Sitting of 12 February 1997

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

Public Research Establishments
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wells.]
[Relevant documents: First report from the Science and Technology Committee of Session 1994–95, on the Efficiency Unit Scrutiny of Public Sector Research Establishments (HC 19), the Government's response thereto (HC 805), the fifth report from the Science and Technology Committee of Session 1995–6 and the first report of Session 1996–97 on the Prior Options Reviews of Public Sector Research Establishments (HC 643 and HC 71-I) and the Government's response thereto (HC 291 of Session 1996–97).]
9.34 am
Sir Giles Shaw: I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce this debate in the House on the subjects connected with the work of the Select Committee on Science and Technology. The debate is about the inquiry into the prior options reviews, which was recently concluded, and to which the Government have now responded, although the response was not available when the Liaison Select Committee met to discuss whether a debate was appropriate. It is indeed appropriate, because of the importance of the subject and the reviews that have recently been undertaken.
Prior options reviews are not part of the everyday parlance of the House and it is therefore important that we establish what we are talking about. Prior options reviews are most closely associated with the next steps reforms that the Government have undertaken in recent years. The reviews decide whether institutes should be abolished, privatised, made into next steps agencies or retained in the parent Department. Significant questions are asked. Is the function needed? Must the public sector be responsible for the function? Must the public sector provide the function itself? What is the scope for rationalisation? How will the function be managed? The reviews covered almost all the institutes and institutions, via the research councils or directly through the Government, and therefore encompassed the entire range of scientific activities undertaken outwith academia.
Each executive agency in the programme is subject to five-yearly reviews, in which the prior options questions are addressed. The reviews were not designed for scientific institutions and insufficient adjustments may have been made to fit them for the purpose. That was one of the reasons why the Select Committee felt it necessary to undertake the inquiry. The Select Committee was not wholly convinced that the inquiry would be an appropriate step, but it was clear—as the reviews took longer to report
252
than expected—that the scientific community had become deeply uneasy about what was going on. For that reason, the Select Committee undertook its inquiry.
Our conclusions are important and also significant. The Select Committee has always accepted that some review of public sector research establishments was justified. After all, the bodies under review cost some £690 million a year. If the 1992 Levene Stewart "Review of Allocation, Management and Use of Government Expenditure on Science and Technology" was correct, the research laboratories of many Government Departments were ripe for review. One of the recommendations of our most recent report was that all Government research establishments should be reviewed at least once every five years.
It concerned the Select Committee that the review process was seen as hasty and repetitive and as inappropriately applied to research council institutes, which can be central to the research councils' mission. Moreover, in most cases, the institutes are reviewed regularly by their parent bodies—as is only sensible—and the research councils have a good record in closing those that are unsatisfactory.
The Select Committee was also concerned about the openness of the procedure. The Government began well by placing guidelines in the Library and by participating in a meeting to discuss the reviews which was held at, and under the auspices of, the Royal Society. However, as the reviews progressed, that openness ceased. The Government announced that
"full independence from the public sector"
would be desirable for the Institute of Arable Crops Research, the Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research, the John Innes Centre and the Silsoe Research Centre. It was not clear exactly what this would imply, but the Government commissioned further work on the matter from Sir Peter Levene.
The terms of reference of the committee were not published. This—together with the fact that it was thought to be looking at establishments that had not yet been reviewed—led to great uneasiness. In the course of the Committee's inquiry, it became clear that Sir Peter's task was primarily concerned with pension provision and pension liabilities. Frankly, I do not understand—nor does the Committee—why a clear announcement of the nature of the inquiry could not have been made at the outset. Much unease and loss of morale could thus have been easily avoided.
Another matter that troubled the Committee was that the reports of the review teams were not published. The Government's view is that these, and the steering group reports, constituted advice to Ministers which would "not normally be published". This is one of the issues that Select Committees of whatever persuasion come up against from time to time—the blanket of "advice to Ministers". It may be the case, but there seems to be little reason for denying publication, particularly since the earlier efficiency scrutinies had been published.
There may have been concern that the Government might be criticised for rejecting the advice of the reports. Frankly, I doubt that, because my hon. Friend the Minister for Science and Technology is not someone who would be deterred by that, and he would be encouraged and would probably accept the advice. Although the Government

253
have been criticised for the scale and scope of the efficiency scrutiny, they have not, as far as I am aware, been criticised for rejecting any of the advice.
The unwillingness to release the reports increased the scientific community's suspicion of the Government's motives. It also meant that the Committee could not discount the complaints that the findings of the reviews and the steering groups were being overridden. This lack of openness is particularly regrettable, given the White Paper's undertaking that advice from the Committee and expert groups working on specific issues would normally be published.
Decisions were taken on some Government research establishments before the current round of reviews. AEA Technology—which the Committee visited—the Laboratory of the Government Chemist and the National Physical Laboratory were to be privatised. On 29 January, the Government announced the result of the current set of reviews in broad outline. ADAS—formerly known as the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service—and the Building Research Establishment are to be privatised, as was already known, and as had been recommended by the efficiency scrutiny.
Some of the laboratories in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and some in the Scottish Office are to become executive agencies, or companies limited by guarantee. Almost all research council institutes are to remain as they are, subject to efficiency improvements. We are promised that the director general of the research councils will have oversight of these efficiency improvements.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is there any difference between the treatment of institutions in Scotland under the Scottish Office and institutions in the rest of the United Kingdom?
Sir Giles Shaw: I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman because the Committee did not investigate Scottish institutions, but we might well consider his question in a further assessment. This will be an on-going process, as he is well aware.
The reviews have more worrying implications. The Government's policy has been to substitute meddling from central Departments with the discipline of the marketplace. The result of those reviews seems to have been to increase the meddling from the centre, even though market disciplines are in place. The Government response to our recent report tells us that research council institutes
"account for some £220 million annually of public funds from the Research Councils and from other Government departments and other public bodies."
That is less than a third of the total involved. Much of that money is placed in the institutes as contracts from Government Departments and other public bodies—that is to say, the Department concerned has concluded that no one else from whom it can obtain the same research is better or cheaper.
Research councils have always had the independence of their charters. In 1993, the Government reformed the system so that each of the new research councils had a chairman drawn from business, and a new mission.
254
The councils were given a fresh remit by the White Paper which emphasised the need to enhance wealth creation and the quality of life. That seems entirely appropriate and is an excellent example of the action that the Government have taken to restore and develop the structure within which science can compete.
In the Government response to the Committee's most recent report, the prior options reviews were justified on the ground that the Science and Technology Act 1965 gave the Secretary of State power to give directions to the research councils, and that the White Paper
"gave the Director General of the Research Council specific responsibilities for assisting Ministers in ensuring the successful and high quality operation of the Research Councils".
That is all very laudable, and the White Paper agreed to give the DGRC responsibilities. But it also suggested that the director general would be advised by a small standing group of independent experts, selected to allow him or her to draw upon the requisite scientific, economic, industrial and management expertise. Frankly, this has not been carried out.
There is an irony in this process. In setting up the next steps agencies—with which prior options reviews are most closely associated—the Government were devolving power away from the centre of Departments and giving it to those responsible for operations who, it was assumed, would know their business best. The research councils had substantial independence before the process began. The outcome of the reviews appears to have increased central oversight of non-departmental public bodies, rather than reduced it. That is one of the prime criticisms that we make.
We are not the only ones to make that criticism. Dr. Michael Elves—a business man who knows the public sector system well—said that UK public sector science
"should be recognised for what it is—a living and growing organism that can be all too easily snuffed out and which would take a long time to re-build, if indeed it ever could be."
That is a fair warning.
The existence of the Select Committee on Science and Technology will be a bulwark to prevent this kind of thing from happening again, and our recent activities have qualified us for this role. A large proportion of Government-funded science flows through the research councils and institutes, and it is well within the remit of a Committee established by this House to monitor its effectiveness and the suitability of its structure. Colleagues will recall that the Committee's first report to the House concerned the structure of the Office of Science and Technology.
The Committee's concerns go wider, and we need to develop the OST as Parliament's instrument to ensure that we can monitor and measure the pulse and heartbeat of British science. The economic health of the nation depends on that, and the very survival of our people depends on the development of scientific solutions to our human problems. The Committee's concern with reviews of this sort is that this debilitating matter has had severe effects on the morale of the science base. Prior options is only the most recent review, but it is by no means the only one that has been effected. For example, there was the 1992 review of allocation, management and use of Government expenditure, and the 1993

255
multi-departmental scrutiny. Following those, it was not surprising that the latest review received a frosty reception.
The Committee must have a role in overseeing what goes on, and we must ensure and advise on the effectiveness of the instruments that the Government set up. Our research councils have served us well, and I believe that the Government's structure for science has served the nation well also.
It is our judgment that the Select Committee on Science and Technology will serve the House well. As I come to the end of my 23 years here, I am delighted to think that the Committee will continue to be a satisfactory achievement for all who serve on it.
What really makes a Select Committee work, however, is the commitment of the individual members and the wonderful contribution of the Clerks. Our Clerk served the Committee outstandingly: every good creation should have its Eve, and we certainly had one. At the end of the day, the effectiveness with which the House can use the information supplied by Select Committees will be its greatest achievement.
9.49 am
Dr. Jeremy Bray: All members of the Select Committee on Science and Technology will want to thank the hon. Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) for the way in which he has chaired it in its first complete Session of Parliament. He has been fair and patient, and he has been loyal to the Committee in everything that he has done. The Committee will also want to join him in thanking the staff and all who have given evidence. I believe that the next Parliament will want to continue what is perhaps a slight anomaly within the structure of departmental Committees but is fully justified by the work that has been done.
The prior options review process was a time-wasting indulgence, as the Chairman of the Committee said, but it was an indulgence specifically of the Deputy Prime Minister's prejudice against science, against the public sector, and therefore against public sector science. It caused prolonged uncertainty and demoralisation in services tackling key problems on which the Government have conceded that they have failed and are no longer trusted by the public—most dramatically in the handling of BSE and food safety.
The research establishments reviewed included the Veterinary Laboratories Agency—the principal vehicle for research into BSE—and the Institute of Food Research. The three key questions posed in the review were as follows: were the functions of the establishments needed; should they remain in the public sector; and should they retain their separate existence?
There was no sense in asking the questions unless there was the option, as implied by the title of the review, of expecting the answer to be no. The eventual answers arrived at by the Minister were yes in every case, except for the Agricultural Development Advisory Service and the Building Research Establishment, which were not research council institutes.
The questions had only to be asked, after the repeated reviews to which the research establishments had already been subjected, to demoostrate that they were the wrong questions. Rather than wasting time on the wrong
256
questions, I should like to ask some better questions and to suggest some better answers that the new Government will have to consider after the election.
In announcing plans for a food safety adviser, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food emphasised the adviser's freedom to comment publicly on policy. That is of course necessary, but unfortunately the problem is more serious than that. There is no problem with a certainty that has to be presented; the problem is how to handle uncertainty, genuine doubt and differences of opinion.
In an excellent review in Nature this week of John Lemon's book, "Scientific Uncertainty and Environmental Problem Solving", Tim O'Riordan says that there are four types of scientific uncertainty, raised by the following questions: what is the problem; how does one observe it; what are the odds; and what is one after, anyway?
Ministers need to understand the different kinds of uncertainty, because they unavoidably contribute to them. Framing the problem is not trivial. The question whether BSE can cross the species barrier was a good question at one stage but is not necessarily the right question today. The question whether human activity has any effect on climate may have been the right question in 1990, but is it the right question in 1997?
There is a further uncertainty about how one observes and models a system—how one sets up the logical structure within which to look for answers. The models may be biological systems on which it is possible to experiment in the laboratory, computer simulations within which the evidence is structured, or other combinations of evidence and analysis.
The odds, the statistical uncertainty, are the kind of uncertainty that people usually have in mind when they talk about risk analysis; but that is only one aspect of uncertainty, and not the most difficult.
The final uncertainty concerns what the Government are after anyway. It is not a matter only of the declared purposes or even the hidden agenda, but of the issues that inevitably arise when different parties consider the attitudes of other parties and the passage of time eventually resolves the situation.
Decision-theoretic uncertainty is not high-falutin' mathematics—the calculation of minimax solutions or expected utility, as one finds in the textbooks—but political reality; it may be sordid, but it is real. Is the Minister concerned with avoiding blame for outcomes within his period of office, as in an E. coli outbreak?
Obviously, everyone, including the Minister, is concerned with minimising the effects, but is it a matter in which the effects may be seen within a matter of weeks, as with E. coli; is it a matter of climate effects that will not be measurable for another 20 years; or is the Minister dealing not with reality as we ordinarily understand it, but with perceptions of reality in the public mind; not with trade, competitiveness and the current balance—the preoccupations of the Chancellor—but with sentiment in the foreign exchange markets?
The four kinds of uncertainty are not independent. Problem formulating, modelling, statistical uncertainty and decision-theoretic uncertainty all interact. Each has to be reconsidered in the light of changes in the others. Institutionally, each has to be provided for, possibly separately, but certainly differently; each has to be tackled, but each has to communicate with the institutions and the people tackling the others.

257
On the first kind of uncertainty—what is the problem?—anyone can join in, but the Minister has a duty at all times to give his view. Unless the Government's view of what the problem is comes out clearly, neither the public debate nor the practical work of the scientists will be given a clear steer about the direction in which they need to go.
Defining the problem is not a trivial exercise, and the formulation is likely to change as the problem develops and as people change their views. When the stakes are high, as they often are, and a "play safe" strategy is required, ethical and social consensus positions will rightly be pressed and the Minister must handle them.
On modelling uncertainty, a wide set of scientific issues arises. There will be analytically elegant models for which it is very difficult to produce, or even conceive of, serious empirical testing. The currently fashionable model is the market. The market will decide: it will decide the length of traffic jams on the M25, for example.
Then there will be the prescriptive advocacy of the farmers, of the oil-producing countries or of Greenpeace, defending preset conclusions; and there will be closed shops in particular scientific sub-disciplines. Scientific peer groups will have to fight it out, and be seen to fight it out, with the victor possibly changing when the problem changes.
Typically, the institutions pursuing their different models will need to be tested and compared by another kind of institution, able to join in the technical argument, but standing above it and not pontificating. It is unlikely that the market or an operational arm of Government would be able to fulfil the testing and comparison role.
With problems and methods better formulated and reviewed, the statistical and risk analysis can be pressed all the harder, but it is not the only sort of uncertainty. Here come the hazards of the million-to-one-against events that occur with monotonous regularity, revealing the misformulation of the problem specification in the first place. The need is not so much for an institution to do the risk analysis, because the problem formulators and modellers will want to do that themselves, but for a sufficiently wide audience to understand the argument and its limitations and dependencies, not just in general but in its application to the point at issue.
That leads on to the decision-theoretic uncertainty. What are the Minister, the media or the public after? It is a palpably obvious question in politics, but a contortionist's nightmare in game theory and decision theory. Does the Minister think that I think that he thinks that they think that there is nothing in it, so they would not move anyway? The limitations and the realities of politics need to be understood, as well as the balances of scientific uncertainty. The whole process of decision making becomes much more effective and efficient if sufficient people in government and politics can handle the different sorts of scientific uncertainty. That is why the work of the Select Committee is so important.
At the time of the last general election, I said that we had learnt nothing about methods of government since the 1960s. So I got Neil Kinnock' s and John Smith's agreement that the Office of Science and Technology should look, for the Government, at research on how Government should behave, as well as at Government research into how other people should behave.
258
A free-standing Office of Science and Technology—a pale shadow of the proposal—has come and gone. Now, of course, it is perfectly reasonable for the Opposition to accept present Government methods as a point of departure. But, whoever wins the election, the present methods are not sustainable. They must improve or, under the pressures of continuing social and technological change, they will deteriorate further.
10.1 am
Mr. Patrick Thompson: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak briefly in the debate. I was interested in the remarks of the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray), but I will not follow his analysis in detail. I certainly support what he had to say about my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw), the Chairman of the Select Committee. I am a fairly new member—not necessarily the best behaved—but he has certainly been patient and an excellent Chairman. Sadly, I too am retiring at the next general election, but I certainly support the remarks of both hon. Members about the importance of an active Science and Technology Select Committee to the nation. I hope that my hon. Friend and anyone else in authority will take that into account.
I have two themes. The first is the effect of the prior options process in my local area and in my constituency, which contains many people who work in research institutes and who have an interest in what has been happening. If time permits, I shall comment on the importance of science and scientific research and the relationship between that and public attitudes to science. Again, that is relevant to the debate.
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his response to my many letters. I was surprised that I had written so often to him about prior options. When I went through the papers, I realised how grateful I should be to him for his assiduousness in getting back to me quickly with replies on the various matters. I pay tribute to his commitment to science. He has written a number of articles recently. One was in the New Scientist and I have it before me. I agree with his general approach to these matters. He pays tribute in the article to Britain's excellent science base, saying:
"With 1 per cent. of the world's population, Britain carries out 6 per cent. of its research, produces 8 per cent. of all science publications".
We certainly punch above our weight in science. I may have a little more to say about public attitudes at the end of my remarks.
I also support the commitment of my hon. Friend the Minister to education and higher education as it relates to the science base. After all, I spent 23 years teaching science in the schools—it is amazing, and I can hardly believe it now. When I hear or read about my hon. Friend paying tribute to the importance of science education, I can only say, "Hear, hear!"
I will not say much about the Select Committee report and the Government response to it as my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey has dealt with that in some detail and, basically, I agree with his remarks. I must simply pose the question, where is the memorandum on the rationale for the recent Government decisions? It is difficult to find all the information. I hope that my hon. Friend will tell me when it will appear in the Library. Indeed, it may even be there this morning, but I have not seen it.
The only other thing that I have to say about all this documentation before us this morning is to make an appeal. I have read the Select Committee report—I suppose I must

259
bear some responsibility for it—and the Government response. There is not much science in it. As a scientist, all this would be much more interesting if we could get a little more science into the paperwork that affects the administration and workings of science in this country. Other countries do so. I suspect that if, we read the equivalent documents in France or Germany, we would find more science in them. I spend a lot of time wondering why the Select Committee does not write much about science itself, and the Government must take their share of that criticism.
East Anglia has the fastest growing population in the United Kingdom and, as hon. Members will agree, it has an important scientific base, a high level of research and development and a skilled work force. There is no question, therefore, but that what is happening in Norwich in relation to science is important and the Committee has taken account of that. I welcome the prior options review as it affects my area at this stage, and I welcome the retention of the Central Science Laboratory in Norwich. That was the correct decision, and I welcome it. As I said, East Anglia has a high scientific profile and devotes a higher proportion of its gross domestic product to research and development than any other region.
In Norwich, although not in my constituency, we have the John Innes Centre, the Institute of Food Research and the Central Science Laboratory. Also, many people who work at the University of East Anglia have connections with research institutes in other parts of the country. Indeed, I have had some correspondence from Dr. Phillip Williamson, who is a constituent of mine, about the Centre for Coastal and Marine Sciences—another of the institutes affected by our discussions. Dr. Williamson also gave evidence to the Select Committee, and he highlighted the concerns in his letters to me.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey said that concerns were raised by this process, which perhaps should not have been so acute, as I think hon. Members on both sides of the House would agree. Dr. Williamson referred to that in his correspondence. He talked about costs, staff morale and the fate of national data centres within Natural Environment Research Council laboratories. He raised a number of issues that are relevant. The scientists for whom he spoke were concerned about the process, but I think that my hon. Friend the Minister is aware of that and will no doubt take note of it.
Because of my interest in institutions in Norwich, I have had representations from the National Farmers Union, which is concerned about the quality of research in agriculture and its continuance and from the trade unions. It is fair to say that all those representations were on the same theme and for that reason there is no need for me to elaborate too much. Their concerns were much the same.
I shall quote a letter that I wrote to my hon. Friend the Minister some time in March last year:
"Under the existing system, agriculture benefits from effective, multi-disciplinary research conducted within the framework of a national strategy.
The transfer of the John Innes Centre (and of other Research Council Institutes) to 'university ownership'—
I was not clear what that meant—
"would run the risk of diminishing the level of scientific interchange and of exposing the work of such Research Council Institutes to the shorter-term priorities involved in seeking a financial return. The impetus for basic research would be weakened with less effective
260
spending and more duplication of facilities, research and skills. There would also be likely to be a deterrent effect upon the career structures of scientists in such centres given the prevalence of short-term contracts for university research staff."
I quote that to highlight the fact that the NFU was concerned about the prior options review. My quotation summarised its concerns.
My final local point concerns the university of East Anglia which has been interested in the process, not least because of its proximity to the John Innes Centre, the Institute of Food Research and the Central Science Laboratory. Unsurprisingly, I had considerable correspondence with the university's vice-chancellor, Dame Elizabeth Esteve-Coll. I do not know how this squares with the NFU's idea of university ownership or whatever it was. I did not quite follow the connection, so perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister can enlighten me.
The theme that emerged from the correspondence was that the university was keen that there should be
"a vision for the creation of a federation based on the Institutes and the University which could form the major UK centre for food science, food analysis and food safety."
Obviously, the university was concerned about the future of the CSL, with which I have already dealt, and with more general points, which I will not elaborate further. However, I think that the university will be happy with where we are now. The Government were sensible to let the matters stand where they are.
I hope that the debate that has been opened up between the university, the research institutes and the Government can be continued positively. I am trying to be brief, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister has picked up my point and can say that that will happen. If he can do that, there is no need for me to elaborate further my local points. [Interruption.] I am doing my best to be brief, but much has been happening in Norwich on this issue.
To summarise my remarks about prior options, I shall quote from the recent note produced by the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, which states:
"care must be taken if 'pulling up the plant too often to examine its roots' is not to affect the ability of the Research Councils to maintain the long-term vitality of the science and engineering base, by diverting management time and Science Budget funds to the inevitable legal and administrative tasks involved. The Government on the other hand wishes to reduce to a minimum work carried out in the public sector and sees the additional prior options process as a critical part of that policy."
That sums it up well. There have been real concerns and I support those that have been raised.
I do not have time to talk about the public understanding of science. I refer hon. Members to Melvyn Bragg's recent article in The Times. I had thought that the two cultures went out after CP Snow's books, which I read, but sadly they have not. Melvyn Bragg's article says it all. Our country still has a problem with its culture and attitudes to science. I would love to talk more about it but I shall not. I hope that people will read that article and that my hon. Friend the Minister will take note of the serious issues that it raises.
10.13 am
Dr. Lynne Jones: Unlike the previous three speakers, who are retiring, I hope to return to the House after the general election. I wish to place on record my grateful thanks for their work. I have found the

261
work on the Select Committee tremendously enjoyable. This debate has shown that there is complete agreement on the report.
I regard my work on the Science and Technology Select Committee as the must useful work that I do in this building, largely because the Committee approaches its work consensually. We take evidence, examine issues objectively and reach conclusions. Almost always, we find that, irrespective of our political affiliations, we agree. I contrast that with the work in this Chamber, where we are at one another's throats. The adversarial nature of debates diminishes our Parliament and does not lead to good government. If we had more of the Select Committee approach in the legislative process, this might be a much better governed country.
As recently as last night, the Government had the opportunity to refer the National Health Service (Primary Care) Bill to a Special Standing Committee, which would have enabled it to go through such a process. However, they refused. I hope that the new Government after the general election will consider the use of more Special Standing Committees so that we can get more agreement in the House and better government.
The hon. Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) and my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) adequately outlined the Committee's concerns about the prior options review and the efficiency scrutiny, so I do not propose to go over that. I sound a slight note of disagreement with the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson), who said we should do more science in our Committee. While this report is largely about the organisation and administration of science, we have recently conducted a major inquiry into human genetics, which was full of science and very interesting. We produced recommendations that the Government first rejected, and then accepted after we went back to them. That shows the Committee's effectiveness.
I was also treated to the delights of particle physics and astronomy during our inquiry into P Parc. Those areas of science are exciting. If more publicity was given to them, there would be more public interest in science and in our scientific endeavours, which are so important for our economic well-being.
The scrutiny was supposed to lead to greater efficiencies. Our report makes it clear that we do not feel that that was the result. The scrutiny has led to much disruption in a community which, as the hon. Member for Norwich, North said, the Minister accepted in his New Scientist article was one of the most cost-effective producers of research among G7 countries. If we are so cost-effective, we must wonder why it was necessary to go through the reviews, which have led not to efficiencies but to inefficiencies.
For example, the Medical Research Council has not been able to replace the director of its reproductive biology unit in Edinburgh, who left last year. The Central Science Laboratory stated:
"It is regrettable that political considerations led to the retention of CSL's Food Science laboratory in Norwich when the clear business case was for it to be integrated"—
with the new facility at York—
"releasing savings of over £1 million a year."
The efficiency scrutiny has wasted £1 million a year.
Mr. Dalyell: To reinforce my hon. Friend's comment, the decision led in Edinburgh to outrage in informed circles in the university.
Dr. Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for reinforcing my point.
The Institute of Arable Crops Research says that more than 60 per cent. of its staff have contracts of less than three years, compared with 10 per cent. in 1981. That means that staff spend much time applying for money and submitting proposals.
The submission to our inquiry from the Institution of Professionals, Managers and Specialists states:
"inefficiencies are on the increase as more and more scientists are drawn into procuring and managing contract funds and hunting for sponsorship deals."
That is not efficiency. Senior scientists can spend up to 40 per cent. of their time applying for grants, writing progress reports and reviewing other colleagues' proposals.
I hope that we will learn from the review and that we will not repeat the mistakes made in it. I want to spend a few minutes discussing the outcome and why we are happy with it. It means that most of the research institutes will remain in the public sector. Perhaps the main reason why privatisation did not occur was because of the problems surrounding the so-called crystallisation of pension rights. At present, in public bodies, there is no funded pension scheme—there is a pay-as-you-go pension scheme funded out of the research councils' budgets. Were the institutes to be privatised, they would have to move to a funded scheme and the Government would have to pay over a lump sum to fund the pension liabilities.
It is ironic that, in the long run, it makes no difference at all to the taxpayer whether there is a one-off lump sum of £100 million, which was the figure quoted, or there are annual contributions from the taxpayer that are, in effect, the financing cost of that £100 million. However, that was the major stumbling block, which highlights the nonsensical arrangements for public finance in this country. The Treasury rules basically say that, if the Government borrow money for investment, it is bad; whereas, if the private sector borrows for the same purpose, that is acceptable or even good. The issue of pensions shows the ridiculous nature of the public sector rules. The sooner we move to having a general government financing deficit, separate from borrowing for investment, the sooner we will have more effective public services.
It is quite wrong when the Government borrow for consumption. We currently have a public sector borrowing requirement of about £26 billion, which has been used to finance consumption—mainly to pay for the high costs of unemployment. That sort of borrowing is to be deplored, but, had the same sum been borrowed to invest in, for example, public transport, our universities, our science base or research and development, that would have been borrowing well spent and we would reap the rewards in terms of greater income. That issue must be addressed by a future Government, but there is a reluctance on both sides of the political divide to examine it.

263
I am being pressurised to wind up, so I shall draw my speech to a conclusion. All hon. Members recognise the importance of science to the well-being of this country's economy, but money has been wasted on the efficiency scrutiny. In their reply, the Government said that that was less than 1 per cent. of the budget, but that is £6.9 million which could have been used to reinstate the I per cent. cut in the science budget that has occurred this year. It could have reinstated the Faraday Partnership or contributed towards the foresight action programme for which aerospace companies are calling—they want funding from the Department of Trade and Industry to match the money that they are prepared to put in. We could have used the money to much better effect and used it for wealth-creating activities, rather than on the long period of disruption resulting from the scrutiny.
10.23 am
Mr. Ian Bruce: I shall speak briefly so that other colleagues will be able to contribute.
I add my tribute to the valedictory comments about our Chairman, the hon. Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw), who is to retire at the general election, and about my other colleagues who have given excellent service on the Committee. I also wish to mention by name Ms Eve Samson, our Clerk, who is always modest about what she does, but who has been able to co-ordinate all her staff and all our advisers. Our Committee takes notice of what advisers say, and Select Committee reports are much better for having taken good advice, instead of trying to grandstand politically.
It is interesting to note that colleagues on both sides of the House have been talking about privatisation or non-privatisation issues. I am an unreconstructed Thatcherite, and the Labour party—or at least its Front Benchers—seems to be trying to catch up with us. The history of almost all the institutions, universities and other learned bodies in this country shows that they are not purely public sector bodies. Most of them started in the private sector and all of them have a great deal of private sector involvement in their work, so to take the argument about privatisation to its extreme would be a waste of time.
In their response, the Government did not accept the Committee's criticism that the prior options review was conducted unsatisfactorily, but that is not specifically what we said. I want to make it clear that we were saying that prior options was yet another review, on top of half a dozen resulting from almost every organisation review. The point that I would like to make to Ministers and to anyone else who may be examining our science base is that we cannot continue to carry out review after review if we want staff to get on and do their job. That is the strongest criticism that the Committee tried to make.
It is not as though we have not already had reviews—the Committee would never say that it does not believe that we should always check whether we are getting value for money from our science base. It is the fundamental reviews of who will own the research institutes, how they will be organised and whether the structure will differ that are disruptive and destroy morale.
In my constituency, I have one of the bases of the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology and one of the fish laboratories. I also have two organisations that have been reviewed and changed: AEA Technology, which is now
264
fully in the private sector, and the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, which has undergone great changes, not least in location. Once both organisations had their establishment nailed down and understood where they were going, they went from strength to strength.
We should therefore be careful about continual reviews. We must instead set up a structure that tells people that, every year, they should review how they have done and make minor alterations to their organisation if necessary. We cannot say that we are going to check whether organisations are in the public or private sector, or tell them that they are going to be completely changed around, because that would destroy their work.
On the issue of blue sky research and who should pay for it, I sometimes annoy colleagues on the Committee who say, "This is something that should be done by the public sector." I tend to respond, "You cannot say that in absolute terms." The private sector has often worked wonders in making progress in blue sky research, and we should always be considering how to involve commerce and industry in our science base. Any scientist who says, "I shall never talk to the other side, because I am publicly funded and only do things that will add to the sum of human knowledge," is not gaining the benefits of the approach taken in the foresight programme, whereby people consider where blue sky research might lead, and what might emerge from it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) said—and it bears repeating—that the United Kingdom has 1 per cent. of the world's population, 6 per cent. of the science spend and 8 per cent. of science discoveries. I believe that the more scientists involve themselves with industry and commerce and with the rest of academia, the better it is for the science base.
This is an important issue. I know that the Minister and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram), are both supportive of science, and, as a result, we can work together to the greater benefit of the British science base.
10.29 am
Mr. Andrew Miller: I join in the remarks directed at our Chairman, the hon. Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw). When he reads them in a few years' time he might think that they sound a little like an obituary, but we shall be sad not to see him in the Chair at future sittings of the Committee, because he has made a tremendous contribution. He has held the Committee together in good humour, which is a credit to him.
I shall respond to some remarks of the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson). I believe that there has been considerable science in our activities. Our Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council inquiry is a good example: not everyone can say that they attended a physics lesson addressed by Sir Martin Rees. I feel humbled by that experience.
Some of our earlier reports have put science centre stage—especially our report on human genetics, which will become important in years to come. It is a great pity that the only remaining area of substantial disagreement between the Committee and the Government and the outside world is the issue of insurance. We shall return to that fundamental issue, which will be important to a future Government.

265
Let me illustrate my criticism of what has happened by considering the constituency of the hon. Member for Norwich, North and the Central Science Laboratory. It cannot be a coincidence that there is a correlation between the location of such public sector science laboratories and marginal parliamentary seats throughout the country.
The Minister for Science and Technology (Mr. Ian Taylor)indicated dissent.
Mr. Miller: The Minister holds up his hands in horror at that suggestion. It is an extraordinary coincidence. Of course, having a scientific background, I draw no immediate conclusions from that, but other aspects suggest a lack of scientific objectivity in the process.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) commented on pensions. Since the privatisation of Amersham International, a new tactic has been adopted in handling pension funds. In the House of Lords' report of 1993–94, "Priorities for the Science Base", there is a strong recommendation in paragraph 5.10:
"The new Director General of Research Councils must be given real authority … which might include an unfettered right to publish his advice to the Minister".
As that is not really happening, one wonders whether there is scientific objectivity in the whole process.
My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) spoke of the role of the Deputy Prime Minister. It is a great sadness that we do not have a Minister of senior Cabinet rank to fly the flag for science and technology.
From time to time, we see in the House the results of public sector science being abused in many ways. The classic example has been the handling of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy crisis. It is a great pity that the Government have been unable to take a co-ordinated scientific lead based on a proper structure in a matter as important as that crisis, which has had an impact on every constituency. That would have been possible if a senior Minister had been in post. There remains a strong case for a member of the Cabinet taking responsibility for science. I do not decry the Minister, because he has worked hard in his role, but as a country we do not take the matter seriously enough.
The entire process that we have just gone through suffered from an element of predetermined intentions on the Government's part. It might have been a much better process if it had been carried out frankly and openly.
10.35 am
Mrs. Anne Campbell: I am grateful to my hon. Friends for allowing me time to speak. I associate myself entirely with the remarks that have been made about the hon. Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw), and the brevity of my remarks in no way reflects a lack of esteem—I am simply short of time.
The Government response to our report states that the recent exercise has been good value for money. I do not think that any hon. Member believes that. We are told that the cost of carrying out the review was less than 1 per cent. of the total science budget. I do not think that anyone believes that figure.
266
I have a letter written to me by the director of one of the research institutes that have been involved in the survey. It is headed "Confidential," so I do not intend to divulge his name, but he says that he finds it
"unbelievable that a Government driven so strongly by its perception of Private Sector excellence should ignore two important private sector financial considerations—the cost of time and the cost of lost output."
He continues:
"I could write for ever about this and especially the nonsense figure cited as the financial cost of the exercise (I know what figure the BBSRC submitted and know that it took no account of Institute costs)"—
so the costs that have been cited are simply the costs of the review teams. The cost to the institutes and the time that senior people in the institutes spent conducting the reviews is time lost to science.
The real problem is that the Deputy Prime Minister clings to an outmoded notion that the private sector is always superior to the public sector, which is completely contrary to common sense. We have had review after review under the Government. Following the White Paper in 1992, there was a management review. Following the management review, a multi-departmental review was conducted. Following that, an efficiency scrutiny was conducted by the Prime Minister's adviser, Sir Peter Levene, and now we have had a prior options review—time-wasting indulgence indeed, and all to no avail, because there has been minimal disturbance to the institutes, apart from the complete waste of time in conducting the reviews.
The secrecy with which the reviews has been conducted is very regrettable, especially in this case. On 29 January 1997, when the results of the prior options review were announced, the Department of Trade and Industry issued a press release accompanying the Minister's answer to a question asked by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans). One sentence of that press release read:
"I shall expect the NERC, under the oversight of the Director General of Research Councils, to pursue the opportunities for rationalisation and restructuring identified by the reviews."
How can it do so if the reviews are not to be published? Many people in the research councils are wondering about that. I have a letter from one of them, who suggests that the reasoning is that the reviews constitute advice to Ministers, and that such advice is not to be published. That is absurd. How can research councils implement advice if it is not published?
The fate of the royal Greenwich observatories is still in the balance. A review began at least two years ago to consider the rationalisation of the observatories in Edinburgh and Cambridge. Staff there are still waiting for a response. The problems are connected not with pensions, but with the complex ownership of the various sites around the world. The staff want the universities to take over the running of the observatories, as the universities use them. That is an eminently sensible suggestion. With a little common sense, the issue could have been resolved months ago, which would have been the best possible outcome.
10.40 am
Mr. Adam Ingram: I echo the warm sentiments expressed towards the hon. Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw), and pay a special tribute to my

267
hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray), who is also standing down at the next election. He has been of considerable help to me in my role as the Front-Bench Member with responsibility for science and technology.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Pudsey and other members of the Science and Technology Committee on obtaining the debate, and on their contributions to it. Once again, the Committee has provided a powerful service to the House. Without the Committee's efforts and output, the House would probably not have been given any time by the Government to discuss science and technology issues, let alone the future of the public sector research establishments. I fully recognise and endorse the views expressed by the Chairman of the Committee about the Committee's role and, like him, I hope that it will have a long-term future. His work, we hope, will go on into the next Parliament and beyond.
The last time the House discussed science and technology was on 11 June 1996, as a result of the Labour party allocating time to the subject. The Select Committee's first report was published in July last year, and the report that we are considering was published in November.
The Government announced their decision on the 38 establishments under review on 29 January. One day before this one and a half hour debate, they published their response to the Select Committee's report. I list that history of events to highlight the wholly unsatisfactory way in which the Government have gone about their business in relation to an important part of the nation's science and research base.
The all-party Select Committee made the same criticism of the Government's approach in the report of 17 July, which stated:
"We consider that the Department's policy on this matter is far from satisfactory".
The hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) seems to forget that criticism, but I draw it to his attention.
The real reason for the secrecy—or, as others have called it, the lack of transparency—in the conduct of the exercise, and the delay in publishing the findings of the review, was that the Government were working to only one agenda: the privatisation of the Government research establishments and the research council institutes. Their every effort was targeted towards that objective.
Anyone who doubts that need only look at the oral evidence that Sir Peter Levene gave to the Select Committee on 13 November last year. He said:
"When Ministers considered the report on the first tranche of reviews in May they decided that they needed some further advice on certain practical issues in relation to the privatisation option which they were considering."
Sir Peter went further. The Chairman of the Committee asked him:
"Could you confirm that you have not been asked, in relation to the Prior Options Review, to consider the effects of any changes on the science base itself?"
Sir Peter replied:
"That is not something we are looking at, that is correct."
Sir Peter was telling the Committee what the entire scientific community suspected—that the review was an off-loading exercise and a means by which to cut further the public science base. It was concerned not with quality,
268
but with dogma. It took the Government from May until January—nine months—to realise that they had got it wrong all along.
The Government were clearly frightened to allow full parliamentary scrutiny, through debate, of their antipathy towards the public sector research establishments. They knew that to allow proper examination of Sir Peter Levene's review would bring into the public domain the almost universal criticism levelled against the Government in the matter. The Confederation of British Industry, important trade bodies such as the Food and Drink Federation, the Royal Society, the royal academies and the learned institutes all voiced their trenchant criticism of the Government's approach.
The Institute of Biology said:
"Whenever the Government does not get the right result it wants from a review, it sets up a further one with the apparent intention of privatising and cutting back on services."
The Royal Society stated:
"the programme is being driven by a generic belief in the merits of privatisation, without adequate regard to the strategic role of publicly funded research in promoting the national good."
I could go on listing criticism after criticism of the Government's approach to the reviews. All are documented in the minutes of evidence submitted to the Select Committee. They make salutary reading for anyone involved in policy framing and policy making.
The history of the review process makes sorry reading for the Government. In June 1995 The Guardian carried a detailed story showing that the Government were split from top to bottom on the issue, and they probably still are. The story was based on letters leaked to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell). I shall read an extract from the article:
"The Government's response to a scrutiny of publicly funded research by Sir Peter Levene, the Prime Minister's efficiency adviser, was to be released last week alongside the report, Forward Look: Future Priorities for Government Research, and a Department of Trade and Industry report on industrial competitiveness."
But the letters show that a dispute between William Waldegrave, the Agriculture Minister, Michael Portillo, the Employment Secretary, Michael Heseltine, Trade and Industry Secretary, and David Hunt, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, has stopped the exercise.
A leaked letter from John Horam, the junior science minister, to James Paice, the junior employment minister, says that David Hunt wants yet another review of research councils and laboratories before final decisions are taken next year."
The article continues:
"Mr Portillo and Mr Heseltine, who favour quick decisions and privatisation of establishments—including the Health and Safety Laboratory—are objecting to further delays.
Mr Heseltine signalled his dissent by announcing that the National Engineering Laboratory, AEA Technology … and the Laboratory of the Government Chemist were to be sold without further reviews.
Mr Waldegrave, who set up the original review, has backed Mr Hunt, saying he would prefer a minimum review concentrating on laboratories, which had not been examined before."
There we have it. Those who are now without real influence in the Government favoured a more long-term approach, and those who would be king after the election—the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo)—favoured a full-scale privatisation of the laboratories and institutes. It is therefore right for us to warn the thousands of scientists

