firearm certificates and licences. Twenty-five years ago nearly every serving police officer had done national service and was familiar with firearms and rifles. In a sense they were comfortable with them. That is no longer the case. Many of us have had occasion to have an inspection by a young serving police officer for whom it was clearly a novel experience. In many cases, young officers do not know where to look for the numbers and have to have them pointed out.
We should remember the point raised at Second Reading by the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, who said that there is a great reservoir of people who are trained firearms experts, who have come out of the Armed Forces and who would be available to be recruited by such a board. There is much more merit in the suggestion than either my noble friend the Minister or the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, have been prepared to accept.
I urge the Government to look hard at this point again and at the points raised on Second Reading. I know that all of my colleagues at the British Field Sports Society endorse the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Peel. I should like an assurance from my noble friend the Minister that she will look at it seriously.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I am a little concerned about this amendment. At the moment inspections are carried out by uniformed police officers. An officer may not know much about firearms, but at least he will be in uniform which gives the impression of authority. It would be somewhat off-putting if an official dressed in an ordinary suit were to come round and start looking at

1651
one's guns. That would give some cause for concern. I do not know whether it is intended that the new force will be in uniform; perhaps that is what should happen.
It would probably be wrong for members of the board to come from a central area or "the region". Essentially, local knowledge is what matters. I hope that it is intended that those people (who will, I hope, be in uniform) will operate within and from police headquarters so that they will, in effect, be policemen but in a different uniform. They should report immediately on a local basis. If they were out of uniform and working from "the region", as opposed to within the immediate locality, that would be not only inefficient, but unfortunate.
Lord Swansea: My Lords, I wish to support the amendment. I am a former chairman of the British Shooting Sports Council and this subject has been a hobbyhorse of ours for many years. One of the bugbears for all owners of firearm certificates is the great variation across the country in the attitudes of different police forces. In his own parish, the chief constable is supreme. Whether he treats an applicant liberally or strictly is entirely a matter of his whim. It makes life very difficult for many holders of firearm certificates when they have to put up with such tremendous variations between police forces.
Another great problem is the lack of knowledge of firearms of many policemen. As my noble friend Lord Stockton said, young policemen do not have the experience of national service behind them. They are not familiar with firearms. I could tell your Lordships many stories about the ignorance of policemen, but I shall not trouble the House at this late hour. I support the amendment.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, as an ordinary citizen, in respect of firearms and shotgun certificates, I am extremely wary of this amendment. I want to know who is coming to my house. We are talking about somebody coming to the house, dressed in an ordinary suit. I will not know who he is. What sort of proof of his identity will I have? It will be quite unlike what happens when police officers drive up in their police cars. I know who they are. Indeed, I usually know them all by name. I am dead against the amendment. I do not think it will work.
10.30 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, the noble Earl has commented on unknown people going to his house. Under the Bill the police will be able to employ civilian firearms officers who will be in exactly the same position as employees of the proposed control board.
Baroness Wharton: My Lords, I support the amendment. I give one illustration of a case with which I am familiar. In Scotland a police officer visited a house. He asked a daughter whether her stepfather was of sound mind because he had applied for a firearm
1652
certificate. She replied, "Well, yes". That was as far as it went, and the certificate was obtained. I believe that this amendment avoids that kind of situation occurring.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, my noble friend Lord McIntosh described this as a daft amendment. I am a little sorry about that because I have put my name to it. I did so because I believed it to be a reasonable and relevant amendment to make to the Bill. Having read the Cullen Report, undoubtedly there were serious deficiencies in communication within that particular police force and disagreements between officers. The officers on the ground who were aware of the circumstances had nowhere to go other than the chief officer who made the decision. A control board acting as a supervisory body will be able, it is hoped, to standardise procedures up and down the country and ensure that there is never a Dunblane or Hungerford again. It would be somewhere else for the police, who will continue to be involved in control, to go. They would have the board to appeal to in the event of decisions being made that perhaps they did not support.
A number of noble Lords have said that they prefer to have policemen drive up to their homes in police cars to inspect their licences or question them rather than civilians. When I represented Swindon I received a good number of complaints from people because officers turned up in uniform and police cars. On many occasions I was asked to ensure that when policemen called they should wear civilian clothes; otherwise, their neighbours thought that they were being "nicked" for something. I am not sure that we can take seriously the idea that people like having uniformed policemen in police cars with blue flashing lights coming to inspect their firearm certificates. I do not believe that that is so. I am pleased to support this amendment, daft though it may be. If it is pressed I shall go into the Lobby with similar people.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, with a measure of trepidation I rise to oppose the amendment tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Peel and the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. I regret that the peace which had temporarily broken out between the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and his noble friend Lord McIntosh has not lasted for long. I am reminded that it is a free vote, but with freedom there is still scope for agreement. It is unfortunate that it has lasted for only one Division, if that.
As has already been observed, the amendment put down on the Order Paper today is, to all intents and purposes, identical to that which was debated before. It was debated at some length and I set out at some length the Government's response to it.
I begin by inviting noble Lords to pay particular attention to what is proposed. It is set out in subsection (2) of the proposed new clause that the firearms control board shall have responsibility for advising the chief officer of police on the grant, renewal or revocation. In the next subsection it says that the chief officer of police shall satisfy himself on the advice of the firearms control board, and so on.