269
who work in those establishments to beware of a Tory fifth term. The Government have merely deferred their decisions on privatisation, not abandoned them. Anyone in doubt about that should read the speech given yesterday by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the right-wing Centre for Policy Studies. He said:
"The long march of privatisation goes on."
In their drive for ideological purity, the Government spared no expense in relation to the prior options review. As the Minister knows, I tabled a series of questions seeking to elicit the total cost of the exercise. The answers—95 in all, from the various Government Departments—varied from the helpful to the obscure. One thing was clear, however. Including the cost of the review of the royal observatories, more than £4 million was raided from the already hard-pressed science budget to pay for it. As other hon. Members have commented, that figure is probably at the lower end of the true cost incurred.
When I put questions to the President of the Board of Trade on the reviews of the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council institutes, I was informed that it was not possible to quantify the costs incurred by the several Government Departments involved in the prior options procedures without incurring disproportionate cost.
That answer was given to me by the Minister for Science and Technology. He was telling me and the House that his Department was working in the dark about the real cost of the exercise that he had initiated. It makes a mockery of the Minister's claim that the entire exercise was about enhancing the nation's science base. That could not be the case, because he did not know the cost-benefit analysis to which he was working, he was unaware of the costs involved, and providing benefit to the science base was not part of the exercise. Sir Peter Levene admitted as much to the Science and Technology Committee.
We have come to the end of the single-track road on which the Government have been travelling for the past few years in their obsession to privatise the Government research establishments and institutes. It has been costly, wasteful in time for all concerned, and demoralising for the people who work in those establishments.
The many thousands of scientists who work in laboratories have faced an uncertain future for far too long. The Government will now claim that what they announced on 29 January is effectively the last word on this subject. Those who understand how the Government work will not believe them. They will know that powerful Ministers, such as the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence, have only one objective in mind: the wholesale sell-off of public sector research establishments.
The Government's announcement on 29 January was no more or less than blatant political expediency. A fifth term of Tory Government will bring the privateers back to the laboratory doors, and the whole exercise will be re-initiated.
The Labour party has made it clear—I re-emphasise the commitment—that a Labour Government will fully recognise the importance of Government research establishments and research institutes as part of the nation's essential publicly funded science base. The
270
PSREs are a major national resource and a source of crucial research expertise involved in long-term research activity in collaboration with universities and industry. They have a vital role to play in offering independent, impartial advice to Government.
In these days of BSE, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, salmonella and E. coli 0157, the PSREs can contribute to the public good in a way that is not wholly open to the private research sector in its own right. Industry recognises that, as do the royal societies, academies and learned institutes.
In its response to the report by the Science and Technology Committee, which we are considering today, the Royal Society of Chemistry states:
"The Royal Society of Chemistry recognises the importance of safeguarding open public access to the information of PSREs as a key point of principle in the public interest.
The integrity and accessibility of the vast reserves of 'core data' within the existing PSREs should be preserved".
A Labour Government will provide such an environment, for the betterment of our nation's science base and the public good.
10.51 am
The Minister for Science and Technology (Mr. Ian Taylor): To an extent, this has been a bit of a wake, and I am sorry about that. This may be the last science debate in this Parliament, but it is certainly the last appearance in this Parliament in a science debate by my hon. Friends the Members for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) and for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson), and the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray), all of whom have contributed enormously over the years to the understanding of and enthusiasm for science, engineering and technology in this place.
I add my voice to the tributes that have already been paid to the very existence of the Select Committee. I hope that the valuable work that it has done in this Parliament—I note carefully the report on human genetics, for example—will continue in the next Parliament, if Parliament decides, as I hope it will, that a Science and Technology Select Committee should continue.
I have only a few minutes to respond to some of the serious points raised in the debate. I do not share the worry of my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey that the reviews were hasty and perhaps ill targeted. They were part of a continuing process. Naturally, they had to apply to the research council institutes, which account for about £220 million out of the £690 million expenditure. Some of the research councils have clearly indicated the benefit that has come from their work. The National Environment Research Council has made a clear statement to that effect, and I hope that my hon. Friend will appreciate that, quite often, such reviews make it easier to understand the relationship between a research council or institute, and the definition of the mission statement.
Several hon. Members, not only my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey but my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North and the hon. Members for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) and for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram), talked about openness. As a Minister, I have always been available for questioning across the Floor of the House. I wish that I were questioned more, because I enjoy being at the

271
Dispatch Box and answering questions. There is no lack of desire on my part to be open. Obviously, I cannot table questions; I can only appear if the questions are tabled, so perhaps colleagues will think about how they could table a few more to me.
We have tried to make consultations as wide as possible. Naturally, the review groups were very much associated with the sponsoring Department. The explanatory memorandums have been, or will be, placed in the Library. Indeed, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food placed one there today about its decisions of 9 December. Those are part of a general attempt to ensure that we understand why a particular process has taken place.
I shall not comment on ministerial advice, because, as the House well understands, that matter has wider implications. One point that I do pick up, however, is that in no sense was I anxious to undermine the morale of those who work within the science base. I recognise the importance of the work done in the research establishments and the excellence of the scientific achievements. In some cases, when objectively reviewed, some institutes have shown themselves to be up with the best of any in the United Kingdom. For example, the figures at the Babraham Institute are extremely convincing. Several of the reviews made it clear that research is best carried out in the public sector. I welcome that outcome, so there is no pre-ordained message.
I was saddened by the speech of the hon. Member for East Kilbride, who, having found that the reviews came up with decisions with which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) decided that she was happy, had to find a different excuse for the fact that the outcome was not so distasteful, and decided that it had something to do with split Governments, frit Governments and electioneering. It was not the most impressive contribution to the debate, although I pay full tribute to the interest of—I nearly said my hon. Friend; perhaps I will—my hon. Friend in the science base. Unfortunately, it did not extend to his speech today.
Other matters of great importance have been raised. I listened closely to the comments by the hon. Member for Motherwell, South on risk assessment. I have made two speeches: one to the British Association for the Advancement of Science; another to the parliamentary Science and Technology Committee, on risk assessment in its broadest sense. I share many of the hon. Gentleman's concerns. It is almost impossible for a Minister to come to the Dispatch Box with a degree of certainty about what often confuses scientists.
It is also difficult for a Minister—I hope that I shall criticise none of my colleagues—to come to the Dispatch Box and say, "I shall do what the scientists tell me," because scientists may say different things, or their comments may have different orders of magnitude. In those circumstances, we need a wide and public debate, attempting to get the public to understand the degree of risk involved. That is why I proposed a sort of Richter
272
scale of risk, so that there is at least an objective benchmark when we hit crises such as BSE, E. coli and longer-term matters such as the debate on climate control.
The hon. Member for Motherwell, South made one comment which justified the reviews, although that was not why he made it. He said that, in many cases, the questions will change over time. I accept that, but the process of how one discovers the answers may have to change over time. A particular establishment may therefore need to adapt its mission statement or look again at how it is configured.
The Office of Science and Technology's role in Government has now been well established by its success within the DTI, with enormous improvements in the lines of communication and delivery mechanisms. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North mentioned, quite rightly, the work of the Central Science Laboratory at Norwich. He also mentioned the John Innes Centre and the Institute of Food Research. He has been a tireless champion for research at Norwich. I confirm that I hope that open discussions will continue with the university of East Anglia on how to create a centre of research excellence, particularly in food. I underline and confirm his comments, particularly about the strength of the science base. We should make much more of it.
The hon. Member for Selly Oak said that the prior options reviews cost £6.9 million, which is way out. Even the hon. Member for East Kilbride mentioned £4.3 million. The direct cost of prior options reviews is some £1.5 million. Obviously, other factors have been taken into account—for example, with ADAS and moneys connected with the conversion to next steps agencies, which are not directly relevant to the process. Whatever the figures—I stick to £1.5 million—they are tiny in relation to the overall quest for efficiency out of a spend of £690 million. No Science Minister can ignore that fact.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) said that there are too many reviews. I draw his attention to my announcement, and that of the President of the Board of Trade as the Cabinet Minister responsible for science, that we shall now revert to quinquennial reviews, although we will look very carefully at the management tasks that have been given to the various research institutes. They have been informed that they can put them in place.
The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston talked about how the House responds to some of these crises, and mentioned predetermination. There was no predetermination, and that brings me to the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram). Government have a duty to look at the health of the science base. This country has a science base of which it can be proud. Science base expenditure has risen by more than 15 per cent. in the past 10 years. That is a great achievement. British science is well recognised throughout the world as being excellent. We punch above our weight, partly because of the concern of the Government.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. We must now move on to the next debate and to the Chairman of the Public Service Committee.

Ministerial Accountability and Responsibility
[Relevant documents: Second report from the Public Service Committee of Session 1995–96, on Ministerial Accountability and Responsibility (HC 313), the Government's response thereto (HC 67 of Session 1996–97) and first report from the Public Service Committee of Session 1996–97, on Ministerial Accountability and Responsibility (HC 234).]
11 am
Mr. Giles Radice: As you rightly say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I speak this morning in my capacity as Chairman of the Public Service Select Committee. As a Back Bencher, I remain convinced, as I was on 26 February 1996, when the House debated the Scott report, that Ministers should have resigned over that committee's findings.
When Sir Richard Scott came before the Select Committee, he was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright):
"Was Parliament denied information that Parliament constitutionally ought to have been provided with?"
Sir Richard replied:
"I think so, yes."
When asked:
"Did something constitutionally improper happen?"
Sir Richard said:
"Yes, I think it did and I said so."
In the event, the Government won the Scott debate by one vote and Ministers survived. I was always clear in my mind that our role in the Public Service Select Committee should not be to re-run the resignation debate; rather, it was to try to learn lessons from the Scott report and also from the Lewis affair, which had prompted our original investigations—lessons for ministerial responsibility and accountability and how it was to be defined and exercised in the modern world of a powerful Executive, the reformed civil service with new next steps agencies and, of course, rapidly changing events both at home and abroad.
We published our main report on ministerial accountability and responsibility last July. I thank my colleagues, many of whom are here today, our specialist advisers, our Clerk and our staff for their very valuable contribution. I know that hon. Members who are on the Select Committee and others wish to speak in the debate, so I shall summarise the main recommendations of the report.
With respect to definition, the Committee rejected the distinction that Sir Robin Butler attempted to draw when he came before the Scott inquiry between accountability and responsibility—in other words, that Ministers are always accountable to Parliament for the work of their Department but are not necessarily responsible for everything that happens in those Departments. We point out that it is not possible to distinguish clearly an area in which a Minister is personally responsible, and liable to take blame, from one in which he or she is merely constitutionally accountable. That is why we concluded:
"Ministerial responsibility is not composed of two elements with a clear break between the two. Ministers have an obligation to Parliament which consists in ensuring that government explains its
274
actions. Ministers also have an obligation to respond to criticism made in Parliament in a way that seems likely to satisfy it—which may include, if necessary, resignation."
However, as a Committee we are not obsessed, except in one respect to which I shall return, with the question of resignation. In fact, we tended to agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) that Parliament undervalues accountability, and that proper and vigorous scrutiny in accountability may be more important to Parliament's ability to correct error than forcing resignations.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I hope not to use the time of the House again in this important debate.
My hon. Friend made the important distinction between accountability and responsibility, but does he agree that it is the responsibility of Ministers to order the arrangements in their Departments in such a way that correspondence—including that from statutory bodies—on certain matters is drawn to their attention, when necessary? If that does not happen, Ministers are irresponsible in the organisation of their Department. There may be cases where correspondence on important matters sent to the Minister is not received by the Minister personally.
Mr. Radice: My hon. Friend gives an important example that shows why it is so difficult to make the distinction that Sir Robin Butler was trying to make, and emphasises the point that Ministers are responsible for the organisation of their Departments. If the organisation does not work effectively, and prevents a Minister from knowing about things that he should have known about, the Minister is responsible for that.
When we considered the issue of accountability, it seemed extraordinary to us that the only explicit statement on how Ministers are expected to discharge their obligation to Parliament appears in "Questions of Procedure for Ministers", which is not only, as Professor Hennessy told us, in his usual witty way,
"a mix of immutable principles with housekeeping practicalities",
but very much a prime ministerial or Executive document. I congratulate the Prime Minister on publishing that document, but that is not good enough. If Parliament is to make Ministers more accountable, we need a parliamentary resolution that sets out in clear and simple terms what we ourselves expect of Ministers.
Our report attempts to provide such a resolution. Indeed, if our report has a big idea, it lies in our resolution on ministerial accountability. As the House knows, the Government have accepted the value of our idea and issued their own draft, which they have been discussing with the other main parties in the House. Meanwhile, the Public Service Select Committee has considered the Government's draft. As we say in our follow-up report, which we managed to publish in time for the debate—I congratulate those who were responsible for that—we believe that the Government's draft resolution represents
"a useful and important step forward".
The resolution has four main principles. First, it sets out a Minister's duty to account to Parliament for policies, decisions and actions of Departments and agencies. Secondly, it lays on Ministers the duty of openness, limited only by statute and by the code of practice on access to Government information. That is something on

275
which we have insisted, and I congratulate the Government on accepting what we said on that point. Thirdly, the resolution lays on Ministers the duty to give accurate and truthful information to the House. Any inadvertent error should be corrected at the earliest opportunity. If Ministers knowingly mislead the House, we expect them to offer their resignation to the Prime Minister.
We had a slightly different formula. We said that Ministers should resign forthwith. We are prepared to accept the Government's formula, because it is the case that Ministers offer their resignation to the Prime Minister.
The fourth principle is the obligation on civil servants to be as open as possible with Select Committees, as set out in the civil service code. I congratulate the Government on accepting our formulation. It is important to draw in civil servants: we are not proposing that they should be directly accountable to Parliament, but it is their responsibility to be as open as possible in their dealings with Select Committees and with Members when, under ministerial direction, they reply to their letters and meet them.
I congratulate the Government on their response to the Committee's report. However, I emphasise the need for speed. It is essential that a resolution along the lines proposed by the Government should be passed before the dissolution of Parliament and the general election.
The Liberal Democrats feel very strongly that agencies should be directly accountable to Select Committees. In the Government's formulation, agencies are mentioned only in passing; they were not mentioned at all in ours, although in our report we made several recommendations. We said that, in practice, the House had already moved beyond the conventional position, and that agencies and agency chiefs were directly involved in giving information to Parliament with only formal involvement of Ministers. In my judgment, the House would not want to give up that formal involvement, because many hon. Members appreciate the fact that they can go to Ministers if they are not content with the answers they receive from agencies. We may move beyond that in time, but we are not in that position at the moment.
The Committee has said that the Osmotherly rules should be amended to indicate a presumption that Ministers will agree to requests by Select Committees for agency chief executives to give evidence. As yet, we have no example of agency chiefs who have not come before a Select Committee when it has called for them to appear. We have also said that agency chief executives should give evidence to Select Committees on matters delegated to them in framework documents, and that that should be put in the Osmotherly rules. They do precisely that in practice.
The Lewis issue concerned the possible confusion between the responsibility of Ministers and that of agency chief executives. The Committee said, first, that there should be far greater clarity of roles; the role of Ministers and that of agency chiefs should be clearly defined with respect to the responsibilities in framework documents.
Secondly, we said—a number of hon. Members were responsible for this point, including some who are present and who, I hope, will speak later—that we should consider whether politically sensitive agencies should be established on a statutory basis. It is true that the ability to
276
question Ministers about what happens in those statutory agencies would be lost, but the agency chiefs could come before and be directly accountable to Select Committees, which is what Liberal Democrats believe should apply to all agencies. What we would lose on the swings, we would gain on the roundabouts. We want the Government to consider that possibility.
I understand, and to some extent sympathise with, the Liberal Democrats' position, but it would be a tragedy if we failed to get this resolution through. The report concludes:
"We recommend that the Government should continue to seek cross-party approval for its draft Resolution, but we believe that failure to obtain the support of all parties should not prevent the House agreeing to a Resolution before the dissolution of this Parliament."
I want to make two short points about how the House could enforce accountability. The Committee considered a number of models, such as the Nolan model, which proposes a commissioner. We saw a possible role for the parliamentary ombudsman, but we preferred the idea of the Table Office publishing a list of the questions that had been blocked, which could be considered by a Select Committee—perhaps the Public Service Committee—to see what lessons could be learnt and whether the rules on the provision of information were being correctly applied.
The Committee believes that the Select Committee system should be strengthened. We must ask ourselves whether we have kept up with the revolution in government. In her evidence, Kate Jenkins referred to the Government as
"a modern organisation dealing with a rather old-fashioned form of accountability."
Another witness talked about
"the embarrassment of informational riches".
We receive an awful lot of information, but are we making as much sense of it as we ought?
I am glad that the Liaison Committee is examining the role of Select Committees in its end-of-term report, and I hope that, at the beginning of the next Session, it will take a longer look at that. The Liaison Committee should consider whether we have enough staff, whether there should be a closer relationship with the National Audit Office—I know that there are problems about that—and whether we should build a more proactive and positive relationship with agencies. I am sure that there are other questions that should be considered.
The Public Service Select Committee, in its very short life, has proved itself. It has considered civil service matters, but it has also had to deal with the aftermath of the Scott report and with constitutional issues. I see its future developing partly along those lines, rather like the Swedish select committee that we saw.
Mr. Hartley Booth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way during his concluding sentences. In reviewing the various matters that the Committee considered last year, particularly the supervision and checking of the accountability of Ministers, would he refer to the wider ambit of the ombudsman in Sweden?
Mr. Radice: There is no doubt that the ombudsman plays a much greater role in Sweden, as indeed does the audit officer, who is an important figure, although that

277
may not be his correct title. In Sweden, various bodies enforce non-parliamentary accountability and protect the individual. Clearly, we need to consider that as well.
In conclusion, I repeat that we must get a resolution on accountability through the House of Commons. We must show the public that proper lessons have been learnt from the Scott report, and that some good has come out of those events.
11.18 am
Sir Terence Higgins: This is an important, if somewhat esoteric, debate for both the House of Commons and the public at large. I am sure that it is right for the Liaison Committee to use one of its scarce slots on Wednesday mornings to provide the House with the opportunity to debate the issues to which the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice) referred.
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the work of his Committee. He served a long and distinguished apprenticeship as Chairman of the Sub-Committee of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee. I agree with him that the new Committee, which he chairs, is making an important contribution. I congratulate also the Minister responsible for public service—also an alumnus of the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service—on the response that the Government have given to the various recommendations in the Committee's reports. I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Member for North Durham that the resolution that he proposes should be passed during the current Parliament. We should seek to resolve the matter now rather than waiting until the next Parliament, when not all of us will necessarily be here.
This is a difficult subject to "mug up". It has an enormous history, which I shall say something about before taking up one or two of the points made by the hon. Member for North Durham about the Liaison Committee, which I have the honour of chairing. The history to which I refer is largely lost in the mists of time, but the matter came to public attention way back in 1954, on 20 July, when statements were made by the then Home Secretary about the famous Crichel Down case.
The myth grew up that a Minister had resigned—as Ministers ought in such cases—because something had gone wrong in his Department. Although the Minister had known nothing about it, because not he but his officials had been involved, it was nevertheless right for him to resign. As Professor Griffiths and others have amply demonstrated, however, this was a myth: the Minister in fact resigned for an entirely different reason—the fact that he had been involved in a row in the Conservative party's 1922 Committee. When I first arrived in the House, the myth was pretty widespread—and, in some ways, a rather good myth, as it endorsed the idea that Ministers should resign regardless of whether they knew about things if they had a responsibility to know about them.
None the less, the myth was a myth. It was very much to the fore again in 1985–86, when the Treasury and Civil Service Committee decided to look into the question of ministerial accountability. Rather to the Committee's surprise, it had hardly become involved in the issue when the Westland affair developed, and we were inundated with a spate of Committee reports. The Treasury Committee's seventh report, published at the beginning of
278
the affair in 1985–86, was followed by a Defence Committee report; there was then a report from the Liaison Committee—the only one, I believe, to deal with a specific subject—and another Treasury Committee report. During all that there were innumerable Government responses, none of them very satisfactory. Important distinctions were made, relating to both ministerial accountability and responsibility and the position of officials—the distinction between officials' conduct and their actions.
Much of the report to which the hon. Member for North Durham referred is concerned not only with ministerial accountability and responsibility but with the position of officials. I believe that, following what I can only describe as the negotiations that have taken place between the Public Service Committee and the Minister, we have reached something of a modus vivendi with regard to officials. One question has been largely resolved: if the conduct of an official is in question, the Government, as employer, are responsible for their employees and for ensuring that they too are accountable to the House, through the Minister. I am glad about that, because the issue is not easy. I believe that the distinction that has been made is now perfectly workable.
The Public Service Committee recently published a report, which was followed by a Government response and then a response to that from the Committee. While that was going on, the new Osmotherly rules were published, which was something of an advance in that the position was rationalised. Paragraph 18 of the Public Service Committee's first report deals with accountability in Select Committees, a subject that concerns me as Chairman of the Liaison Committee. It recommends that the Liaison Committee should
"inquire into a number of aspects of the work of Select Committees, including their relationship with the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee"—
a point on which the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) may wish to comment—and adds:
"Although the Liaison Committee may be unable to undertake a full-scale inquiry in the little time that remains before the dissolution, we welcome the steps it has taken to assemble information".
I do not wish to breach Select Committee confidentiality, but it is well known that normally—although not invariably—the Liaison Committee produces an end-of-Parliament report, and I hope that it will be able to do so on this occasion.
I am a little doubtful about the Public Service Committee's broad recommendation that we should look into the operation of the whole Select Committee system. It is true that there was an inquiry by the Procedure Committee back in 1990, but an appraisal of how clever we have been may lead to a feeling that we are judge and jury in our own cause, and such an investigation should probably be carried out by someone else. I hope, however, that we can take up the issues raised by the Public Service Committee, and that—although I must not prejudge what will happen—the individual reports that normally form an appendix to the Liaison Committee's report will provide a firmer basis for an examination of the way in which the Select Committee system can be improved. I hope that that will be done before the end of the current Parliament, and will provide a guide for the future development of the Select Committee in the next one.

279
There is always a problem of continuity, not least because we have no mechanism to ensure that Select Committees are established without the delays that we have seen in the last three Parliaments. As I shall not be able to perform such a role, I hope that a group of existing Chairmen, returning in the next Parliament, will press strongly for such a development. I also hope that a system can be devised to deal with each of the issues raised by the Public Service Committee—for instance, the question of the NAO and the accountability of agencies.
These are deep waters. It is difficult to discuss such issues on one's feet, rather than writing about them in a report. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Durham on the way in which he has spelt them out. I believe that, although more work remains to be done, we have made considerable progress on the question of officials' accountability and, to a greater extent, that of ministerial accountability.
I look forward to hearing the Minister's response. I hope that, despite the divisions that may exist between, say, the Liberal party and other parties on the precise content of the resolution, it will be tabled before the House rises for the general election. We want to get it out of the way and firmly on the record, so that, whatever the result of the election, the House will have made real progress on an important matter.
Select Committees now play a fundamental role in the responsibility of Ministers to the House. As we all know, in party debates across the Floor of the House it is very difficult to pin down a Minister; at Question time the subject changes from moment to moment, and there are very few supplementary questions. That is not the same ball game as appearing before a Select Committee on an all-party basis, a process that can go on for two hours or more. It is important for us to get the whole of that side of it right, and I believe that the progress made in the succession of Select Committee reports and Government responses gives us hope that matters will be improved in the future.
11.28 am
Mr. Robert Sheldon: It is a great privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir. T. Higgins). His tenure as Chairman of the Liaison Committee provides a model for his successors, and we look forward to his principles being copied throughout the next Parliament. I am concerned with the notions of ministerial accountability, and I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice) has introduced this matter, because it needs to be settled, at least to some degree, before the end of this Parliament.
Accounting officers, usually the permanent secretaries, come before us in the Public Accounts Committee. Sometimes they provide notes of dissent to the PAC. We had a notable case in the Pergau dam affair. The permanent secretary put in his note of dissent—I believe that it is called a letter of direction now—saying that he disagreed with the expenditure of public money. A total of £234 million was spent on the basis of a two-day visit to Malaysia to see the dam site. That was clearly inadequate. It was discovered by the PAC only because the National Audit Office had investigated the matter. If it had not, it would not have been discovered.
When I gave evidence to the Nolan committee, I said that I had requested that all notes of dissent should come to the PAC. That was finally agreed only days before
280
I gave evidence to the Nolan committee, so now I get those notes of dissent via the NAO and receiving them is of great importance. Quite a few have come to my attention.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham dealt with the relationship between the Department and agencies. That relationship varies widely. We have one extreme example. Sir Michael Partridge, the permanent secretary to the Department of Social Security, came before the PAC on a number of occasions to deal with the Benefits Agency, whose head was Michael Bichard, a person of great standing and great ability; yet Sir Michael Partridge dealt with all the questions—it was as though it had not become an executive agency.
The Committee was happy with Sir Michael doing that, because he obviously knew exactly what he was talking about. He had all the details at his finger tips. That is the normal position, although one would not expect it to be, so there are variations between the relationship between such executive agencies and the Department. I am not against a certain amount of flexibility, but perhaps it would be better, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham rightly points out, if some of this were set out.
There are serious gaps in accountability, particularly in non-departmental public bodies, and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) for the way in which he has reacted, which follows on from the arguments that some of us have been putting forward. He spelled it out in much greater detail, which I welcome. Non-departmental public bodies, or quangos as they are generally called, now spend about £17 billion of public funds each year. The Comptroller and Auditor General audits only half of the 300 quangos which fall into that category. The rest are audited by private firms appointed by Secretaries of State and include bodies with substantial sums of money, such as the Housing Corporation and the Legal Aid Board, which each spend more than £1 billion a year.
Where the CAG audits such bodies, there is obviously open accountability because reports are produced, which come before the PAC. The CAG reports to Parliament. We know that his independence is guaranteed. By contrast, private firms are appointed by Departments and report primarily to them. It is a matter for the Department whether the audit covers matters that are of particular interest to Parliament and the PAC, such as propriety in particular and the proper conduct of public business, which has concerned the PAC for a long time.
I and the right hon. Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern), the Chairman of Public Accounts Commission, recommended that the CAG should audit such bodies and we produced a memorandum to that effect. Up to now, the Government have not agreed to that recommendation. We need to have the general principle accepted that important national public bodies should be audited by the CAG. That could be done by his appointment to all new quangos, as well as to existing ones, whenever their statutes come up for renewal. We therefore hope that there can be a move in that direction, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland has suggested.
As for other bodies, accountability systems of housing associations, grant-maintained schools as well as training and enterprise councils have developed piecemeal without proper scrutiny of public funds and something needs to

281
be done to ensure that there is proper accountability there in the way that we wish. Lord Nolan saw great merit in the CAG being granted inspection rights over all public expenditure. As I have said, in a memorandum to the Government, the right hon. Member for Horsham and I recommended that that could best be provided by attaching conditions to any public funding.
Up to now, the Government have not agreed to that recommendation. They consider that the independent status of bodies such as housing associations is important. In the past, however, Parliament has recognised the need for the CAG to have access to independent bodies and legislation does provide for him to have access to grant-maintained schools, universities and institutions of further and higher education. The NAO's work in the education sector is supported by the Public Accounts Committee, but we need greater assurance that bodies within such sectors spend public funds entrusted to them efficiently and properly.
On contractors—people who undertake work for Government Departments and other bodies—we need to provide Parliament with an assurance that Government Department business in private hands has been conducted with probity and proper care of public money. The NAO needs to be able to scrutinise records held by private contractors. There is nothing revolutionary in that, because at present the European Court of Auditors has such rights of access. Where European money is involved, it can go to those contractors and see the records, but the NAO, acting on our behalf, does not have the same right. That is absurd, and the right hon. Member for Horsham and I put the memorandum to Government asking for the NAO to have that right.
I look forward to hearing the response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland, who I know agrees with many of my arguments. I hope that, following the next election, we shall see a move in this direction, to the benefit of accountability in government generally.
11.36 am
Sir Peter Lloyd: I congratulate the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice) on his skilful and common-sense chairmanship of our Committee and on the concise and forward-looking way in which he introduced our reports in his speech. Like him, my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) and the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon)—I am glad, as I am sure that the rest of the Committee is, to have such distinguished and experienced endorsement—I believe that it is important for the House to adopt the resolution speedily.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has been brokering this with the political parties—I am glad that he has been doing that and doing it so well—but not because Ministers need to be told that they must tell the House the truth; they know that, and they take trouble to do so—a belief that reading Scott generally confirms rather than undermines. No the resolution is important because it makes it clear that in future the relationship is governed by parliamentary authority and not by Executive convention. That establishes an important principle on which Parliament will no doubt choose to build as occasions and necessity arise.
282
The resolution will also reinforce Scott in the sense of obliging Ministers and officials to consider with greater care the completeness and the impression left by the answers that they give. That is not easy, because the truth is many-faceted, and replies must be concise. When I was a Minister answering a parliamentary question about the number of escapes from Group 4 escorts, I gave the figures as accurately as possible and, of course, in the form requested. The Opposition gleefully found the answer satisfactory. Group 4, however, rightly felt ill used, because I had not said in the answer something that was also certainly true—that it had lost far fewer prisoners than the police and prison service escorts who had previously provided the service. Group 4 was not convinced that that direct and unadorned answer, which was fully accurate in response to the question, was other than very misleading. I think that Group 4 had a point, but the Opposition thought that the answer was fine.
I believe that the Government's version of the resolution is rather better than our Committee's original suggestion. The Government's version places a positive requirement on Ministers, whereas our's was negatively rooted in the old concept of contempt of Parliament. The effect is not very different, but the wording in the Government's version has enabled them, with some deftness, to emphasise that civil servants are accountable to Ministers—not to the House—by placing the duty squarely upon Ministers to ensure that civil servants give full and accurate information when the latter appear before the House.
I know that some hon. Members are unhappy that civil servants' accountability remains indirect and through their Ministers, but—like the hon. Member for North Durham—I believe that the resolution is a very real advance. I know that some hon. Members—not only those confined to the Liberal party—believe that civil servants should appear on their own account and answer questions autonomously, including their criticisms of and hopes for the current and future policies of their Departments.
I do not believe that that approach would be right or workable, or that it would enhance real accountability to the House, because officials are not responsible for determining policy, although they may and do heavily influence it. Such an approach would certainly destroy trust and working relationships, which are essential to the smooth running of a Department, and it would provide a club with which political opponents could beat Ministers over the head, without making them or their Departments one jot more accountable to Parliament.
I appreciate that the proponents of direct accountability of civil servants are thinking primarily of the role of agency chief executives—who often appear before Select Committees, and who have operational responsibility for running the agency formally delegated to them. It is argued that they are not traditional civil servants but have, it is said, an independent command and thus should be independently accountable to their Select Committee. However, I am sure that that is a misapprehension. An agency chief executive is supposed to direct daily operations, but according to the policy set by the Minister. Moreover, as the Minister is ultimately responsible, the Minister may intervene at any point. Indeed, as he is ultimately accountable, the Minister has a duty to intervene in operational matters if he thinks that some adjustment is required.

283
Therefore, I do not believe that the rules for agency heads can be different from those for other civil servants—although when they come before Select Committees they can shed light on a wider range of issues because they have a wider range of responsibility. Agency heads should answer fully and frankly when explaining what they are doing and what policies they are following. However, if they are asked questions which require them to discuss the merits of alternative policies that they might be asked to adopt, they should say that that is a matter for the Minister rather than for them.
I believe that part of the suspicion generated by the current arrangements results from hon. Members not always being quite sure of when a chief executive is speaking fully and frankly about the execution and objectives of a policy and when he is speaking guardedly on behalf of his Minister about policy alternatives. I am sure that it would be better if Select Committees were always understanding of that distinction, and if a chief executive were to say when discussion moves out of his direct sphere, so that the Committee could decide to raise those issues with the Minister himself.
I agree, however, with those who want change. I believe that it would be a great move forwards if the chief executives of some agencies had independent commands for which they could be held directly accountable by a Select Committee. The essential point, however, is that the nature of their responsibilities would have to change first. Moreover, the House could not then also hold the Minister accountable, as not even Parliament can have it both ways.
I therefore hope that the Government, the House and the appropriate Select Committees will give very careful thought to the case for cutting some agencies loose from their parent Departments. If that were done, policy requirements for agencies would have to be specified in statute or, more probably, in statutory instruments, so that policy would be public and belong to Parliament rather than to the sponsoring Minister. If a Minister wanted to change that policy, he would have to ask the House for changes to statutory instruments. A chief executive would of course have to operate within those statutory rules, but he—not the Secretary of State—would be fully accountable for all his decisions and how he ran the agency under that legislative prescription.
As this is a very short debate, I shall not attempt to argue the proposition fully. With the right agency, however, I believe that there could be real gains in morale, consistency and effectiveness and in liberation from the Department and from constant and unsettling changes of Ministers. There would certainly be greater scope, not less scope, for the House to oversee the agency. The Government would have to obtain Parliament's consent to any policy change, because Parliament would have to embody it in a new statutory instrument.
The chief executive would be directly accountable to the Select Committee. There would certainly be a reduction in the range of ministerial responsibility and of matters on which the House could effectively question Ministers, but there would certainly be no diminution of accountability to Parliament. Indeed, that accountability could be more thoroughly and effectively insisted upon and discharged.
I hope that we shall be able to return to this subject, as I believe it is an extremely important one in determining how we do our business.
11.46 am
Mr. Robert Maclennan: I congratulate the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice), the Chairman of the Public Service Select Committee, on the work that he is doing. I also hope that the Committee will be re-established, so that it can continue with and implement its thinking on the important matters covered by the valuable report that we are debating today.
Before I deal with the central point concerning my right hon. Friends and I in the Government's response—which the Government hope will eventually be a resolution of the House—to the Committee's report, I should like to endorse entirely the comments of the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) on the importance of bringing non-departmental bodies, which are responsible for such substantial public expenditure, within the ambit of National Audit Office scrutiny. I hope that there is cross-party agreement on that matter, and that it will be acted on early in the lifetime of the next Parliament. The current situation seems to present an anomaly, which could easily be rectified, although not without certain consequences for the establishment of the NAO. However, as the case was so formidably put by the right hon. Gentleman, it is not necessary to enlarge on it.
I suppose that we should consider it flattering that the Public Service Committee felt it necessary, in paragraph 10 of the report just issued, to say that
"the Government should continue to seek cross-party approval for its draft Resolution,"—
I entirely agree with that—
"but we believe that failure to obtain the support of all parties should not prevent the House agreeing to a Resolution before the dissolution of this Parliament."
As several right hon. and hon. Members have said, there is a deficiency in the proposed resolution. The Committee is clearly not comfortable with the position on the accountability of chief executives of executive agencies. The second report repeats the comment of the first report that
"Chief Executives of Executive Agencies are in a rather different relationship with Select Committees than other civil servants are."
I am not sure that the Government accept even that point, but they ought to. The Committee said that the practice of the House in relation to agencies had already moved a good distance from the conventional relationship between Parliament and civil servants.
The right hon. Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd) gave a caricature of the Liberal Democrat view on such matters. We are not suggesting that all civil servants should be required to give their personal views on matters of policy. That would be absurd and such an assertion does not greatly assist the debate. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that our concerns are primarily about executive agencies. That is true. Executive agencies are a constitutional innovation that grew up without detailed legislative consideration of all the consequences. I am not even sure that they were thought to be a constitutional innovation. I do not think that they had special parliamentary treatment of the kind sometimes reserved for significant constitutional developments. The Government are responsible for that.
We do not find the development unwelcome. There is a great deal to be said for giving freedom of administrative authority to such bodies and an ability to respond without

285
having to look constantly over their shoulders for ministerial guidance. However, that does not appear to be how the agencies have worked—or not all of them, certainly. The experience of the Prison Service agency, which the Committee considered, shows that the Home Secretary constantly interferes.
The distinction between policy and administration does not stand up, as the Committee recognises. I regret that the Committee has not followed through that recognition and recommended how to deal with the lacuna. I acknowledge that it has asked the Government to give further consideration to the matter. I hope that, if it is reconstituted, the Committee will consider how best to tackle the problem. It will not be tackled successfully by seeking to foresee the future and defining in ever greater detail events that may take place for which the bodies will have responsibility. Chief executives of agencies must be given greater responsibility for their own actions, and should have to give a direct account of those actions to Select Committees when they are called into question.
It is almost certainly futile to seek to draw a distinction between policy and administration. That trap was opened by Sir Robin Butler, with an entirely spurious distinction between responsibility and accountability. In linguistic terms, it is almost impossible to distinguish between the two. In constitutional terms, that distinction is a device to enable Ministers to have it both ways, putting themselves in a "heads I win, tails you lose" position. When Ministers do not want to take responsibility for an embarrassing issue, they treat it as an administrative matter, for which, by definition, the chairman of the relevant executive agency, or even a junior civil servant, is deemed responsible. In other circumstances, Ministers assume the right to intervene. That is wholly unsatisfactory.
The problem has existed for a long time, but it has become of much greater moment since the development of the next steps agencies. That development is valuable and I hope that we shall not allow this lacuna to remain. The Scott debate—not the debate in the House, but the debate that the investigation unleashed—opened up the possibility of Ministers taking refuge in the Butlerian distinction between accountability and responsibility.
The first operative paragraph of the proposed draft resolution says that Ministers have a duty to the House and its Committees to account, and to be held to account, for the policies, decisions and actions of their Departments and next steps agencies. That begs many questions. It takes refuge in the belief that there are sharp distinctions to be drawn. I do not believe that there are. It prevents the House from holding an executive agency's chairman to account and making a proper examination of his thinking in carrying out his tasks. The work of Select Committees will be hampered if this problem is not effectively and speedily tackled.
11.57 am
Dr. Tony Wright: I shall be as brief as I can.
When in doubt, we tend to send for the judges. We have sent for two judges lately—Sir Richard Scott and Lord Nolan. Sir Richard Scott, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice) said, told the Committee that Ministers had behaved in ways in which, constitutionally, they should not, and had denied information to the House which it should properly have.
286
The Government have proposed a resolution to deal with these matters. It says that when such things happen, there should be consequences. In the events that Sir Richard Scott investigated, there were no consequences. There never are in such events. In that case, the lack of consequences was simply more shameful and brazen than normal. Because time is short, we ought to tell the truth.
Lord Nolan arrived on the scene to dig the Government out of an embarrassing situation. He has done sterling work. In one of his recommendations, he invented a new doctrine that I shall christen prime ministerial responsibility, to be set alongside individual and collective responsibility. The doctrine was that the buck stops with the Prime Minister. He has to judge the conduct of those in his Government. It is interesting that that recommendation was explicitly rejected by the Government. Lord Nolan has recently expressed regret about that, welcoming the fact that the Select Committee has re-endorsed his recommendation.
Even more revealing is that, in wanting to dissent from the Committee's proposed resolution on accountability, the Government have said that they would prefer not to have direct accountability of Ministers to the House, but that it be mediated through the Prime Minister. Yet the Government have already rejected precisely the prime ministerial role, and the doctrine of prime ministerial responsibility. They have therefore nicely escaped from the accountability trap in which they were in danger of finding themselves.
In approaching these matters, the Government have set out to defend the status quo; they have said that the orthodox doctrine on accountability and responsibility is intact and that no change needs to be made. Civil servants, they say, should therefore remain responsible to Ministers and Ministers to the House of Commons. In fact, we in our honest mode know that neither of those things is true. We know that the civil servant-Minister relationship has been transformed by everything that has happened to the public service, of which agencies are simply the most conspicuous example, and that the accountability of Ministers to the House of Commons has been transformed by the rise of party discipline and everything associated with it.
We are therefore dealing with fictions. The question is whether the House of Commons wants to explode those fictions and start asserting a new kind of accountability in relation to a new kind of government. I see the importance of the Committee's proposed resolution—which I hope will quickly become a resolution of the House—as merely the beginning of a process of the House saying that it wants to start asserting itself a little more in relation to all questions of accountability. We have not been doing that.
I again call in aid Lord Nolan, who has been forced to reflect on these matters in some detail over the past couple of years. Giving the Radcliffe lectures at the University of Warwick just a couple of months ago, he said in relation to the Government's defence of the status quo—the orthodox doctrine:
"We should not overlook the very centralist nature of this position. It brings the accountability of the Executive down to one very narrow point—the answerability of a hundred Ministers, or twenty Secretaries of State, to Parliament and its Committees. And given that Ministers must, by definition, command a majority in Parliament, the accountability which this provides is not necessarily very strong … Ministerial accountability is now in danger of being used to slow down the growth in accountability of public servants".

287
That is the central point. Government has changed. Can the House of Commons make accountability change with it? If it can, it will have risen to the occasion. If it cannot, it will have fallen below the occasion.
I suggest one further point: that the Nolan committee be converted into a standing constitutional commission, so that although we have a constitution that we pride ourselves on making up as we go along, at least with that new device, we would begin to make it up in a more consistent and coherent way.
12.2 pm
Mr. John Gunnell: In essence, the two different versions of the draft resolution on ministerial accountability that we have discussed reflect an historic tussle for authority between Parliament and the Executive. One makes the House the arbiter of the fate of a Minister who has knowingly misled; the other says that for such an offence the appropriate punishment shall ultimately be for the Prime Minister to determine. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster told the Committee:
"the language"—
of the draft resolution—
" … expresses what the House would expect but cannot enforce directly".
Surely there is an important point of constitutional principle and practice necessitating that Parliament's disapproval be the determinant of an errant Minister's fate.
The seeming immunity of the Executive from responsibility was highlighted by the recent statement of the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, who told the House that it had been "inadvertently misinformed" on organophosphates, which may be responsible for Gulf war syndrome, but that civil servants were to blame. The post-Scott scenario appears to be one where Ministers not only continue to deny responsibility, but brazenly on occasions blame civil servants into the bargain.
I was worried when the Committee heard that the Deputy Prime Minister and Sir Robin Butler both regarded it as entirely acceptable that Ministers used special advisers—civil servants—to recruit public servants, such as general practice fundholders, headmasters, and so on, as cheerleaders for Government policy. Surely it is unacceptable for any kind of civil or public servant to be used in the dissemination of party propaganda. It makes a mockery of the Government's argument that it would be "constitutionally improprietous" to put civil servants under a direct obligation to be fully co-operative with Parliament.
I fear that, post-Scott, neither the public nor the legislature can be confident that the Executive is properly accountable or responsible for its actions and the civil service is entirely the neutral executor of the democratic will.
12.5 pm
Mr. Derek Foster: I do not think that there will be dancing in the streets of Bishop Auckland tonight because we will have had this debate. Nor do I think that it will be a decisive factor in the Wirral, South by-election. Nonetheless, it is very important, and I join other hon. Members in
288
congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice) and the members of his Committee on bringing the report to the House. I also offer my thanks to the Chairman of the Liaison Committee, the right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins). He knows that I have enormous respect for him and the work that he has done in his capacity as Chairman. I endorse the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) about the right hon. Gentleman's work, and hope that his successor will continue along the same lines.
Colleagues will be relieved to know that I do not intend to go into a detailed exegesis of the doctrine of ministerial accountability. I fear that we would be here for many days if I did so. I want to give the Minister time to reply to the debate. Ministerial accountability is crucial because it goes right to the heart of our parliamentary democracy and impinges on the work of this House and the other House and how we conduct our affairs.
The Committee's resolution and the negotiations that followed it are a very important development. Given my experience in the House, I rather fear that, if Select Committee reports are radical, they are ignored, and if they are measured, they have some prospect of influence. The Public Service Committee's report is measured. I am sure that it does not go far enough for some members of the Committee and some people in the House, but it is measured and wise, and will be influential.
If, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) said, the report ends up as the beginning of a process by which Parliament over time will begin to assert its strength and use its powers to bring the Executive more fully to account, it will be a very important day. I urge the Minister, as other colleagues have, to bring the resolution to the House soon—certainly before Dissolution. It is quite right to say that the fact that we do not have unanimity in the all-party talks should not deter him and the business managers from making progress.
Ministerial accountability has, of course, become absolutely crucial, largely because of the Scott report and also because of the Derek Lewis affair. I remind the House that paragraph K8.1 of the Scott report said Ministers had failed to discharge their obligations to Parliament on seven separate occasions. The Scott report enumerates those occasions in paragraph D4.63:
"In the circumstances, the Government statements made in 1989 and 1990 about policy on defence exports to Iraq consistently failed, in my opinion, with the standard set by paragraph 27 of the Questions of Procedure for Ministers and, more important, failed to discharge the obligations imposed by the constitutional principle of Ministerial accountability."
I have always regarded that as a damning charge, and I still regard the way in which the Government dealt with the Scott report as one of the most cynical and ruthless attempts at self-preservation in post-war political history.
The Government did not achieve their aim. They thought that their authority was so fragile that it could not withstand ministerial resignations. The truth is that ministerial resignations would have enhanced, not diminished, the Government's authority and they stand condemned by that failure of judgment. The whole exercise was a prostitution of the legislature by the Executive, and that is why this debate is so important.
There is widespread mistrust of Parliament and all our institutions, and the next Government are determined to address that. Ministerial accountability must be examined.

289
I am keen to enhance Parliament's powers to deal with the Executive and to strengthen Select Committees, which have been one of the most progressive developments during my time in the House. Indeed, I congratulate the Conservative Government on introducing them. They are far more efficient at scrutinising the Executive than are most of the debates in the Chamber.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-underLyne (Mr. Sheldon) described some of the developments, and I am grateful for his endorsement for my modest proposals. He did not use the word "sleaze-buster" because he is too decorous, but that is what we need. A freedom of information Act would also increase the accountability of the Executive to Parliament.
I shall now turn to the resolution. I am delighted that the Public Service Committee put forward the resolution, and I congratulate the Chancellor on the way in which he conducted the all-party talks. I also thank him for his positive response to our requests. I hope he will not mind me saying that originally he did not want any mention of civil servants included in the resolution. I believe that he wished to exclude civil servants because he feared that he would be pushed into adopting the Liberal Democrat position that civil servants should be made directly accountable to the House. That is not my party's position. It would be a major constitutional change, and I am not convinced that it is necessary. However, I do not exclude the possibility that it might be a solution for the future.
The Chancellor also responded positively to a suggestion from the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), who is not in his place this morning, to reinstate the Committee's reference to ministerial resignation. The reference is not in the form that the Committee suggested, but the difference in the Chancellor's version is unimportant.
The resolution should be put before the House soon. The day that it is accepted will be an important one, because it will enhance Parliament's power to deal with the Executive. My party will support the resolution and I am sure that Parliament will wish to return to it on occasions, as our understanding of the issues develops and as new situations arise. Parliament will thus be able to build on the excellent work of the Committee.
I turn to the subject of accountability and responsibility. If Ministers are accountable to Parliament for all the actions and activities of their Departments and agencies, there is no accountability gap, but there is a responsibility gap. Ministers want to be responsible, perhaps reasonably, only for those matters in which they have been directly involved. However, Scott had an important message for us in his final paragraph:
"If Ministers are to be excused blame and personal criticism on the basis of the absence of personal knowledge or involvement, the corollary ought to be an acceptance of the obligation to be forthcoming with information about the incident in question. Otherwise Parliament (and the public) will not be in a position to judge whether the absence of personal knowledge and involvement is fairly claimed or to judge on whom responsibility for what has occurred ought to be placed."
The Government try to pretend that the responsibility gap is not important or that it should be maintained to protect civil servants. The rest of the country believes that the gap is there to protect Ministers, not civil servants. Indeed, one former Minister has said that nobody resigns
290
for anything these days. Ministers want to claim credit for everything that goes right in Departments and agencies and want to delegate blame for what goes wrong. That is at the heart of the responsibility gap. I share all the reservations of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), but I am not convinced that his solution is the right one. If the House debates the issue, we can all express our reservations, but we should make progress on this issue, which would be an important step for Parliament.
12.17 pm
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Roger Freeman): I join the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) in paying tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) for his chairmanship of the Liaison Committee. He was also an effective Chairman of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee. This could be one of the last occasions on which we can pay tribute to him in the House and I add the Government's support to the right hon. Gentleman's comments.
I shall deal first with the substantive point made by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. He mentioned the importance of improving the accountability of non-departmental public bodies. I have published today, and copies are now available in the Vote Office, a White Paper called "The Governance of Public Bodies: A progress report". The document is inevitably detailed, and hon. Members will want some time to consider the Government's conclusions. The conclusions are important, and address some of the points made by the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland.
I shall summarise the conclusions in the short time I have available, as I must also refer to the points made by the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice). First, the Government will review the position of every executive non-departmental public body with a view to extending the ombudsman's jurisdiction in this sector as widely as possible. Consideration will be given to bringing advisory bodies into the jurisdiction for the first time.
Secondly, we will introduce a model code for the staff of non-departmental public bodies, and fuller and clearer guidance on codes of practice for board members of public bodies, covering in particular rules on conflict of interest. I hope that these new codes of practice will be in place by 1 June, and I expect a start to be made at the beginning of the new financial year.
Thirdly, we have made a commitment to take forward the Nolan committee's recommendation on the greatest use of consultative arrangements, which bring together local public bodies and local authorities.
Fourthly, we propose to introduce a national consultative forum to bring together key interests in the public sector. This will be led by the National Audit Office, the Audit Commission and the Accounts Commission and will deal with co-ordination.
Fifthly, details of thousands of appointments to executive NDPBs and to NHS bodies are now available on the Internet. I hope that the Commissioner for Public Appointments will be able to extend his role in this field

291
in due course, although it is asking too much for him to do so at the moment, as he is dealing with central Government.
Finally, I can deal with a point raised by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne. The Comptroller and Auditor General should have the power of inspection of all NDPBs which are not already audited. There is a broad consensus in the House on that, and I hope that the White Paper will receive appropriate consideration.
I hope that the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland will forgive me if I refer for a moment to his article in The Guardian—I cannot resist commenting on it. It was written in slightly less inflammatory language—as he and I know well—than that produced by our respective central offices or headquarters. For the convenience of the House, I wish to deal with one point in the article, entitled "It's a Sleaze Buster", in The Guardian on 30 January. I know that he would not wish to imply in any way that the civil service did not behave in other than a perfectly impeccable and objective fashion.
The point that I am trying to make is that it is not Ministers who award contracts, and it never has been—under Labour or Conservative Governments. After the appropriate advertising in the official journal and after the proper tendering process, the civil service provides advice on contracts and Ministers are invited to agree. Sometimes there are directions, and I have placed in the Government's response to the Select Committee report the few examples of directions that I could regularly find.
Principally, directions have been concerned over the years with Ministry of Defence procurement matters, where Ministers might decide for policy reasons to pursue a different route—more to do with the impact of defence procurement decisions on the industrial base—than that recommended for value-for-money reasons by civil servants. It is an objective procedure, and there is no sleaze in the letting of Government contracts. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland would not for a moment subscribe to that critique.
In terms of the privatisation of Government agencies, we have to follow a process which depends on the advice not only of civil servants, but of the consultants involved. We must do so because the NAO looks at all major privatisations—it is properly and routinely looking at the HMSO privatisation now. I hope that the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland will not mind me commenting briefly on that.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd) has long experience of these matters, and he cited with some anguish the problems that he had encountered in answering a parliamentary question. I know that Madam Speaker was concerned about the accuracy with which the Stationery Office was reporting Parliament. I have looked into this matter, because some hon. Members have raised it on points of order and debates with Madam Speaker.
I have come to the conclusion that the error rate has not changed in any significant fashion since privatisation. There are very, very few errors each year, and those which are made are divided equally between the printers and those who supply the text. I am full of admiration for the reporters of our procedures, and for HMSO—now the Stationery Office Ltd. I could trace a couple of errors by the printers since privatisation, but they were made by the same loyal staff who worked for HMSO. I hope that that will set Madam Speaker's mind at rest.
292
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham, who talked about the present position in terms of the accountability of chief executives. I do not believe that chief executives can both be non-statutory civil servants and accountable directly to Parliament. My right hon. Friend—and, I suspect, the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan)—would probably prefer some agencies to become statutory bodies, and I have taken part in debates with Mr. Lewis when he has argued that point. That would give chief executives a wholly different relationship with Parliament, and it is a case that could be argued.
I do not believe that we can ask chief executives, as civil servants, to accept direct accountability and responsibility to Parliament through Select Committees, because that would directly compromise the responsibility of Ministers to Parliament. I am grateful for the support of the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland on this. Ministers know no bounds on their accountability, although there are some limits to their personal responsibility.
That allows me to turn to the final and substantive point raised by the hon. Member for North Durham. I am grateful not only to him, but to the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland for their remarks about the Government and myself. As far as the motion is concerned, the Government agreed in principle in November that such a motion was appropriate. This is not a confession of culpability or of error, or that there is somehow a great gulf in the understanding by Ministers of their responsibilities to this House.
"Questions of Procedure for Ministers" lays out clearly the responsibilities of Ministers to be forthcoming, to tell the truth, not to deliberately mislead the House and so forth. The Government agreed that, in parallel with those instructions from the head of the Government to Ministers, there should be a motion in the House to clarify and set down for the first time—a historic constitutional moment for this House and for Parliament—the responsibilities of Ministers.
We accepted that, and I have discussed the text with the major Opposition parties. The draft of the current motion is in the Select Committee report, and is available in the Vote Office. We have had helpful comments from the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Clerk of the House of Commons, for which the Government are grateful, and these will allow some amendments to be made. I intend to discuss those amendments—which I believe to be procedural and technical in essence—with the major Opposition parties shortly. Discussions in the House of Lords are continuing.
I note that there is no agreement between all parties on the accountability of chief executives of agencies directly to Parliament. That issue has been raised this morning, and the Government have set out their position. We believe that it is important as a point of principle to make sure that chief executives assist Parliament.
Indeed, I can confirm to the hon. Member for North Durham that I cannot find a single instance of a chief executive of an agency not appearing before a Select Committee. It is their duty to help, to turn up, to be as forthcoming as possible and to operate within the Osmotherly rules—named after the civil servant who drew them up—which describe their responsibilities to Parliament. But at the end of the day, they appear with

293
the foreknowledge and agreement of their Minister, and the Minister himself is fully accountable. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for acknowledging that civil servants cannot be expected to debate or answer for policy, as it is their job to help Select Committees.
Once this motion is passed, my advice is that it will remain through Sessions and Parliaments until the House wishes to return to it. Indeed, the House can return to a motion that we pass at any time, and amend it at any time.
I conclude by thanking all those who have contributed to this debate for their helpful comments, especially in relation to the motion. I confirm on behalf of Her Majesty's Government that it is our aim to bring that motion to the House before Dissolution. It is unfinished business, and the whole House will wish it to be finished.

Vale of Glamorgan (Inward Investment)
12.29 pm
Mr. Walter Sweeney: For nearly five years, I have had the privilege to represent one of the most beautiful constituencies in Wales, with Cosmeston lakes on the boundary with Cardiff, South and Penarth to the east, St. Donat's castle to the west, Barry Island and Porthkerry park in Barry, the attractive market towns of Cowbridge and Llantwit Major, and several miles of coastline. We also have countless lovely villages and some very pretty countryside.
Any visitor to the Vale can readily appreciate the tourist attraction that it represents and the general prosperity of the people. Closer inspection would reveal some of the sources of that prosperity and why unemployment in my constituency has fallen from 8.7 per cent. five years ago to 7 per cent. last month. If the Daily Mirror is to be believed, the figure is even better today.
There has been well over £1 billion of inward investment in the Vale in the past five years. I should like to give the House some examples of the successes achieved there, to draw attention to the likely causes and to express some hopes for the future. One of the most exciting developments in Wales is known as the Waterfront Barry, where Associated British Ports, in partnership with the Welsh Development Agency, is engaged in the regeneration of a 190-acre site.
The principal components of that £25 million project are 65 acres of residential development, comprising more than 1,000 homes for all sectors of the community, including luxury waterside apartments and affordable family homes with gardens; a 12.5-acre retail park with 120,000 sq ft of retail space, to revitalise the town centre and restore Barry's reputation as one of the major shopping centres in south Wales; eight acres of commercial development, with new offices, restaurants and smaller businesses; and about 40 acres of leisure and recreational development adjacent to the waterside, creating amenities, space, jobs and environmental improvement.
I had the pleasure of visiting that development last Friday and I had a bit of fun driving a digger on the site; I hope that I did not damage it. It was an interesting visit. The first phase of the contract for the Waterfront development, due to be completed on St. Valentine's day, is virtually complete. The former graving dock has been completely lined, filled with low-level waste and covered with earth that is being levelled in readiness for the construction phase.
The first tranche of new retail development and family homes should be ready in the first quarter of 1998. The project will create many new jobs, both during the 10-year construction period and in the finished development.
The port of Barry has also received a major boost, with the signing of a 25-year contract with Dow Corning. That is associated with the new £150 million Genesis plant, and from 1999 onwards it will substantially increase shipping traffic at the port. That is important to Barry and reflects ABP's continuing core activity as a company that runs ports.
I should also mention the Van Ommeren tank terminal in Barry, which took over the Powell Duffryn terminals last November. Van Ommeren is negotiating with Dow

295
Corning and ABP to build a new storage facility near the chemical complex by Hayes road in Barry. The first phase will allow the 24-hour transfer of feedstock and finished products between the production plant and storage facility by dedicated pipelines, and from the storage facility to two berths in No. 2 dock, Barry, to meet the worldwide sales and demands for silicones.
Cost estimates for the first phase are £11 million, and construction should commence at the end of this year or the beginning of next year, and last for about 18 months. Jobs will be involved during the construction period, and eventually the existing staff at the old tank terminal will transfer to the new tank facility. The main benefit of the development is the guarantee of existing jobs into the next century and the continuance of silicone production in Barry at the Dow Corning site.
Historically, British Petroleum was the major player on the chemical complex site near Hayes road, but over recent years much of the land has been transferred to other companies. Despite that, BP invested £26 million in 1992 to build a new phenolic resins plant, and in doing so created one of the most modern manufacturing facilities in Europe. BP employs 125 people in Barry and currently has 12 modern apprentices. Given the size of the work force, that number of apprentices represents a considerable investment in the future.
Dow Corning is one of the biggest investors in the Vale. The company, founded in the United States in 1943, began to manufacture silicones at Barry in 1952. Since then, it has invested more than £100 million in the site and developed thousands of new products. It is currently in the middle of a major expansion of capacity at Barry that will create about 150 new jobs, so Dow Corning will employ more than 600 people there.
The project will generate up to 500 additional jobs during the construction phase. Silicones are used every day, without people realising it. The work force at Dow Corning are indirectly helping to protect tiny diodes, to make babies' teats, to seal windows and even to make sure that stockings stay up. The people of the Vale can be proud of that forward-looking, high-investing company.
Another important investor in Barry, next door to Dow Corning, is Cabot Carbon, which built a plant for $62 million in 1991—note the dollars, as this is American investment in Wales—of which $6 million was grant. Since then, $1 million was spent on a dispersion plant in 1995 and a further $5 million on plant expansion last year. This year, a further $1 million is being spent on the treatment plant and $2.5 million on plant expansion. In addition, $1 million is spent each year on improvements. Cabot employs 67 people in Barry, plus 10 contractors, and expects to take on four extra staff this year.
On the same important site, Dow Chemical Co. employs 32 people and has six contractors permanently on site. The number of employees has diminished over the years, but two teenagers are working there under a work experience scheme organised by Barry training and enterprise council. Over the past five years, Dow has invested approximately £5 million in its facilities and it is planning a long-term future in Barry. It hopes to recruit one or two new employees in the coming year.
Zeon Chemicals is another Barry success story. Between 1988 and 1995, production increased by 50 per cent., but acrylonitrile and butadiene emissions were reduced by 90 per cent. Last year, substantial further
296
investments were made to expand production while further reducing emission levels. Zeon and all the companies on the chemical complex in Barry co-operate closely with one another to protect the environment, to comply with statutory requirements and to keep the public informed through regular consultation.
The last company on the chemical site that I must mention is European Vinyls, a company that has its UK headquarters at Runcorn and is the largest PVC producer in Europe. It employs 100 people in Barry in a plant built by BP for £42 million in 1981. In the past three years, EVC has spent £4.5 million on improving the plant.
On the western edge of my constituency, Ford Bridgend produces the Zetec engines for the Escort and other Ford models and I understand that production is likely to continue, whatever happens at Halewood. Of particular interest to me, as a Jaguar fan, was seeing the production line for the new Jaguar V8 engine, which was gradually stepping up production in July last year, ready for the introduction of the fabulous new Jaguar sports car in the autumn. That certainly bodes well for the future of that plant, as I have no doubt that the demand for that model will help to protect the well-paid jobs at the Ford plant.
Moving to the northern boundary of my constituency, I must refer the House to the success of the Robert Bosch plant, which was opened in January 1991. Last year, when I visited the factory, it was producing 15,000 alternators a day and easily out-performing its rival parent plant in Stuttgart. In 1995, it produced its 10 millionth alternator. Bosch had 27 apprentices at the time of my visit and was using sophisticated methods, such as just-in-time working. There was high pay for the workers, giving the lie to the allegation so often made by Labour Members that Wales is a cheap-labour economy. The plant provides excellent working conditions and good retraining facilities. In case anyone from Cardiff international airport is listening, I should perhaps mention that Bosch would very much like a direct air link between Cardiff and Stuttgart.
I visited Robert Bosch in Stuttgart in 1995 and asked Mr. Gerhard Turner, who is now commercial director of the K2 division, why the company had come to Wales. He said that, first, it provided easy access to the large United Kingdom domestic market. Secondly, he mentioned the lack of red tape in Wales and the fact that it took half the time to build the plant and get it up and running there as it would have taken in Germany. The third reason was the flexible work force: if an order is received on Friday to supply goods the following Monday, the company does not have to engage in lengthy negotiations with work force representatives—they simply change the shifts and get on with it.
Fourthly, the company has no problems with moving goods by road at weekends in Wales: in Germany, there are restrictions on lorry movements at weekends. Fifthly, and a very important factor, there are the lower social costs that are added on to wages, which make a huge difference to the net cost of employing people in Wales compared with Stuttgart. Finally, there are good road and rail communications. Mr. Turner might also have mentioned that the Vale is an extremely attractive place for Bosch workers to live.
RAF St. Athan is the biggest employer in my constituency. It has been pursuing an active civilianisation programme for the past four years and 1,190 new jobs are being created over a three-year period. In the process,

297
about 350 personnel are being trained. The annual cash budget for RAF St. Athan is around £115 million, or about £250 million for the full cost budget, with spares and overheads. About £50 million of that finds its way into the local economy. RAF St. Athan is subject to market tests and open competition and is due to submit its in-house bid on 19 February. Whatever the outcome, prospects look good.
Also, Blue Circle Aberthaw is investing nearly £2 million this year and is planning to invest another £5 million by the millennium.
Finally, there is Cardiff international airport, which in some ways is the jewel in the crown. The airport, which was run by three local authorities, was bought by TBI plc and has since gone from strength to strength. Two Ministers have recently visited RAF St. Athan and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has visited Cardiff international airport; they could see for themselves the huge strides that have been made since privatisation.
I have a special plea for my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales on behalf of the airport. I ask him most sincerely to continue to plan to fund the new road to connect Cardiff docks with the airport. My hon. Friend has already approved some £800,000 of initial spending to cover the design stage of the road and I emphasise the tremendous importance of the road, not only to the potential £40 million development in the vicinity of the airport but to the whole of Barry, including the chemical complex that I described.
I also hope that we shall see the opening of the existing freight railway line between Barry and Rhoose for passengers, preferably with a spur serving the airport and, ideally, the line continuing to Llantwit Major. I appreciate that there are cost problems for that major investment in upgrading the line, but with the substantial housing development in Rhoose and Llantwit Major and the increasing traffic at the airport it may well become a viable proposition.
I must put in a special plea on behalf of residents in the Dinas Powys area of my constituency, who would appreciate some help from the Government. I realise that, as the highway authority, the Vale of Glamorgan council is responsible, but we very much want a new bypass around Dinas Powys; it would not only improve the quality of life for people living there but make transport between Cardiff, Barry and the rest of the Vale very much better.
12.46 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) for giving us the opportunity to debate the economic and inward investment success story in Wales. It is a remarkable story, which many of our competitors envy, and it is a story that affects all of us in Wales. My hon. Friend details an impressive list of all that is going on in the Vale of Glamorgan. I know that that reflects his extensive activities as an assiduous constituency Member of Parliament. I believe that that is very much in the traditions of the late Sir Raymond Gower who, in many ways, was the predecessor of both my hon. Friend and myself.
298
My hon. Friend excited me with what is happening with the waterfront development in Barry. I am sure that his practical involvement recently will have been significant in taking that project forward to its imminent completion. He rightly referred to the importance of Cardiff International airport to his constituency. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury was one of the Ministers who visited recently, and he went elsewhere in south Wales last week. I am sure that he was impressed by being able to see on the ground what good use we make of the money that we receive from the Treasury. That will better equip my Department for the next round of public expenditure negotiations.
My hon. Friend was concerned about improving the road from Cardiff to the airport. The road is the responsibility of the Vale of Glamorgan local authority as the highway authority. The original scheme involved on-line proposals to upgrade the A4050 and the A4226 between Culverhouse Cross and the airport at a cost of £23 million. However, there was fierce opposition to the plan, and there were congestion concerns, to the extent that an alternative, off-line route has been proposed at a cost of £58 million. My hon. Friend is a strong supporter of that proposal. As he said, we have provided transport grant settlement of £800,000 for the local authority for 1997–98, which will allow it to proceed with the preparation work for phase 1 and to investigate further the feasibility of phase 2.
I have to acknowledge my hon. Friend's persuasive powers. At a time of the greatest constraint on public expenditure, he was primarily responsible for persuading the Secretary of State and me to provide the £800,000 that will enable the local authority to go forward. No doubt next year he will seek to be even more persuasive in trying to elicit money from us, but I cannot anticipate. I note what he said about the need for the Dinas Powys bypass, but I cannot give any promises today.
My hon. Friend's constituency has shared in the exceptional success that we have enjoyed in attracting inward investment to Wales. Since 1983, almost 7,000 new jobs have been promised, with associated capital investment of almost £1.7 billion. Ford, Robert Bosch and British Airways have caught the eye because of their size and importance, but many other good projects have come to the Vale of Glamorgan through companies from the United States, Europe, the far east and elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
We have had a good run of industrial news for Wales in the past year or so. Sony, Ford, Newport Wafer-Fab, Toyota, British Aerospace and St. Merryn are only a few examples. LG was the most significant single announcement. It was the largest ever inward investment not just in Wales and the United Kingdom but in Europe. Those projects will take a further 10,000 people off the unemployment register. Moreover, that figure does not take account of the indirect jobs that will undoubtedly be generated.
What the Government have done to bring LG to the Cardiff-Newport area must be of the greatest importance to my hon. Friend, given the close proximity of his constituency. We shall build on those investments in the months and years to come and make sure that Wales continues to forge ahead in the important job of sustaining a vibrant and dynamic economy which is capable of taking on and beating the best in the world.

299
It is incumbent upon us all to ensure that the whole of Wales enjoys the full benefits of inward investment. We want better distribution throughout Wales and we have given the Welsh Development Agency targets to achieve that. I am pleased that those targets have been achieved and, indeed, consistently exceeded over the past three years.
Major announcements in recent months present enormous opportunities. All of us involved in economic development must work together to make sure that we take full advantage of those opportunities for the people of Wales.
Wales is home to more than 300 overseas-owned manufacturing companies which employ more than 75,000 people. They are spread throughout Wales from Toyota in the north-east to Panasonic in the south-east, Euro DPC in the north-west and Calsonic in the south-west. Those investments have provided much-needed new jobs but the impact of inward investment is wide-reaching. The new jobs are vitally important to the families they support: none of us should underestimate that.
Equally important is the diversity that inward investors have brought to Wales. Where we were once heavily dependent on a narrow band of industries, we can now boast significant strengths in automotive components and aerospace—as my hon. Friend knows through their strong representation in his constituency—in consumer and office electronics, and a growing one in semiconductors. We are at the leading edge of technology in many of those sectors and more and more centres of excellence are being established in Wales. That diversity has given the economy of Wales robustness and dynamism. Wales can now withstand the inevitable peaks and troughs of the commercial world.
Falling unemployment in Wales has not happened by accident but by design. As my hon. Friend said, there has been another big and welcome fall in unemployment today. In January, unemployment in Wales fell by 2,700, leaving a rate of 7.1 per cent. Since October, 9,200 people in Wales have been taken out of unemployment.
Our excellent performance might well be compared with that of, say, Germany, because now no constituency in Wales has unemployment as high as the latest German figure of 12.2 per cent. I have the latest figures from the Library, which show that not only does every constituency in Wales compare favourably with Germany but only one out of the 38 constituencies in Wales has unemployment higher than the European average. I am pleased that the Vale of Glamorgan is below the Welsh average, and that my own constituency is the second lowest in the Welsh list.
I readily agree that unemployment remains too high, but we should take encouragement and heart from the progress that we have made, especially compared with others in Europe. In line with that was the banner headline on the front page of the national daily newspaper of Wales, the Western Mail, which proclaimed the likelihood of a further 1,000 jobs coming to the capital city of Wales, through a proposal for a call centre by CableTel, which is already well represented in south Wales. That is in line with other companies that have chosen to invest in Wales to establish call centres.
That fact offers a stark rejection of a less prominent article on page 5 of the same newspaper describing a survey which suggested that people find the Welsh accent
300
unattractive and that even we in Wales do not care for it. I am sure that the survey must be too narrow to have any real validity, as I am sure that CableTel and others who have already established call centres in Wales, or are thinking of it, would not have done so without the fullest research, including evaluation of the worth of the Welsh accent in dealings over the telephone. Again, the possibility of 1,000 jobs from CableTel is welcome. My hon. Friend and I welcome the fact that more employment will be created for his constituents in the Vale of Glamorgan and I hope to discuss the proposals with Mr. Terry Ryan of CableTel.
Strong economic and fiscal measures have given this country stable and predictable inflation and interest rates, which have given companies the confidence to invest in Wales. We are getting new investors, as well as expansions by well established companies.
Mr. William Cash: Has my hon. Friend noticed the extraordinary outburst of Mr. Niall FitzGerald, the chairman of Unilever, claiming that, if we do not join a single currency, that enormous multinational company, which employs 21,000 people in Britain, would think twice about its investment programme in the United Kingdom? Is that not an outrageous interference in the political process, and does not the situation in Wales show that Mr. FitzGerald is quite wrong about inward investment? Companies such as Nissan and Honda, and many others, have said that their decisions have nothing to do with the single currency. Would it not be as well for Mr. FitzGerald to leave politics to the politicians?
Mr. Jones: I am sure that there is great substance in my hon. Friend's point. In considering matters such as the single currency, which go wider than this debate, we need to take all factors into account rather than adopting the narrow approach that Unilever and others may have taken. Further and more mature consideration may lead them to a different conclusion.
The jobs created by inward investors and the new industries that they have brought are not the full story. Inward investors are keen to source locally and the Welsh Development Agency's "source Wales" programme has played a vital role in ensuring that we maximise the potential that exists. The agency worked closely with indigenous companies, many of which have taken the opportunity to expand and create jobs to satisfy the often substantial needs generated by the likes of Sony, Panasonic and Toyota.
While large inward investors catch the headlines, we have always taken—and always will take—an active role in encouraging home-grown companies to develop. The support that we can and do provide to inward investors is available to indigenous companies under the same terms. Indeed, over the past 10 years the support provided to indigenous companies has exceeded that given to inward investors but inward investors tend to have the headline grabbing projects. The combined effect of this industrial development is the strengthening of our whole economy.
New inward investors and local sourcing replace imports. That is good news for the United Kingdom as a whole. Just as important, inward investors use this country as a springboard into Europe. Many have achieved the Queen's award for export achievement, some more than once, and there are even examples of Japanese companies in Wales exporting back to Japan.

301
As my hon. Friend and I know, the single market offers many opportunities for our home-grown companies as well as our inward investors. It is a market of almost 400 million consumers, many of whom are developing and many of whom aspire to those things that we in the west have taken for granted.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that there are many good things happening in Wales, both in his constituency of the Vale of Glamorgan and up and down principality. Those will continue as long as we resist the dreadful, job-destroying twin threats—the social chapter and the minimum wage from Europe and the totally unnecessary bureaucracy of a Welsh Assembly—that would stifle further development in Wales.

Ambulance Services (Pembrokeshire)
12.59 pm
Mr. Nick Ainger: I have requested this debate today because, although the Pembrokeshire ambulance service operating as part of the Pembrokeshire national health service trust offers an excellent, cost-efficient, fast and effective service to the people of Pembrokeshire, that service is under threat for the second time in the space of a year.
Last summer, the Welsh Ambulance Policy Advisory Group—WAPAG—consisting of the chairmen and chief executives of each of the Welsh ambulance trusts, proposed a reconfiguration of ambulance services in Wales, forming three new health trusts. It was proposed that the whole of Dyfed Powys and Morgannwg health authority areas be covered by one ambulance trust—the Mid and West Wales ambulance trust—that north Wales be covered by another, and south Wales by a third. The existing trusts were to be dissolved and replaced by the new trusts in April 1997. The proposed Mid and West Wales ambulance trust would cover a geographical area of 1.2 million hectares and a population of 976,000, and would have a road length of more than 16,000 km.
A massive campaign was organised in Pembrokeshire by Unison in the ambulance service, by the community health council, by town and community councils, and by local representatives of all political parties. This morning, I welcome some 27 people from all over Pembrokeshire, who represent town and community councils, and Unison representing the ambulance service. They have collected more than 60,000 signatures in a petition opposing the abolition of the Pembrokeshire ambulance service. I shall present that petition on the Floor of the House tonight.
Following the campaign and the objections to the proposal from the Pembrokeshire NHS trust and SEWAT—the South and East Wales NHS ambulance trust—it appeared that the plans for centralisation of ambulance services in Wales had been quietly dropped. The people of Pembrokeshire breathed a sigh of relief—but that was not the end of the story.
In the guise of evaluating the response of the eight-minute Orcon standard, WAPAG produced in December a project initiation document, the objectives of which included looking again at the configuration of ambulance services in Wales. The document states:
"encouragement to proceed has been received from the Under-Secretary of State for Health"—
that is, the Welsh Office Minister who is on the Treasury Bench today. WAPAG intends to submit joint proposals to the Welsh Office by June 1997, with a view to public consultation in autumn 1997 and introduction of the new trust arrangements in April 1998.
My main concern is that those proposals will again involve the abolition of the Pembrokeshire ambulance service. The prediction is that WAPAG will produce a report stating that there should be one ambulance service for the whole of Wales, possibly managed as three divisions—in other words, a rehash of the original WAPAG proposal for three ambulance trusts, but under a single Welsh badge. That could be, quite literally, a tragedy for Pembrokeshire and for the rest of Wales.
Part of the proposal is to evaluate a single ambulance control for Wales, but that would remove the tremendous advantages that come from having local ambulance

303
controls, such as the ambulance control in Pembrokeshire, which is based at Withybush general hospital. A centralised management system with central control lacks the flexibility to respond to a range of incidents, including major events in remote parts of Wales such as Pembrokeshire.
Even if control and management were in a divisional tier—for example, if it were based at Swansea—in the event of a major incident at one of the oil refineries at Milford Haven, incident control could be established only when the major incident team had collected a major incident vehicle and driven the 60 miles from Swansea, arriving up to an hour and half after the notification of the start of the incident. By that time, without an incident control assessing the on-site risk, the first local crews to reach the scene could have been seriously injured through being dispatched into a dangerous area with no prior on-site assessment. That happened on board the Pointsman—a tanker on which there was a series of explosions resulting in deaths in 1984 at Milford docks.
That problem could be overcome by operating in the same manner as the fire service, with local divisional offices, five of which would be needed to man a 24-hour, seven-days-a-week rota in Pembrokeshire alone; but that would add at least £100,000 to ambulance service costs in Pembrokeshire, thus wiping out any marginal savings from centralised control and management of the ambulance service. On an all-Wales basis, using the unitary authority areas, that would mean additional costs of at least £1.2 million.
The local control considerably expedites the emergency response, which is even more vital now that all British Telecom 999 services come from Cardiff, and the control staff are regularly faced with misdirected calls, or have to interpret the whereabouts of visitors who have no local knowledge.
On a day-to-day level, there are significant advantages to local control within the district general hospital. It gives the hospital advance warning of building pressures as emergency work levels rise; enables discharges within an hour that are required to free beds for incoming emergencies; and saves £150,000 per year compared to manning a separate control, a hospital switchboard and community nurse communication system.
Throughout peak periods during the past two years, Withybush was the only hospital in the south Wales corridor to continue to admit emergency cases. At no time did the accident and emergency department based at Withybush hospital have to close its doors—unlike every other accident and emergency department in district general hospitals in south and west Wales, all of which have had to close at some time during the past two years.
The ambulance service in Pembrokeshire benefits enormously from the commitment of its staff and from a modern standardised specialist fleet carrying the equipment necessary to tackle the sort of emergencies faced in the area; but that was not always so. In the early 1980s, when the service returned to Pembrokeshire, it inherited a dilapidated and rundown fleet and disheartened staff who had no clear sense of identity with the service. Now the staff have built a team spirit and developed a range of specialist new skills and services.
Ambulance personnel have been integrated into the cliff rescue teams that are situated around the Pembrokeshire coastline, and the commitment of the staff is such that all
304
the training and exercises involved have been carried out in their own time and at no cost to the NHS trust. Those taking part in paramedic training have also put in many hours of unpaid overtime.
There is a danger that that sort of dedication would quickly evaporate in a large ambulance trust with no sense of identity and serving many different hospitals. A medical priority dispatch service has also been introduced, enabling ambulance staff to give assistance over the phone that will help to save lives. Pembrokeshire ambulance service has consistently met Orcon standards, which are traditionally very difficult for a rural service to achieve. Again, that is down to the commitment of the management and staff.
Remote management of ambulance services on an all-Wales basis, or through the three-trust model, would reinforce the technical needs of the service for digitised geographical information systems, computerised ambulance location systems and computer-aided dispatch systems. For a large central control, those typically cost approximately £500,000 per system, and their performance has been patchy to say the least, especially in the mountainous terrain that covers most of Wales. With local knowledge, good relations between ambulance crews and control and good working systems between local doctors, hospital consultants and the ambulance service, the public get a better service, without the need for such expensive technology.
The proposal to create either one or three large ambulance trusts clearly poses a threat to the quality of the service in Pembrokeshire and the rest of Wales, but it is also likely to lead to large cost increases. The document prepared by WAPAG for the Welsh Office last year, which attempted to justify the merger of ambulance services in Wales, compared the unit cost incurred by the Pembrokeshire ambulance service with forecast equivalent figures for the proposed Mid and West Wales ambulance trust. Out of five areas performance-costed, the present arrangements under the Pembrokeshire NHS trust were found to be substantially cheaper per unit in three categories, and only marginally more expensive in the other two, than the estimated cost for the proposed new ambulance trust.
The cost of every 999 call attended would rocket from £230.72 now in Pembrokeshire to £265.29 under the proposed Mid and West Wales trust. The cost of the ambulance service per head of population would increase from £11.66 to £12.59, and the cost of each medical services staff member would increase from £32,317 to £38,776.
The Pembrokeshire ambulance service is recognised as a local service. The proposed changes cannot be justified on the grounds of cost or benefit to patients; the only motivation is to tackle the disaster that is SEWAT—a complete failure, because it was too big, inefficient and failed patients—but one does not solve a problem like SEWAT by creating what is potentially an even bigger disaster.
Obviously, that is not a reason to disband a highly effective service which has local knowledge and the expertise to deal with the types of incidents likely to arise in Pembrokeshire, or a good enough reason to throw away the advantages of the relationships that have been built up between the ambulance service, the hospitals and the doctors in the trust.

305
The Minister has expressed his support for the WAPAG review, both to the group and in a written answer to me. The project initiation document dated 3 December 1996 states:
"encouragement to proceed has been received from the Under-Secretary"
of State
"for Health",
and the Minister told me in his written answer:
"I welcome the work being undertaken by the Welsh ambulance policy advisory group."—[Official Report, 28 January 1997; Vol. 289, c. 159.]
However, in encouraging WAPAG in that project, he is supporting further moves away from local control of the health service in Wales, promised by the Conservative party before the last general election.
In April 1996, the number of health authorities in Wales was reduced from eight to five, with Pembrokeshire losing its health authority. The Pembrokeshire health authority was swallowed up by the huge Dyfed Powys health authority, covering half the surface of Wales. Control and influence has been removed from local areas to faceless management in distant locations. Any centralisation of ambulance services will further strain people's identity with their supposedly local health service.
Given the considerable advantages of the locally based Pembrokeshire service, in which other hospital trusts have expressed a great deal of interest, WAPAG should now ensure that the benefits of the Pembrokeshire model are fully evaluated, with a view to applying them throughout Wales, instead of choosing a huge, centralised single trust, or the three-trust model, both of which will be costly and may lead to a deterioration in the quality of service provided, not only in Pembrokeshire but throughout Wales.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), who visited Withybush general hospital last year and saw the control arrangements for the ambulance service, and who will in the next few weeks take up ministerial responsibilities for health in Wales under a new Labour Government, has assured me that he will ensure that any review of the ambulance service in Wales closely examines the locally based model that has been so successful in Pembrokeshire. I urge the Minister now, in the last days of his Government, to give a similar assurance, and remove from the Pembrokeshire ambulance service the threat that he has, until today, encouraged and supported.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) also wants to make a contribution, and I now conclude my remarks; but I remind the Minister that the health service in Pembrokeshire was a major issue in the 1992 general election campaign, and I am sure that his responses today will be part of the forthcoming general election campaign.
1.13 pm
Mr. Cynog Dafis: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak briefly on an important subject. I want to raise an issue of which the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) is aware—the
306
ambulance service in north Pembrokeshire—and to point out that there is significant concern about levels of cover and response times there. That concern has led to a demand for the establishment of an ambulance station in Crymych, and the offer by the local community council to provide the land and the building for such an ambulance station—an offer that should not be lightly dismissed.
I have been in correspondence on that subject with many people, including the Minister. The chief executive of the West Wales Ambulance NHS trust, Mr. Butcher, tells me in a reply to a letter from me that that is a matter not for him but for the health authority, because it is the authority that will have to contract for the continuing cost to the service even though the basic infrastructure—the building—would be provided free, and he says that the health authority would probably say that it could not afford to deliver that service.
We know about the financial problems of the Dyfed Powys health authority. Those issues need to be addressed by the Welsh Office in terms of the funding of the health authority. In view of the lack of movement on that matter, one must ask, how do the health authority, the trust and all concerned propose to ensure that the eight-minute response time for immediately life-threatening conditions recommended in the NHS Executive review on the ambulance service is met? That response time applies to rural and urban areas, in recognition of the fact that there should be equality regarding such an important service.
Mr. Butcher writes that methods other than the establishment of an ambulance station in Crymych might be developed to ensure that the response level requirement is met. He suggests that there should be more co-ordination between the two trusts. Currently, the ad hoc arrangements that exist for co-operation between the West Wales and the Pembrokeshire trusts are very much a one-way affair.
The Cardigan ambulance has made 121 calls in the past eight months in north Pembrokeshire to meet demand there. By contrast, there have been only two calls by the Pembrokeshire ambulance in Ceredigion itself. I understand that that service from Cardigan to north Pembrokeshire imposes significant strains on the service, which can no longer be ignored.
Unless we get an ambulance station in Crymych, the responsible bodies must come together to ensure that the response times that will be required and which should be delivered are delivered in that area. The people of that part of Pembrokeshire are very worried about that.
1.17 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): I am glad to have the opportunity to respond to the points that have been made by the hon. Members for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) and for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis). I hope to be able to give considerable reassurance to people in Pembrokeshire and to those who take a close interest in Pembrokeshire ambulance provision.
I regard ambulance provision as an integral part of health care, vital to our well-being. Especially in recent years, the Pembrokeshire ambulance service, although relatively small, with a staff of slightly more than 60, has proved to be committed to providing the best quality for Pembrokeshire patients. We can see that in many ways, not least in the fact that it has met patients charter standards.