1653
Although the idea of a firearms control board has been about for some time, when the proposal was first mooted back in the early 1990s by the Home Office and was subject to a consultation exercise, the proposal had a very radical difference to it. That radical difference was that the decisions as to whether or not to grant, renew or revoke were to be the decisions of the board. In other words, the decision-making was to be taken away from chief officers of police and given to the board. That has been departed from in this proposal. My submission to noble Lords is that that must be borne in mind very firmly when noble Lords decide how to vote on this amendment if it is pressed to a division.
For example, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart said that the board would exist to supervise what chief officers are doing. That, with respect, does not flow from the terms of the amendment. He also said that it would provide somewhere for individual police officers to appeal to if they were not satisfied with what their superior officers were suggesting. That, too, is not proposed in the amendment.
What is proposed is that the firearms control board, through its officials, would give advice to somebody else who is at the head of a completely separate organisation, who would have the statutory duty to take the decisions and, more importantly, the responsibility for defending those decisions were they to be challenged or subject to scrutiny in a court or any other forum.
Much has happened since the original proposal for a firearms control board was first put forward in 1992, not least of all the events of Dunblane and the holding of the inquiry. It is true, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart said, that Lord Cullen was satisfied that serious criticisms were to be made of the Central Scotland Police Force and certain officers—indeed, certain senior officers—within it. Notwithstanding those criticisms, which he held to be established, he said quite clearly in paragraphs 8.4 and 8.5 of his report, which I read out in detail the last time and I need not repeat tonight, that he was not in favour of removing from the police any of the functions concerned with the operation of the present system for the granting of firearm licences.
I was chastised on that occasion for the Government being prepared to accept some but not all of the recommendations of Lord Cullen. I demurred at that chastisement and I gave reasons why I did so. But whether or not there is dispute among noble Lords as to whether all the recommendations have been followed, that is a clear and very unequivocal statement by Lord Cullen, he having listened to all the evidence and having scrutinised in the greatest of detail the firearms procedure that was followed in central Scotland. I do invite noble Lords to bear that very firmly in mind when considering the other arguments that exist for and against the proposal which is put forward.
The suggestion is made by my noble friend Lord Stockton that this would amount not to duplication but merely to substitution. With respect, I demur at that suggestion. The application will have to be made to the chief constable of a particular force, to whom the applicant will require to supply the names of two referees.
1654
Whatever duties the staff of the firearms control board might take on, as a matter of law there is nothing to prevent the chief constable carrying out local checks. He would be foolish not to do so. Whether officials of the board come in uniform or not—I do not rely on any problem in that regard in opposing the board—they would no doubt be required to carry some form of identification as do the gasman and the electricity official. If a board were set up, one would imagine that they would go about their business in a responsible way, but they would come to the community as relative outsiders. They would not have the local knowledge of the community that local officers have in their heads, local records, and in the reports they send to divisional headquarters and police headquarters. A chief constable would be bound to have regard to those local sources of information.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I accept some of the noble and learned Lord's arguments, but members of the firearms control board would have knowledge of the shooting community. They would know which clubs were carrying out which disciplines. Those points are important. It is something upon which the police may be a little weak.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I do not demur to the noble Earl's suggestion that officials of the board would have a knowledge of firearms—pistols, rifles, or what have you—and that if they visited clubs they would get to know the officials, the pistols stored there, and the competitions conducted there, but so would the local police.
It would be inconceivable that merely because firearms control board officials were visiting clubs licensed under the new regime that will apply, the police would ignore them. The local sergeant, inspector, or whoever, would make it their business to visit a local club to get to know the officials and how things were operated.
I resist unequivocally the suggestion that within their ranks the police do not have people as well able to assess a local club as experts coming from outside. It may be that they have far greater experience of handling pistols, but I see no reason why the police cannot discharge the duty of assessing whether the club is being run in accordance with the terms of the licence and the law.
As I said on the previous occasion, those who work in police departments dealing with firearms, whether they be uniformed officers or civilians, have training and the benefit of living locally. They know who people are. They are in a much better position to assess the local element of the exercise than folk coming from outside. I do not accept that it is a substitution. It is, to some extent at least, a duplication. It would mean that costs would be incurred by the board and the police.
Other points, including costs, were raised on the previous occasion. I fully accept the figures arising from the Written Question that my noble friend Lord Peel asked. If it be the case that the shooting community is prepared to meet the totality of the costs, then meeting the costs of a firearms control