307
Last year, the Pembrokeshire ambulance service responded to 95 per cent. of emergency calls within 21 minutes, and more than 50 per cent. within eight minutes. That is a considerable achievement, given the rurality of Pembrokeshire and the unmarked roads in the more sparsely populated areas. I am sure that that is a tribute to the ability and commitment of all who work for Pembrokeshire ambulance, most obviously the drivers but equally everyone else involved.
Here I find myself in full agreement with what the hon. Member for Pembroke said about those working for Pembrokeshire ambulance. The excellent response rate was also achieved despite an 8 per cent. increase in emergency calls over the previous year.
On paramedics, the Pembrokeshire ambulance service has again shown its resourcefulness in meeting our requirement that each front-line ambulance should be manned by at least one fully trained paramedic. Pembrokeshire expects to be able to comply by June this year, and would have done so earlier, but for the ill health of two staff members. The Government firmly believe that getting a fully trained paramedic to the scene of an incident as quickly as possible is the right way to save lives.
Almost 8,000 emergency and urgent patients and about 63,000 other patients were carried by Pembrokeshire ambulance service in 1995–96. The staff deserve the highest commendation that we can offer them.
The hon. Member for Pembroke makes much of what he calls the threat for the second time. He indulges in wild exaggeration, which is typical of someone who prefers to live in the realm of conspiracy theories. Inevitably, the reality is entirely different from what he claims.
I have been impressed by the various organisations and individuals who have taken an interest in the proper question of ambulance provision in Pembrokeshire. I have read all the letters, and it is appropriate to refer to them.
The clerks of Haverfordwest town council, Neyland town council, Havens community council, Fishguard and Goodwick town council, Milford Haven town council, Pembroke town council, Redbaxton community council, Burton community council, Llangwm Hook community council and Narberth town council all felt it necessary to write to me. Mr. H. E. Baker of St. Florence, Tenby has written, as has, not surprisingly, Mrs. Val Sanders, the agent of the Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire Conservative and Unionist Association.
Later today, I will be meeting Mr. O. J. Williams, who is bringing a representative of Pembrokeshire ambulance service to see me. I will be in Crymych next week at the invitation of Mr. Robert Buckland to see the situation there at first hand. Some hon. Members may not know that Mr. O. J. Williams is the prospective Conservative candidate for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire, and Mr. Robert Buckland is the prospective Conservative candidate for Preselli and Pembrokeshire.
That is the distinguished list of people and organisations who have made representations on the matter, which I have carefully noted. I acknowledge that the hon. Member for Pembroke has asked me four questions on the matter—three last May and one in January—and the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) has written to me twice on the subject of ambulances in Pembrokeshire.
308
The hon. Member for Pembroke gave the game away in his concluding remarks, when he referred to the last general election and the coming general election. He has suddenly woken up to the matter of Pembrokeshire ambulance service, because of the activities of O. J. Williams and Robert Buckland. It is another example of a nervous Labour Member of Parliament in a very marginal seat who has decreasing confidence in the possibility of his being in the next House of Commons.
I must tell both hon. Gentlemen that any proposals to reconfigure overall ambulance provision are matters for the ambulance trusts and those involved with ambulance operations in the case of Pembrokeshire, in conjunction with their respective commissioners—health authorities and hospital NHS trusts.
I have not asked for an expression of interest to change the shape of ambulance trusts anywhere in Wales, or set any timetable for its submission. I am surprised by the fears expressed about a review being undertaken by the Welsh Ambulance Policy and Advisory Group to determine how ambulance provision can be improved. Indeed, I would be more worried if NHS trusts were not constantly looking for improvements, particularly when the most important priority is the constant pursuit of higher standards for patients through quicker response times for the most urgent cases.
The group's review involves and is supported by all Welsh ambulance operations, including Pembrokeshire's. The group intends to maintain good communications with representatives of health authorities and other NHS trusts. I and the Welsh Office health department have made it clear that, in the interests of improvements always being considered, the work being undertaken by the group is welcomed.
I emphasise, however, that that work has not been requested by me or by any other or previous Minister in the Welsh Office; nor is the group's work being paid for by the Welsh Office.
Mr. Ainger: In the original WAPAG document produced last summer, only one choice is offered—three trusts covering the whole of Wales. The second document, dated December, giving a project overview, states:
"The programme of work set out in this PID follows from the outline expression of interest developed by the WAPAG reconfiguration team and the commissioner attitude survey undertaken by Grant Thornton. Subsequently, encouragement to proceed has been received from the Under-Secretary for Health and WAPAG agreed to submit joint proposals to the Welsh Office by June 1997."
How can the Minister deny that?
Mr. Jones: I have just told the hon. Gentleman, as I said to him in answer to the question that he asked in January, that such work is always welcome. I would be disappointed if health professionals in Wales were not giving serious consideration to ways in which provision could be improved, in relation to ambulances or any other activity of the NHS.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: The Minister cannot wriggle out of the question. The document by the chief ambulance officers in Wales through their membership of WAPAG referred to specific encouragement by the Under-Secretary of State, whom I understand to be the hon. Member for Cardiff,

309
North (Mr. Jones). He cannot wriggle out of the question by saying that there is a general move towards achieving quicker response times. There is a reference to specific encouragement by him for the submission of the second document. Is he denying that, or is he saying that the people on WAPAG do not know what they are talking about?
Mr. Jones: The situation is as I said. I know that it would not be understood by the hon. Gentleman, who constantly displays his lack of understanding of the health service in Wales. I have not asked for any particular thing to be done, I am not directing it, and I am not paying for it, but I would be disappointed if any part of the health service in Wales was not giving serious professional consideration to improvements. Only after such consideration can we find ways forward.
It is clear that there is great strength of feeling on several matters. I have emphasised how essential it is for any review to address all the possible options, and for it to be based on hard information, and to reach conclusions about genuine patient benefits and value-for-money savings. I expect all those involved with ambulances to co-operate in providing whatever information is necessary.
I am aware of the group's objective to submit joint proposals for the future provision of ambulances in Wales by June this year. If the proposals include a possible reconfiguration of NHS trusts—I would consider proposals only if they clearly demonstrated benefits to patients and value for money—they would be subject to public consultation in the usual way.
I readily reassure the House that the group is a useful body, consisting of the chairmen and chief executives of the various ambulance NHS trusts in Wales. The group provides a good consultative forum for developing ambulance policy initiatives and best practice. One of my officials is generally invited to attend as an observer. That enables the Welsh Office to keep in touch with ambulance operation and secure good advice from the professionals on policy development. It is a further welcome sign of NHS trusts working together to provide better health care for the people of Wales.
Mr. Dafis: Will the Minister encourage those concerned to develop a specific scheme to meet the needs of the people of north Pembrokeshire, by ensuring much closer co-ordination or the provision of an ambulance station in Crymych?
Mr. Jones: I give my fullest commitment to the best possible provision of ambulances in Pembrokeshire and throughout Wales, but that must be evolved locally. I cannot anticipate whether there will be any change. I shall certainly not impose any change. If proposals come forward, they must all be subjected to the fullest consultation locally. Only then will I consider them.
While I shall bear in mind value for money, my overriding consideration will be whether proposals will benefit patients. All I am interested in is whether any proposed changes will bring about improvements in Pembrokeshire, west Wales or elsewhere in Wales, rather than Opposition Members' ridiculous conspiracy theories.

Fire Services (Essex)
1.29 pm
Sir Teddy Taylor: I apologise to the Minister for coming to him twice within one week, but he will appreciate that this important and serious issue relates to the financing and operation of fire brigades and the special problems in Essex.
Thanks to the courtesy of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), I had the pleasure of speaking in his debate last week. I shall try to speak briefly so that he might have the opportunity to do the same in mine.
Most colleagues are aware of the difficulties in getting problems resolved. Essex, including Rochford, faces a serious problem. It is not unusual, when such constituency problems arise, for hon. Members to shout a great deal, but I hope that the fact that hon. Members from all parties in Essex have co-operated on this will prove to the Minister that this is an extremely serious issue.
That fact has also been demonstrated by the meetings of local residents. Indeed, some of the consultation meetings have resembled nasty boxing matches. I attended a meeting in Rochford, which was delightfully chaired by the deputy mayor, Councillor Heather Glynn, who, although not from my party, was clearly a respected person in the community. The meeting was so large that we had to add another full meeting.
The points made by residents are simple: first, the calls on the brigades have increased; secondly, the number of buildings at risk have increased; and, thirdly, the principles on which those reports are based seem to be out of date, given the problems of trying to conform to travel time requirements.
In trying to resolve the problems, the hon. Member for Thurrock and I have been frustrated by different public authorities. I have felt a certain frustration with the Government, although I love them all dearly.
To try to ensure that we had accurate information before this debate, I tabled a "W" question asking simply how much money had been provided by the Government within standard spending assessments for fire authority operations and how much had been spent. I thought that that information would be available, but the answer that I received yesterday, as the Minister will be aware, was that the Government would provide the information shortly—no doubt after the debate. It would be nice to know that basic fact, because the information we have is that, in almost every major county, there is excessive expenditure.
I have also felt a certain frustration with the county. Although it has made it clear to hon. Members that it would like more money, it unfortunately did not apply for it by 10 January, as it should have. It says that it sent a nice letter to the Minister expressing concern, but did not make the appropriate application.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark), who is a resident of Rochford, and I, as a resident of Southend, offered to arrange meetings with Ministers to try to resolve the problem if the county would drop its quota proposals in the meantime, it sadly extended the consultation period, and said that the issue could not be prejudged. Essex Members are afraid that something will be done after the consultation period, unfortunately without the issue being as carefully resolved as would be appropriate.

311
I want the Minister to consider six specific questions and give some guidance on them. First, is the money provided for fire stations within the standard spending assessments for the counties inadequate, and, if so, why?
After I had looked for guidance on the Government's views on fire services, the only major report that I could locate was a wonderful report by the Comptroller and Auditor General in November 1992. In his fundamental review, he pointed out four alarming developments: first, that fires, fire casualties and fire losses were increasing; secondly, that more deaths and injuries were being caused in the home than anywhere else from any other activity; thirdly, that there were prevention problems; and, fourthly, that performance indicators were needed.
None the less, we are well aware that, in most counties, financing appears to be inadequate within the overall settlement. We want to know why that is so. Counties throughout the country will not spend more on one activity unless there is a special need for it.
The second issue on which I would appreciate guidance is whether provision is made in the settlement for a major national activity within a county—for example, the airport at Stansted, which requires more fire cover. It would be unfortunate if fire stations were removed from the south of the county because of problems in a national airport, which is basically not a county responsibility.
Thirdly, is there a case for reviewing the principles on the basis of which the reviews are carried out? It strikes me that the enormous increase in traffic and congestion since the principles were drawn up has created a new problem.
Fourthly, retained firefighters are extremely relevant and significant, especially in Rochford, where we have a temporary station. However, a new problem has been created by the jobseeker's allowance. I am sure that the allowance is splendid, and that the Government introduced it as an exciting new development, but it is alleged that special problems are being created because the jobseeker's allowance takes such a form that those who previously worked part time as retained fire officers now find it difficult to do so because of the allowance's provisions.
The fifth point on which I would appreciate guidance relates to the interim budget published by the county council. I have no wish to enter into battle with the county council, although a different party is in charge, but this is a point of principle. The county council proposes a cut of £651,000 in the cost of employment, which would undoubtedly mean a reduction in the number employed.
I understand that any such reduction will bring some stations under complement, and that special approval will be required from the Government under section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947. If any such proposals were made to reduce the number of firefighters and put stations below the appropriate number, will special Government permission be required?
My sixth point is important, and I should appreciate the Minister's views on it. Will he confirm that the closure proposals cannot go ahead unless the Government say that they are in accordance with the principles for the fire service? It is important for the local community to know that, after 1 May and whichever party is in charge, the county council will need Government approval for any proposed closures of fire stations.
312
Given the special problems in Essex, it would be immensely helpful if the Minister could confirm that Government approval would be required. If a review of the Essex fire service were being considered, it could then be established whether it was working efficiently, as both the county and the fire service claim, and whether it was fulfilling its obligations. That is important for the local community, so that we can see whether the Government will make a decision on the basis of the facts.
Although the hard-working Minister, whom I admire for taking his responsibility seriously, must sit on the Front Bench and hear complaints from hon. Members on both sides of the House, he should appreciate that this is not simply hon. Members shouting for their constituencies. The fact that the hon. Member for Thurrock make his excellent speech last week without trying to make party politics, and that hon. Members on this side of the House who agree on nothing have worked together, show that this is a point of principle.
Southend-on-Sea faces the possibility of three local fire stations closing, and local residents are genuinely alarmed and concerned. I was present in Southend when we had the big fire on the pier, and when a huge fire took place in a factory in Southchurch road. It is alarming. The official figures show that fires are increasing and public safety is very much at risk. If the Government can look at this issue seriously and with interest, they will genuinely provide some comfort to the people of Southend, Rochford, Canvey Island and other places.
I emphasise to the Government that this is a real and serious issue. It must be addressed. It cannot be swept under the carpet, and Members of Parliament—from all parties—who represent Essex are absolutely adamant that we will not allow it to happen.
1.39 pm
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I shall be brief, as I do not wish to rehearse the arguments that I advanced last week.
I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) and to reinforce his point that, nationally, the fire service is underfunded. I hope that that matter is addressed, whatever the political complexion of Her Majesty's Government, because it is a much-valued service.
My second point relates to airports. As the House knows, the police service is fully chargeable to the owners and operators of airports, and there is a compelling case for the fire service facilities that are provided as a back-up to the airport's fire service to be wholly, or at least in part, charged to airport operators. I recognise that these are much wider long-term policy issues, but I hope that the Government will consider them.
Another point that needs to be reinforced is that Essex county council asked for a meeting with Baroness Blatch, but at the time that was felt inappropriate. Now, the hon. Member for Southend, East has offered to use his good offices in pressing for a meeting with Ministers. I support that, but I understand that the county council now says that it does not think that a meeting will be appropriate or useful. I hope that the Minister will, on his own initiative, following the representations of hon. Members, say that there will be a meeting without preconditions.
Sir Teddy Taylor: The suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and myself was that, if the

313
county would drop its plans in the meantime, we would be glad to seek meetings. That would be the right way to go ahead. Then we could have meetings without preconditions. I am sure that the hon. Member for Thurrock will agree, in view of the strength of his opinion and the fight that he is putting up for his local residents, that the best first step would be to drop the proposals and then to talk.
Mr. Mackinlay: I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman on this matter. There needs to be a meeting. The county council should follow the hon. Gentleman's advice on this and meet the Minister. I hope that, when the Minister replies, he will say that his door is open and that he will write to the county council and invite it to come along and have a chinwag about this very serious crisis.
If, as a consequence of the review or the county council's budget, there is to be a reduction in the number of fire personnel, appliances or fire stations, I hope that the Minister will say that there will be an inquiry under section 19. It is very important. We, the people of Essex, want our day in court on this matter, and to be able to rehearse to the Government and the county council the full extent and ramifications of any reduction in fire service provision in the county.
Regardless of whether there is a meeting—I hope that there will be one—there should be an inquiry if there is any diminution in the level of fire cover in our county as a result of the review or the budget reductions.
1.43 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Tom Sackville): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) on securing this debate, which mirrors the debate that we had only a week ago on the same subject.
My hon. Friend has expressed strong concerns about the provision of fire services in Essex. I understand the concern that hon. Members and their constituents feel about the quality of their fire service and the sensitivities that inevitably surround any proposals, such as those under consideration in Essex, to change the arrangements for providing fire cover. My hon. Friend took part in last week's debate on fire services in Essex, which was initiated by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay).
I appreciate that the subject of today's debate goes a little wider than the particular concerns of Essex, but many of the same issues arise, so I hope that my hon. Friend will bear with me if I repeat some of the points that I made a week ago.
We have every reason to be proud of our fire service. As the Audit Commission said, we can be proud of the fire service's record in responding to incidents, the high level of skill and professionalism it shows, and its very able managers and courageous front-line staff. The Government wholeheartedly endorse those sentiments. Essex has a particularly high standard, and met the required response times to fire calls on 96 per cent. of occasions.
On the specific question of proposed changes to fire provision locally, I should make it clear that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has a
314
specific and limited role under section 19 of the Act. He is required to be notified of the number of the fire authority's fire stations, fire appliances and firefighting posts as at 1 January each year. The fire authority may not reduce its establishment—although it can increase it—without his specific consent.
As I explained last week, my right hon. and learned Friend grants those approvals only where he is satisfied that the authority has consulted properly about its proposals and considered any representations, and where Her Majesty's inspectorate of fire services advises that the nationally recommended fire cover standards will be maintained.
We have not received any section 19 application from Essex about the proposals that have been made in respect of its fire cover review. All fire authorities review their fire cover arrangements periodically to keep them up to date. I know that Essex county council is currently consulting about its proposals.
Dr. Robert Spink: Does my hon. Friend regret the county council's new policy to delay its decision on this matter until after the county elections on 1 May? That delay is causing great anxiety to all the people of Essex, particularly those who live on Canvey Island.
Mr. Sackville: I certainly condemn any delay motivated by politics. If the council is trying to seek changes, it should come up front with them and bring them forward at such time as it is ready. Obviously I cannot speak in any detail about what is happening with those proposals, but I hope that they will be brought forward promptly. It would be quite wrong for such political interests to become involved.
Mr. Eric Pickles: Does my hon. Friend understand that one of the consequences of the delay is an inability to implement policies that would protect the service? Is he further aware that the Conservative opposition on the county council will produce a budget next week that protects the number of firefighters and stations?
Given the overall position of the county council, which enjoyed the largest reserves last year of any county council and still enjoys a very large reserve, is my hon. Friend not left with the impression that the Liberal and Labour controlling group are relying on the good will of Conservative Members by using these tactics, when it is quite clear that there are alternatives that protect stations and firefighters?
Mr. Sackville: I cannot go into whether the council should make section 19 applications, but I reiterate what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point. If it is to make any applications, it should do so promptly. Any delay in bringing them forward will undoubtedly add to the problems of forward planning. I hope that the people who make those decisions will hear what my hon. Friends have said. I hope that the county council will listen very carefully to the points that hon. Members have made in this debate and in the debate last week.

315
In the event that a section 19 application is made, my right hon. and learned Friend will also take into account any representations made directly to him.
I assure hon. Members that, should the county council make such an application, my right hon. and learned Friend, in reaching his decision, will take full account of the representations that he receives, including those made in this debate. In answer to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East, it is my clear understanding that any major change of the sort to which he referred would have to be the subject of a section 19 application.
Mention has been made of the power that my right hon. and learned Friend has under section 19(8) of the 1947 Act to hold a public local inquiry. That has happened very occasionally in the past, but it is always open to the Home Secretary to do so in any such application.
I referred last week to the national recommended standards, which various hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East, have called into question. Those standards dictate the initial response to a fire in terms of weight and speed of attack. They rest on four main standards of service according to the risk category in which an area has been placed, and assume for each category that a predetermined number of firefighting appliances should attend within a certain time.
The standards are not just nationally recommended: they are nationally agreed in the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council, which is constituted under the Fire Services Act 1947 to represent fire service interests. The council undertook an extensive review of the standards in 1985. They enable all concerned to know where they stand as regards the minimum level of service that should be delivered.
As I said last week, we believe that those standards have served us well, but that does not mean that we regard them as unchangeable or incapable of improvement. The Audit Commission has recommended that there should be a further review of the levels of fire cover. It recognised, however, that no fundamental change should be considered without careful research. A review of fire cover standards is being taken forward by the joint committee of the advisory councils for England, Wales and Scotland.
Dr. Spink: I agree with what my hon. Friend said about fire standards. They are probably appropriate, and I am delighted that he is examining them. However, the problem is not the standards themselves, but the assumptions made when using those standards to calculate where fire resources should be placed in Essex.
Those assumptions are inappropriate in that they assume an average speed of 30 mph for all areas of Essex, when clearly the average speed attainable by fire engines in the north and rural areas is far greater than the average speed attainable by fire engines trying to get on to Canvey Island or through Hadleigh, which is very congested. The problem is the assumptions that are made in applying the standards in this specific case.
Mr. Sackville: That shows the need for a further review. Another example of the problem is the existence of a major international airport. Those considerations must form part of the review.
316
The Government have shown their commitment to the fire service by confirming, in the final local government settlement, that we shall increase the fire service element of standard spending assessment in England for the coming year by £50 million, which is an increase of more than 4 per cent. I believe that that is a satisfactory settlement. Within that, we must expect a continued search for efficiency savings, as with any organisation in the public or private sector anywhere in the country. Many parts of both sectors have found such savings.
It was notable that the Audit Commission's report said that, if all fire services came up to the level of the best—if, indeed, that is the best achievable, and it may not be—considerable savings would be possible without effecting the standard of fire cover. All fire services must take that into account.
The fire standard spending assessment distribution formula takes into account a number of factors. The problem with any proposal to change the formula is to find an alternative that does not unreasonably increase the grant to some brigades and disproportionately reduce it to others. Many counties feel that they have specific characteristics that make them a special case.
If local authority representative organisations—or a single organisation in the future—were to agree on a new formula, the Government would consider carefully how they could improve allocation among the counties. This matter is not simple: one county may believe that it has particular difficulties, whereas there may be special difficulties of a completely different nature in other parts of the country, such as remote or hilly regions, that must be taken into account.
Mr. David Amess: Following my hon. Friend's speech last week, stories appeared in local newspapers saying, "Minister supports cuts" or "Minister supports closure of local fire stations". Is he a little surprised to learn that that is how his speech last week was interpreted?
Mr. Sackville: I shall consult Hansard, but I think that I will find that I never said any such thing. I said very clearly that, if applications were received to reduce provision at any fire station or part thereof, the Home Secretary would have to make a decision. I want to put the record straight. No decisions have been taken on any reduction in provision.
Mr. Mackinlay: I want to take a bipartisan approach to this matter. I was present last week, and the Minister certainly did not say that. If any grotty newspaper said he did, it should read Hansard. I do not know who the guilty party is, but I want to make it clear that the Minister listened to us and did not say that. There should be accurate reporting of this matter.
Mr. Sackville: I do not know to which grotty newspapers in his constituency the hon. Gentleman is referring.
Mr. Mackinlay: It is not one in my constituency.
Mr. Sackville: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support.

317
If Essex county council feels that it does not have sufficient resources, various options are open to it. As has already been said, it had an opportunity to meet Ministers at the Department of the Environment to discuss the rate support grant settlement, but chose not to do so. If the authority were to set a budget above its cap, the county would have an opportunity—which I am sure it would take—to put its case to Ministers in person and to challenge the level at which it was designated.
It must also be kept in mind that fire service spending in Essex during the current year is £39.3 million out of a total base budget of £976.7 million: so it represents about 4 per cent. of total county spending. If the council cannot find savings elsewhere in administration, it could increase the amount of resources that it allocates to fire to more than the current planned level. I am sure that the people of Essex would expect the council to do just that.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Because of the shortage of time, would the Minister respond in writing to my questions, especially that on the jobseeker's allowance?
Mr. Sackville: I am happy to respond to that specific question. I shall ensure that my hon. Friend receives a letter within a short time.
Mr. Mackinlay: I want to make it quite clear that the newspapers in my constituency report these debates with clarity and precision: it was certainly not a newspaper in my area. I feel sorry for the hon. Members who are not covered by the Thurrock Gazette and the Thurrock Recorder.
Mr. Sackville: I am grateful for that assurance.
It being two minutes to Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Nigeria
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussion he has had with the Nigerian military Government concerning the restoration of democratic institutions to Nigeria. [13954]
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the current human rights situation in Nigeria. [13968]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Dr. Liam Fox): I apologise for the absence of my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, who is attending the ministerial meeting in Singapore between the Association of South-East Asian Nations and the European Union.
    My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development held discussions with the Nigerian authorities at the highest level, most recently during the Commonwealth ministerial action group visit in November. We remain extremely concerned about the human rights situation in Nigeria, and the lack of progress towards the restoration of democracy in that country.
    Mr. Bruce: My hon. Friend is right to be very cautious about any promises that come from the military regime. As he will know, Members of Parliament attended the presidential election as observers. It was clear that Chief Abiola won that election, and that the military regime simply discarded the result. Can my hon. Friend be certain that the regime's current assurances about restoring democracy are real, or are they merely illusory?
    Dr. Fox: We continue to monitor progress with the transitional timetable. The local elections on a party basis, which are now due on 15 March, are the next important benchmark, and they must be free and fair.
    Mr. Pike: The Minister will know that 19 Ogoni activists are still being held in prison, on charges similar to those applying to the nine who were executed in 1995 under a seriously flawed legal system. The prisoners are being held in appalling conditions, and it has been said that one has gone blind as a result. What do the British Government feel they can do to ensure that those people are released as soon as possible, and that human rights are restored in Nigeria?
    Dr. Fox: I raised those points myself in a recent Adjournment debate. We have made representations about prison conditions. We have made it clear to the Nigerian authorities that we expect the Ogoni 19 to be released—or to be brought to a properly constituted court that respects human rights—and that any further trials by the tribunal that tried Ken Saro Wiwa would provoke an extremely serious international reaction.
    Sir David Steel: Is the Minister making particular representations to the Nigerian authorities about the
    320
    continued detention of General Obasanjo? Does he recognise that the general was the only president of Nigeria—the only military ruler, that is—who handed over to a democracy, and that since then he has played a distinguished part in providing democracy throughout the continent of Africa? His continued detention is an international outrage.
    Dr. Fox: The detention of political prisoners in Nigeria is indeed a cause for international outrage in many cases, as the Commonwealth ministerial action group made extremely plain during its last visit. We will continue to make that clear on every occasion. It is one of the most obvious abuses of human rights that we looked at.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: The Minister will remember that Nigeria played a role in bringing democracy to South Africa. Will he confirm that the Government have shared with the Nigerian authorities the idea that democracy has nothing to do with white and black, but has to do with the rights of people?
    Dr. Fox: I entirely agree. We will take every opportunity to tell the Nigerian Government exactly what we expect from them. There must be a move towards proper democracy in that country: we cannot help it with aid projects and international finance if it does not respect human rights and basic democratic principles.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: Does the Minister realise that, although I am sure that General Abacha took note of the recent Adjournment debate and the Minister's welcome comments, when the Commonwealth ministerial action group went to Nigeria, the fact that the Canadians were not part of the group gave a clear signal to General Abacha that little would come of that visit and that he used it for propaganda purposes? What tough action will we get from next week's CMAG meeting, and what signals will be given to Nigeria that the present lack of progress towards democracy is simply unacceptable?
    Dr. Fox: CMAG does of course meet next week and it will make clear what we expect. At the meeting, we will demand the immediate release of all political prisoners, including Chief Abiola, the restoration of a democracy in which all can participate, the early resolution of the Ogoni 19 case, as I have already mentioned, and a review of prison conditions.

    Cyprus
    Mr. Waterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit Cyprus to discuss the recent increase in tension there. [13955]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Davis): My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has no present plans to visit Cyprus. He did so in December 1996, when he held discussions with President Clerides and Mr. Denktash.
    Mr. Waterson: May I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on what I believe was the first visit by a British Foreign Secretary to Cyprus for some 30 years? Will my right hon. Friend the Minister of State restate

    321
    the Government's commitment to relieving tension, where possible, in Cyprus, and to achieving a lasting settlement on that island? Does he agree that early accession to the European Union would benefit considerably both communities on the island?
    Mr. Davis: Certainly. I first commend my hon. Friend on his hard work and perseverance on behalf of the people of Cyprus over a long period. He is right. The Foreign Secretary's visit did reflect our commitment to the interest of Cyprus's people and to achieving a solution to the Cyprus problem. We support accession to the European Union on the basis that it will benefit all Cyprus's people—in fact, people in north Cyprus will make particular financial gain—and in the hope that the accession process will help rather than hinder the resolution of the Cyprus problem.
    Mr. Faulds: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept my additional congratulations to the Foreign Secretary on his sagacity, after many years of inaction by those on the Front Benches of both sides, that he should actually visit both communities in Cyprus? Will he accept from me—I do not think it is historically deniable—that these intrusions that are causing the tensions are invariably organised by Greek-Cypriot demonstrators? Is it not highly regrettable that involved in those demonstrations into the buffer territory, which is forbidden territory for both parties, are leading Members of the European Parliament?
    Mr. Davis: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. What I will say is that we have to be even-handed with both communities. That is the secret to progress on the matter. When my right hon. and learned Friend went to Cyprus, he made a statement on a 10-point programme to promote the solution of the Cyprus problem. That programme has been lodged in the Library, and I recommend that the hon. Gentleman examines it.
    Sir David Madel: If Turkish troops withdrew from northern Cyprus, which would be the first step in a solution, who do the Government think should then be responsible for guaranteeing the rights of the minority Turkish-Cypriot population?
    Mr. Davis: There is a need for a reduction in military weaponry and presence on both sides. Only by that route will there be a reduction in the tensions that afflict Cyprus. Under the circumstances of accession to the EU and of a solution of the Cyprus problem, we would expect international guarantees for all Cyprus's people.
    Mr. Robin Cook: The Minister will be aware that I also visited Cyprus last month. May I support his statement that Cyprus's accession to the European Union would both increase the sense of security of Cyprus's residents and increase pressure on Ankara to reach a settlement? Will he therefore tell the House that the British Government will not make settlement of the division of the island a precondition of Cyprus's accession to the European Union? Does he realise that to set such a precondition could create the danger of a Turkish veto?
    Mr. Davis: I have said in the House several times that we have never accepted either an explicit or an implicit
    322
    Turkish veto, and that we would not allow a situation to arise in which such a veto could be exercised. However, accession would undoubtedly be easier if there were a solution. To meet the Union's requirement for free movement of people—to give the right hon. Gentleman one simple example—would be rather difficult in the current circumstances.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: I, too, congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary on paying a non-partisan visit to both sides of the island. Is my right hon. Friend aware that we remain the international guarantor of peace on the island, and that it is therefore very much our role to try to promote peace among both sides? Does he agree that the way in which to accomplish that is for both sides eventually to become members of the European Union, and that any arms build-up now by either side is extremely unhelpful?
    Mr. Davis: I think that everything that my hon. Friend has said is entirely right. We have demonstrated our commitment to an active role in the promotion of peace, most recently—other than the Foreign Secretary's visit—by appointing Sir David Hannay to promote the cause of peace and a settlement on the island. We will do that in an even-handed manner, as vigorously and as effectively as we are capable.

    International Criminal Court
    Dr. Wright: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress to date in establishing an international criminal court. [13956]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Sir Nicholas Bonsor): We are actively contributing to the preparatory work for a diplomatic conference to finalise and adopt a convention for the establishment of an international criminal court.
    Dr. Wright: Could anyone who saw this Monday's harrowing "Panorama" programme on Rwanda doubt that the need for an international criminal court is extremely urgent? Could it be true that, for reasons of cost, the United States is seeking to delay if not block next year's conference, which may launch such a court? Could it even be true, as the human rights report suggests, that the British Government are using blocking tactics on the proposal? Is not the most appropriate manner for the international community to open a new millennium to set up such an international criminal court? With our history and our traditions, should not we be giving a lead?
    Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I certainly do agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is time we had an international criminal court, and the Government have been playing a very active role in both the ad hoc and the preparatory committee work. There is a great deal to be done before we reach the stage of being able to propose a detailed treaty that will establish such a court, but it is absolutely untrue that our Government are trying to block that move. We are encouraging it and working towards it. I cannot speak for the United States Government, but I know of no such action on their part, either.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. However, does he agree that there would be

    323
    much more credibility if only action were taken to bring Mr. Karadzic and Mr. Mladic before some type of international tribunal? Does he also agree that Mr. Milosevic should also be investigated when such a court is established?
    Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I do not think that we should muddle an international criminal court, which is the subject of this question, and the ad hoc tribunal for war crimes, which has been set up with regard to Bosnia. Certainly I agree with my hon. Friend that those who are responsible for war crimes must be brought to that tribunal and tried for the crimes that they are alleged to have committed.
    Mr. Macdonald: Does the Minister agree that it is important to prevent war crimes as well as to prosecute war criminals? What are the Government therefore doing about the situation in west Mostar, where ethnic cleansing has been resumed against Muslim civilians by the local Croat mafia? Is that not in complete defiance of the Dayton agreement?
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is referring to a specific area. The question is on establishing an international criminal court. It is totally unfair that he should attempt to raise a specific issue when we are dealing with a general one.

    China
    Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans has he to make an official visit to China to discuss United Kingdom-Sino relations. [13957]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has at present no plans to visit China. However, he will meet the Chinese Foreign Minister at the Asia-Europe meeting in Singapore this week and will have a full bilateral meeting with him on Friday.
    Mr. Pawsey: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his advice about the meeting on Friday. Does he agree that one way to improve our already reasonable relationship with China would be to increase the number of Chinese students able to study in the United Kingdom? Will he therefore do his utmost to place on the agenda for Friday's talks an increase in the number of scholarships available to Chinese people? I am certain that that would do a great deal to improve our relations with the Chinese.
    Mr. Hanley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. In 1995–96, Her Majesty's Government supported 450 students from China under various scholarship schemes. A new scheme for joint funding with the private sector got under way last year and a further similar scheme is being taken forward. An additional 192 Chinese scholars came to the United Kingdom in 1995–96 under the Overseas Development Administration's technical co-operation training programme. We shall continue to support scholarship and training programmes for Chinese students and to explore possible new initiatives within the limits of our resources.
    324
    I am afraid that the agenda on Friday will be very full. Because we already have a reasonably successful programme of students coming to the United Kingdom, I doubt that the issue will be on the agenda.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does the Minister understand that the Secretary of State will have support from both sides of the House later this week when he seeks to persuade the Chinese Government to respect the democratic reforms introduced by Governor Patten? Does he agree that the maintenance of the reforms should not be just a bilateral matter between the United Kingdom and China? What steps are the Government taking to mobilise the opinion of the international community to persuade the Chinese Government to respect the democratic reforms?
    Mr. Hanley: The hon. and learned Gentleman is right to say that such important issues as the future of human rights and democracy in Hong Kong should not be matters only of bilateral relations. That is one reason why we were cheered by the international community's response to the decisions on the provisional legislature when my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State summoned the Chinese ambassador on 20 December. When the Chinese decided to water down the Bill of Rights ordnance, the international community, particularly the United States, was very supportive. I know that the whole world is taking a keen interest in the matter.
    Mr. Renton: Will the Foreign Secretary be discussing the steps that Britain intends to take after the handover to China to discharge its responsibilities under the 1984 joint agreement, particularly once the joint liaison group has ceased to exist in 2000? Is there not a case for establishing a special parliamentary committee to keep in touch with the high level of autonomy that Hong Kong is promised under the agreement?
    Mr. Hanley: My right hon. Friend is right that it is important for the House to continue to exercise its scrutiny over the future administration of Hong Kong. He is also right to point out that we have obligations under the joint declaration. The joint liaison group will continue until 1 January 2000. We have an obligation for the next 50 years under the joint declaration to monitor the "one country, two systems" principle. The House will want to monitor the progress of Hong Kong. How it does that is a matter for the House to decide. We had a useful debate recently, and there is no doubt that the mood of hon. Members on both sides was that there should be proper scrutiny by the House. The exact form is yet to be determined.
    Mr. Fatchett: May I associate the Labour party with the words of the right hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) and the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell)? We all agree that it is crucial that respect for human rights continues in Hong Kong after 1 July this year. We want to send the message again from the House to the Government of China that respect for human rights has been important in Hong Kong's way of life and economic success.
    Will the Minister make it clear that, apart from the points that he has already made about marshalling international opinion, he will ensure that the Government

    325
    take the toughest possible line against the Chinese proposals to repeal the human rights legislation and go ahead with the provisional legislature? Will he make it clear what action the Government intend to take, and make it abundantly clear that everybody here expects China to honour its agreement after 1 July, and that there will be continuing respect for human rights in Hong Kong?
    Mr. Hanley: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's co-operation in these matters and for the dialogue that we have established, which goes too for his right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), the shadow Foreign Secretary, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary himself.
    It is important that the House has basic agreements on matters of such importance as, for instance, the establishment of the provisional legislature and the Bill of Rights ordinance. My right hon. and learned Friend set out the Government's considered view on the provisional legislature on 20 December. There is no basis for China's plans in the joint declaration or the Basic Law.
    We are greatly concerned about the proposals of the preparatory committee's legal sub-group for the Bill of Rights ordinance, which has largely been endorsed by the preparatory committee in plenary. That has done great damage to Hong Kong, as I discovered only a week ago, and will have done great damage to confidence in Hong Kong around the world. I made a formal protest to the Chinese ambassador on 22 January. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend is urging Qian Qichen, the Chinese Vice Premier and Foreign Minister, to think again.
    Mr. David Howell: Further to the questions asked about Hong Kong, does not article 3 of the 1984 joint declaration specifically say that the laws and rights of the people of Hong Kong will continue after the handover? Are not the proposals of the provisional legislature flatly in breach of that treaty? What steps are we going to take when a treaty that we have signed in solemn good faith is so flagrantly breached?
    Mr. Hanley: My right hon. Friend is right to say that, when such agreements are breached we should query them, and query them with great resolve. The key issues still cause great concern. I believe that we in the House have accepted the principle of the joint declaration of one country two systems, not one country two economic systems. The very stuff of human rights, the recipe that has gone on to make up Hong Kong, which is not purely economic and contains the most remarkable sparks, has created the miracle that needs to be preserved for its continued success. We shall continue to press the Chinese on what we believe are breaches of the joint declaration.

    Iraq
    Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on peace negotiations in northern Iraq. [13958]
    Mr. Hanley: Our objective in northern Iraq is peace and the well being of the people there. With the United States of America and Turkey we established and have consolidated a ceasefire between the Kurdish Democratic
    326
    party and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan. We continue to be involved in discussions to help them resolve their differences and we are making encouraging progress.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Does the Minister agree that part of any peace process must include bringing those responsible for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide to justice? Will he therefore add his support to the campaign "Indict" launched in the House of Commons with all-party support and the support of the Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the Liberal Democrats to bring Saddam Hussein and his closest supporters in the current regime in Iraq before an international tribunal to answer for their crimes?
    Mr. Hanley: I must pay tribute to the hon. Lady, because I believe that nobody in the House has studied the matter more assiduously or shown such great courage by visiting the area in northern Iraq where the Kurds are at the moment. I assure her that we share the objective of wanting those responsible for the appalling atrocities that she has described, especially Saddam Hussein, to be brought to justice. They deserve the widespread condemnation that they have received from the international community and the House. We are open to suggestions on how to bring those responsible to justice; it is not of course easy. We doubt that the process that led to the Yugoslavian tribunal can be duplicated for Iraq. The circumstances are different, not least because of the passage of time since the events in question.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the fact that Saddam Hussein denies democracy to his people, and is the biggest threat to peace in the middle east, emphasises the need for the strongest possible sanctions against Iraq? Can my right hon. Friend guarantee that our European friends follow such a policy?
    Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend is right. The recent acceptance of United Nations Security Council resolution 986 will not mean the lifting of sanctions. It is a humanitarian gesture to allow the people of Iraq, with whom we have no argument, to be fed and to receive medical assistance. It is vital that the people of Iraq are fed, because they have been starved and deprived of medical assistance by Saddam Hussein for too long. There are no grounds for relaxing any of the sanctions, given Saddam Hussein's refusal to respect the relevant UN resolutions.

    Economic and Monetary Union
    Mr. Kevin Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many civil servants in his Department are currently working on issues relating to economic and monetary union. [13959]
    Mr. David Davis: No Foreign and Commonwealth Office official is assigned exclusively to EMU issues, which are dealt with alongside other EU policy matters. EMU bears on the responsibility of a number of FCO departments.
    Mr. Hughes: That is a pity, because such officials might have warned the Foreign Secretary and his Minister about the problems. The chairman of Unilever warned

    327
    today that, if the Government did not sign up to the single currency, the company would reconsider its investment in this country. Given that Unilever employs some 21,000 people, should not the Foreign Secretary reconsider his comment on Radio 4 last week that we might stay out, even if the terms are right?
    Mr. Davis: I do not know whether we need an official for that, but the hon. Gentleman needs a new research assistant. He has not noticed that this country has received maximum inward investment in the past decade, compared with the rest of the European Union. That investment has come here for a variety of reasons, and we are the number one destination for German overseas investment. That is true this year, as it was last year and the year before, and the investors know our policy on monetary union.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Can officials and Ministers in the Foreign Office find time to read the admirable letter from Brian Reading in today's Financial Times, which suggests that there is little likelihood that the Federal Republic of Germany will ever, in the foreseeable future, achieve the proportion of national debt to gross national product that is required under the Maastricht treaty? Is it not clear from the recession and unemployment levels in Germany and elsewhere that economic and monetary union is not working?
    Mr. Davis: I thank my hon. Friend for his recommendation. Similar analyses were the reason why my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary said that it was unlikely—not impossible, but unlikely—that EMU could safely proceed in 1999. That is an issue that must be faced by all those who say that it can proceed. We do not have monetary union at the moment, but the other European countries have a different social model, which has led to the tragic circumstances—we cannot take any pleasure from them—of an increase of 500,000 in the German unemployment figures in a month and a total unemployment figure of 4.6 million. That is the result of a different approach to competitiveness, and I do not recommend that we follow it.
    Mr. Robin Cook: Can the Minister confirm that two officials in the Foreign Office who are working on EMU are the special advisers to the Foreign Secretary? The Sunday Telegraph reported that those advisers had drawn up 12 different positions on the single currency, from which Tory Members could pick the policy of their choice.
    Are there any other examples of ministerial advisers helping Back Benchers to express their opposition to departmental policy, rather than their support?
    Did the Minister hear the chairman of the 1922 Committee state to the world that he had been assured by the Prime Minister that Tory Members of Parliament are free to pick the policy of their choice on the single currency for their election addresses? Does he not recognise that a party that has abandoned any attempt to require its members to support the Government is a party that has lost the right to continue in government?
    Mr. Davis: I could make a couple of points if the right hon. Gentleman wants to talk about election addresses. I recommend that he addresses his question to the right
    328
    hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), who pointed out that scores of Labour Members would take their own view on monetary union.
    It is amazing, brazen cheek for Labour to take this line. The most famous election address in history is that of the Leader of the Labour party in 1983, in which he undertook to leave the European Union, to abandon the nuclear deterrent and to continue nationalisation—all issues that Labour would be embarrassed to take on today.
    Ten days ago, the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) said on television:
    "if it goes ahead and if it succeeds, in other words if it is stable then you cannot stay out".
    That is Labour's view on monetary union, and, in the unfortunate event of there being a Labour Government, that is exactly what would happen. Every Labour Government have presided over increases in unemployment, expenditure and inflation and reductions in the value of sterling, so they could not stay out.