1655
board would put up the price of a firearm certificate to at least £100. Obviously it is difficult to be certain how many applications would be required to be handled each year, but my information is that there would be at least 200,000 and there may be more. As two organisations would be involved, there would be an element of delay.
An important point is that, were the amendment to be successful and the legislation provided that a firearms control board be set up, it might delay the implementation of the new regime if the board had to be up and running before the regime could come into force or, alternatively, many new certificates would be required to be dealt with immediately with the board coming on stream some considerable time after the certificates had been granted.
The views of the Firearms Consultative Committee, about which I talked on the previous occasion, are prayed in aid in support of the amendment. That committee is independent of government; its views are sometimes accepted by government, sometimes not. Contrary to the information given to the House, it is not unanimously in support of this proposal. The senior police officers who serve on it dissent from the view of the majority, and dissent for the following reason. It is the chief officer who must ultimately be responsible for the decision. He cannot have his decision in any way fettered by advice from anybody else. He is entitled to seek information about convictions, about drinking habits, about driving habits, about whatever he thinks is relevant. Ultimately it is he who has to take the decision. In that situation it would be quite wrong to seek in any way to restrict his discretion by requiring him to rely on advice in the way that this amendment suggests.
I said on the previous occasion and I say again that I accept that this amendment is brought forward on behalf of those who are interested in shooting with the best will behind it, but, having looked at what is proposed, having looked at the division of responsibility, having looked at the fact that ultimately it is the chief constable who has the final say, having considered the matter fully and having read the documents referred to on this and the previous occasion, the Government remain of the view that this proposal is not a sound one. If some noble Lords seek to press the amendment I will invite other noble Lords to vote against it.
I should remind the House of one further matter. During discussion of the Bill at Committee stage I undertook that the Government would bring forward an amendment in response to Lord Cullen's recommendations about the appeals procedure. That action was to await the outcome of a consultation exercise that was taking place. The exercise has been completed but unfortunately it has not proved possible to finalise the detail of the amendment in time for Report stage. That is regrettable; I apologise for the inconvenience that has been caused. To comply with the procedures of your Lordships' House it is necessary that I mention it again at this stage. It is
1656
planned to bring forward the amendment in time for Third Reading and I will make every effort to table the amendment as soon as practicable.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I would ask the noble Lord about my local police force, the Central Scotland police. Lord Cullen identified shortcomings in its performance in this area. Can the noble Lord tell me whether those shortcomings have been remedied?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: Every effort has been made to overcome those shortcomings. The Chief Constable has set about the necessary task and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland arranged for members of Her Majesty's Inspectorate to visit and inspect the force to ensure that the necessary corrective measures are put in place.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I shall begin by thanking every noble Lord who has spoken in this debate. Indeed, I am most grateful to everyone for their participation. I should say that I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Peyton for having established that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, did not regard me as being daft but merely my amendment as being so.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it was quite clear from what I said at the beginning that I only regarded the amendment as daft. There was no need for any correction.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I am delighted to hear it.
As to the daftness of the amendment, to which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, made reference, quite honestly all I can say is that the present system appears to work extremely well in instances like the DVLC in Swansea, where we are not just talking about 800,000 applications; we are talking about many millions of motor cars which go through the process and the system seems to work. Indeed, the relationship between those who administer that operation and the police seems to work extremely well. Therefore, I really do not think that that argument actually stacks up particularly well.
When I moved the amendment, I never envisaged that we would be discussing in my concluding remarks whether or not people who inspect licensees would be wearing uniforms. That was not a matter that I had considered. Indeed, I do not attach a great deal of importance to it. However, perhaps my noble friend Lord Gisborough—who, unfortunately is not now present in the Chamber—would like to come forward with a design which he considers appropriate.
I move on now to more important matters. The whole question of duplication has been raised again. As I tried to explain earlier, I do not believe that there would be duplication. I say that because the two tasks—namely, that of the proposed firearms control board and that of the police—should dovetail extremely effectively. But even if there were to be a degree of duplication, would that really matter? At

1657
the end of the day we are trying to ensure that we have a system in place that is better than the one which exists at present. I firmly believe that we can achieve this through a firearms control board.
My noble and learned friend suggests that local police have experience in such matters. Well, they may have a degree of experience so far as concerns their local area. However, I can assure my noble and learned friend—and other noble Lords made reference to this in Committee—that there are far too many examples where the police come along to test whether an applicant is suitable to hold a firearm or a shotgun and it is quite clear to the applicant that that policeman has no interest in the subject and, indeed, no knowledge of the subject. That is precisely why I am moving this amendment—to try to overcome that very difficulty.
I turn now to the question of cost. We could, of course, go on about this forever. My noble and learned friend said that he thought that the cost of certificates would have to go up to £100. Given the figures to which I made reference earlier—namely, a running cost of just over £10 million a year, with a start-up cost of £4.1 million—I believe that I have covered that point. I really do take issue with the figures produced by my noble and learned friend.
I have a further question for my noble and learned friend. It really extends a point made by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie. Quite clearly, the present system is not working as well as it might. After Hungerford, we were promised that there would be improvements in the way in which firearm, shotgun and pistol licences would be looked at. That did not happen. We have now had another disaster and, quite obviously, changes are needed. Can my noble and learned friend assure the House that the present system will be thoroughly scrutinised and that we will have in place as soon as possible the best practice which was recommended, I remind your Lordships, by the ACPO Multi-Force Scrutiny Study? It found that the present system was not working properly and that report came out some time ago. Clearly it has been ignored. We must have changes to ensure that we have a much more streamlined, cost-effective and consistent system to deal with firearms licences in this country. I should like to think that my noble and learned friend could give me an assurance that we shall see developments in this area as soon as possible.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall respond to the request for further information. I am happy to tell my noble friend that I undertake that the concerns which noble Lords have expressed, on the basis of their experience of the present system for the granting and revocation of certificates, will be drawn to the attention of ACPO in Scotland and ACPO in England. I hope noble Lords will bear in mind that in opposing this amendment the Government are not merely relying on their own assessment of the situation; they are relying on the
1658
view expressed by Lord Cullen and on the views of chief constables the length and breadth of the land. I submit to noble Lords that those are important factors which ought not to be ignored when noble Lords have regard to experiences they may have had with individual police officers.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for that reply. However, I found it disappointing. Quite frankly, there should be clear instructions from the Home Office to the effect that things will have to change dramatically. I fear that I shall have to seek the opinion of the House.
10.56 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 62) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 40; Not-Contents, 53.

Division No. 6

CONTENTS

Alderdice, L.

Marlesford, L.

Attlee. E.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Brain, L.

Monson, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Northumberland, D.

Burton. L.

Norton, L.

Carlisle. E.

Onslow, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Palmer, L.

Clinton, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L. [Teller.]

Congleton, L.

Peel, E. [Teller.]

Cottesloe, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Crawshaw, L.

Stockton, E.

Feversham, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Gisborough, L.

Swansea, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Swinton, E.

Iddesleigh, E.

Teviot, L.

Ilchester, E.

Tollemache, L.

Kintore, E.

Weatherill, L.