    Kenya
    Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations between the United Kingdom and Kenya. [13960]
    Dr. Liam Fox: We have long-standing and deep-rooted links with Kenya, which is one of our most significant partners in Africa. The bilateral relationship spans wide-ranging areas of activity, many of which are outside the framework of Government contacts. We maintain a close dialogue with the Kenyan authorities on a wide range of issues.
    Mr. Butler: Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the development of the East African Community involving Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda? What efforts is the Foreign Office making to ensure that that operation is a success?
    Dr. Fox: Yes, it is a rare delight to give the House good news about east Africa. We are convinced that the revival of the EAC signals a fundamental shift towards a closer relationship between the three countries. That is an essential step towards creating mutual confidence, which I believe will improve the political situation no end in east Africa. Under our development division in east Africa, the Overseas Development Administration has agreed to assist the EAC secretariat to develop new management systems—to which it attaches a high priority—through the provision of technical assistance.

    Land Mines
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the changes in Government policy in respect of land mines in the past two years. [13961]
    Mr. David Davis: Last April, I announced our support for a total global ban on anti-personnel land mines as soon as possible, severe restrictions on the use of anti-personnel land mines by our armed forces, the destruction of nearly

    329
    half our existing stocks and the extension of our export moratorium to prohibit the export of all anti-personnel land mines to all countries.
    Mr. Cohen: Would the Government like to be popular just before the election? Have they seen the opinion poll that showed that 90 per cent. of those questioned agreed with Princess Diana that there should be a worldwide ban on the construction and use of anti-personnel land mines? Instead of being a loose cannon on this issue, and following delaying and diversionary tactics in Geneva, why do the Government not give unequivocal support to the Ottawa process to get a ban on these hideous weapons?
    Mr. Davis: It is unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman wrote his supplementary question before he had heard my reply, in which I said that the Government's policy is to pursue a global ban on anti-personnel land mines. I can give him an impartial view of the matter. 'When Princess Diana was in Angola and this subject was on all the front pages, the gentleman leading the delegation, Mr. Mike Whitlam—the head of the British Red Cross—told the "Today" programme:
    "I read the statement put out by the British Government last year … headlined 'Working towards a global ban on anti-personnel landmines' and at the time they brought in a number of measures which move the whole scenario further towards that end. So we were delighted when the British Government took those steps last year and certainly I am not aware that we were out of step".
    I agree with him.
    The hon. Gentleman made a serious point about the Ottawa process. We take the view, as do the United Nations Secretary-General and others, that the conference on disarmament is the best place in which to progress it. If we find that the process allows us to achieve more progress with the countries of concern—the producers and exporters of large quantities of land mines, or those who use them irresponsibly—we will support it.
    Mr. Wigley: I welcome the progress that the Government have made, and urge the Minister to go the rest of the way and do away with all stocks of land mines held by the United Kingdom. Does he agree that it was totally inappropriate for anyone to describe Princess Diana's involvement as that of a loose cannon? We would be better off having more loose cannons firing humanitarian salvoes than more loose land mines blowing off children's legs.
    Mr. Davis: I recognise the hon. Gentleman's long-term interest in the subject; indeed, when I announced our policy last year it was in response to a question from him. The noble Lord involved said that he did not recognise the words attributed to him in the press, and I have every reason to believe him.
    Although, to take up what the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) said, there is no political advantage in it, I was pleased to see all the coverage, because we have to recognise the fact that 20,000 lives are shattered or destroyed every year. We are trying to alleviate that problem.
    I will reflect the question about our land mine use back to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley). As he is aware, as the recipient of my answer, we will allow the use of anti-personnel land mines only by ministerial
    330
    instruction, and only if it is absolutely necessary. We have to address the problem of how to change the policy of the countries that export, produce or misuse those land mines.
    Last year, for example, we managed to get China to agree not to export undetectable land mines—the worst sort, because once in place they cannot be removed. That is the line that we are taking: the one that will give the best progress. To that end, the hon. Member for Caernarfon should know, as he is an honourable and honest man, that this country has been at the forefront of those that are acting to remove land mines from the countries most afflicted by them, and has spent £22 million on it to date.
    Mr. Key: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's remarks, and I commend the Government on their policy, which is right both in seeking to establish international action and in supporting practical measures on the ground for the removal of mines. May I suggest, however, that £22 million over five years in humanitarian aid to the agencies removing those mines is. not enough and that it would be very well received if my hon. Friend agreed to double that amount? If he would like suggestions as to where the aid programme could be adjusted, I would be delighted to make some.
    Mr. Davis: The Chancellor might have a word with me if I gave a commitment straight away, but I make two points to my hon. Friend. First, our land mine aid has accelerated rapidly in recent years, so to look at it over five years is slightly misleading; and, secondly, it is demand led: the more projects come up, the more we can consider doing. I spoke only last week to Mike Whitlam, the director of the British Red Cross, about that exact point.

    Cyprus
    Mr. Corbett: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent steps he has taken to help to achieve a settlement of the Cyprus problem. [13962]
    Mr. David Davis: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave earlier.
    Mr. Corbett: I welcome the present Foreign Secretary's visit to Cyprus, and that of the next Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). Have the Government received reports of what in my recollection was a unique get-together of leaders of political parties from both Cypriot communities that took place recently in the former Ledra Palace hotel on the green line and, if so, what does the Minister make of it? Will he give the House a commitment that he will do all that he can to encourage contacts between politicians, teachers, doctors, lawyers, trade unionists, business people and others from both communities to try to change the climate in favour of a settlement of the Cyprus problem?
    Mr. Davis: As I have said, we will do everything we can to promote any method of improving the situation and of devising a solution to the Cyprus problem. Of course,

    331
    I will do everything possible along those lines. I hope, however, that the hon. Gentleman's assessment of Cyprus is more accurate than his domestic political forecasts.
    Mr. Trimble: I agree with the Minister's earlier comment that the accession of Cyprus to the European Community would benefit the whole island. I hope that that is the basis on which accession takes place. Does he agree that matters would be improved immediately if the European Community stopped discriminating against northern Cyprus in trade matters? That creates the unfortunate impression that the Community is being manipulated in favour of one community in Cyprus, and that should end.
    Mr. Davis: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. The problem is that what he terms discrimination arose from a court judgment, not from pressure of the sort that he describes. As such, there is little that can be done directly about it, but other measures can be designed to help.

    Gibraltar
    Mr. David Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had about the future of Gibraltar. [13963]
    Mr. David Davis: My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary regularly meets the Chief Minister of Gibraltar to discuss matters concerning Gibraltar's future. The last such meeting was in London on 18 November. He also met the Spanish Foreign Minister in Madrid on 22 January under the Brussels process to explore the scope for enhanced co-operation between Gibraltar and Spain.
    Mr. Evans: I thank the Minister for that reply. Would he take this opportunity to assure the British people and the Gibraltarians that while we have a Conservative Government the Union Jack will continue to fly over Gibraltar and that we will not raise the white flag? Does he also agree that, if that lot over there ever got into power, they would give away Scotland, Wales, the sovereign and this Parliament to the bureaucrats in Brussels and it would not be long before they gave away the rock and its monkeys to Spain, but it takes a monkey to recognise one?
    Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend puts his point much better than I ever could. With respect to his substantive question on the sovereignty of Gibraltar, we gave an undertaking in the 1969 constitution—which this Government will always stand by—that we will never give up the sovereignty of Gibraltar without the free and fully given consent of the Gibraltarian people. We will always stand by that undertaking.
    Mr. Mackinlay: I support the Minister on the principles of national self-determination for the people of Gibraltar, but may we also consider their democratic deficit? They are citizens of the European Union, but they have no representation in the European Parliament or in this place. Is there not a case for the people of Gibraltar
    332
    having at least some limited representation here, as occurs with comparable territories of the United States and France?
    Mr. Davis: I recognise the hon. Gentleman's commitment to Gibraltar and to its people. The question about the European Parliament is not easy to answer because, with 30,000 people, Gibraltar is less than one tenth the size of a British constituency. With respect to his other proposal, I do not think that there is much to be advanced by this country's copying the constitutions of France or the United States.

    Yemen
    Sir Robert Hicks: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet the Foreign Minister of Yemen to discuss Anglo-Yemeni relations; and if he will make a statement. [13964]
    Mr. Hanley: During his visit to Yemen in November, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State discussed a wide range of bilateral issues with Dr Iryani, including how further to improve political and commercial co-operation between the United Kingdom and Yemen. No further meeting is planned in the near future.
    Sir Robert Hicks: Given the nodal position occupied by Yemen and its potential for development, should not the United Kingdom Government be showing more interest in, and giving greater encouragement to, the numerous Yemeni political development and economic programmes? In particular, would not the exciting Aden port redevelopment and free port project be a worthwhile starter?
    Mr. Hanley: I agree with my hon. Friend, who I know has visited Yemen quite recently. We are determined to enhance relations with our Yemeni friends, as we have made clear during a succession of recent visits. Not only has the Secretary of State made a rare visit to the Yemen, but so has the Minister for Trade. I visited it a year before the Secretary of State, and the permanent under-secretary at the FCO has visited it in the past couple of weeks. The other way round, the Prime Minister of Yemen, Abd al-Ghani, visited Britain last September and Dr. Iryani has been here recently. We have invited President Saleh to visit at a date yet to be specified this year. My hon. Friend is right that the Aden port project is exciting and offers big opportunities to British companies. I am pleased that British Airways has recently agreed to renew its air services to Yemen.
    Mr. Dalyell: Did Dr. Iryani raise the long-standing Yemeni concern about the appalling plight of the children of Iraq and the famine and its consequences? Is it altogether wise to be so definite about sanctions that strengthen, not weaken, Saddam Hussein?
    Mr. Hanley: I admit that I discussed the situation in Iraq with Dr. Iryani. I am pleased that, when I met President Saleh, he too expressed regrets about the policy of Saddam Hussein and the way in which the people of

    333
    Iraq have been harmed by it. We are having a good exchange of views with Yemen, and I believe that it understands our point of view well.

    Mrs. Sherratt
    Mr. Day: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made by his Department to the Moroccan Government concerning the case of Mrs. Sherratt. [13965]
    Dr. Liam Fox: We stand ready to make representations to the Moroccan authorities on behalf of Mrs. Sherratt once we know the outcome of her solicitors' bid to obtain compensation through the courts.
    Mr. Day: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. He knows that this case is particularly tragic. My constituent was shot by an off-duty Moroccan policeman and is wheelchair-bound and paralysed for the rest of her life. The Moroccan Government deny responsibility, despite the fact that the weapon used was supplied by them. Since I raised this matter at business questions, the Moroccan ambassador has kindly agreed to meet me, for which I am grateful. Legal action may be taken.
    I ask my hon. Friend to bear in mind the fact that the matter is serious because of the number of British tourists who holiday in Morocco. They must be assured that the Government will look after their interests. Should legal action not be successful—and hopes of success are tenuous—can the matter be raised at ministerial level, if necessary?
    Dr. Fox: The shooting in the Hotel Tank was indeed tragic, and two Britons were killed. The gunman's wife was shot, and the gunman committed suicide. Given the circumstances, we believe that this was an isolated incident, not a trend. The problem with compensation is that Morocco does not have an equivalent of our criminal injury compensation scheme. I assure my hon. Friend that, if Mrs. Sherratt cannot obtain satisfaction through the courts, we will consider approaching the Moroccan authorities in the way he suggests.

    Racism and Xenophobia
    Mr. Gapes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the European Union initiative against racism and xenophobia. [13966]
    Mr. David Davis: There are two main areas of the initiative: the designation of 1997 as the European Year Against Racism and the EU monitoring centre on racism and xenophobia.
    Mr. Gapes: Does the Minister agree that racist and neo-Nazi groups operate internationally, often publishing their material in one country and disseminating it in others? Does he agree that it would be better to have a co-ordinated, legally based, European-wide joint initiative for minimum standards of racial equality? Is it not deplorable that our Government are in a minority of 14 to
    334
    one in blocking the initiative to establish a European Union centre to monitor racism, and are opposing EU-wide action against holocaust denial?
    Mr. Davis: I believe that, some time ago, the Home Secretary said something about dealing with the issue of material being published in one country and printed in another. Europe has a role in dealing with racism: that of exchanging and disseminating information on how to deal with racism and xenophobia. However, the United Kingdom's domestic race relations legislation is among the most sophisticated in Europe.
    If the hon. Gentleman wants effective race relations legislation, the best locus for that is within the nation state, not in a supranational body. That is how the misunderstanding from which he clearly suffers has arisen. We are not blocking progress on the establishment of the observatory; but we are saying that it is appropriate as an intergovernmental measure, not as a measure for the Commission and the European Court in the European Community.
    Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the European Union might make more progress in the fight against xenophobia and racism within the European Union if, instead of setting up institutions to enforce codes of Euro-political correctness, it looked at the competitiveness of the European economy and did something about the rampant unemployment on the continent—the sort of unemployment that would be caused by the policies of the Labour party and lead to the very racism and xenophobia—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is abusing my recognition of him on this question, which relates not to the economy but to a specific issue. Would the Minister like to make some response?
    Mr. Davis: My simple response is that when unemployment is maximised it creates an obvious problem by encouraging racism and extremism of all sorts. Britain and other European countries would seek to avoid that.
    Mr. Home Robertson: Will the Minister condemn the incidents of racism and xenophobia that have been witnessed by NATO peacekeepers in the city of Mostar in recent days? Will he tell the Croatian authorities that there can be no question of progress towards—[HON. MEMBERS: "That is not in Europe".] There can be no question of progress towards Croatian membership of European or other institutions as long as—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I call Sir David Knox—let us have a sensible question.

    European Union
    Sir David Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about Britain's relations with the other countries in the European Union. [13969]
    Mr. David Davis: Britain enjoys very good relations with all other member states of the European Union.
    Sir David Knox: Does my right hon. Friend believe that relations with other European Union countries would

    335
    be improved if their foreign Ministers came to this country to explain, over the heads of the Government, their view of the future of the European Union?
    Mr. Davis: It strikes me that that has already happened. A little while ago, the German Foreign Secretary commented about a British election occurring at some point. However, if one accepts that a European Union exists, there are issues that are important to all the peoples of Europe. The British Government note in our policies that many of the people of Europe support the sorts of things that we stand for—sometimes more than their Governments do. We saw that when the Foreign Secretary went to Stockholm and received an enormously good reception for repeating the ideas that he has expressed from the Dispatch Box.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: What are the consequences of an ever-revaluing pound for our commercial relationships with other European Union companies?
    Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman asks a somewhat hypothetical question. It is easier to answer the question: what are the causes of an ever-revaluing pound? The answer is enormous economic success in this country.
    Mr. Dykes: Is it not worth recalling that, when Klaus Kinkel commented on British politics at Christmas, he was told to mind his own business, but that we then immediately said that we would construct the convergence criteria statistics for all the other countries and tell them what to do with their own figures? Would it not be a good idea to follow the excellent advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Sir D. Knox)? If foreign statesmen and politicians came over here, they would be able to convey to the long-suffering British public—who, all too often, sad to say, are not given the truth about Europe by governmental sources—their enthusiasm for the new projects, including the plan for at least 10 countries to join economic and monetary union when the time comes.
    Mr. Davis: I have not witnessed a reticence on the part of, for example, Jacques Santer in commenting on matters that have relevance in the UK. We have a view—a very distinctive view—on what will make a successful Europe, and that is the point of view that my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has been communicating, and will continue to communicate, to the people of Europe.
    Ms Quin: In view of the criticisms that Jacques Santer has recently addressed to the Government, would the Government continue to describe his appointment as a triumph of British diplomacy?
    Mr. Davis: I think that the President of the Commission does a very good job, but his view of Europe is not the same as ours. That is not new: it is not surprising in a man who was the Prime Minister of Luxembourg. His federalist view is shared by several of the leaders of Europe. We must deal with and argue about that, and be determined to win the argument.
    Mr. Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend accept the congratulations of the House on standing firm on UK
    336
    borders and therefore getting our own way on this subject? Is there not a moral in this: if you stand firm, your will has its own way?
    Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend is, of course, exactly right. Standing firm is a necessary part of negotiation, as is standing up for the rights of this country. It is very different from what either of the Opposition parties would do. They stand for nothing, and, as I have said before, those who stand for nothing will fall for anything.

    Burma
    Mr. Robert Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the steps taken by the Government to promote respect for human rights in Burma. [13970]
    Mr. Hanley: We have taken action bilaterally—at the UN and with our EU partners—to put pressure on the ruling State Law and Order Restoration Council to implement democratic reform and full respect for human rights in Burma.
    Mr. Ainsworth: On 15 January 1997, the Minister told the House that he was urging the ambassador of Burma to open dialogue with pro-democracy forces. He also told us that he was following the European line regarding relations with Burma. Since then, clear evidence has emerged that the position has deteriorated. In the light of that and of our past relationship with that country, why are we simply following the European line and not taking a lead?
    Mr. Hanley: I do not agree that we are merely following others. We are helping to develop the UN General Assembly resolution and we were at the forefront of developing the EU common position, which the hon. Gentleman feels is not effective. The EU common position that was recently adopted, which imposes a ban on entry visas for senior members of SLORC and senior military and security force officials and on high-level bilateral visits to Burma, the suspension of non-humanitarian official aid, which has been enforced for some nine years, the arms embargo in 1991 and the cutting of all remaining defence links in 1992 are pretty strong reactions. We continue to use the services of our excellent ambassador in Rangoon, Robert Gordon, to make our presence felt directly, not only to the ruling regime but in discussion with Aung San Suu Kyi.

    Middle East Peace Process
    Mr. Ernie Ross: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress in the middle east peace process. [13971]
    Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Israeli Government regarding the implementation of the Oslo agreement; and if he will make a statement. [13972]
    Mr. Hanley: I welcome the reopening, after last month's Hebron agreement, of Israeli-Palestinian

    337
    negotiations on a range of outstanding issues. We will continue to urge both sides to move swiftly to implement existing agreements, and to restart the final status negotiations.
    Mr. Ross: I am sure that the whole House would like to welcome unreservedly the freeing of the 31 Palestinian female prisoners from Israeli gaols. The Minister will be aware that there are still about 2,000 male Palestinian prisoners in Israeli gaols. Does he agree that, the more that Prime Minister Netanyahu is exposed directly to the peace process, the more likely it is that the peace process will move forward?
    Mr. Hanley: We welcome the release of prisoners last night. That was as stipulated in the interim agreement, proper implementation of which is crucial. Further redeployments must be substantial if Palestinian faith in the peace process is to be maintained, and we must move swiftly on the other outstanding issues. I shall keep my comments to a minimum because of time constraints.
    Mr. McAvoy: Will the Minister confirm the Government's stance that the best guarantee of secure borders for Israel is co-existence with the Palestinian entity or state? Bearing that in mind, will he continue to press the Israeli Government and the Palestine Authority to continue the Oslo process as the only way to guarantee peace in the middle east?
    Mr. Hanley: I thoroughly agree that continuation of the middle east peace process is the only way forward.
    338
    The United Kingdom supports self-determination for the Palestinians in United Nations resolutions. The final status of a Palestinian entity is, as the hon. Gentleman knows, a matter for negotiation between the parties, but we believe strongly that it would be unwise to rule out statehood as an option.
    Mr. Batiste: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the development of trade is an important ingredient in the peace process? When will the United Kingdom ratify the EU-Israel trade agreement?
    Mr. Hanley: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. Improved trade for Israel is vital not only for the people of Israel, but for Palestinians. I hope that in the House next week we can make progress on the EU-Israel agreement.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Is not considerable credit due to Prime Minister Netanyahu for the substantial progress that has been made recently with the middle east peace process? Should we not always bear in mind the fact that his Government have a responsibility to the people of Israel to be mindful of their incredible vulnerability, because of the size of the country?
    Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend is correct: the Prime Minister of Israel is committed to the peace process. We must do everything that we can to encourage further progress, following the Hebron agreement. There was a serious delay over the Hebron agreement, but it has now been passed, and we must make progress. All parties believe in peace.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. John Butcher: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be well aware of the convention in the House that, when new Members make their maiden speech, it is customary to hear those speeches in silence. Perhaps a similar convention could be observed for the large number of Members who wish to make their valedictory speeches before their retirement. Many of our colleagues are at that interesting age, poised on the cusp between the recent arrival of wisdom and the future onset of senile dementia, and may therefore have a number of things to get off their chest under the privilege of silence. If you could rule that such a convention be observed, I am sure that it would benefit the collective wisdom of the House.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. [HON. MEMBERS: "Senile dementia."] A long time ahead yet. May I assure you, Madam Speaker, that most of us in the House who believe in speech-making and interruptions will not accept silence in our valedictory speeches. The more we are heckled and interrupted, the more the House and the Members will enjoy it.
Madam Speaker: May I respond to the original point of order. If I could distinguish between the voluntary and the involuntary valedictory speeches, I might go along with the suggestion.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the rather personal nature of Question 21, involving Mr. Perry Miller and Mr. John Kennedy and the book "Sleaze", has the Foreign Secretary made any request that his Ministers should answer the question, in order to clarify the rather difficult statements that are made in the book?
Madam Speaker: I fear that the hon. Gentleman is trying to extend Foreign Office Questions. I noticed the question that he had tabled on the matter, but I have not been informed that the Foreign Secretary has given any instructions about answering the question, unless of course it had been reached today, as I hoped that it might have been.
While I am on my feet, may I say that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is extremely good at handling questions. We tend to deal with a lot of its questions—more than any other Department. Had it been a little faster today, Mr. Dalyell's question would have been answered.

Political Fundraising
3.34 pm
Mr. David Winnick: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision in respect of the funding of political parties at general elections and other times.
The Bill proposes to regulate the method of political funding. The present system is most unsatisfactory, and reform is urgently needed.
I should like to see four changes made. First, I want an appropriate authority, be it the Committee on Standards in Public Life, chaired by Lord Nolan, or a new body, to be responsible for looking into how political parties raise funds, and for political parties to submit financial reports annually to such a body.
When Lord Nolan's committee was set up, Opposition Members, both Back-Bench and Front-Bench, wanted it to look into party finances. We remain dissatisfied with how the Tory party collects its funds, and the Tory party says that it is not happy with how we collect ours. That is a strong argument in favour of Lord Nolan's committee looking into the matter.
The Prime Minister, however, was adamant and said that under no circumstances would the matter be referred to the Nolan committee. I can only conclude that the Conservative party has much to hide when it comes to how it collects its money. I do not believe that the Tory-dominated Home Affairs Select Committee is the best body to look into the issue of party financing. An outside body, certainly not made up of parliamentarians, would be far better. I hope that that reform will be carried out.
The second reform I want is that all those who donate more than a certain amount to a political party should be identified. Some say that there should be secrecy in those matters, but I cannot see the argument for that. It may be argued, for what it is worth, that those who donate small sums should not be identified, but there is every reason to identify those who donate thousands of pounds and more. If I were asked what limit I would place on identification, I would say that the source of any sum above £5,000 donated to a political party should be identified accordingly.
Tory Members have recently made a great deal of fuss about the Leader of the Opposition's funding—[Interruption.] I see that they are responding as one would expect. They say that they are unhappy about it. I understand that Sir Gordon Downey has approved the method by which the Leader of the Opposition's office has collected funds, and it is in the Register of Members' Interests. If Tory Members are not satisfied about how the Labour party is funded, that is all the more reason for approving these reforms. We should let the whole matter go before the Nolan committee or a new body.
The third change I propose is that all overseas donations to political parties should be banned, with one exception. If an individual living abroad is a full United Kingdom citizen who has the right to vote in this country and has lived here for most of his or her life, it would be wrong to take away that individual's right to donate money. In the past few years, Hong Kong billionaires have been helping to finance the Tory party, and that scandal must come to an end.

341
There is a further change that I want to see. For more than 100 years, the amount that could be spent on behalf of a parliamentary candidate—indeed, a local government candidate for that matter—has been limited. The sleaze that occurred more than a century ago was tackled. There is no longer any controversy over the matter. All parties in the House agree that it would be wrong to try to buy votes in one's constituency, and that there should be a limit on the amount that is spent on our behalf. That sum is updated in line with inflation. I have not heard any controversy in the House about that issue. There is an Order in Council following discussions between the political parties.
If that is right, and obviously it is, what sense is there in having a situation whereby nationally a party can spend as much as it likes? It is a contradiction to the limit on candidates in our constituencies. I believe that a change is required.
These are all modest, long-overdue reforms. There are those, however, on the Government Benches who believe in secrecy. For example, the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick), who is in his place at the moment, was quoted in The Times in June 1993 as saying:
"I think the Party"—
his party, of course—
"is too open about its affairs as things are. I don't want more openness".
Those are the hon. Gentleman's views.
Lord McAlpine has some experience in Tory party financing. He should do, because he was its treasurer for some 15 years. He said that when he was treasurer he believed in secrecy, that it was right and proper that no information other than what the party wanted to disclose should be given. He has changed his mind—he has changed his party. He now argues that the time has come to end such secrecy. He also said—I do not know whether his tongue was in his cheek—that it would help the Conservative party if it was more open.
Many people in the Tory party—perhaps not on the Tory Benches, but reformists, such as Eric Chalker and the rest—have long argued that there should be more democracy, more openness, more detailed financial accounts in their party. I hope that, if they hear about my modest Bill, they will support it.
I mentioned Hong Kong billionaires. It is said that they have given more than £11 1 million in the past few years to the Tory party.
Then there is Asil Nadir. Of all the money that he contributed to the Tory party, nearly £500,000 was stolen money. The Home Secretary is in his place. He says at every opportunity that he believes in law and order.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard)indicated assent.
Mr. Winnick: He nods his head in agreement. But one aspect of law and order is to see that his party returns stolen money. I believe that the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General have a duty, a responsibility in government, to see to it that that is so. Unless the Home Secretary does so, it is total hypocrisy on the part of Ministers.
342
It is said that the Tory party is not concerned with people who seek honours. Sixty-five per cent. of honours to industry under Lady Thatcher, and 68 per cent. under the present Prime Minister, went to those who contributed to Tory party funds. That may be pure coincidence. On the other hand, those who are more cynical will take the view that honours were given to those people because they contributed substantial sums to the Tory party. If Lord Nolan's committee or an appropriate body did the job that I propose in my Bill, it would investigate that, just as it would investigate any aspect of Labour party matters about which the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) would be concerned.
I accept, because I am a realist, that my Bill will not become law in a Tory-dominated House of Commons, but I hope that when a Labour Government are elected later this year, one of the first reforms that we will introduce will be on party financing. The reforms and changes that my hon. Friends and I want to see will, I am sure, be very much on the agenda of that Labour Government. I want to see change and reform to undermine the sleaze, and the furtive, underhand way in which the Conservative party collects its money.
3.44 pm
Mr. David Shaw: There are three reasons for opposing the Bill: Labour hypocrisy, Labour hypocrisy and Labour hypocrisy. The Bill is mischievous. Before the last election, we heard cant and rubbish from Opposition Members about the Conservative party being financed from Saudi Arabia. They named a Saudi prince, but immediately the election was out of the way the truth came out. They had to withdraw the accusation, libel damages were paid to the prince and it was shown to be yet another Labour lie about Conservative party funding.
The Bill does not disclose what Labour is up to with its own financing. Nowhere in the Bill is there any information about how the Labour party accounts for its trade union moneys, which are still its primary source of finance. I have been through the Labour party accounts—I have them here—and I defy anyone to discover how much the trade unions give the Labour party in total. The accounts are misleading, and cover up the true position.
Labour is still heavily dependent on the trade unions: it is tied to them. It has changed the arrangements, and now has what it calls a constituency plan agreement, the wording of which I have managed to find out. Under such agreements, the constituency Labour party and the union undertake to recognise
"the value of the organisational links, between the Labour Party and its affiliated trade unions".
Under those agreements, the constituency Labour party and the trade unions are committed
"to co-operating, with the union at appropriate levels, in line with the union's rules".
Under the new arrangements, the Labour party is absolutely committed at national and local level to working with the trade unions. Trade unions still make donations to the Labour party. They still make tied donations: donations tied to performance. The Labour party still has to deliver to the trade unions.
We have confirmation that donations to the Conservative party are not tied. We have no less an authority than Mohammed Al Fayed himself, who complained that he got absolutely nothing from the

343
Conservative party for his £0.25 million. Those who donate to the Labour party actually get something, and there are secret joint committees of the Labour party and the trade unions.
The Labour party is in a serious mess. Its funding is still in difficulty. In its accounts and public statements, it claims to have 400,000 members, but when it came to telephoning its membership, it could reach only 200,000—the other 200,000 were missing. The problem was that the unions have not purchased enough membership cards.
The Labour party goes in for secret funds. The amount of its funds which is interesting is not what is published in the accounts: it is what is in the secret or blind funds. I have identified at least six blind funds, and possibly a seventh. There is the Leader of the Opposition's personal blind fund; the deputy leader of the Labour party's personal blind fund; the shadow Chancellor's personal blind fund; the industrial research trust; the Westminster objectors trust; the Front Bench research fund; and the seventh fund that I have identified, apparently involving the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), is the Labour party's Soho fund. I shall not say anything more about the hon. Gentleman and his connections with Soho.
Let us look at the Labour leader's blind fund. In a statement to the 1996 Labour party conference, the right hon. Gentleman said:
"we will legislate to make the Tories tell us where their money comes from."
He did not say that he would legislate to make himself declare where his own money came from. Where does his money come from? Is it a blind fund set up by lawyers to evade the rules of Parliament? The answer is that it has certainly been set up to evade the rules of Parliament, but what it has not succeeded in doing is being blind, because the newspapers have already told us who donates. Indeed, the leader of the Labour party plays tennis with those who donate. "Anyone for tennis?" takes on a new meaning—"Anyone to donate to the Labour leader's fund?"
The Labour leader meets those who donate over lunch at Mr. Levy's house in north London. He knows who is donating to his Labour leader's private fund; there is no secrecy there. That is what Sir Gordon Downey was not told. Those who read Lord Rees's letter to The Daily Telegraph, and Lord Richard's statement in column 1712 of the House of Lords Official Report, will find that no mention was made of what happened at Mr. Levy's house, or of the Labour leader's meeting with the donors, in the information that was given to Sir Gordon Downey. It would seem that Sir Gordon was seriously misled by the Labour leader's office—and, by implication, by the Labour leader himself—in that those concerned were not open and honest in the information they gave him.
The fact is that the Prime Minister does not have a similar secret fund. He does not need to have blind funds of a personal nature. The Bill is hypocritical in the extreme. I understand from The Times that the Labour leader's blind fund has been used to pay personal expenses. According to that newspaper—and it has not been denied—it is not used just to pay the Opposition Leader's office expenses.
344
Some Opposition Members may ask what is wrong with blind funds. Quite simply, they do not work. The donors rarely remain silent; sooner or later, they seek recognition for their donations—and, as we know, in the Labour party recognition means favours, and getting something back.
The fact is that the Labour leader's blind fund is not just an onshore fund, as has been suggested. Mr. Levy's business connections extend to Switzerland and Guernsey, areas that are not known for ensuring that British income tax is paid at the level at which it might be. That is unattractive, and the Labour leader should clean up his act. We do not need ten-minute Bills; we need honesty and openness from the Labour leader and his office.
The fund has been shrouded in secrecy. That secrecy has partly failed, and is causing serious problems. It is disgraceful that it appears that Sir Gordon Downey may have been misled into giving some indication of approval, when he had not been given all the information about how the fund operated and who the Labour leader met at the tennis and lunch sessions at Mr. Levy's home.
This is very unsatisfactory. The newspapers have made clear how unsatisfactory it is. The fact is that a number of donors have already admitted that they donate to the fund; the fact is that there are overseas connections; the fact is that there have been soundbite cover-ups and a lack of openness from the Labour party. The existence of the fund was first disclosed at the end of November and the beginning of December, yet there has been no honesty or openness from Labour. Come out with the names of all the donors. Admit it. Let the Labour leader live up to the speech that he delivered to the party conference in front of all those journalists, the British public and the Labour party. Stop the secrecy in the Labour party. It is a disgrace, and Labour should be ashamed of it. I oppose the Bill.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Winnick, Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Dennis Skinner, Mr. John Spellar, Mr. Paul Flynn, Mr. Robert Hughes, Mr. Doug Hoyle, Mr. Michael Clapham, Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, Mr. Ken Eastham, Mr. Andrew Mackinlay and Mrs. Anne Campbell.
Mr. Winnick: Virtually everyone wanted to be on the list of supporters, Madam Speaker, but I had to make priorities. I hope that my other hon. Friends will excuse me.

Political Fundraising
  POLITICAL FUNDRAISING
  Mr. Winnick accordingly presented a Bill to make provision in respect of the funding of political parties at general elections and other times: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 1 May, and to be printed [Bill 105].

Police Bill [Lords]
Order for Second Reading read.
Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown).
3.55 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill, in common with all the other measures that I have introduced in the past four years, has one simple but important purpose: to protect the public. It will help the police, together with other law enforcement agencies, to target serious and organised crime even more effectively. It will improve access to criminal records to protect the most vulnerable people in our society, particularly by subjecting anyone who wishes to work with children or who seeks other positions of trust, to a thorough check of criminal record information. The Bill will be of real practical benefit to the police, to other law enforcement agencies and to law-abiding citizens.
Organised crime is nothing new, but it is more sophisticated than ever before. Organised criminals are quick to exploit the opportunities provided by the ease of modern travel and modern communications. They operate across police force boundaries and national boundaries. They use the latest technology. They create large and complex businesses, part legal and part illegal, to launder the proceeds of their crimes. The Government are determined to ensure that the law enforcement agencies have the tools that they need to fight such crime effectively. They must be able to conduct effective surveillance, to obtain reliable intelligence and to target major crime in a co-ordinated way. The Bill will help them to achieve that.
Parts I and II provide for the creation of two national services: the NCIS Service Authority and the National Crime Squad. The arrangements for both services will be firmly rooted in our structure of local policing, with its tripartite system of sharing accountability between local representatives, chief officers of police and central Government. We are not proposing the creation of a national police service or the British equivalent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. There will be no "federal crimes" over which the new organisations will have exclusive jurisdiction. The public will continue to report all crimes to their local police forces. Police officers in both bodies will continue to be seconded or recruited from local police forces, and there will be strong local representation on the two new service authorities responsible for maintaining the two services. That approach strikes the right balance between putting in place effective national arrangements to meet the challenge of organised crime and preserving the local policing system that we all value so highly.
Mr. Tony Benn: Clause 2(2)(a) refers to the right of the NCIS
"to gather, store and analyse information."
Would that include information gathered as a by-product of bugging for other purposes? Suppose the police had authority to bug someone and then discovered that the
346
solicitor involved was gay, had HIV or was engaged in some particular activity that was not criminal, would that go on the police computer?
Mr. Howard: I cannot imagine that any information of the sort that the right hon. Gentleman identifies would be relevant to the investigation, prevention or detection of serious crime. On that basis, it would not be relevant to the activities of the National Criminal Intelligence Service. NCIS is interested in providing intelligence that is relevant to combating serious crime, and that is the basis on which it will proceed.
The Bill puts NCIS on an independent statutory footing. NCIS will continue to provide criminal intelligence to police forces across the United Kingdom and to other law enforcement agencies—principally Customs and Excise and the National Crime Squad—in this country and abroad. Last year, intelligence from NCIS contributed to the arrest of 1,378 major criminals, seizures of drugs worth £294 million and recovery of property worth £18 million. Its new status under the direction and control of a director general with chief constable rank will mean that it is even better placed to collect and develop intelligence for the benefit of all its users.
The National Crime Squad will bring together the existing regional crime squads into a single unit, again under the direction and control of a director-general with chief constable rank. Under current voluntary arrangements, the national co-ordinator of the regional crime squads has no powers of direction or control. The new squad will make it very much easier to deploy resources more flexibly and to tackle major criminals operating in one or more police force areas in England and Wales. The squad will continue to be able to support forces at the request of chief officers and will maintain close links with the Scottish crime squad and Royal Ulster Constabulary.
The Bill proposes that the two new national services should each be maintained by a new service authority. Those service authorities will be closely modelled on police authorities, but with some changes to reflect the national focus of the two services. The authorities will comprise independent members, one of whom will be appointed by the Secretary of State to chair both authorities, as well as police authority and police service representatives. The service authority for the National Crime Squad would have 17 members—comprising independent, police authority and police service members, plus one representative of the Secretary of State. The membership of the NCIS authority would be similar, but because of its United Kingdom-wide and multi-agency remit it would have a total membership of 19, which would also include representatives of police authorities and police forces in Scotland and Northern Ireland, the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Northern Ireland, and a representative of Customs and Excise.
Although they are separate, it is important that the two services should work closely together to achieve shared national objectives. For that reason, the Bill proposes that 10 members should serve on both authorities. The 10 joint members would include the three independent members to be appointed by the Secretary of State, one of whom would be the chairman of both authorities.
A strong local element has been preserved in those arrangements. Crown servants representing the Secretaries of State will have no voting powers. Representatives of

347
police authorities—including those for the Metropolitan police district, Scotland and Northern Ireland—will always make up a clear majority of those eligible to vote on the levy and the appointment of a director general. Conversely, it is right that there should be a strong national role, reflecting the interests of all parties, in those national services. We believe that we have struck the right balance, consistent with our current system of policing.
The majority of the income for the two services will be derived from levies on police authorities in England and Wales. In the case of NCIS, direct contributions will be made by other users. We believe that decisions on the levy should be strongly influenced by locally elected members of the service authorities. That is why we propose that only the police authority members from England and Wales—who will always be in a majority—and the independent members of the service authorities will vote on the proposed levy. Their proposals will be considered by the Secretary of State, who will first consult a tripartite group comprising representatives of police authorities, the police service and central Government. That group will consider the levies in the context of overall spending on the police. In the light of that consultation, the Secretary of State will either approve the levy or instruct the service authority to adjust it. His decision will be final.
In most other ways, the respective roles of the Secretary of State and service authorities reflect current arrangements for local police forces. For example, the role of the Home Secretary—in consultation with the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Northern Ireland in relation to the National Criminal Intelligence Service—will be to set key objectives for each service, to call for reports and to require Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary to conduct inspections.
The service authorities will set detailed objectives and publish service plans and annual reports on performance. They will appoint the director general and other senior police officers. Other officers will be seconded or loaned from their local force or organisations such as Customs and Excise. All staff will be under the direction and control of the relevant director general. The terms and conditions of service of staff will be decided by the service authority after consultation, in the case of police officers, with the police negotiating board. There will be full consultation with the police staff associations and trade unions on terms and conditions and the complaints and discipline system.
I turn now to part III of the Bill. I do not think that there is any dispute about the need of the police and customs to use intrusive surveillance against our most serious criminals. That effective and valuable technique must be available to our law enforcement agencies if they are to get the evidence that they need to bring our most dangerous criminals to court. We are not talking about petty crime, still less people going about their lawful activities. The Bill is aimed at major drug traffickers, kidnappers, terrorists and those involved in serious fraud and money laundering. These are the most dangerous criminals whose activities have a major impact on society—people who are well versed in policing methods and have the resources that they need to protect themselves from detection.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that this is a serious
348
constitutional matter? Does he not therefore think that the Committee stage of the Bill should be held on the Floor of the House, so that parties from all over the United Kingdom will not be isolated—some of them not even represented on the Committee? The Bill affects my part of the country. I feel that the Committee stage of such a grave constitutional Bill should be held on the Floor of the House. Will the Home Secretary help us on that? I do not want to hinder him getting his Bill passed, but I must defend the rights of the people and their representatives to be heard, especially in Committee.
Mr. Howard: I am afraid that I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. As I shall remind the House in a moment, the techniques in question have been used for a long time. The Bill introduces new safeguards, as well as putting the use of the techniques on a statutory basis for the first time. I do not follow the hon. Gentleman in his point, but of course he, his hon. Friends and others will have the fullest opportunity to put their points on Report.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, particularly in our constitution, there can never be an absolute guide on what is a constitutional question? When there is uncertainty, it is necessary to examine the political background. The Labour party has abandoned the proper adversarial role of the Opposition. As a result, there has not been adequate discussion about prior authorisation. That point therefore ought to be discussed on the Floor of the House, not in private Upstairs in Committee.
Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that there is no absolute definition of a constitutional issue. However, I fear that I cannot follow him on the rest of his remarks. The Labour party, to be as fair to it as I can, has attempted to form a view on the right course to take on the Bill. I regret that it has not been constant in the view that it formed, but there it is. We have to do the best that we can with that.
Mr. Benn: Will the Home Secretary give way?
Mr. Howard: I am answering my hon. Friend. I will give way in a moment. The right hon. Gentleman must contain himself. The provisions in the Bill have been extensively considered in another place and will no doubt be extensively considered in this House, including on Report.
Mr. Nigel Forman: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
Mr. Howard: I think that I indicated to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) that I would give way to him next.
Mr. Benn: The Home Secretary refers to terrorism, kidnapping, drug smuggling, and so on, and one understands that point, but one of the grounds for intrusive surveillance is given as
"conduct by a large number of persons in pursuit of a common purpose."
No crime is mentioned. That would apply to road protesters, trade unions and political parties. A Labour Home Secretary who regarded the Conservative party as