Liverpool, E.

Wharton, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

CONTENTS

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Home, E.

Balfour, E.

Hooper, B.

Beaverbrook, L.

Inglewood, L.

Blatch, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Bumham,L.

Kingsland, L.

Byford, B.

Lindsay, E.

Cadman, L.

Long, V.

Carnock, L.

Lucas, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Luke, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Lyell, L.

Courtown, E.

McColl of Dulwich,L.

Cranbome, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Mackay of Clashfem, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Denton of Wakefield,B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Downshire, M.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Dubs, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Miller of Hendon.B.

Elton, L.

Morris of Castle Morris. L.

Ferrers, E.

Mountevans, L.

Goschen. V.

Pilkington of Oxenford. L.

Henley, L.

Renton, L.

1659

Rotherwick, L.

Trumpington, B.

Seccombe, B.

Wilcox, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
11.5 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment
No. 63:
After Clause 38, insert the following new clause—
("Registered firearms dealers
AUTHORISED DEALING WITH FIREARMS BY REGISTERED FIREARMS DEALER
—(1) In section 8 of the 1968 Act (authorised dealing with firearms), after subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(1A) Subsection (1) above applies to the possession, purchase or acquisition of a firearm or ammunition in the ordinary course of the business of a firearms dealer notwithstanding that the firearm or ammunition is in the possession of, or purchased or acquired by, the dealer or his servant at a place which is not a place of business of the dealer or which he has not registered as a place of business under section 33 or 37 of this Act."
(2) In section 33(3) of the 1968 Act (applications for registration as firearms dealer)—

(a) for the words from the beginning to "applicant" there shall be substituted the words "An applicant for registration as a firearms dealer";

(b) after the word "shall", in the second place it appears, there shall be inserted the words "(if he registers the applicant as a firearms dealer)".").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall also speak to Amendment No. 74.
Amendment No. 74, tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Peel, deals with a problem concerning the position of firearms dealers which my noble friend raised in Committee. On that occasion the noble Earl courteously withdrew his amendment but it was indicated to the House that the Government had a measure of sympathy with the problem that it sought to address. The Government agreed to look at the issue and to consider whether we might bring forward an amendment of our own. The difficulty that arose stemmed initially from a criminal case in which a firearms dealer was prosecuted after he had been found to be keeping a large quantity of ammunition in a barn.
The law which applies—Section 3 of the Firearms Act 1968—requires that a firearms dealer must be registered with the police. Under Section 8 of the 1968 Act, a firearms dealer who has been registered may possess firearms and ammunition without holding the police firearm certificate that would usually be needed for them, so long as he has them "in the ordinary course of his business. Sections 33 and 37 of the 1968 Act require every registered dealer to ensure that all of his places of business are also registered with the police.
The facts of the case to which I made reference were that the dealer himself was registered with the police, but the barn as a place of business in which he kept the ammunition was not. He was convicted of possessing the ammunition without a firearm certificate. I
1660
understand that his conviction was upheld on appeal. The noble Earl raised another case which highlighted the same problem.
The concern about those cases was not that the dealer was convicted of a criminal offence. The Government consider that, in the first case at least, the dealer should have registered his barn with the police—that would have given them the opportunity to assess whether it was proper for its purpose and to refuse to register it if it was not. A dealer who has a place of business which he fails to register with the police commits a specific offence under Section 39(2) of the Firearms Act 1968.
Criminal cases and issues of convictions are matters for the court. However, I understand that in the initial case to which I made reference the judge observed in the course of the case that the current terms of the Firearms Act 1968 limit lawful possession of firearms and ammunition by a dealer to the place or places of a business which have been registered with the police.
The difficulty highlighted by the two cases, which has been put to the Government by the Gun Trade Association and others, is that there are occasions when a firearms dealer may quite properly have occasion to be in possession of firearms or ammunition in places which he could not conceivably be expected to register with the police.
A dealer might be delivering to a customer, in which case he would be in possession of the guns or ammunition at the customer's address and at all points along the journey from his business premises to that address. He might unexpectedly be able to purchase and collect a gun at auction or at some other legitimate place. He might be asked to visit a customer at his or her home and examine a gun—which would mean handling it there and, for legal purposes, being in possession of it.
Aside from this restriction on quite proper business activities, there would also be difficulties for the police in keeping records of every place at which a dealer planned to handle or be in possession of a gun, however briefly. The government amendment therefore seeks to address the practical problem brought to our attention by making it clear that firearms dealers' possession of firearms and ammunition in the course of their business is not to be strictly confined to those places of business which they have registered with the police.
I hope that, having explained the Government amendment, it will prove acceptable to the House and that, in the light of that explanation, the noble Earl will find it possible not to insist on his own amendment, Amendment No. 74. I beg to move.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I must say how grateful I am to my noble and learned friend for having looked into this problem with such thoroughness. As he rightly says, there was a considerable degree of difficulty within the gun trade, which I tried to explain to your Lordships when I moved the amendment at Committee stage. I am more than happy to accept this amendment. It certainly covers all the points that I raised. I am extremely grateful to my noble and learned friend.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 39 [Power of search with warrant]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 64 to 66:
Page 19, line 15, leave out ("any object mentioned in subsection (3) below") and insert ("anything").
Page 19, line 25, leave out from ("peace") to end of line 35.
Page 19, line 35, at end insert—
("(3A) The power of a constable or civilian officer under subsection (2)(b) above to seize and detain anything found on any premises or place shall include power to require any information which is kept by means of a computer and is accessible from the premises or place to be produced in a form in which it is visible and legible and can be taken away.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 64 to 66 were spoken to with Amendment No. 38. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 40 [Firearm certificates relating to rifles used for target shooting]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 67 to 70:
Page 20, line 14, after ("rifle") insert ("(or a muzzle-loading pistol)").
Page 20, line 19, after ("rifle") insert ("or pistol").
Page 20, line 24, after ("rifle") insert ("or pistol").
Page 20, line 26, at end insert—
("(3) In this section, "muzzle-loading pistol" means a pistol designed to be loaded at the muzzle end of the barrel or chamber with a loose charge and a separate ball (or other missile).").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendments Nos. 67 to 70, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 71, 73, 81 and 87. These amendments are simple and are to cater for the circumstances of a club whose members wish to fire only those muzzle-loading guns which will be exempt from the general prohibition on handguns. Such guns are mentioned specifically as excluded from the definition in Clause 1(2). Muzzle-loaders may of course also be fired at rifle clubs and at licensed pistol clubs. They may continue to be kept at home under the terms of a firearms certificate. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 41 [Approved rifle clubs]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 20, line 31, leave out second ("firearm") and insert ("rifle").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 21, line 19, at end insert—
("(7A) The power of a constable or civilian officer under subsection (7) above to inspect anything on club premises shall include power to require any information which is kept by means of a computer and is accessible from the premises to be made available for inspection in a visible and legible form.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 38. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 21, line 30, at end insert—
("(10) This section applies in relation to a muzzle-loading pistol club and its members as it applies to a rifle club and its members with the substitution for any reference to a rifle of a reference to a muzzle-loading pistol.
(11) In subsection (10) above—

"muzzle-loading pistol club" means a club where muzzle-loading pistols are used for target shooting; and

"muzzle-loading pistol" means a pistol designed to be loaded at the muzzle end of the barrel or chamber with a loose charge and a separate ball (or other missile).").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 74 not moved.]
Clause 45 [Financial provisions]:
The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 22, line 43, after ("14") insert ("or (Compensation scheme for firearms dealers)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment has already been spoken to by my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill. It is consequential to the accepted Amendment No. 27. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 76 and 77 not moved.]
Clause 46 [Interpretation and supplementary provisions]:
[Amendment No. 78 not moved.]
Schedule 1 [Transitional arrangements for small-calibre pistols]:
[Amendment No. 79 not moved.]
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Burnham): My Lords, Amendment No. 80 has been wrongly marshalled; it will be called after Amendment No. 84.
Schedule 2 [Consequential and minor amendments]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 27, leave out lines 31 to 39 and insert—
("5. In section 32 (exemption from fee for certificate in certain cases) for subsection (2) there shall be substituted the following subsections—
"(2) No fee shall be payable on the grant to a responsible officer of a rifle club, miniature rifle club or muzzle-loading pistol club which is approved under section 15 of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 of a firearm certificate in respect of rifles, miniature rifles or muzzle-loading pistols, or ammunition, to be used solely for target shooting by the members of the club, or on the variation or renewal of a certificate so granted.
(2A) Subsection (2) above—

(a) does not apply if the operation of subsection (1) of section 15 of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 is excluded in relation to the club by a limitation in the approval; or

(b) if the operation of subsection (1) of that section in relation to the club is limited by the approval to target shooting with specified types of rifles, miniature rifles or muzzle-loading pistols, only applies to a certificate in respect of rifles, miniature rifles or pistols of those types.