349
having a common purpose—as occasionally it does—would be entitled to bug any Conservative party office. That is the point that has aroused a great deal of concern, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not even touched on it.
Mr. Howard: I have not got very far into my speech, but I will answer the right hon. Gentleman's point now. There are crimes which might warrant the use of the powers that would not come under the second limb of the definition of serious crime in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has clearly looked at the matters closely, so he will be aware that the second limb refers to the likelihood of a first offender, 21 years old or over, getting a sentence of three years imprisonment. I hope that I may be able to carry the right hon. Gentleman with me on the point that there are criminal activities that would not fulfil that criterion but might merit the use of the powers by the police.
Mr. Benn indicated dissent.
Mr. Howard: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. Let me see if I can give an example which might cause him to reconsider. It is perfectly possible to conceive of a situation in which a large number of neo-Nazi youths concerted to disrupt a major football match. I suggest that that might very well merit the use of such investigative techniques. Nevertheless, if they were over 21 years old and of previous good character, none of the individuals involved might be sentenced for more than three years imprisonment for such an activity. That is what that limb of the definition is designed to cover.
I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to an additional safeguard. The statutory code of practice that we intend to provide in the Bill will enjoin chief officers of police to make a judgment about the proportionality of the use of the powers against the mischief at which they are targeted and which they are designed to prevent. Those safeguards should be sufficient to allay the anxieties to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Howard: I think that I owe my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) the next intervention.
Mr. Forman: When trying to assess such matters, I always try to look at such empirical evidence as may be available rather than at what might happen. The Library briefing on the matter states that the Government undertook an exercise, looking at the example of 1995, and found there were approximately 2,100 chief officer authorisations by police and Customs and Excise of intrusive surveillance operations in the United Kingdom. Can my right hon. and learned Friend give the House some idea of the rough breakdown between police and Customs and Excise on the one hand and between one kind of authorisation and another? It would help to inform today's debate.
Mr. Howard: I am afraid that I cannot do so at the moment. I shall cause inquiries to be made about whether
350
I can answer the first part of my hon. Friend's question about the breakdown between police and Customs and Excise. I know that we cannot give a breakdown on the second part of his question. I can say, however, that the majority of operations that were authorised under the use of the powers do not involve the sensitive categories about which there has been a great deal of debate, particularly in the other place. The majority of the operations consist, for example, of placing a beacon under a motor car so that the motor car's movements can be traced. The vast majority of operations do not involve intrusion into private premises, lawyers' offices, medical surgeries or anything of that kind.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Howard: I want to make some progress, but I will give way to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith).
Mr. A. J. Beith: The Home Secretary goes on about safeguards, but in his statement yesterday, which he made with the approval of his Labour shadow—it was almost a joint statement—he said that prior approval would not be necessary even in sensitive cases. That drives a coach and horses through the safeguards. If the security services wish to undertake intrusive surveillance, the Home Secretary is not bypassed. The procedure has to be followed and the Home Secretary gives his approval even if he has to be disturbed in the middle of the night.
Mr. Howard: Those are different cases. One of the greatest weaknesses in the Liberal Democrats' position, and in their amendment that was carried in another place, is that it makes no provision for urgent cases. Even the latest communication from the chairman of the Bar Council, who has shared many of the right hon. Gentleman's concerns about the Bill, recognises the importance of making provision for urgent cases. I do not accept that such provision drives a coach and horses through the Bill—it is an essential safeguard.
Mr. Richard Shepherd: Traditionally, the House has always regarded as constitutional those matters which affect the relationship of the citizen to the state or its agencies. The Bill undoubtedly touches on that issue. I cite the precedent of the Official Secrets Act 1989: there was no question about that being taken on the Floor of the House. The Bill would attack the rights of citizens over their domestic premises and their privacy, which is a major constitutional issue.
Mr. Howard: There are many precedents which point the other way, as I am sure that my hon. Friend would be the first to agree.
Mr. Shepherd: Cite them.
Mr. Howard: So that the list is as comprehensive as possible, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will cite the precedents when he winds up.
Much has been said about the Bill in another place and in the media. Much of it has been misleading and misinformed. We are not proposing a great constitutional change. Intrusive surveillance has been authorised by

351
chief officers for many years on the basis of Home Office guidelines first issued in 1977, when we had a Labour Government, and updated in 1984. The courts have accepted the evidence obtained from the use of those techniques as part of the prosecution case. The use of the techniques appears to have been authorised by chief constables with responsibility and restraint.
Mrs. Ann Clwyd rose
Mr. Howard: I must make some progress. I have given way generously, as the hon. Lady must accept.
Intrusive surveillance is used only in cases involving serious crimes and when there are no alternative methods available. In our view, the arrangements for authorising the use of intrusive surveillance must satisfy two basic principles. First, authorisations must be made by those with the training and operational experience to judge whether the surveillance is necessary. The person taking the decision must understand all the circumstances, including the investigative methods that have been used and the potential risk to public safety or even human life if surveillance is not attempted. Those matters go to the heart of policing. They should be decided by chief officers, subject to independent review that does not entail second-guessing of their operational judgments.
The second important principle is that those who authorise intrusive surveillance must be accountable for their decisions. Chief officers are accountable and they have in the past been required to justify their decisions in court. These are the principles which have guided my approach to the contradictory amendments tabled in another place.
Mrs. Clwyd: In the past half hour, the Home Secretary has given an omnibus answer to several questions on the use of mobile phones. He has been asked for the number of occasions on which access to the UK Cellnet system has been sought by each police authority. Most people in Britain have no idea that mobile phones are being used for this purpose. I found his answer—that the information was not held centrally—completely unsatisfactory, as most other people will. Should this matter not come within the scope of the Bill? The Home Secretary must surely address that point.
Mr. Howard: That matter involves other statutory provisions, as the hon. Lady will appreciate, but it is a matter of satisfaction to me that there is no central record of the number of occasions on which these powers have been used. The powers do not come within the control of any central authority in this country, but are exercised by local police officers who are accountable to local police authorities. I would not wish there to be any step that would attract these powers into a central repository. The hon. Lady should take some satisfaction from the fact that those records are not kept centrally.
I have described the principles that have guided my approach to the matter and the contradictory amendments tabled in another place. The amendment requiring all intrusive surveillance to have the prior authorisation of a circuit judge is unacceptable. As I have explained, I do not accept that judges can properly be expected to take these decisions. Furthermore, the absence of provisions for urgent cases—the very point on which the right
352
hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed intervened a few moments ago—would seriously inhibit the fight against serious crime. In hostage situations it could even endanger life, and I am not prepared to take that risk. It could also reduce accountability, because judges could not be called to account in the same way as chief officers. The amendment on that subject was moved by the Liberal Democrats in another place.
The amendment tabled by the Labour party in another place does not present quite the same difficulties. That is not altogether surprising, given the tortuous evolution of the Labour party's approach to this issue. When I originally announced my proposals and published the Bill, the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) strongly supported them. He saw the need for them, and rebutted the criticisms which were made of them with vigour. Under a sustained onslaught from The Guardian and others, however, he subsequently retreated. That is perhaps an object lesson in what life would be like under a Labour Government—strong words, vigorous argument, but retreat at the first puff of pressure.
Faced with that reaction—and with the schizophrenic amendments passed in another place—I have considered what would be the best way forward. We had already amended the Bill in another place to provide for all authorisations to be notified to the commissioner as soon as reasonably practicable, and for there to be more than one commissioner to ensure that authorisations could be reviewed quickly. In most cases, that would have meant that a commissioner would be able to scrutinise the authorisation before the operation commenced and put a stop to the intrusive surveillance if he thought it outside the criteria of the Bill.
We intend to bring forward amendments in Committee which will modify clause 91—which was inserted in the other place—to build on the approach embodied in the Government amendments. Our changes will require that the approval of the commissioner is obtained before an operation begins where there are reasonable grounds for thinking that the operation could affect legal, medical or journalistic privilege, or where the operation involves intrusion into residential dwellings, offices or hotel bedrooms.
Prior approval will not be necessary where the police or customs are acting with the consent of the person who is able to give permission in respect of the relevant premises. Nor will prior approval be necessary in urgent cases, but the commissioner would have to be notified as soon as reasonably practicable after the authorisation had been given.
Where prior approval is required, the commissioner will give it if, to borrow words from the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984,
"he is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing"
that the authorisation fulfils the requirements in clause 92. Those requirements are that the action is likely to be of substantial value in the prevention or detection of serious crime and that what the action seeks to achieve cannot reasonably be achieved by other means.
The commissioner will not seek to put himself in the shoes of the chief constable. That is an important difference between our approach and the test favoured by the Labour party in another place, which would have involved second-guessing by the commissioner of the chief constable's decision.

353
Under our proposals, there will be no second-guessing of operational judgments. It will be for the chief officers to authorise and for the commissioners to scrutinise that authorisation to determine that there were reasonable grounds for the proposed action. I believe that our approach strikes the crucial balance of ensuring that operational decisions are left to those best qualified to take them, but that there is strong and independent scrutiny and oversight.
The measures ensure not only that there will be an effective oversight system that fully recognises the sensitivity of the operations, but that police and customs officers will continue to be able to deploy the most sophisticated methods necessary to achieve effective results.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: If surveillance is carried out under the urgency provisions and it is then reported to the commissioner, who takes the view that it was unreasonable and should not have taken place, will the evidence obtained be inadmissible in a court of law?
Mr. Howard: That will be a matter for the courts to decide. The commissioner will have the power to stop the operations there and then, to quash the authorisation and even to order compensation. Those are considerable safeguards. I am surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman is not prepared to entrust the decision on admissibility to the discretion of the court.
Mr. John Greenway: My right hon. and learned Friend knows that I approach the problem from a wholly different perspective, because I agree with him that there should be a regulatory framework but that the police definitely need the powers. Will he assure us that, under the provisions that he intends to introduce by amendment in Committee, what will matter is what the chief constable knew when he took the decision to authorise intrusive surveillance as an emergency, without the agreement of the commissioner, not second-guessing on information that may subsequently have been discovered suggesting that he ought not to have given the approval? Surely it is what he knew at the time of the decision to give approval that matters.
Mr. Howard: That is certainly the starting point, but I cannot give my hon. Friend the categorical assurance that he seeks. For example, the Bill rightly contains provisions that enable someone to complain about the authorisation, and part of the complaint may be that the chief constable could and should have made other inquiries at the time of the authorisation that would or should have led him not to make it. That would be a relevant matter to be taken into account. However, the information available to the chief constable at the time that he makes the authorisation will be the starting point for the scrutiny that the commissioner will exercise.
Mr. Chris Mullin: Inevitably, such operations result in the gathering of a lot of material that is subsequently found to be irrelevant and which may affect other people who are not involved in the criminal
354
investigation. What will happen to that material? What assurance can the Home Secretary give that it will be destroyed, and how will it be stored in the meantime?
Mr. Howard: The commissioner has the power to call for all the information and material, and has specific power to instruct that that material should be destroyed. If it is not withdrawn into the hands of the commissioner, it will be a matter for the police, who will decide whether to retain the material on the basis of whether they think that it will be useful to them in pursuit of the inquiries on which they are engaged. That is a perfectly reasonable and sensible way to deal with the matter.
Mr. Neil Gerrard: Will the Home Secretary expand on that point? As I read the Bill, the only reference in clause 97 to the destruction of records is when the commissioner has decided that the person who gave an authorisation was not acting properly. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) pointed out, there may well be cases in which the authorisation was proper and a great deal of information has been collected about people who are not the subject of the authorisation. That situation does not appear to be covered by the clause.
Mr. Howard: I am not sure what point the hon. Gentleman is making.
Mr. Gerrard rose
Mr. Howard: If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that if, in pursuance of a properly authorised operation, the chief constable came across other information relevant to the investigation of a serious crime, he should destroy it, I utterly refute that suggestion. These are matters that can be left to the discretion of the chief constable, as they normally are.
Mr. Gerrard: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Home Secretary is clearly refusing to give way to me, having distorted what I said. I made it clear that I was talking about information relevant to people who were not concerned with the investigation under way.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): That is not a point of order for the Chair. It is up to the Secretary of State whether he wants to give way.
Mr. Howard: That was not a point of order and it was a point that I comprehensively answered. I will repeat my reply for the benefit of the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard). If in the course of investigating a serious crime, the police come upon other information relevant to another serious crime, I—and most citizens of this country—would expect them to use it in the course of that other investigation.
Mr. Budgen: Does my right hon. and learned Friend concede that it is obvious that the House is deeply concerned about the details of prior authorisation? This is the first time the House has been able to express its views on the details. Since the measure must carry the confidence of the whole country, on reflection would it

355
not be better to have a debate on the Floor of the House rather than to have the suspicion that it is being bashed through in a rather authoritarian way?
Mr. Howard: I do not make the concession for which my hon. Friend asks, and I ask him to reflect on the fact that if, on every Second Reading of a Bill at which concerns were expressed about the details, the matter were remitted to a Committee of the whole House, our proceedings would be considerably more cumbersome and protracted than they are.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: I hope that I can ask this question in the well phrased and courteous way that is characteristic of the Home Secretary. It appears that the House is being asked to approve new methods of police surveillance hitherto not found acceptable and that he is asking us to pass a Bill that will make those methods acceptable in respect of a known crime. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) inquired what would happen with information obtained during one investigation, which was interesting but had no relevance to it.
How would that information then be used? Would it be in police records? Would it be used as a Member of Parliament democratically investigating one matter and finding information relevant to something else would use such information? Surely that is the nub of the question which concerns the House. In that respect, authorisation is vital. Otherwise the information would not be available.
Mr. Howard: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's premise. There is no basis for the suggestion that the use of such powers has been found unacceptable over the years—they have led to remarkably few complaints and criticisms. I accept that it is desirable that those powers should be put on a statutory basis with additional safeguards, and that is what we have done. [Interruption.] Opposition Members suggest from sedentary positions that nobody knew about that, but the guidance published by the Home Office in 1984 was public. I am not sure that the guidance published by the Labour Government in 1977 was public: the Opposition claim to believe in open Government, but I understand that the 1977 guidance was headed "confidential". The guidance published in 1984, however, was a public document available to all. Therefore, there has been no secret or mystery about the availability of the powers.
Mr. David Trimble: I have been bugged on at least two occasions, but I am unsure what variety of organisation was bugging me. I have two points. First, there has been a misunderstanding about the intervention of the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard). I thought that he was asking what would happen with information that was incidentally gathered and which was not relevant to any other investigation. Would it be destroyed? Secondly, I wish to reinforce the points already made about the desirability of having a good debate on this issue in the House.
Mr. Howard: I am sure that we shall have a good debate on the Floor today, on Report and on Third Reading. On the destruction of material that is not relevant to any line of investigation, on the face of it I see no reason why that should be treated differently from any
356
other material that comes into the possession of the police when they are engaged in an investigation. However, it is clearly a matter on which different views may be held and which can be considered in detail at the appropriate stage, both in Committee and on Report.
I am aware of the concerns that have been expressed about the possibility that the police might conduct surveillance of confessionals. The police have told me that this has never been necessary in the past and are happy to give an undertaking not to mount surveillance operations in circumstances covered by the seal of confession. We will finalise the details shortly, and will insert a specific reference to that undertaking in the code of practice.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay rose
Mr. Beith rose—
Mr. Richard Shepherd rose—
Mr. Howard: I give way to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay)
Mr. Mackinlay: The seal of confession does not relate exclusively to Roman Catholics; it is held in high regard by the Anglican communion and by many other faiths, which have comparable counselling by religious ministers to their flocks. Will the Home Secretary undertake that such pastoral conversations, which have hitherto been held by democratic states to be of the utmost confidentiality, will be excluded from the surveillance provisions? Will there be privilege both for the sacrament of confession and for the traditional conversations between pastors and their flocks? Will that be in the code of practice?
Mr. Howard: I can certainly give an undertaking carefully to consider the hon. Gentleman's point and see to what extent we can take it on board in the code of practice. I suspect that there may be problems of definition which could give rise to some difficulty.
Mr. Shepherd: Does my right hon. and learned Friend think that Home Office guidelines, of which some of us were unaware, deposited in front of the House, can make lawful that which is unlawful or override common or statute law? That is the nub of the question. He is having to make it lawful because Home Office guidelines were not good enough cover. As upholder of our law and order, he must have regard to that which is lawful. Therefore, his response on guidelines is not good enough. The Home Office is trying to convert that which is currently unlawful under statute and common law into that which is lawful.
Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is quite right to say that Home Office guidance cannot do any of the things that he said it could not do—I entirely agree with him about that. The point that I was making in answer to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) was in response to his assertion that the exercise of these powers over the years has been found to be unacceptable. That is a much more contentious assertion. The truth of the matter is that these powers have been exercised over many decades without giving rise to any widespread concern. I accept that it is

357
preferable that they should be put on a proper statutory basis, with proper safeguards and that is why they are included in the Bill.
The provisions in part IV of the Bill to place the police information technology organisation on an independent tripartite footing have been well received on all sides—perhaps I ought to add, so far. We need to gain the maximum benefit from information technology and these new arrangements will help PITO to achieve its objective of providing the information technology and communications that best meet the needs of the police service
If we are to secure the maximum benefits from IT for the police service, we must make sure that we have the right structures in place to achieve that goal. PITO was set up on a non-statutory basis in April 1996. Much has already been done to create a more customer-focused organisation, but one important further step needs to be taken. By establishing PITO as an executive non-departmental public body, it will be possible to bring the chief officers and police authority associations into the heart of decision making.
Part V of the Bill contains provisions which bring into effect the proposals for access to criminal records for employment and related purposes that were set out in the White Paper "On the Record" which was published in June last year. Those proposals will put in place a coherent, transparent and fair system of access to criminal records for employment and related purposes. It will offer better protection to vulnerable groups and reassure employers that the information they are given about an applicant's criminal record is complete and accurate.
Mr. Benn: Will the Home Secretary give way? I wrote to him on this very point last year.
Mr. Howard: The right hon. Gentleman has not given me much time to get into my speech, but I will give way.
Mr. Benn: I wanted to give the Home Secretary the chance to answer this question in the body of his speech. First, if I applied for a job, could I require my employer to give me details of any criminal conviction so that I knew I would not be working for a drug dealer or a corrupt employer? Or is it only employers who can get such information about possible employees? Secondly, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman reassure me that all the information gathered by bugging and surveillance will be handed over to the European Union as part of the security arrangements reached with the European Union about the exchange of police information? This measure is not only about the relationship between the citizen and the British Government, but about the relationship between the citizen and the European security arrangements that the Home Secretary is setting up.
Mr. Howard: On the right hon. Gentleman's first point, I can give him an assurance that if the employer's work brings him into contact with vulnerable people in the way that is covered by the provisions of the Bill the employer himself will be covered by the provisions of the Bill in exactly the same way as anybody else whose employment brings them into contact with vulnerable persons will be covered.
358
On the second point—and this is a most important point—I can certainly give an assurance that, so long as there is a Conservative Government, the consequences that the right hon. Gentleman fears from the extension of this information to authorities of the European Union will not take place. However, I can give him no assurance that that will not happen if we were to have a Labour Government, since the shadow Foreign Secretary said only last week that he would accept the extension of majority voting into matters now covered by the third pillar arrangements of the European Union. That is the answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question. If he is concerned about these matters, he should address those concerns to his own Front Benchers and not to the Government.
Mr. Jack Straw: Perhaps I may repeat for the benefit of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) a similar undertaking: in no sense will we allow such information to be passed to the European Union. As the Home Secretary well knows, we are committed to ensuring that all matters which come within the third pillar remain intergovernmental and therefore not subject to majority voting.
Mr. Howard: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has not seen the latest press release issued by his right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary. We shall have to help the hon. Gentleman by making that information available to him. I am afraid that the shadow Foreign Secretary has acknowledged beyond peradventure that, if this country is headed by a Labour Government at the intergovernmental conference due to take place at the end of June, concessions will be made that will do away with our veto, not only in areas that have specifically been identified, but in relation to justice and home affairs. It is absolutely clear, and the country should be aware, that that would be the consequence of a Labour Government if we were ever to have one.
We intend to set up a criminal records agency, accountable to the Home Office, to undertake the work for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. In Scotland, the work will be undertaken by the Scottish criminal record office. Those bodies will be able to issue three types of certificate.
The first type of certificate will be a criminal conviction certificate. These will be issued to individuals only and will give details of their convictions recorded in central police records that are not spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. It will be for applicants and employers to decide when it is reasonable to require such a certificate to be produced.
The second type of certificate will be a criminal record certificate. These will contain details of spent and unspent convictions and cautions and will be available only for those occupations, such as doctors, nurses, teachers and prison officers, which are exceptions to the 1974 Act. A joint application will be made by the individual and the organisation seeking the check. The individual and the employer will be sent a copy of the certificate.
The third type of certificate will be an enhanced criminal record certificate. Initially, these certificates will be available only for those working on a regular, unsupervised basis with children; for certain licensing purposes; and for judges and magistrates prior to

359
appointment. As well as information on convictions and cautions, enhanced certificates will include non-conviction information from local police records, where that might be relevant to the post being sought. A copy of the certificate will be sent to the individual and the employer. In very exceptional circumstances, where on-going or future police investigations might be prejudiced, the information from the local police check will be provided only to the employer.
The Bill also makes provision for regulations to be made that will enable enhanced checks to be extended to those who work with vulnerable adults.
Mr. Harry Cohen: Would a long-term unemployed person be expected to pay as much as a tenner for the criminal conviction certificate, and how frequently would he be expected to provide an updated certificate?
Mr. Howard: I shall come to that point in a moment.
We intend the new system to be self-financing and for the costs to be met by individuals when they apply for a certificate. The fees charged will be modest, and are likely to be in the region of £5 or £6 for a criminal or criminal record certificate and £8 to £10 for an enhanced criminal record certificate.
When the Bill was considered in another place, it was amended to exempt volunteers from paying fees for criminal record checks. We opposed that move. The Government fully recognise and appreciate the good work that is done by the millions of volunteers in this country, and we have done much to encourage those who help their communities in that way, but the financial implications of the amendments are potentially enormous—costing possibly as much as £200 million.
We do not believe that it would be fair to redistribute those costs among other users of the agency. Some of them, as the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) said, will be unemployed or otherwise on low incomes, and possibly less able to pay a fee than many volunteers. The only other option would be for the taxpayer to pick up the bill, but no public funds are currently available to meet the costs of providing free checks for volunteers.
We propose, therefore, to amend the Bill to remove the amendments made in another place, but to introduce an order making power to enable free checks to be provided for specific groups, such as volunteers, if and when the money became available to cover the costs of doing so.
Mr. Mackinlay rose
Rev. Martin Smyth rose
Mr. Howard: I give way to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay).
Mr. Mackinlay: This afternoon I spoke to the chief executive of the Scout Association, who says that it will cost the association about £500,000 a year to fund this vetting and that, more importantly, it will be a disincentive to volunteering. The association wants total vetting to protect young people, but the association and many Labour Members feel that it would be grossly
360
unreasonable that such a fee should be picked up by a voluntary organisation which does tremendous work for the community. It is absurd and ridiculous.
Mr. Howard: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, his question is absurd and ridiculous. He cannot have it both ways. He cannot at one and the same time point to the cost to the organisation and also suggest that the cost would be a deterrent to the individual volunteer: it must be one or the other.
It is unnecessary for the organisations to pay for the checks. The vast majority of volunteers will not be deterred from their voluntary activity by a one-off payment of £5 or £6. Indeed, the overwhelming majority of volunteers voluntarily incur expenses in the course of their volunteering which far exceed the cost of a check of £5 or £6. I do not believe that the provision will have the consequences to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I ask the Secretary of State to think again, especially about introducing an order. It is possible that some volunteers will not be deterred, but most volunteers are unemployed people. There are those who volunteer at a different level and could afford the expense, but many could not. Charities, especially, have already suffered as a result of the advent of the national lottery. I recognise that there might be cross-party support to keep the taxpayer clear, but it should not be a case of reversing the role of Robin Hood and taking from the poor to pay for the rich.
Mr. Howard: I am sorry to have to disagree with the hon. Gentleman. First, I am not sure that his observation about the effect of the lottery on charities is well founded. Secondly, I do not accept that a modest one-off payment will be a significant deterrent to volunteers.
Mr. Walter Sweeney: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, while a person who gives his time for nothing to work in a charity may find it acceptable, for example, to use his own transport to get to the place where he does the voluntary work, it is another thing entirely to ask that person to put his hand in his pocket and pay £5 or £6 to run a criminal record check on himself when he knows perfectly well that no criminal convictions are recorded against him? Such a person may see that as an insult, and certainly as a deterrent to volunteering his services.
Mr. Howard: I do not agree with my hon. Friend. The distinctive characteristic of volunteers is that they are generous and public-spirited. They will understand the importance of the checks and they will not be at all insulted at the notion of having a check. They will readily accept the importance of providing more protection for children, which the provisions will allow, and they will be ready to make the modest payment involved.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I entirely agree with my right hon. and learned Friend. Volunteers will be only too happy to know that other volunteers are clean. In the light of some of the dreadful cases that have occurred recently, volunteers will be happy to pay for peace of mind.
Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's point.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is aware of the tremendous work done

361
by voluntary bodies in the north of Ireland. He should consider that every voluntary body conducts a massive lobby of the Members of Parliament for Northern Ireland. The largest lobby that I have ever had was on the right hon. and learned Gentleman's proposal, and I have been in the House for 27 years, as have my colleagues. People who are helping daily as volunteers to meet the needs of the community in Northern Ireland know the difficulties of telling an unemployed person that he would be excellent to do a job but that he will have to pay for a certificate to clear his name when in fact his name is clear. Could not the Home Secretary devise a system whereby a volunteer could take an oath in public declaring that his name is clear?
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: That would cost a great deal more.
Rev. Ian Paisley: No. The notaries and members of the public would be working for the voluntary sector for nothing. There would then be no onus of payment on a volunteer working in the voluntary sector.
Mr. Howard: I fear that my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), in her intervention from a sedentary position, may well be right. The attestation of such an oath before an official may well be more expensive than the very modest cost of the check that we envisage.
The voluntary sector has long been pressing for better access to criminal record information, and it welcomed our proposals when we first put them forward. But wider access costs money, and so cannot be provided unless the cost will be met. Our proposed approach will enable a balance to be struck between wider access funded by those who use the service and the provision of free checks to specific groups if financial resources permit.
The Bill contains a number of important safeguards to ensure that sensitive information is not misused. Employers who register with the agency will be required to abide by a code of practice. Good practice guidance on the application of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 and the need to consider the relevance of any convictions will be issued to registered bodies, and the Bill will also make it a criminal offence for a member, officer or employee of a registered body to disclose information about criminal records other than in the course of his duties.
Mr. Gerrard: Does the Minister agree that the code of practice would apply not to the criminal conviction certificate but to the full and enhanced certificates that would be relevant to registered bodies? Would that not leave all sorts of anomalies, with people applying for different jobs within the same organisation sometimes being asked for checks and sometimes not being asked? As my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) pointed out, a person might be repeatedly asked to provide a new certificate. A prospective employer might not be interested in a three-month-old certificate but might want to see an up-to-date certificate, so the person will be faced repeatedly with having to find the money to pay for one.
Mr. Howard: On the first point, I do not think that the provisions would give rise to the anomalous consequences
362
identified by the hon. Gentleman, but that could be looked at in detail in Committee and on Report. On the second point, we do not envisage it being possible for repeated requests for new certificates to be made. We envisage a time limit so that it is not incumbent on someone in the circumstances identified by the hon. Gentleman repeatedly to have to reapply for fresh certificates.
As my noble friend the Minister of State signalled in another place, we believe that these measures will help to put an end to the practice of enforced subject access when an employer requires an applicant to exercise his access rights under the Data Protection Act 1988 in order to pass on information about his criminal record. That practice is undesirable. It is contrary to the spirit of the Data Protection Act and, because it reveals details of both spent and unspent convictions, it undermines the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. We appreciate that, if enforced subject access were to continue, it might also undermine this Bill, which seeks to protect information about spent convictions. We are considering, therefore, what steps can be taken to outlaw that practice. However, it is not straight-forward and it has implications that go wider than criminal records.
Mr. Beith: I am grateful for what the Home Secretary has just said about the Data Protection Act. Does he not recognise that, as a result of the Bill, any person applying for any job anywhere in the land, even a job that does not involve sensitive work with young children or security, may be required to produce a criminal conviction certificate, and that any employer, particularly a trustee or a director responsible to shareholders, will feel increasingly obliged to ask for such a certificate? Does he not recognise what a massive change that is to the labour market?
Mr. Howard: I doubt that the draconian consequences that the right hon. Gentleman has identified will flow from the Bill. We must, however, recognise the legitimate concerns that have been expressed about the need to protect those who need protecting. That is at the heart of these provisions.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody rose—
Mr. Howard: I would like to make progress, if I may.
The Bill will significantly strengthen the fight against serious and organised crime. The creation of the NCIS Service Authority and a National Crime Squad will ensure that intelligence is properly harnessed and that operations are carefully targeted to inflict the maximum damage on organised crime. Putting the authorisation of intrusive surveillance onto a statutory footing will ensure that the police and customs will have the tools that they need to prevent and investigate serious, organised crime, and there will be new, additional safeguards against any possible abuse. The provisions for wider access to criminal records will improve the protection of vulnerable members of our community and reduce the opportunities for those determined to abuse positions of trust to commit crime.
This is an important Bill. It will make life very much harder for major criminals. That is what the public want to see. That is what the whole House wants to see. That is, I believe, what the Bill achieves. I commend it to the House.
5 pm
Mr. Jack Straw: Over the past decade and a half, recorded crime in this country has more than doubled. As the British crime survey and a number of local crime surveys have shown, the level of crime today is such that, over a three-year period, nearly three quarters of the population will have had a personal experience of crime, either directly as a victim or indirectly through having to share the distress and anxiety of crime committed against the family or a close friend. What turns the screw even more is the fact that the poorer people are, the more likely they are to be a victim of crime.
Much of the crime that affects people in their day-to-day lives appears to be disorganised: a crowd of youths whose behaviour changes from the exuberant to the threatening; the opportunist theft of a car stereo; or the quick break-in of a dwelling when the chance presents itself. But behind much apparently disorganised crime lies something altogether more sinister—organised crime.
Organised crime used to be involved mainly in armed robberies and protection rackets. Now its scope has extended far wider. Every gram of heroin that is sold on a street corner, every Ecstasy tablet that is passed on in a club, has behind its lethal trade some of the most ruthless individuals and gangs ever seen. On top of that danger, there is the continuing threat from terrorism. Staff turning up for work in Canary Wharf, or shoppers hoping to enjoy a Saturday morning shopping in Manchester, have a right to expect that they can go about their business without their lives being wrecked by the mindless, callous acts of the Provisional IRA.
I wish for the world of "Dixon of Dock Green"—but if that world ever existed, it has been and gone for sure. The most important civil liberty that it is our duty to protect is the freedom for citizens to live without fear. If we are to create safer, more orderly communities, we have to tackle crime and disorder as it occurs on the street, and take action to deal with its underlying causes. However, we also have to tackle serious crime more effectively and ensure that, within a clear framework of the law, the police and the other law enforcement agencies are given the tools to do the job that we ask them to undertake on our behalf.
In July 1995, the Home Affairs Select Committee produced an important report on organised crime. It was a unanimous report. It made many recommendations, one of which was that NCIS and the crime squads should be put on a proper statutory footing, and so, too, should the use of intrusive surveillance techniques by the police. The report was widely welcomed. It was also welcomed by Labour Front Benchers.
This time last year, during the proceedings on the Security Service Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) and I referred to the need to bring the report's recommendations to fruition. Parts I, II and III of the Bill seek to do that. Parts I and II provide a proper statutory framework, for the first time, for NCIS and a new National Crime Squad.
Seventeen years ago, in a private Member's Bill that I introduced to improve police accountability, I proposed that there should be a new national police agency to take over the national police functions of the Metropolitan police and other agencies and organisations. Our tradition of locally based policing, with independent chief police officers, is key to the success of the British police and the
364
fact that they are far more sensitive to local communities than many of their counterparts in other countries. However, we undermine rather than strengthen that tradition if we pretend that all policing can be undertaken within the boundaries of a local force. Serious crime and terrorism are national and international. The overall organisation of the police must reflect that.
I deal with those two parts of the Bill briefly because of time. Their provisions will need to be examined with great care in Standing Committee. Given the starting point, however, it was probably inevitable that two separate organisations had to be created. The fact that, in practice, their role will overlap is reflected in the requirement in the Bill for the supervising authorities to have common members. I believe that we have to keep an open mind on whether at some stage, and in the light of experience, a single national body would be the more effective arrangement.
I now deal with part III, on intrusive surveillance, which has aroused great interest outside and inside the House. The use by the police and other agencies of covert, secretive methods to obtain information is rightly one of the most sensitive parts of the criminal justice system. We know from the experience of other countries, including the United States during the McCarthyite period, that there is always the potential for such powers to be abused. Effective controls and checks must therefore be in place to ensure that that does not happen, to ensure that powers that should be used to detect and deter serious crime and terrorism are not more widely used to undermine the freedoms that citizens in a democracy should enjoy.
In securing a proper balance, and in judging what is proposed in the Bill, it is important that we begin from what is and what has been, not from what might have been but was not. When debate about the intrusive surveillance powers of the Bill first began in public, last November, much of the comment was so profoundly misinformed as to be downright ignorant. One newspaper commentator claimed that the Bill changed our constitution because
"for the first time in history, the police will exercise these powers without having to get a warrant".
That statement, picked up by many others, was completely untrue.
Mr. Budgen: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, in view of the widespread misunderstanding, it would be very much better—to restore public confidence—if these issues, particularly that of prior authorisation, were debated on the Floor of the House rather than tucked away in semi-privacy upstairs?
Mr. Straw: I do not regard a Standing Committee as operating in semi-privacy—it is open to the press just as much as debates on the Floor of the House. Nor do I wish to subscribe to the hon. Gentleman's proposition that every Bill of importance has to be debated on the Floor of the House. [Interruption.] It is not, in my judgment, the same constitutional matter, for example, as the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, which palpably had to be debated on the Floor of the House because it had enormous constitutional significance. The hon. Gentleman and I may disagree on whether the Police Bill is a constitutional measure. I have made it clear, and will do so again, that I regard this measure as one that improves safeguards in the exercise of these powers rather than introducing these powers in this country in the first place.

365
I ask my hon. Friends and the hon. Gentleman to bear it in mind that, on all the best estimates, this Session of Parliament cannot last for much more than five weeks. There are other very important measures to which we attach great importance, particularly the Firearms (Amendment) Bill, and I would not wish extensive discussion on the Police Bill on the Floor of the House to lead to a situation where the Firearms (Amendment) Bill could not be enacted.
Mr. Cohen: Why can my hon. Friend not introduce a firearms Bill, as the first Bill of a Labour Government? Then at least we would not have a Bill that is as bad as the Police Bill.
Mr. Straw: I do not share my hon. Friend's view about the Police Bill. I also wish to see the Firearms (Amendment) Bill on the statute book as quickly as possible. If we form a Government—as I believe and hope we shall—we could not introduce such a Bill before July, so it probably would not get on the statute book until next December at the earliest. That is not an acceptable timetable for the introduction of a measure that should have been law by now.
The statement made in one of our serious newspapers that, for the first time in history, the police will exercise these powers without having to obtain a warrant was completely untrue. Intrusive surveillance techniques using electronic equipment have been used by the police for at least 30 years without a warrant being required or there being any formal system of judicial supervision.
Since at least 1965, Appeal Courts have accepted that evidence obtained in that way is admissible in the criminal courts. Until 1977, there was no Home Office guidance to police forces on how they should use these powers. In 1977, the Home Office, under my right hon. and learned Friend Lord Rees as Home Secretary, issued a page and a half of guidance in general terms. However, that guidance was not published until 1982. In 1984, more detailed guidance was issued and published, which made it the personal responsibility of chief officers to authorise the use of those techniques. Despite the fact that the guidance was made public, there were few calls at that stage for the system to be put on a statutory footing. No arrangements for systematic judicial supervision or for central record keeping were put in place.
Mrs. Clwyd: My hon. Friend will recall that I asked the Home Secretary how many applications had been received from the police to access the United Kingdom Cellnet system. He said that that information was not held centrally. In fact, he boasted that it was a good thing that it was not held centrally. The Interception of Communications Act 1985 provides that interception can be carried out only under a warrant issued by the Secretary of State. In that case, either the Secretary of State is breaking the law, or the police are.
Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point, and for raising it with me previously outside the House. I thought that the Secretary of State's answer was one of the least convincing of all those that he gave in reply to interventions—and there was much
366
competition for that prize. It is nonsense for the Secretary of State to suggest that, because some decisions are rightly made by independent chief officers, there should not be proper and comprehensive record keeping. Records are kept on plenty of other police operations, so they should be kept in that case.
The interception of telephone calls from mobile telephones is covered by the Interception of Communications Act 1985 under the proper statutory system, so there should be information about that. From reading the written answer that my hon. Friend was given, it does not appear that the collection of subscriber data—when the calls were made and from where—is subject to the 1985 Act. The collection of such data by the police may be necessary for the detection of serious crime, but it should be regulated either by the 1985 Act, by this Bill or by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. It must be subject to statutory supervision under one of those provisions, and we shall certainly raise this matter in Committee.
Despite the fact that no central records have been kept, or any systematic arrangement for judicial supervision made, chief police officers have not been unaccountable for their actions in authorising intrusive surveillance. On a number of occasions, they have been called by the defence to give evidence in court to justify their decision to authorise such surveillance. Although a non-statutory system was and is inherently unsatisfactory, it must also be said that, in practice, there have been remarkably few complaints about the way in which chief officers have met their responsibilities.
This time last year, the role of the Security Service was extended, with our backing, so that it could support the police in the detection of serious crime. The same Bill required that the use of intrusive surveillance techniques by the Security Service in that area should require, by statute, the Home Secretary's authorisation. That put into sharp relief the need for the use of those powers by the police to be placed on a similar statutory footing, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth and I—and, it has to be said, the Government Front-Bench team—made clear when we discussed that Bill.
The Police Bill, as originally published, provided that the use of any intrusive surveillance techniques by the police had to be authorised by the relevant chief officer according to strict criteria laid down in the Bill. There was then to be a system of judicial supervision of the use of such powers by a commissioner, who would be a senior High Court judge appointed for that purpose. That system parallelled that used for phone tapping, for which the commissioner is Lord Nolan, who is better known for his work on improving—or trying to improve—standards of conduct in public life.
I said when the Bill was published, and I say again, that, on any basis, the system in the original Bill was a significant advance on the non-statutory arrangements that have applied for the past 30 years. However, we were concerned from the start that the Bill provided insufficient protection for the work of lawyers, doctors and journalists. As the debate has progressed, I have also accepted that the basic arrangements in the Bill for judicial supervision should be significantly strengthened.
In the other place, the Government accepted our proposals that the number of commissioners should be increased from one to at least three, and that for all

367
authorisations the time scale for informing a commissioner of an intrusion had to be shortened, so that, in many non-urgent cases, the commissioner could quash an authorisation before the operation had taken place.
Mr. Forman: I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument and his explanation of the way in which his party's policy has evolved. What is his understanding of the words in clause 91(2):
"Where it is not reasonably practicable to apply to a Commissioner for advance approval under subsection (1)"?
Can the hon. Gentleman give the House a good example, from his own knowledge or from his thought processes, of where it would not be reasonably practicable to apply to the commissioner?
Mr. Straw: The purpose of the phrase "not reasonably practicable" was to allow the police, when there was great urgency about placing some intrusive device, to carry out the operation on the chief officer's authorisation, and retrospectively to obtain the consent of the commissioner. If, for example, a kidnapping has taken place, the police may not have time to plan an operation, as they would for a drug dealer. With a kidnapping, they have to act quickly: they may be following a vehicle that is going to the place where the kidnap victim is to be held, but they would not know where that place was until moments before the kidnap victim and the kidnappers arrived. It would be absurd to expect the police to seek approval from a commissioner, and even more absurd to expect them to go to a circuit judge.
I have discussed this matter extensively with chief officers, as I hope the House would have expected me to do. I do not believe that they want to abuse that provision, because if they did, their authorisations would be quashed by a commissioner. Moreover, at the end of the year, the commissioner, in his report to the Prime Minister, which could be published, could name a chief officer who had transgressed the terms of the Bill. It would still be possible, as it has been for the past 30 years, for the chief officer to be taken to court to explain why he gave his authorisation.
A code of practice will be laid down under the provisions of the Bill, which will require the approval of both Houses of Parliament by affirmative resolution following consultation. It is my hope and intention that that code of practice should more specifically lay down the circumstances in which the urgency provisions should apply.
Mr. Mackinlay: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be more appropriate if we at least had the draft code of practice before us on Second Reading? The contents of the code go to the heart of this part of the Bill. We could make a much more intelligent contribution to the debate, and decide how to vote later this evening, if we knew the contents and intentions of the code of practice.
Mr. Straw: It is a fact that the code of practice has already been published in draft, and was available for discussion in the other place.
Mr. Mackinlay: I was able to extract a copy by fax from the Home Secretary's office at lunchtime, but copies
368
have not been available in the Vote Office: as far as I am aware, they are not available now, although I have asked for them repeatedly. I do not know whether I can use your good offices, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to have that checked, but copies of the code are not available. I defy my hon. Friend to obtain a copy in the next few minutes.
Mr. Straw: I know that the code is available, because I happen to have a copy. If it is not available in the Vote Office, it ought to be. I entirely accept that it should be available to the House, but that is the responsibility of the Home Secretary and his colleagues, not my responsibility. It is a matter of fact that the code of practice is available—I have read it—but I do not believe that it should go into law in its present form. There should be the widest possible consultation on its terms, as indeed there will be.
Mr. Richard Shepherd: The hon. Gentleman gave an instance of the bugging of property in an emergency. I do not think that the House has any difficulty with that, in that a helicopter or an unmarked police car may follow a vehicle, and other provisions in criminal law give authority in such circumstances. Will the hon. Gentleman reflect, however, on the question of homes and property? What emergency could arise that would not be covered by the remit of the Security Service Act 1996—which the hon. Gentleman mentioned himself—and the warranting that is necessary in that context? The intelligence services can follow through serious crimes involving, for instance, drugs.
What circumstances are so urgent that the proper provisions of law that now exist—which give police officers the right of access to premises, and so forth—are not sufficient? What could bring about circumstances that are so urgent that action in the tradition of the whole common law world requires prior authorisation?
Mr. Straw: I do not think that occasions will arise very often when, if the police want to place an intrusive device in someone's home or office, the circumstances will be so urgent as to require them to use the second limb of the amendment that was passed in the House of Lords by a large majority, but there will be some such occasions. I gave the example of kidnapping. I understand that many kidnap victims are taken to hotel rooms, but if they were taken to private houses exactly the circumstances that I have described would arise.
Mr. Budgen: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Straw: I have given way to the hon. Gentleman once already. I will give way to him again, but then I should like to get on with my speech.
Mr. Budgen: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the use of a code of practice is unsatisfactory, particularly when the House does not have access to it? It would be much better if the code were incorporated in the statute, which would require either the House or the Standing Committee to consider it a great deal more carefully.
Mr. Straw: One of the great benefits of Standing Committee proceedings, in my experience—I do not know how often the hon. Gentleman sits on such Committees—is that the details of such codes, and of other provisions, can be examined at length. Far more