(2B) No fee shall be payable on the grant to a person acting in his capacity as the responsible officer of a licensed pistol club of a firearm certificate in respect of small-calibre pistols or ammunition to be used solely for target shooting by members of the club, or on the variation or renewal of a certificate so granted.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 67. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 82 to 84:
Page 27, line 43. at end insert—
("6A. In section 38(8) (surrender of register of transactions by dealer) after the words "this Act" there shall be inserted "(or, if the register is kept by means of a computer, a copy of the information comprised in that register in a visible and legible form)".").
Page 27, line 44, leave out ("In section 40(4) (inspection of registers)") and insert ("In section 40 (compulsory register of transactions)—
(a) in subsection (4)—
(i)")
Page 27, line 45, at end insert—
("(ii) after the words "the register" there shall be inserted the words "(or if the register is kept by means of a computer, a copy of the register in a form which is visible and legible)"; and
(b) after that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(4A) Every person keeping a register in accordance with this section by means of a computer shall secure that the information comprised in the register can readily be produced in a form in which it is visible and legible and can be taken away.".").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, these amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. 38. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 80 not moved.]
11.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 85:
Page 27, line 48, at end insert—
(" .In section 50 (special powers of arrest) for subsection (2) there shall be substituted the following—
"(2) A constable may arrest without warrant any person whom he has reasonable cause to suspect to be committing an offence under section 4, 5, 18, 19, 19A, 20, 21 or 47(2) of this Act and, for the purpose of exercising the power conferred by this subsection, may enter any place.".").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 85 applies to Scotland alone. It amends Section 50 of the Firearms Act 1968 which was repealed in 1984 for England and Wales and continues in existence only for Scotland. It is necessary to amend Section 50 to provide a constable in Scotland with a power to arrest without warrant a person whom he has reasonable cause to suspect of committing the new offence of having a small calibre pistol outside the premises of a licensed pistol club. Such a power is not required in England but the view has been reached that it should be included for Scotland. Therefore the draftsman has taken the opportunity to replace Section 50(2) in its entirety. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 86 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 87:
Page 29, column 3, leave out lines 18 and 19.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 67. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes past eleven o'clock.

  UK Trade with the European Union
  UK Trade with the European Union
  Emergency Towing Vessel Trials: Report
  Emergency Towing Vessel Trials: Report
  Coastal Freight: UK Tonnages
  Coastal Freight: UK Tonnages
  Merchant Fleet
  Merchant Fleet
  Bosnia: Administration of Relief
  Bosnia: Administration of Relief
  Joint Services Command and Staff College
  Joint Services Command and Staff College
  HIV: 10-year Survivors
  HIV: 10-year Survivors
  AIDS: 2-year Survivors
  AIDS: 2-year Survivors
  HIV and Complementary Medicine
  HIV and Complementary Medicine
  AIDS and Complementary Medicine
  AIDS and Complementary Medicine
  Mental Health: Green Paper
  Mental Health: Green Paper
  Gas Installations: New Safety Regulations
  Gas Installations: New Safety Regulations
  Council Leaseholders: Service Charge Reductions
  Council Leaseholders: Service Charge Reductions
  Freedom of Access to Information on the Environment: Response to Report
  Freedom of Access to Information on the Environment: Response to Report
  Asylum Seekers: Detentions
  Asylum Seekers: Detentions
  Hong Kong: British Ethnic Minorities
  Hong Kong: British Ethnic Minorities
  Venture Capital Aided Firms: Government Assistance
  Venture Capital Aided Firms: Government Assistance
  Vitamin B6
  Vitamin B6
  Fishing Licence Transfers
  Fishing Licence Transfers
  Farm Incomes
  Farm Incomes