369
forensic scrutiny is possible in Committee than is possible on the Floor of the House. Moreover, the code of practice is not an informal document; it will take the form of a statutory instrument, which must be subject to an affirmative resolution by both Houses of Parliament.
Mr. Mackinlay: That means one hour's debate.
Mr. Straw: I accept that. If my hon. Friend wants to serve on the Standing Committee and suggest that more time should be allowed, that is fine, but the arrangement seems very sensible to me. Labour as well as Conservative Bills have provided in the past, and will provide in the future, for detailed matters relating to the operational parts of Bills to be the subject of more extensive codes and guidance.
By the largest majority in recent history, the other place approved a Labour amendment requiring the prior approval of a commissioner for any intrusion into premises without the consent of the occupier. As we have heard, the same amendment accepted that, in urgent cases, an operation could go ahead on the authorisation of the chief officer, with scrutiny by a commissioner as soon thereafter as reasonably practicable.
In framing the amendment for their Lordships, I sought to do two things. First, I sought to ensure that people's right to believe that their home was their castle was guaranteed; secondly, I sought to ensure that controls on the police were proportionate, and did not gratuitously undermine the difficult and sometimes dangerous work that we expect them to do on our behalf. It is because of the need to balance those two considerations that we have never supported, and do not support, the Liberal Democrat amendment which was also passed by their Lordships, albeit with a smaller majority.
That amendment substitutes a circuit judge for the chief officer in every case. It has two overwhelming defects. First, it takes no account of the reality of some police operations in which the need for speed is essential. An Englishman's home may be his castle, but an Englishman's stolen car is not. Yet, when the police suddenly, and with notice, had the opportunity to place a tracking device on a stolen vehicle that was about to be used in an armed robbery or for drug running, the Liberal Democrats would expect them in every case to go off to a circuit judge for approval before the operation could take place. The practical effect would be that the operation could not take place at all.
The second objection is this: a transfer of decision for the initial authorisation from a chief officer to a circuit judge would have wholly undermined the responsibility of the chief officer for the actions of the police under his command. The fact that under the present arrangements, and under the Bill, the chief officer may have to answer in court for his or her authorisation is a powerful discipline and control on the use of such powers. It is possible that the Liberal Democrats have not been immune to those arguments. Their reasoned amendment says something remarkably different from the policy that they pursued in the other place. It speaks only of prior judicial authorisation for the bugging of private places, which is a much more limited proposition than the Lords amendment.
370
Following their Lordships' decisions on our amendment, discussions took place between the Home Secretary and me. The result of those discussions is reflected in a written answer given to me yesterday evening, which will form the basis of amendments that will be tabled in Committee in due course.
Mr. Mackinlay: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) will forgive me. We were told a few minutes ago that the draft code of practice was available, and I said that it was not. My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) has now been to the Vote Office to check, and has discovered that it is not available. It is clearly available to Privy Councillors, but not to hon. Members. I cannot make the position any plainer: a document that has been referred to in the House is not available to hon. Members. Could we have some protection and intervention on your behalf, Mr. Deputy Speaker? It is fundamentally important for us to have access to the document.
Mr. Howard: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The point about the code is that it will need to be amended—in particular, to deal with many of the points that have been commented on this afternoon. I am, however, making arrangements for it to be deposited in the Table Office as soon as possible.
Mr. Budgen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Let me deal with the other points first. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) will have heard what the Home Secretary said. As the document has not been formally laid before the House, it is not up to the Clerks to make it available; it is up to the Government.
Mr. Budgen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will the Home Secretary confirm that he is proposing to lay the code of practice before the House in the form of a statutory instrument, and that the House will have no opportunity to amend it or consider it in detail? Will he confirm that it will be either passed or rejected after a debate in general terms lasting an hour and a half?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, but I am sure that the Home Secretary will have heard what he has said.
Mr. Straw: I am grateful to hon. Members on both sides of the House who have elevated me to the Privy Council, but that is premature, although some of us may hope.
The Home Secretary spoke of puffs of smoke. I can only say that what was required to make him perform what has been described as a U-turn was not so much a puff of smoke as a single breath from an hereditary peer—or two or three.
Mr. Howard rose—
Mr. Straw: I am coming to the Secretary of State's aid, if he would hang on just one moment.

371
In his defence, and mine, our capacity for reassessing our position in the light of representations is nothing compared with that of The Guardian. It has waxed eloquent about this issue since it discovered towards the end of November that it was a great matter of civil liberties. I speak only in the Secretary of State's defence—I see it as part of my role. It must be said in his favour that, when he made a speech on 2 July to the Association of Chief Police Officers setting out in considerable detail what would be in the Bill and going through the various ways in which surveillance could be achieved—for example, under provisions that were exactly those in the original Bill—The Guardian did not report it as a major breach of civil liberties.
I have The Guardian of Wednesday 3 July 1996. It is a useful historical record, which The Guardian, as we speak, is trying to excise from its database. It says:
"Howard sets statutory code for police bugs"
and then claims that the Home Secretary's proposal would lead to
"Greater accountability in police bugging and electronic surveillance operations".
It has been suggested occasionally that some people have come late to this issue. I say in defence of the Secretary of State defence and myself only that he and I were there a bit before some of the newspapers.
Mr. Beith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Straw: And certainly before the Liberal Democrats.
Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman had better look back to what I said more than a year ago on the Security Services Bill, or he could refer to his letter to The Guardian of 30 November, in which he said:
"In what has to be a system which operates in secret, we think that, in practice, there will be greater accountability if the onus is placed squarely on the chief officer to ensure compliance with the law, and if his or her decisions are then subject to effective supervision by a senior judge".
There is nothing about prior approval. I welcome his conversion; I simply wish that it had been more complete.
Mr. Straw: That is exactly my position and I made that clear. One of the reasons why the Liberal Democrat amendments are not just wrong but daft is that, apart from being wholly inoperable and wrecking important surveillance—for example, by proposing tracking devices on vehicles, despite all evidence from the police—they remove the responsibility rather than the power of the chief officer.
The right hon. Gentleman, who has been elevated to that noble position, should talk to middle-ranking police officers who have had to go to their chief officers to gain these authorisations. They have told me—I take the advice of those to whom I have spoken seriously—that, in practice, it is far easier to obtain authorisation for a warrant from a circuit judge or magistrate under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 than to get authorisation for placing intrusive surveillance from the chief constable. Why? It is because, unlike circuit judges, chief constables know that, if they get it wrong—or even if they get it right—they may have to justify their decision in open
372
court. That is why I was determined to stick to the Bill's central provision that the responsibility for authorisation had to be on the chief officer, with judicial supervision.
Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman will know that I have listened to the views of chief officers, middle-ranking officers and serving police officers over a long period, not only in my capacity as a party spokesman but as a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee. The hon. Gentleman's description of the procedure employed by chief constables is correct. As it takes some time for such an application to be properly considered by a chief constable, why cannot the hon. Gentleman envisage the system being used—as it is now in front of a chief constable—to ensure that prior authorisation is given, even in urgent cases? Under the present system, chief constables have to deal with urgent cases in a formalised way, as does the Home Secretary in respect of the Security Service. The system can be made sufficiently efficient to do that.
Mr. Straw: If the right hon. Gentleman has talked to the police, it is a great shame that he did not pass on what he learned to Lord Rodgers, whose opinions were informed by almost total ignorance about police operations in this sector. I am astonished that the right hon. Gentleman did not learn from chief constables that in urgent cases the chief officer must give authorisation by telephone. Let me give him an example that would have been completely disrupted by his amendment.
There is a difference—the Home Secretary can speak for himself about this—between the sort of operation that may be undertaken by the Security Service and what a local police force may do, but let me take a tangible example that occurs quite often. When the police spot a stolen vehicle that they have reasonable grounds for believing is about to be used in an armed robbery, they will wish to place a tracking device on it. Under the amendment moved by the noble Lord Rodgers, the authorisation for placing the tracking device under the vehicle would have to be subject to approval by a circuit judge. So we would have an extraordinary pantomime whereby the detective constable in charge of tracking the vehicle would have to stop, go to the chief officer and fill in a variety of forms. He would then have to find a circuit judge.
Mr. Beith: He does that now.
Mr. Straw: No, he does not. After finding a circuit judge, he would have to gain authorisation. The detective constable might be lucky and the stolen vehicle might still be there 24 or 48 hours later when he returns. However, the evidence that I have suggests that, on the whole, armed robbers do not oblige the police in that way.
I was told—I am sorry to say that I accepted this in terms of the advice from the police—that the proposal would wreck police operations and lead to the committing of many more armed robberies and to the guilty getting away with it. I am not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman is looking perplexed. By now, he should appreciate what his noble Friends in the other place did

373
not appreciate: that their amendment would have undermined the responsibility of the chief constable and wrecked many possible police operations.
Mr. Rupert Allason: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Straw: I shall do so for the last time.
Mr. Allason: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the issue of electronic surveillance, will he clarify two issues? Is it Opposition policy that the Bill should extend warrant powers to include telephone data—not just the interception of telephone conversations, but details of telephone calls from a particular number?
Does the hon. Gentleman propose to include all passive tracking devices? As he has spoken to the police and to other agencies, he will be aware that one method of electronic tracking is passive. It involves painting the top of a suspect vehicle with invisible infrared reflective paint that can be tracked by helicopter. It is a useful device, but it does not involve any electronic intrusion of the vehicle concerned. Under those circumstances, would he consider extending the Bill or does he think that they are covered already?
Mr. Straw: It is a moot point whether invisible ink on the top of a vehicle amounts to interference with property as defined by the Bill. I do not have a specific answer to the hon. Gentleman's second point. It is no doubt a matter that he will wish to pursue if he gets on to the Standing Committee. On the first point, as I said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for, which valley is it—
Mr. Alun Michael: Cynon Valley.
Mr. Straw: Cynon Valley. [Interruption.] I am sorry. I was brought up in Essex, not in Llanelli like the Home Secretary, and I have never been able to pronounce Welsh names—or indeed to remember them.
The first point that the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) made involved whether data relating to telephone calls should be subject to the Bill's provisions. As I said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), it should be subject to the provisions of one or other of the Acts—the Interception of Communications Act 1985, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act or this Bill—that control the use of such operations by the police. I want to think about it, but the matter should be put on a proper statutory footing.
Mr. Allason rose—
Mr. Straw: If the hon. Gentleman will excuse me, I shall not give way; the Secretary of State spoke for more than an hour. I have spoken for 38 minutes and many other hon. Members wish to participate in the debate.
The amendments that will be proposed will significantly strengthen judicial supervision under the Bill. Prior authorisation, subject to an urgency provision, will be required for intrusion into homes, offices and hotel
374
bedrooms. That seems to cover the main "private places" referred to in the Liberal Democrats' reasoned amendment, which represents another U-turn by them.
The absolute confidentiality of discussions between lawyer and client is essential if the legal profession is to operate effectively in any society. That principle is an absolute, and it is the essence of legal professional privilege. When dealing with an amendment tabled by Labour in the other place, Baroness Blatch said:
"We accept entirely that the police should not be allowed to set out to listen in or otherwise to interfere with confidential conversations between a lawyer and his client or a doctor and his patient."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 28 January 1997; Vol. 577, c. 1095.]
That is a very important statement by the Minister on behalf of the Government, and it is certainly one to which we entirely subscribe.
Our view, and the essence of what we have argued in the other place, is that intrusion into what would otherwise be legal professional privilege should be allowed only when privilege is used by people who are not lawyers as a cloak for a criminal conspiracy or criminal activities, or when lawyers themselves are involved in similar unlawful activities.
The amendments will also make provision, similar to that contained in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, for doctors and journalists, and, as we have heard, they will preserve the absolute sanctity of the confessional. As a communicating member of the Church of England, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) for informing us that confession occurs in Protestant churches as well as in the Roman Church. I was not aware of that in my own church, and I note that the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) was not either.
Mr. John Greenway indicated assent.
Mr. Straw: This Bill has been a great learning process.
Mr. Mackinlay rose—
Mr. Straw: I think that I am about to learn something more.
Mr. Mackinlay: Indeed. One of the parts of the law of England is the Church of England's unrepealed Canon 113 of 1603, which enshrines the secrecy of confession in the established Church. The point, however, is not merely a matter of the secrecy of confession; it is that all ministers of religion should have access to and conversations with members of their flock, ring-fenced and privileged. Although I welcome the undertakings about lawyers and doctors given by the shadow Home Secretary, will he undertake that—if he has stewardship over the code of practice—conversations between ministers of religion and members of their flock will be explicitly exempted from surveillance and bugging provisions?
Mr. Straw: I will discuss that in more detail with my hon. Friend, and will learn a good deal more about his expertise regarding the 1603 settlement. I have read the Book of Common Prayer from cover to cover many times while sitting in chapel at school, but I do not remember

375
that part—although I remember that the 42 articles were reduced to 39. I certainly accept that, if confession takes place in Protestant churches, we shall have to consider the matter seriously. I have absolutely no intention of undermining the sanctity of the confessional.
Under the original Bill, the commissioner would apply the test of judicial review. In other words, the commissioner would have to examine an authorisation and judge whether it was so unreasonable that no sensible officer could have granted it. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for proposing that there should be a more positive test, which would be similar to, although not exactly the same as, that which applies in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act.
We never intended that the commissioner should second-guess. The issue was always whether the chief officer would base his decision on the criteria in the Bill, and whether the commissioner—either prospectively or retrospectively—would check that decision to satisfy himself that the chief officer of police had based his decision on the Bill's criteria.
Mr. Richard Shepherd rose—
Mr. Straw: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I must make progress; I have already been generous with my time and with that of the House.
The Secretary of State has made provision for appeals and for improvements to the tenure and status of the commissioners by ensuring that they will be appointed by the Prime Minister, after consultation with the Lord Chancellor; that they will serve for a set term; and that they can be removed only by resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
Before moving on to part V of the Bill, I should mention that, in the course of an answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), the Secretary of State attempted to invent Labour party policy on the third pillar. I have made it clear that that was an invention, and my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary has issued this statement:
"The Labour party has always been clear that it will retain the veto on issues in the Third Pillar of the European Union such as border controls, immigration, asylum and police co-operation. We have never changed that position and"
the Secretary of State's
"suggestion to the contrary is just another"—
I will have to translate the phrase as "inexactitude", although I am sure that hon. Members know what that word means outside the House.
Mr. Benn: The precedent for the matter is, of course, nothing whatever to do with Europe. The United States supplied American warheads to Britain, for nuclear purposes, on the condition that it supervised all the intelligence services in Britain—I know that because I was in charge of them—and that all the Government communication headquarters bugging that goes on be made available to the Central Intelligence Agency. It is not a new point.
My question was whether, under security arrangements already entered into, the information would be available—as I believe it will be—to the European security authority, which is just as keen to deal with crime as the Secretary of State and my hon. Friends. My hon. Friend must not
376
think that it is a precedent, because it has gone on for years. The trouble is that the matter has never been taken seriously, although it has been written about by many people, including me.
Mr. Straw: As we now know, I am not a member of the Privy Council. My right hon. Friend is, and I do not have anything like his experience or knowledge of the secret parts of Government. Therefore, I am in no position to comment on them.
I have already mentioned the code of practice. If Labour is elected, I believe that there should be wide consultation on the draft before it is laid before the House. I also believe that, after the new statutory regime has been in operation for a year, a full review should be undertaken, with an opportunity for a debate. If we form the next Government, I shall seek to ensure that that is done.
On part V of the Bill, the maintenance of a comprehensive system of criminal records is essential for the prevention and detection of crime, for the wider protection of the public and as part of the sentencing process and the sentence. In many cases, although by no means all, the shame of having a criminal record is as much a punishment as a formal sanction of the court.
However, an important balance should be struck. For less serious offences—which pose no significant risk to the public—there must come a moment when an offender can draw a line in the sand and say that he or she has paid the price to society for his or her crime and that he or she should now be given the opportunity to put the past behind him or her. The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 was and remains an important measure in ensuring that offenders are rehabilitated and go on to lead law-abiding lives.
There are more serious crimes, for which the balance must be struck at a different. point—as the 1974 Act realises, with its distinction between sentences below or above 30 months. In one sense, of course, the need to rehabilitate such offenders is all the greater because of the gravity of their crime, and we should never give up trying to do that, but there is also a much greater risk to the public from such offenders. Therefore, the public must have a greater right, in properly defined circumstances, to know about the offender's record.
There is a third category of offender, encompassing those whose formal criminal record may be very slight or non-existent but whose behaviour poses the greatest risks to communities, and especially to women and to children. The challenge to achieve the right balance between civil liberties and public protection is at its most acute with the third category. So far as I am aware, Thomas Hamilton, in Dunblane, had no serious previous convictions to his name, and he could—and did—claim that he was of good character. However, as we know from the Cullen inquiry, plenty of intelligence showed the terrible side of his character. Had it been possible to take greater account of that intelligence, Hamilton would not have been able to obtain a firearms certificate and he might have been prevented from his wholly undesirable involvement with children.
Part V attempts to reflect what I believe is a natural hierarchy of seriousness in criminal convictions. There will, as we have heard, be ordinary criminal conviction certificates that cover only non-spent convictions, criminal record certificates that cover all convictions and enhanced criminal record certificates that also cover non-conviction information.

377
I shall deal first with the more comprehensive certificates and then return to the ordinary ones. Clause 104 provides for criminal record certificates in which, for more sensitive areas of employment, full criminal record checks, including spent and unspent convictions, will be made available to employers by the agency. The types of employment covered by the arrangements will include jobs that involve regular contact with children and other vulnerable groups—the elderly, sick or handicapped people—those involved in work related to national security, the administration of the law, sensitive licensing areas or professions in areas such as health, pharmacy and the law, and senior managers in banking and financial services.
Clause 105 provides for enhanced criminal record certificates on which, for particular sensitive areas of work or licensing, additional information will be made available from local police records. That will include some non-conviction information. The posts envisaged are prospective employees, trainees and volunteers having regular, unsupervised contact with children and young people under the age of 18 and those applying for gaming, betting and lottery licences. The Penal Affairs Consortium correctly said that those provisions made sense.
The purpose of criminal conviction certificates is, in one sense, prosaic and straightforward. The certificate is a facility that enables an individual to verify a statement made by him in circumstances in which he should in any event be under an obligation to tell the truth. As someone involved in the employment of staff—as a Member of Parliament and, more frequently, as a school governor—I want and need to know whether an applicant for a position has any unspent previous convictions. I need to know not to blackball an applicant with a record, but to have the fullest information available when reaching a decision.
Applicants for any job certify that the information given is correct. Giving false information is grounds for instant dismissal when an appointment is made. On one level, therefore, the availability of the certificates can be presented as administrative, making it easier to provide firm and accurate information that applicants have to provide anyway.
However, because there will be a formal and straightforward system where none has existed, demand for certificates may grow. That has led responsible organisations that deal with offenders and ex-offenders to express understandable anxieties that the provisions could make it much more difficult to rehabilitate former criminals through gainful employment. Those anxieties must be addressed seriously in Committee.
There is an overwhelming case for making the provisions of the code of practice mandatory for employers in respect of all the certificates. The code will be mandatory for employers in respect of the higher level certificates, so why not in respect of all of them? We must also recognise that, if we want more, rather than fewer, ex-offenders appropriately employed—and therefore going straight—we have to change the attitudes of many job givers as much as we have to change the law.
The White Paper "On the Record" said that there would be a requirement in the code for employers to have a written policy and strategy for the employment of ex-offenders. That commitment was wrongly dropped in
378
the other place. The commitment should apply to all certificates. Some employers, large and small, are enlightened in their employment of ex-offenders. We must draw on that best practice. Along with the widened provisions of a code of practice, we should try to agree a protocol on the employment of ex-offenders with the main employers' organisations and the trade unions. In government, I would certainly aim for that.
In the other place, an amendment was passed by two votes to exempt volunteers from the charges for certificates. Voluntary organisations and their volunteers play a critical role in society, enriching and binding it. We need more volunteers, not fewer. We need to make it easier, not more difficult, for people to volunteer. The likely charge of £5 to £8 for the certificates will appear modest to some volunteers, but may appear gratuitously off-putting for others. There is a strong view throughout the voluntary sector that it would be wrong to make the charge a tax on volunteering. Voluntary organisations would therefore have to pick up the tab. It is also felt that the charge is inconsistent with the Government's declared intention in the "make a difference" initiative.
The whole House—not least Labour Members—must recognise that there would be a cost to the public purse in meeting the so-called Weatherill amendment. I am not certain that the upper limit cost of £200 million bears much serious examination. The figure appears to be based on 20 million volunteers paying £10 a time. Informed estimates given by several organisations are that no more than 4 million people have direct access to children and vulnerable people. The figure at the lower end of the rough estimate of charges, which is all that we have to go on, is only one tenth of that used by the Minister. There is an annual turnover of 20 per cent., so the annual costs might be lower, at about £4 million—a rather different scale of problem from that suggested by the Secretary of State, although it is still a cost to the public purse.
Ms Jean Corston: Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem affects not merely voluntary organisations? There are 100,000 registered child minders in this country, many of whom do not earn much more than £2 an hour. A child minder with a partner and several teenage children might have to pay as much as £50 for certification. Would that threaten the registration process and encourage some people not to register as child minders? The National Childminding Association has raised that issue.
Mr. Straw: I accept the concern that my hon. Friend has expressed, and I hope that the matter can be discussed in more detail in Committee.
I want volunteers and voluntary organisations to be helped as much as possible. I am glad that the Secretary of State has accepted the proposition that there should be a power to exempt categories of volunteers from the charges. I accept that it may be necessary to have a power to exempt other categories, such as the long-term unemployed. The figures and mechanisms for that deserve further scrutiny. We shall scrutinise that in Committee. In government, we would seek to minimise the burden on voluntary organisations as public finances allowed, although I do not think that we could end it altogether.
The Bill proposes the creation of a new agency. The experience of setting up new agencies is not happy. The Crown Prosecution Service and the Child Support

379
Agency are the best and worst examples, but by no means the only ones. Agencies set up from scratch and all at once have a habit of early systemic failure that can last for years. A high error rate has had severe consequences for the CSA. If the new criminal records agency made similar mistakes, it would be catastrophic for public confidence and would undermine the purpose for which it is to be established.
I therefore believe that the agency must be created at a measured pace. There is a strong case for phasing in the arrangements, starting with the certificate regime that is most needed to protect the public—that contained in clauses 104 and 105 for criminal records certificates and enhanced certificates. Once that system had bedded down, the regime in clause 103 could be introduced. That phasing would also allow more time for consultation with employers, trade unions and voluntary organisations about appropriate safeguards for the issue of certificates.
The first three parts of the Bill contain measures that we have sought to put NCIS, the crime squads and intrusive surveillance on a proper statutory basis. We also support the establishment of the criminal records agency, but with the important safeguards and reservations that I have expressed. We shall ensure that the detail of the Bill is properly examined in Committee and on Report. Meanwhile, we shall ensure that the Bill receives its Second Reading.
5.58 pm
Sir Nicholas Scott: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a modest contribution to the debate. I shall be brief because I know that many others want to speak. I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to those present in the Chamber, as I shall not be present for the whole debate because of unavoidable commitments outside the House later this evening.
The thrust of the Bill is to protect the public from the activities of criminals. We know from reading newspapers, watching television and listening to the radio how an increasing threat of crime affects the lives of more and more of our citizens. At the same time, there is no doubt that we have to be conscious of the return of a terrorist threat to this country. We must respond to those twin threats in considering the Police Bill. Therefore, I strongly commend my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for bringing it forward. I realise that it had a fairly rough ride in another place. I congratulate my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Blatch on the way in which she handled the Bill and carried it forward in another place and on her letter of 19 November that set out very clearly the progress that had been made in doing so.
I certainly welcome the Bill. I welcome the new role of the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the introduction of a National Crime Squad, which will pull together the regional crime squads that have operated so effectively. I share the view that I know is held by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, and I suspect many others on both sides of the House, that we do not want to create a Federal Bureau of Investigation or a national police force. Local policing is one of our great prizes in law and order, and we should hang on to it as much as possible. As we face the threats and increased mobility of criminals and terrorists, however, national co-ordination will be essential. The Bill addresses that,
380
and I shall return to it in a moment. Before doing so, I want to say a word or two about part V, to which the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) referred towards the end of his speech.
I certainly welcome the proposal for a criminal records agency. I am sure that, in time, it will be widely accepted. However, many voluntary organisations still have some concern about the impact of the cost of differing certificates on the volunteers or trainers and the organisations that use their services. It is obviously immensely important that organisations ensure that, where financial matters are particularly sensitive or where people are responsible for children, young people, vulnerable, elderly, disabled or confused people, those who are employed in a paid or voluntary capacity are properly checked out and those organisations are able to establish their credentials before they take on the employment. Such a system is needed and can be of immense value.
We are told that the charges will be of the order of £5 to £6, or perhaps £8 to £10 for more sophisticated certificates. At first, I was hostile altogether to charging for such services. I have recently received a representation from the Central Council of Physical Recreation, which made a good argument against charges and said that it regarded them as a tax on volunteering and training. I am not sure whether I agree with that. I certainly understand that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary would be loth to ask his Treasury colleagues for £200 million to remove any impact of charging on volunteers or the organisations concerned. However, I hope that he will be able to monitor the effects of charges on volunteering and the employment of people in such organisations. I want charging to be regarded not as a tax on volunteering but as a proper opportunity for people to be able to establish their credentials for a modest charge.
I return to the larger issue that is central to the Bill: intrusive surveillance. At first sight, it is not an attractive concept but, sadly, I regard it, as I suspect do most in the House, as extremely necessary. I first became conscious of the issue when I was the parliamentary private secretary to the former Home Secretary, my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Carr. I remember the assiduity with which he dealt with representations from the intelligence services in passing the necessary warrants for surveillance of one sort or another. I also became conscious during my four years as Minister with responsibility for security in the Northern Ireland Office of how important surveillance was and how, frequently, it was important that such surveillance could be instituted immediately and some big, cumbersome procedure did not have to be undergone to bring about the necessary results.
Our task is to make it possible for the security forces—the police and other law enforcement agencies—to take speedy action to frustrate or apprehend those who are involved in crime or terrorism. I know of the immense responsibility resting on those who have duties in that sensitive area. The Bill meets the need for balance. The phrase "an Englishman's home is his castle", which has been used in this debate, remains an important part of our approach to society, but, sadly and all too frequently, there may be no other way in which information necessary to frustrate the aims of criminals and terrorists can be obtained but by surveillance.
The Bill's provisions and the establishment of the new roles for the two agencies will be of real and practical benefit to the police and other law enforcement agencies.

381
At the end of the day, we are seeking to underpin the efforts of the law enforcement agencies on behalf of our citizens. It is right that we should do so, although we must of course put such provisions on a proper statutory basis, which is what we are about in the Bill. We may be able to learn rather more when the elusive code comes before us and perhaps has to be amended, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has mentioned.
Intelligence is clearly vital as we face rising serious crime levels and the return of a terrorist threat. Increasingly, there is interaction between the two. Kidnapping, drugs, fraud, counterfeiting, vehicle and other serious crime often overlap with terrorist activity. If we are to frustrate the aims of such criminal activity, we shall have to get our act together. The Bill is an important step forward in that regard.
I welcome the change in the role of the NCIS. It was interesting to look at some statistics on the apprehension of sophisticated criminals over the past year. It looks as though about 26 arrests of serious criminals have taken place week by week in that time. We must congratulate the law enforcement agencies on that, but recognise that we need to improve in future. The bodies in the Bill will do much to counter increasing criminal and terrorist activity. Although local policing is, as I have said, absolutely vital and part of our heritage, we need a national strategy for such policing, and the Bill provides that foundation.
Obviously, accountability will be important. The chief constables and the commissioners who will consider applications for surveillance must be prepared to operate under codes of practice to ensure that their actions are commensurate with the real threat that is posed to our society. Those codes of practice should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. The Bill is necessary, and I commend my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary for its introduction.
6.9 pm
Mr. A. J. Beith: I beg to move, To leave out from 'That' to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
'this House believes that the Police Bill [Lords] is not an acceptable and effective measure unless the bugging of private places by the police is made fully subject to prior judicial authorisation; unless the power to require job applicants to produce a criminal conviction certificate is limited to posts for which there is a reasonable justification for such a certificate; and unless the service authorities for the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad are made up primarily of members of local police authorities.'
Our amendment sets out our concerns about three key areas of the Bill; the bugging provisions, the general criminal conviction certificate provisions—the wide nature of which will lead to a significant change in the rights of our citizens—and the excessive centralisation of the governing bodies of the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad.
I am on record as supporting the need for a Bill on those issues. During the discussions that preceded the introduction of the Security Service Act 1996, I argued strongly for such a Bill. The Intelligence and Security Committee, of which I am a member, reported on the need for legislation. It would have been logical for the Bill to
382
be introduced at the same time as, or even before, the Security Service Act 1996. It is necessary to put bodies of the significance of NCIS and the National Crime Squad—which the Prime Minister announced nearly two years ago would be created from the regional crime squads—on a statutory footing.
It is also necessary to do something about the unauthorised, and in many respects illegal, bugging activities carried out by the police for many years, in the absence of any statutory power. They carried out the bugging to detect crime, in parallel with the use of powers by the security services, which had a proper authorisation procedure. When the two services began to work together on organised crime, the illogicality became obvious.
The powers on bugging are necessary, because they can be crucial in dealing with certain crimes, but safeguards are equally necessary. In the recent NCIS investigation, carried out by the chief constable of Northumbria, it became clear that nearly 1,000 records of telephone intercepts had gone missing. Their removal had not been recorded and they could not be traced. In that case, powers were not abused, but the carelessness and lack of proper procedures meant that rights were not safeguarded as they should have been. That case should be a warning to us as we consider the provisions on bugging.
The law has a serious gap, because it does not protect citizens against surveillance by others. Intrusive surveillance can be and is carried out by people who have less justification for doing so than the police. We are not adequately protected against that. The Government have promised in the past to take action, but they have not done so. It would be understandable for the police to be concerned that their use of the powers to bug in the detection of serious crime is being scrutinised carefully, while other more dubious people make use of the same technology to eavesdrop on people without justification. Equipment for the purpose is widely available in shops.
When the Bill was introduced, it was a great disappointment to people who thought it should include prior authorisation that paralleled the system that applied to the security services. From the beginning, there appeared to be an agreement between the Home Secretary and his Labour shadow. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) seemed satisfied that subsequent review would be sufficient. Of course, it is an improvement for bugging to have a legal basis and for applications to bug to be reviewed by commissions, but that is not an adequate substitute for prior authorisation of intrusion into private places. That is the essence of the Bill. The phrase "an Englishman's home is his castle" has been used, and we are talking about intrusion into places that people legitimately regard as private.
In another place, my noble Friend Lord Rodgers provided firm opposition. We have cause to be grateful to him, because I do not believe that the Labour party would otherwise have adopted its present view. In the end, of course, the Labour Front Benchers were also influenced by the views of many of their own peers. Many Labour Members in the other place voted for our amendment, and others were actively involved in persuading the hon. Member for Blackburn that his original position was not acceptable.
Mr. Budgen: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the most disagreeable features of modern politics

383
is the way in which new Labour has tried to become more authoritarian than the Tory party? Its policy appears to be that, if the Tories are in favour of kicking a beggar once, new Labour is in favour of kicking a beggar twice. As a result, the official Opposition have not done their job on the Bill. Is that not an additional argument for insisting that the provisions on prior authorisation are considered on the Floor of the House?
Mr. Beith: Perhaps unusually, I agree with both parts of the hon. Gentleman's intervention. There is a dangerous closeness between the Home Secretary and his shadow, and both are under criticism from within their parties. Speaking as a Liberal Democrat, I welcome the different views that have been vigorously expressed in both the other parties. I also agree with the hon. Gentleman that part III should be taken on the Floor of the House, because it involves major constitutional issues.
In another place, we argued that entry into a private place to carry out intrusive surveillance should require prior authorisation by a judge. In England and Wales, circuit judges would be appropriate and convenient, because they are available in all police areas. We are not persuaded that authorisation should be given by a judge who also serves as a member of the body of commissioners which subsequently reviews the authorisation. That is a fundamental weakness in the approach of the Government and the Labour party. Those who give the permission will subsequently review whether it was given satisfactorily. That does not make sense.
Mr. Straw: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not wish to mislead the House, but he was incorrect in what he said about the Lords amendment tabled by the Liberal Democrats, which did not confine prior approval arrangements to premises. It covered any surveillance operation.
Mr. Beith: The Labour amendment did not restrict the provisions to private residences: it would also apply them to the Arthur Daley warehouse which, as I shall shortly argue, need not be covered by the prior authorisation procedure. It ill behoves those who thought that no prior authorisation was necessary to criticise the details of the prior authorisation that we suggested.
It is a mistake to give the review body the initial power of approval, and that must be reconsidered. Chief police officers believe that a central unit for processing applications is desirable, and I understand that, but that would not require the approving judges to act as commissioners. The central unit could use a different panel of judges.
Nobody has explained so far what will happen in Scotland. Is it assumed that one of the commissioners will be a Scottish judge? Is it assumed that there will be a unit in Edinburgh to process applications, or will all Scottish police forces have to apply to London for an authorisation? Scottish police officers are very concerned about those questions.
The procedures set up by the Bill must be capable of being implemented rapidly in emergencies, to avoid recourse to retrospective approval, which is undesirable and is not thought necessary for the powers under the Interception of Communications Act 1985 or the Security
384
Service Act 1996. The Security Service deals with situations which, in the way that they must be handled, are not dissimilar to those with which the police deal. The Security Service must apply to the Home Secretary for authorisation. If the application is urgent, the Home Secretary has to act urgently. It is a job that he does not delegate to a junior Minister, and if he is out of the country, it is done by another Secretary of State, but it is done urgently, and there is no reason why a judge cannot do that job urgently.
Nobody has so far suggested that it is necessary to bypass the procedure of recourse to the Home Secretary, either for the Security Service or for police use of the interception of communications legislation. They have recourse to the Home Secretary for approval in such cases, and there is not an emergency bypass. The suggestion that this cannot be done in cases where there is an intrusion into a private residence—which must be mounted before the person returns to that residence—does not stand up. Even if it were to prove persuasive to the House, it must be more narrowly defined than "cases of urgency". That is the blandest definition we could have, but it has found approval with both the Home Secretary and the hon. Member for Blackburn.
The provisions of the Bill extend to a far wider range of surveillance activities than have been featured in the public debate. These include measures to locate and track vehicles, the surveillance of lock-up warehouses—which may be used to tranship weapons or drugs—and surveillance in a public place. We accept that some of these activities—although they should be reviewed by commissioners—need not require prior authorisation on the same basis as the bugging of a private residence.
Another interesting case is that of the confessional. The Home Secretary looked as if he were about to be drawn into some theological difficulty over this issue, and the status of the assurance he gave was not clear. It was said that the police would not use the powers in relation to what was described as "the seal of the confessional". In the first place, it is not clear how the Home Secretary can give that assurance for every police force which may make applications. Secondly, it is not clear how that will affect other groups which, theologically, do not accept the concept of the confessional and a priest giving absolution, but have similarly confidential discussions between a member of the congregation and the minister—whether it is a Protestant minister, a rabbi or someone else in a similar position.
It is not clear whether the Home Secretary intends that these powers could never be used, even with prior judicial authorisation, although there might be a case for doing so. My mind goes back to a Catholic priest in Ireland, who was found to be involved in gun-running activities. I regard that as an exceptional case, but one that might justify prior authorisation for use of the powers. There is an area of confusion that will have to be sorted out, and the solution cannot depend on one's willingness to accept only a Catholic doctrine of confession. It would be an odd piece of legislation if it were so based.
I do not believe that the deal between the Home Secretary and his Labour shadow, the hon. Member for Blackburn, will do. We must return to the bugging powers on the Floor of the House.
Mr. Allason: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, before the Security Services Act 1989 and, indeed,

385
since then, any electronic surveillance conducted by the police was not illegal, as he suggested, and that, provided that it was authorised by a chief police officer, it was entirely legal? Secondly, does he accept that any private enterprise bugging—as he describes it—is completely illegal as it is a breach of the wireless and telegraphy legislation? Finally, does he accept that there is a huge difference between the kind of electronic surveillance undertaken by the Security Service, where those involved are intelligence officers, and that used by the police, whose officers are part of a uniformed and disciplined organisation with a direct structure of accountability and discipline?
Mr. Beith: I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman is trying to argue with his last point, but he is wrong if he assumes that all surveillance and eavesdropping activities—or even interception activities—are legal. The law is far from complete on this point. The Home Secretary conceded that, in the controversial case of Alison Halford—the former assistant chief constable of Merseyside—the chief constable intercepted communications on a telephone in the assistant chief constable's office, but was not acting illegally and did not require authorisation when he did so.
Mr. Budgen: Does the right hon. Gentleman concede that the bugging done in the past by the police was not illegal? The police have, very honourably, come to the Government and said that they think that what they are doing could be subject to criticism in the future, and that they would like a proper statutory framework for those activities. Is it not most unfortunate that the Government are not giving the police the opportunity to have this matter fully debated on the Floor of the House? There have been doubts about the police's behaviour in the past—in the west midlands, for instance, where the serious crime squad had to be disbanded. Would it not be better to have a more public debate on the details, which have so engaged the interest of the House, on the Floor? Is it not inevitably unfair to everybody concerned to have the debate tucked away in Committee?
Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman believes in the merit of repetition, as I have already answered his last question in the affirmative. However, it must be said that the police were in danger of facing criminal charges, and certainly actions for civil trespass, for some of the actions that they might have had to take in carrying out those duties. It is true that they have been among those seeking a proper statutory basis, and it is right that the Home Secretary has responded to that—although it would have been better to do so when we were dealing with the Security Service legislation.
Another major issue in the Bill that has not received sufficient public attention because of the concentration on the bugging issue is the criminal conviction certificates. We accept the case for special certificates which will be required for special categories of work—especially work with vulnerable people such as children, where the enhanced criminal record certificate will apply. There will have to be safeguards, as situations could arise in which someone who is wrongly listed is blackballed from work because of an error. We have all seen constituency cases of mistakes made by the Child Support Agency, and if that were to be transported to this sector, it would have catastrophic consequences.
386
We are concerned about the Government's attitude to the Lords amendment relating to charities. It will not do to take the power to remit the costs and do nothing about it, as that would raise entirely false expectations. The Government are imposing a large burden on charities, voluntary organisations and those who work for them. A former Speaker of this House took up that cause in another place, with widespread support, and the Government must give a better response.
We have a particular concern about the general criminal conviction certificates which, potentially, will be required for any job anywhere at any time. It is a fundamental change to the position of our citizens if they are to find in future that they will not be able to pursue an application for any job of any description unless they obtain such a certificate. They may have no reason to worry about it, but may still have to pay for the certificate and may not wish to do so. Others may have had criminal convictions in the past which they have put behind them and which are entirely irrelevant to their attempt to obtain employment now.
It is clear that those in a fiduciary position as trustees of charities or directors of companies will increasingly feel that they had better ask for those certificates in case someone should one day take money out of the till and for it to emerge that the company did not ask for certificates, which would have shown previous convictions. The measure will spread and become more general. It will create particular problems in some areas—for example, where an informer has been relocated, perhaps from Northern Ireland, with a new identity. If he goes to seek another job, he must produce a criminal conviction certificate. How will he do that without disclosing precisely the information that he must conceal if he is to be protected? He will have been given that protection because of the service he rendered, enabling the police to track down, arrest and convict other terrorists or dangerous.
My noble Friend Lord Rodgers made a significant point in another place, when he asked why, if everyone else in the country will be required to produce a criminal conviction certificate, Members of Parliament should not have to do so. Why are we prepared to lay on other people a responsibility that we do not accept ourselves? Why should we not have to lodge with the returning officer when we put in our nomination a criminal conviction certificate that is open to inspection by any member of the public? It seems perfectly reasonable that we should do what we expect everyone else to do. If we are prepared to place that responsibility on everyone else in society, we cannot shy away from it ourselves.
My fear, and that of many organisations working for the rehabilitation of offenders, is that we will set back that rehabilitation, especially for those who commit one or two offences at a young age and then go straight. A third of men under 30 have a criminal conviction—I still find that figure astonishing and hard to believe, but it is constantly produced by the most reputable bodies—and they would have that recorded on the certificate. That is a matter for deep concern.
The composition of the authorities that will be responsible for the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad is too heavily weighted towards the Home Office, which will appoint the chairmen of those bodies.

387
There is also concern about the disciplinary arrangements for police officers seconded to NCIS and the regional crime squads. It is unsatisfactory that, at present, the management of NCIS has no disciplinary responsibility; nobody works for the head of NCIS, as the officers are all seconded and subject to somebody else's discipline. They are disciplined only in their home forces.
The Bill provides for a double discipline procedure: while seconded, the officer will be subject to a separate discipline code that will apply also to non-police officers working for NCIS. When the officer goes back to the home force, he or she will be back in the normal police disciplinary code. The Police Federation understandably has concerns about that; those concerns will have to be addressed. Such matters could be considered upstairs in Committee, but I agree that part III, the bugging part, would be better dealt with on the Floor of the House.
We shall vote for our reasoned amendment tonight. Someone had to take a firm stand. The Labour leadership certainly did not do so until goaded by our amendment and by others. If people do not take firm stands about essential civil liberties, those liberties will be eroded.
6.31 pm
Sir Peter Lloyd: I am not persuaded to support the amendment, but the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has once again put very cogently some important points that will have to be considered with the greatest care as the Bill proceeds towards enactment.
I agreed with a great deal of what the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said. As he in turn agreed with a great deal of what the Home Secretary said, I am glad to find myself agreeing in considerable measure with my right hon. and learned Friend.
The developments proposed in the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the formation of the police information technology organisation and the National Crime Squad are welcome. I am sure that they will increase the effectiveness of the police in dealing with crime, and especially major organised crime, which requires a national and international response.
There is great scope for improving police strategy and tactics for the solving and preventing of crime. There has been a welcome fall in reported crime, in which the Home Secretary rightly takes pride. The success of Operation Bumblebee is well known, and I am sure that the fall in reported crime owes more to the thorough use of police resources in terms of intelligence and information, the cumulative effect of programmes such as the "Safe City" programme, and the judicious use of closed circuit television, than it does to longer prison sentences—but that is probably another debate.
Intelligence is crucial. That is why the police information technology organisation is vital for collecting, matching and processing relevant data and enabling them to be retrieved efficiently when needed. Serious criminals are using every scientific device and refinement of technology. If the police are to keep ahead, they must do so too. They must be able to collect hard-to-get information if they are to track down the drug barons and godfathers and the other criminals who are skilled in not leaving their fingerprints behind.
Bugging and electronic eavesdropping are, alas, essential. Their use by both police and criminals is bound to increase and to become ever more sophisticated and
388
more frequent, so we must take extra care that, in our efforts to catch criminals, the traditional liberties and rights of the public are protected—especially their privacy at home and in their place of work.
The police have always had a policy of respecting those traditional liberties and rights, but we nevertheless require them to apply to a judge or a magistrate for a warrant before entering or searching private property, and to get permission from the Home Secretary before tapping a telephone.
It would clearly have been wrong, when putting bugging on a proper statutory footing, for prior authorisation not to be required as it is for the other two procedures. A bug under the dining room table is as intrusive as the telephone being tapped, if not more so. I am glad that the Home Secretary has been persuaded of that. When I first heard that he intended to table a new amendment, I was told that he wanted to require prior authorisation for the bugging of doctors, lawyers and journalists only. That would have been unacceptable. I do not see why the editors of The Sun should have greater protection than their readers or the people about whom they write.
If I understand the Home Secretary correctly, he will require pre-authorisation before anyone can be bugged at home or at work. The Liberal party, in particular, has asked about other places, and I am sure that we should consider such matters in Committee or, if time permits, on the Floor of the House. If I have understood my right hon. and learned Friend correctly, he is to be congratulated. Nobody believes that the police want to misuse their power to bug, but it is best, when they need to intrude clandestinely—immersed as they are in fighting crime—that they are not the judges in their own case. Pre-authorisation is a useful discipline on the police and a necessary safeguard for the individual citizen.
Sir Ivan Lawrence: When the police gave evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee in our inquiry into organised crime, it was—
Madam Speaker: Order. I cannot hear the hon. and learned Gentleman.
Sir Ivan Lawrence: I apologise, Madam Speaker. Perhaps my right hon. Friend would allow me to draw to his attention the fact—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Now you have stepped over the line."] I am sorry, Madam Speaker, that I have put a foot wrong. It is the first time that I have put a foot wrong in 23 years.
The police suggested to the Select Committee that their bugging powers should be put on a proper statutory basis; the suggestion came from them.
Sir Peter Lloyd: Yes, I am quite sure that it did, although I am not so sure that they pressed hard for pre-authorisation. However, I am certain that thoughtful police officers will agree that there is much benefit in it for themselves: it is a protection for them as well as for the public.
As I was saying to the right hon. Member for Berwickupon-Tweed, I am sure that, as the Bill proceeds, we shall need to consider carefully how the new arrangements will work, and how to make sure that the safeguards are as strong and as comprehensive as they should be.

389
I am concerned that charities, especially those that serve vulnerable people such as children and the elderly, will be heavily penalised if the amendment made in the House of Lords is overturned as the Home Secretary suggested. At present, such organisations can have the necessary checks carried out at no cost, but if that amendment is deleted they will have to find a large sum out of limited budgets, or charge their volunteers. It would be possible for a number of volunteers to pay. Many may do so, but a lot will be deterred, and quite a number—particularly the unemployed and other people on limited incomes, whom one wants to encourage—will find it difficult, if not impossible.
I hope that that matter will be reconsidered, despite what my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said. I do not like putting extra costs on the Treasury. Perhaps that is one of the reasons why I am on the Conservative side of the House. A surcharge on certificates provided at the request of businesses or public sector organisations could bridge the gap, perhaps. I am sorry that my right hon. and learned Friend appeared to reject any change here and now. Simply to excise the Lord's amendment is not the right answer.
On crime checks generally, I would register but not develop the concern that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) so cogently expressed. I hope that we are not developing into a society in which we all as a matter of course have to have a crime check clearance from the police before we can get a job or some other service, or exercise some other right. It is not an attractive prospect, but it might be coming.
As the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said, perhaps we can turn this Bill into an opportunity to help offenders back into work. As chairman of the only charity I know that runs a job-finding service for ex-prisoners, I wholeheartedly support that hope. A job is the best way to ensure that an ex-prisoner does not become a prisoner again—the best way for him and the best way to protect society. I hope that we can make progress on that suggestion before we return to the Bill on the Floor of the House. It is important that it is looked into. This may be an opportunity to turn what looks like a negative for ex-offenders into a positive.
6.41 pm
Mr. Tony Benn: I am opposed to the Bill. I shall vote for the Liberal Democrat amendment and, if there is a Division on Second Reading, I shall go into the No Lobby. I shall tell the House very simply why.
Recently, 51 Members of Parliament signed an early-day motion that I put down, which stated:
"That this House wishes to express its grave anxiety about the Police Bill, which contains provisions that would seriously erode traditional civil liberties in Britain; and invites Her Majesty's Government to re-consider this proposed legislation."
It could not have been put more moderately, and there was support from hon. Members from parties other than my own. I am glad that the Liberal Democrat amendment has been tabled. At least that is a guarantee that we shall have a vote.
I have three objections to the Bill. First, the intelligence gathering will be indiscriminate. People must be naive if they imagine that the police will not put on that computer
390
every bit of information that they can find as a by-product of other investigations and any information that tells them something about solicitors they do not like as they may be working with criminals in other cases—integrating health and medical records and God knows what. If anyone doubts that, they should look at the comprehensive computer system that the Labour party has developed at Millbank, which is known as Excalibur and which has everything ever said by a Conservative Minister in the past 200 years available for immediate recall.
Knowing the police, they will put everything down that they can pick up—much of it inaccurate. Much of the information could easily be inaccurate, particularly if it is kept secret. Also, under clause 2(4)(a), that intelligence service is subject to objectives set down by the Home Secretary, who can tell it what to do. In the world of information gathering anyone must be naive if they think that anything that comes as a by-product of another investigation would immediately be dismissed by the police or that they would say, "Nothing to do with us. We must destroy it at once."
The measure will result in a building up of dossiers. Hon. Members know about the gross inaccuracies in the information held by the Child Support Agency. I know of many cases. Anyone who thinks that one can build up an accurate information service in five minutes without any proper accountability has made a mistake.
My second objection is to the intrusive surveillance—bugging and burgling. The third relates to the criminal certificates, which are cleverly drafted. The Home Secretary did not answer my question. If I want a job, an employer can ask me to produce a certificate, but if an employer offers me a job, I cannot say, "I will not take it unless you give me a criminal conviction certificate." So the measure weighs for capital against Labour, to use the jargon that is now perhaps forgotten but still relevant. Supposing Robert Maxwell had offered me a job and I was unemployed—
Mr. Beith: He offered several people jobs.
Mr. Benn: He did not offer me one, thank God. Let us suppose that I said, "I'd very much like to work with you, Mr. Maxwell. Could you please persuade me that you have not had any convictions?" He would not have had to reply. If I then went back to the job centre and said that I was offered a job but would not take it because he would not prove that he was not a convicted person, would I continue to get my benefit? Of course I would not. So, the provision is grossly unfair and I will return to its other uses.
We have all heard the background to the Bill a million times. We all read the newspapers and watch television. There is terrorism, drug dealing, the Mafia, triads and all the rest. Crime is high-tech and globally organised, but clause 92(5)(a) includes among the people who can be surveyed
"conduct by a large number of persons in pursuit of a common purpose".
That has nothing to do with terrorism, drug dealing or crime.
Mr. John Greenway indicated dissent.
Mr. Benn: I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not misunderstand me. I do not know whether he followed

391
the debate in the House of Lords. I do not usually follow those debates, but I found it much better than I had expected on this issue.
When Jim Callaghan was asked, he said that he never knew about all the intrusions, and when he was given the figures, he said, "Those were industrial disputes." That is what the Bill is about. At the heart of the Bill—all covered up to make it look as if we are going to fight terrorism—is a power that the Government can use against anyone they do not like, so long as two or three are gathered together. That has a biblical significance, which is bringing the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) to his feet.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I do not know what Mr. Callaghan said, but he was a party to the telephone bugging of my home, and he asked for the reports from the police. He got reports from them on tapes taken from my home, so he knew what was going on.
Mr. Benn: We should not reminisce, but I am coming to my experiences, too. The fact of the matter is that companies are also
"a number of people engaged in a common purpose".
Any Home Secretary could arrange for the bugging of any company for any reason. Imagine if a left-wing Government were in power. How would the Conservative party react to powers that we took that allowed us to bug and burgle any company that we thought might be engaged in any conduct that could threaten a particular political interest of ours?
The police could bug and burgle and do all this—with advance judicial permission, if there was time. Everyone knows that, if it was a case of kidnapping, one might ring up the commissioner on the way. That is not the problem. It is the fact that it extends to the large number of people engaged in a common purpose. That is the politics at the heart of what is otherwise a police Bill.
I did not know until I heard the question that some people do not realise that confidential relations between Christian ministers and their flock are not confined to the Catholic Church. The Bill does not say that Christian ministers cannot be bugged—or banisters, journalists, solicitors and doctors. The commissioner would be asked, if there were time. Under what circumstances could it be so urgent to bug a barrister that one did not have time to ring the judge, particularly as the police have to ask the barrister for the information first to qualify for the right to intervene? The thing is absurd and all the information collected will be stored on the National Criminal Intelligence Service computer.
The argument was that that has always been done. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn said that, too. I do not need to be told that. I was bugged and burgled as a Cabinet Minister. My son, who was an electronics buff, established that that happened while I was a Cabinet Minister.
My waste sacks were collected every day in a Rover car. I know that Kensington borough council is proud of its services, but I have never heard of someone having his rubbish removed every morning. My son fitted a little bell. We called it the rubbish bell. We used to watch the rubbish go every morning. I wrote to Merlyn Rees, the Home Secretary, asking whether my phone was bugged. I did not get a reply; perhaps he did not get the letter.
392
I wrote again and, I think, a third time and did not get a reply. Then I went to see Jim Callaghan. He said gruffly, "Why are you asking all these questions?" I said, "I would quite like to know. I am a member of the Cabinet." He said, "I can tell you it is not happening now." He did not say whether it had happened before or might happen again. I have read it all in "Spycatcher". The Government spent millions of pounds trying to stop me reading a book that confirmed what I knew to be true, and then they say that they want more openness.
If things that were done before by administrative action are to be put on a statutory basis, what about a Bill to allow Ministers to lie? That has happened in the House. I can imagine a Ministerial Statements (Amendment) Bill to allow Ministers to lie in the House on the grounds that they have always lied, or at least that some have always lied. It is not a sustainable argument.
In the old days, those who talked about being bugged were described as paranoid; nowadays, people say, "What's new?" Both attitudes are wrong. We should not be regarded as paranoid if we know it is happening, and it should not be regarded as normal because everyone does it. Civil liberties protect our society. Dissent protects our society. We never know which dissenter is going to be right. The Pope put Galileo in prison for heresy because he had the dangerous idea that the universe did not go round the earth. I visited his cell. Until recently, I used to feel worried watching Patrick Moore on television because the Pope had said that that was heresy. Fortunately, the Pope has let Galileo off, although it was a bit late to help him.
Democracy is about the growth of dissent until it can persuade a minority to become a majority. I am not alone. Sometimes when I make such points, I am alone, but feel that I must stick to my guns. However, this time I have Lord Carr, Lord Jenkins, Lord Callaghan and Lord Merlyn-Rees, who are all critics of this Bill. That is four Home Secretaries, none of whom is subject to the electoral temptations of 1 May. That is why they were able to do it. It tells us much about the Front-Bench teams that 1 May looms larger than Sir Edward Coke's famous judgment that
"every man's house is his castle".
Those Home Secretaries opposed terrorism, but they did not what know what was going on. Lord Can did not know, nor Merlyn Rees, nor Jim Callaghan; neither does the present Home Secretary; and nor will the future Home Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), know what the police are doing. Read Peter Wright. He said that he had bugged and burgled his way around London while the people at the top turned their backs.
Let us be realistic. The Bill has been attacked by Lord Rees-Mogg, the Financial Times, The Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Observer, The Sunday Times, the New York Times. The Evening Standard called it "disgraceful." It has been attacked by Alison Halford, the former deputy chief constable who was bugged by her chief constable when she brought a sex discrimination case; by Peter Carter-Ruck, the Law Society, Liberty and the former Attorney-General, Lord Rawlinson, whom I knew well.
There is also the criminal convictions certificate, which, as I said, can be required by employers but not from them. If I wanted an enhanced certificate, I would have to be

393
fingerprinted to get one. That is in the Bill. Even if we did have to provide such a certificate to be elected to Parliament, as far as I know, my record is clear. There may be a mistake in the police computer that I cannot explain but if I wanted proof, I would have to be fingerprinted.
If that is not a police state, I should like to know what is. If we really want to deal with all the criminal problems, we should tattoo everyone with a national number and put an electronic device under their skin. Then we will know where everyone is all the time and there will not be any problems. Leaving aside the politics, there is a conflict between fighting crime and maintaining civil liberties.
We will create a new underclass of unemployable people with convictions. One third of men under 35 have convictions. A third of women in prison are there for non-payment of television licences. I have never forgotten a case that I had when I represented Bristol. A woman came to see me in a terrible state. Her husband had died, she was 55 and she had applied for a job in a supermarket. The security officer asked whether she had any convictions. She said no. He was an ex-policeman, and he rang the police, who told him that she had been picked up for something when she was 15. He confronted her with that 40-year-old offence. She had a nervous breakdown. I got a letter of apology from the chief constable in Bristol and from the Home Secretary. If we open such prospects, we will create unemployable people whose only chance of rehabilitation would have been finding other work.
This is not a left-right issue. Interestingly, it divides the Executive, both present and future, from the legislature. I appeal across the Floor to people who might not otherwise agree with my views. This is a Bill that Brezhnev operated. No doubt Milosevic finds it useful in Belgrade. Probably the Albanians will try to copy it in view of their difficulties with pyramid selling. It is not a Bill that a serious democratic Parliament should pass.
Where is the demand for the Bill? Does middle England want it? Has a middle-class focus group made up of banisters, lawyers and priests said, "We must be bugged more often to safeguard us from terrorism." Of course not. The Bill comes from those who want more power over the people of Britain. Libertarians should resist it. It is part of a pattern. I do not want to go back over all the legislation, but, over the years, we have lost many of our liberties.
I went down to Dover to support the animal rights people. There was an argument between a policeman and one demonstrator in an empty street. I went over asked the constable what was wrong. He said, "That man is standing in a part of this town I have not designated for protest." I asked whether a member for Kent constabulary could designate any part of Kent. He said, "Yes, I can." I asked what the problem was. He said that the street could not be blocked. I said that it was a huge street and that no one was there. He went to have a word with an inspector. Do not think that we are not losing our civil liberties. We are transferring the protection of our rights from Parliament to the police.
I mention Europe because, without reopening the difficult question of the single currency, everyone knows that we have a developing relationship on terrorism and
394
crime with European Governments. They will want access and we will give it to them from everything that we have on our computers. It is happening already. If a German comes to Britain to work and the employer asks for a criminal conviction certificate, he will say, "We do not have them in Germany." What will happen then to the level playing field? The whole thing will be handed to European control.
Every society requires a huge amount of consent to survive, and an element of coercion. There are criminal classes and people who have to be coerced. The Bill reflects a deep anxiety in the British establishment about the future. When you were elected, Madam Speaker, I said that I thought that there would be social unrest in the years ahead. I was interrupted for saying it, but I believe it.
The Bill is an instrument for getting greater coercive powers over people. I hope that the House will reject it as do people of all political opinions. I would be a libertarian with those among Conservative Members if they would only drop the economic nonsense. On true libertarianism—protecting people from having their lives controlled by others—I would be with them. I hope that the House will not accept the Bill.
6.58 pm
Sir Ivan Lawrence: In a moment of unusual ecumenism, I hope that I will be forgiven for not commenting adversely on the unreality of the speech of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). He is my pair and no one could admire him more than I, or be more grateful for all that he has done for the House. Hon. Members should also be grateful for his sparing them from having to listen to more speeches from me than they might otherwise have to hear, and he should be rewarded for that. However, I hope that he will forgive me for taking a little less than seriously his condemnation of the police for surreptitiously recording and disseminating private conversations. Many of us are beginning to develop a long section in our library dedicated to his privately recorded and disseminated conversations, which are immensely amusing—long may they continue.
Mr. Benn: I dictate my diary and I record my speeches, but I am not a bugger and I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will acquit me of that, lest it go on my criminal record.
Sir Ivan Lawrence: No one could possibly accuse the right hon. Gentleman of doing anything so uncouth, because he is the epitome of charm and decency.
In another brief moment of ecumenicalism, I should like to say how much I enjoyed the comments of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) about the absurdity of the Liberal Democrats' proposals for the amendment of the Bill. I shall not add to the embarrassment of another right hon. Member for whom I have the utmost regard, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), by attacking his attempt to justify the ridiculous. He was probably embarrassed enough by having to put forward the arguments in his speech. The Liberal Democrats will learn what the rest of the House thinks of their proposals when we go through the Lobbies later tonight.
There, I am afraid, my ecumenism must end. The hon. Member for Blackburn began his speech by mentioning that recorded crime had more than doubled, which is true.

395
He might have added that that has happened practically everywhere in the western world during the same period. He might also have said that recorded crime will inevitably rise in a prosperous society where nearly everyone now has a telephone and can quickly communicate with the police; where most people now possess cars, which never used to be the case; where houses are now empty for so much longer as more and more families go out to work and are therefore more available for easy pickings by burglars; and where one cannot make a claim against an insurance policy unless the matter has first been reported to the police, which is a more recent development. Finally, as a result of the response to victims and the increasing concern for them that the criminal justice system has shown in recent years, more and more women who are the subject of violence in their houses are reporting those incidents to the police. Those factors explain a fair amount of the increase in recorded crime.
In addition, the hon. Gentleman did not say, although he might have been expected to do so, that, notwithstanding all that, the Government have reduced crime by 10 per cent. over the past three years, which is the largest, fastest and longest reduction in crime since records started to be kept in the middle of the 19th century. It would have been fairer of him had he reminded his viewers and listeners of that, but perhaps it would have been too difficult for him to draw attention to the Government's success so close to a general election.
I was also interested in the exchange between my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and the hon. Member for Blackburn on the subject of the surrender of power by a possible—albeit unlikely—Labour Government. The Government have always considered impregnable the third pillar issues of justice and home affairs, which are specifically exempted from Maastricht and over which we have the complete veto—they are not even within the competence of the European Community.
The right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) was reported in the Financial Times of 29 January as saying:
"He hints at a concession, however, by suggesting that some justice and home affairs issues, such as police co-operation (but definitely not frontier or domestic criminal law) might be 'unbundled' and 'partially communitised', allowing the European parliament and court of justice to have a say in them."
Mr. Michael: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Sir Ivan Lawrence: I shall just finish my point and then it might be easier for the hon. Gentleman to respond.
If an injustice was done earlier by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary—who no doubt wishes to cause no injustice—and if an injustice was done by that newspaper to new Labour, may I ask whether that quotation has ever been denied?
Mr. Michael: Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman should have listened to the comments of my hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary, the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), in which he made the position absolutely clear. Instead of posing questions, will he respond to this point? He read out certain elements as if they were quotations; will he acknowledge that they are not direct quotations from my right hon. Friend the
396
Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), the shadow Foreign Secretary, but quotations from an article by a Financial Times journalist?
Will the hon. and learned Gentleman also acknowledge that the article makes it absolutely clear—I think that he dropped his voice when he came to this point—that there is definitely no suggestion whatsoever regarding frontier control or domestic criminal law? The words in the article are:
"definitely not frontier control or domestic criminal law".
That is clear in the article, which shows on what tenuous grounds the Home Secretary made his inaccurate and insubstantial claims earlier today. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman acknowledge that?
Sir Ivan Lawrence: I am not sure how tenuous it is. The words "unbundled" and "partially communitised" are in quotations. The authors are none other than Edward Mortimer and John Kampfner—the first of whom is held in the highest regard, although I cannot claim to know the other gentleman—so one can assume that the reporting is pretty accurate. Whether or not it is accurate, my question is whether there has ever been—until today—a denial. If there has been no denial until today, is not that another example of the wholly disreputable behaviour of the Labour party, whose members tend to say things in private and then deny them when they are made public? As a result, they are all things to all people in the run-up to a general election, which I consider to be an abuse of proper behaviour.
Mr. Michael: It is for you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to decide whether that is abuse of this House. The hon. and learned Gentleman is twisting words in order to try to justify the Home Secretary's earlier remarks when it is clear that the Home Secretary's remarks cannot be justified. Journalists are responsible for the articles they write. There are inverted commas around individual words and phrases, but the article does not make it clear whether they are quotations from anyone or whether they are simply the use of inverted commas by the journalists in regard to specific terms.
It is outrageous for the hon. and learned Gentleman to take his brief from Tory central office in order to try to twist words and throw around accusations and misrepresentations, which are the only actions left to his discredited party in the run-up to the general election. Even in the article, it is absolutely clear that there is definitely no suggestion of any relaxation on the part of the Labour party in regard to frontier control—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Hon. Members know that interventions should, by their nature, be short. I should be grateful if we could now consider the contents of the Bill.
Sir Ivan Lawrence: May I say that I have never seen a hole deeper than the one into which the hon. Gentleman has dug himself? However, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall return to the contents of the Bill.
The bugging issue apart, I should have thought that the Bill's objectives would—and I believe that they do—command the enthusiastic support of all to whom the protection of British citizens from criminals is more important than party political point scoring. The Bill is further evidence of the Government's absolute

397
determination to reduce crime. It achieves that aim by building up our defences against organised serious and international crime through better co-ordination of our crime defence forces and the weaponry that they deploy.
The Bill takes the Security Service Act 1996 a stage further by ensuring that the National Criminal Intelligence Service backs police operations more effectively, and that must be a good thing. It creates a National Crime Squad, which will more effectively co-ordinate a national response to the serious and, unfortunately, growing problem of national and international crime and that is a good thing. It improves the delivery of information technology to police forces through the police information technology organisation and that must be a good thing.
Finally, through the setting up of the criminal records agency, it helps to reduce the likelihood of serious offenders getting jobs in areas where they might be tempted to carry on offending and that, too, must be a good thing. In all those matters, the improvement of the weaponry with which we are able to counter-attack and to defend against serious crime can only be wholeheartedly welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and I believe by the country.
Perhaps I might be permitted to add a thank you to the Government for responding so positively to at least four, and possibly 10, of the recommendations that the Home Affairs Select Committee made when we reported on organised crime 18 months ago, and to other recommendations in our report on the private security industry, regarding the criminal records provisions of the Bill. It is always good to record that this cross-party Committee and the witnesses who gave evidence to it are listened to by the Government, and that our recommendations are acted on. It makes our efforts worth while and shows how effective some of the newer democratic institutions of this parliamentary system can be.
Then there is the matter of intrusive surveillance or bugging. That this measure, even in its earlier form, was a distinct improvement on what preceded it cannot be denied. Until that time, intrusive surveillance or bugging was unlawful, or at any rate not lawful, and no doubt many actions were brought against police forces for trespass—because it is hardly burglary—when premises were invaded and no criminal prosecution resulted or succeeded. No doubt settlements were made out of court, costing the taxpayer a lot of money. Any reference to authority was to a chief constable, which is not quite the same thing as to an independent person.
I would merely add, in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd), that not only did the police ask for the practice to be made statutory, they actually suggested to the Home Affairs Select Committee that judges should be brought in to approve.
Sir Peter Lloyd: Good for them.
Sir Ivan Lawrence: Very good for them.
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary knows, many Conservative Members were unhappy about the way in which the Bill was originally drafted. One does not have to be an anti-establishment, police-bashing anarchist to care about the principle that
398
an Englishman's home is his castle and should be treated as such by the forces of the state as far as is reasonably possible; and one does not have to be a criminal or a troublemaker, or paranoid, to be concerned about the incursion of the Executive into the liberties of the citizen.
In fact, one reason why we are elected to this place is to protect our constituents as citizens from the abuse of power by the Executive, and that includes its agents—the police and other potentially intrusive forces. That is not to say that we do not understand that, in this modern world, there is a proper place for intrusive surveillance or bugging.
Much modern policing depends on good intelligence, and that means information about crime, which must be obtained, if necessary, by the invasion of privacy of suspected offenders. Nearly all thwartings of drug and terrorist crimes in recent years have come about as a result of information and intelligence, often obtained by bugging.
In a letter to Baroness Blatch dated 16 January, the immediate past president of the Association of Chief Police Officers gave an example. He said:
"During a complex, life threatening and fast moving operation, against persons suspected of kidnapping and conspiring to murder individuals for political purposes, an entry was effected into premises and technical surveillance deployed. As a consequence police were able to monitor developments resulting in the apprehension of the perpetrators as they made their way to carry out their attack. In this case the time-scale involved in this critical part of the operation did not exceed 12 hours in total."
A report in The Times today, although not directly on the same point, emphasises how important bugging now is:
"The police case against David Howells hung by the vital thread of secret tape-recordings of his conversations with his two boys while they were held in police cells.
Howells had a cast-iron alibi that he was miles from the murder scene, playing in a darts match. But tapes of conversations with his sons confirmed detectives' suspicions of his complicity in a cover-up, if not in the murder itself."
Obviously, a balance must be struck between the liberties of decent, law-abiding members of society, who have a right to be protected against criminals, and the liberties of suspected offenders who may or may not be innocent. Many of us—not only their Lordships in another place or some Opposition Members, but Conservative Members—were of the view that that balance was not being struck. Prior authorisation of intrusion into private property and the protection of privileged meetings between suspects and their lawyers, their doctors and even journalists, would correct that imbalance. I thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary for listening to us and introducing those protections into the Bill.
As a result—I control myself enough not to make party political hay while the sun is out—the Bill has the support of the main Opposition party and will, I hope, move speedily to the statute book. My right hon. and learned Friend's explanation of the need for the chiefs of police, who know best about these things, to have responsibility for authorising such operations, makes good sense to me, as do his proposals for high court judges to be commissioners, for a right to appeal to a chief commissioner and for commissioners to serve for a limited period.
Although the challenges to the legislation before us are now at a much lower level of importance than they were a few days ago—and at a much lower decibel level—it is

399
obvious that, as the Bill passes through Committee, very many issues will need to be clarified or reconsidered. I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary for saying earlier that he is already considering amending the code of practice in response to tonight's debate.
I shall briefly mention some of those issues. First, there is anxiety that, although one of the tests for bugging is that the crime should be serious
"conduct by a large number of persons in pursuit of a common purpose",
in clause 91 may not be serious and might be used to stop processions or to stop offences being committed under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 which are hardly very serious. That has been mentioned by several hon. Members on both sides of the House. Perhaps we should consider the substitution of the word "and" at page 35, line 39, for "or", which might satisfy that concern without weakening the Bill unreasonably.
Secondly, the Bar and Law Society are worried that the privileged communications between lawyers and their clients might still be restricted to some extent, although to a lesser extent, by the new provisions. There must be a balance, but perhaps we could consider that further. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary gave us an assurance about the confessional; we might have a similar assurance, perhaps written into the code of practice, concerning the interference with the complete privacy, which simply must exist, between a lawyer and his client. It will not do for anyone to overhear the client speaking to his lawyer about his defence, because then the information could be used in an unfair way at the criminal trial, and injustice may be done.
Thirdly, there is concern about what is meant by the words "an urgent case" on page 35 of the Bill. That would exempt bugging from the limitation of prior authorisation. Obviously, it would be absurd to lose the tracking of a criminal car as a result of the need for prior authorisation, and I believe that the passage that I have read out from Mr. Jim Sharples is evidence of that. However, there are understandable calls for some clarification, if that should be possible, of the scope of that exemption. I hope that we may consider the possibility of dealing with it in the code as the Bill passes through Committee.
Fourthly, there is some anxiety, which has been expressed during the debate, about the waiving of a fee to applicants who are volunteers in scouting or other activities. My right hon. and learned Friend may have a little difficulty in removing the amendment that was introduced in the House of Lords. I must confess that, in its recommendation No. 6 on access to criminal records, the Home Affairs Committee said that the agency should be self-financing. The point is worthy of further consideration, however it may be resolved.
Fifthly, it is obvious that the provisions are complicated. A code of practice will be necessary. The provision in clause 112 that there may be such a code is insufficient. Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider substituting "shall be" for "may be"? We will all need such guidance.
Sixthly, the Bill does not envisage transcripts obtained from bugging being used evidentially, only for the purpose of preventing and detecting crime. The House of Lords case of R v. Preston, in which I was a party, reaffirmed that the same applies to transcripts of telephone
400
intercepts under the Interception of Communications Act 1985. The time may soon come when it will be difficult to justify the fact that conversations that are recorded can be used to prevent and detect crime, but cannot be used as evidence in a case. We should consider changing the law so that intercepts of communications or bugs yield up evidence of the crime, to help towards the conviction of the serious criminal.
There is a problem relating to disclosure of the sources, but we have been over that in recent legislation, so the problem may have been reasonably well resolved.
Other issues arise, but I shall not burden the House further. They will be raised in Committee. The calls to have the matter debated on the Floor of the House are, in the present circumstances, somewhat unrealistic. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), for whom I have the highest regard, can serve on that Committee and improve the Bill with his contributions. The Committee meets in public and is recorded.
If we bear in mind the load of important business that still has to be taken on the Floor of the House while this Parliament lasts, and the short time that we will have left to deal with it, by any stretch of our imagination, it would be unrealistic to bring the Bill on to the Floor at the Committee stage, particularly as it will be brought back to the Chamber on Report. We do not want to lose the Bill under any circumstances, so I back the Government on that decision.
This is a good Bill, and a highly desirable one. Now that the major objection to it has been removed, I hope that the House will give the Bill its full support tonight and a speedy passage on to the statute book.
7.22 pm
Mr. Harry Cohen: The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) gave a considered speech. I acknowledge his honourable role as Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee. I agree with some aspects of his speech—for example, the need for lawyers to have privacy in discussions with their clients, and the need to achieve a proper balance between civil liberties and effective policing. However, I do not agree with his conclusion and his final remarks that this is a good Bill. I think that it is a bad Bill; to use kind language, I find it unwise in several parts, and objectionable in other aspects.
Three aspects of the Bill concern me: the arrangements for setting up and enhancing the National Criminal Intelligence Service; the bugging and burglary powers; and the criminal conviction certificates.
First, whatever the Home Secretary says, we are moving ever closer towards a Federal Bureau of Investigation—a national police service. It will have a national intelligence network and, if it is not so already, it will come to be a political force in the land. The Bill helps that process along, and it is going along without a murmur. It should not be allowed to proceed without dissent.
Mr. Michael: I understand the fears that my hon. Friend expresses. I point out that a National Criminal Intelligence Service exists. There is no accountability for it, other than nominally to the Home Office. The Bill

401
provides for accountability to representatives of local police authorities and local police forces. There have long been calls for such accountability.
Mr. Cohen: I accept that, but the Bill provides for an enhancement of the powers of NCIS, as I described. That causes me concern, which I want to place on record.
Liberty has sent hon. Members a briefing on that aspect. It refers to the fact that, in 1990, the Home Affairs Committee heard evidence from several agencies that the criminal records provided to the courts and other agencies were inaccurate, incomplete or out of date, or contained extraneous or prejudicial material. Liberty states:
"The risks of inaccuracies and errors must only increase where the information concerned amounts to intelligence information, rather than criminal records."
It points out that the powers of the Data Protection Registrar are weak. There are no controls in the Bill on the quality or the content of the information that is to be kept on NCIS computers.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Will my hon. Friend accept, first, that I served on the Home Affairs Committee in 1990, and secondly, that Liberty seems to be slightly mistaken? We decided that, for criminal records, a national standardisation process would be a good thing. The question of enhancing intelligence data in terms of criminal records was never considered, and indeed was opposed.
Mr. Cohen: Intelligence data are going on to the NCIS computer by stealth. I quoted Liberty's point about the inaccuracies and inconsistencies that are increasingly finding their way on to the computer system.
Liberty also points out that there is unauthorised informal disclosure of information by serving police officers to third parties. There have been cases in which the law in that respect has been ineffective, and the cases have subsequently been quashed on appeal by the police officers. There is no effective law to stop the misuse of computer data.
Liberty concludes that without proper controls—safeguards for individuals and accountability
"the risk of injustice to innocent people is high, and those risks increase where it is a national body which gathers and retains such information. There is a balance to be maintained between the important duties of the police in preventing and detecting crime and to provide safeguards to ensure that the state does not hold inaccurate information about innocent people, which may have severe consequences for them."
In enhancing the powers of NCIS in the Bill, the Government have not even considered that balance.
The second aspect of the Bill, which has justifiably concerned the House most, relates to the bugging and burglary powers. The case of Entick v. Carrington in 1765 enshrined the constitutional principle that the Englishman's home is his castle and cannot be invaded for reasons of state necessity by any state power without a prior warrant from a judge. Law Lords in another place described that as a constitutional principle, and it has been confirmed that the Bill will violate it.
Hon. Members will have received a booklet called "A law too far" by K. D. Ewing and C. A. Gearty of the civil liberties research unit of King's college, London. They quote the three reasons given in that 1765 judgment by Lord Camden and say:
402
"The intrusion into the individual's property was 'executed against the party, before he was heard or even summoned; and the information as well as the informers were unknown'. Secondly, Lord Camden drew attention to the vagueness of the procedures accompanying the execution of the power, with the search taking place 'in the presence or the absence of the party, as the messengers shall think fit, and without a witness to testify what passes at the time of the transaction'. And thirdly, Lord Camden was concerned that the innocent person was 'as destitute of remedy as the guilty: and the whole transaction … so guarded against discovery that if the officer should be disposed to carry of a bank-bill"'—
which means put down a bank bill—
"'he may do it with impunity, since there is no man capable of proving either the taker or the thing taken'."
The language of 1765 might be elaborate, but those two authors say that the reasons given by Lord Camden are as relevant today as they were in 1765.
There should be a principle in relation to Lord Camden's judgment. First, the power to interfere with private property should apply only to serious arrestable offences as defined by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Secondly, there should be prior approval by a judge, preferably a county court judge, who should be required to be satisfied that the degree of intrusion into the privacy of those affected by the surveillance is commensurate with the seriousness of the offence. A circuit judge should always be required to give approval before burglary or bugging of a private home takes place. Thirdly, the Bill should contain a constraint to safeguard professionals, such as solicitors and banisters to whom the hon. and learned Member for Burton referred, as well as doctors, journalists and priests.
I am concerned about the Bill's provisions relating to commissioners. I note that just one commissioner was envisaged, but that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) said that he was pleased to have tabled an amendment to increase the number to three. If it is argued that prior approval could not be obtained because a matter is urgent, a rota of judges would clearly be more appropriate than just three commissioners.
Mr. Michael: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend again, and I am grateful to him for giving way, but he has not understood the argument. The amendment in the House of Lords, which was accepted by the Government, allowed for a minimum of three judges. Such a mechanism allows for the number required. They would be High Court judges, and therefore a higher level of scrutiny would occur than if circuit judges undertook that scrutiny, as my hon. Friend suggests. That would not be as great a protection of civil liberties as the mechanism that is now proposed.
Mr. Cohen: I still have problems with the commissioners' role. A minimum of three means that there could be only three, which would not address the issue of urgency raised by the shadow Home Secretary earlier.
The commissioners were first established to hear complaints. They have a highly restricted remit to uphold complaints. Surveillance and covert searches are likely to be authorised if a chief constable thinks that they are necessary; they would then be approved by one of the commissioners. However, it would be difficult for the commissioner to uphold a complaint unless it was extraordinarily perverse. It is therefore unlikely that complaints would be upheld.

403
The commissioners do not have to give a reason for rejecting a complaint. Even more seriously, their decision cannot be appealed against or even questioned in court, so a complainant could not take the matter further. Like the commissioners who oversee the security services legislation, their role in relation to complaints will be tokenist. In the security services, not a single complaint has been upheld to my knowledge and the same would be the case with those commissioners, who will now have a prior consent function. Although it is said that they are likely to be senior judges, that will not necessarily be so, and, over time, that criterion might be diminished and a loophole might arise.
Exceptions would be made for very urgent cases, which is another loophole which might be widened over time. My real objection to the commissioners' role is that they will be the authorisers in the first instance and the appeal system in the second. They may even have given prior approval to bug and burgle in the first place. That is an unacceptable confusion of roles, and is wrong.
The term "serious crime" is extremely broadly defined. That definition gives the authority to bug and burgle. The Law Society, among others, has sent a briefing note to hon. Members saying that the term should be much more narrowly defined. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) said, the provision includes conduct by a large number of persons in pursuit of a common purpose. It will be aimed at demonstrators, those involved in industrial relations and other protesters. It is a catch-all which would take in peaceful protestors as well. It would give the authority to bug and burgle thousands of potential "Swampies" just because a police chief thinks that they are potential criminals. Such protestors should not be automatically regarded as likely criminals, let alone have their home, their parents' home and their friends' homes subjected to bugging and burglary, which could happen under the Bill.
The Home Secretary confirmed that surveillance and bugging have been going on for a long time, and the Bill is needed to legalise it. That casts light on the dubious legality that has been occurring. It amounts to an interesting confession of unlawfulness. For consistency, I suggest that a criminal conviction certificate should be issued on the Home Secretary and the Government before the election, because they have acted unlawfully and have a long criminal record in that respect.
My third point is about criminal conviction certificates, which will be operated by the new quango, the criminal records agency. I oppose imposing a fee of, say, a tenner, particularly on a long-term unemployed person. We do not know how frequently people will have to update their CCC—it will probably be at the mere whim of their employer. A similar cost applies to volunteers who work for worthy organisations, and perhaps to those organisations themselves. Therefore, there is a severe problem with fees.
Hon. Members will have received a brief from the Trades Union Congress about employee criminal records. It says that there are cases
"where employers should not only have every right to check a prospective employee's criminal record, but ought to be under a duty to do so"—
for example, those who work with children.
404
The TUC also says:
"a positive case should be made for employee checks on a case by case basis",
otherwise it can amount to an unwarranted intrusion into a person's privacy and lead to higher crime rates.
In a passage about increasing crime, the TUC says that general checks
"would be likely to create a class of permanently unemployable people, many of whom have only offended once, and would be unlikely to do so again if they had steady employment."
It continues:
"Particularly for younger offenders these"
measures
"make it extremely difficult for them to 'go straight' through entry into the world of work … If they cannot get employment as a result of their conviction, they are far more likely to re-offend. Four out of five people supervised by the probation service were unemployed when convicted."
The TUC argues that Parliament should have another look at the section about CCCs. It says:
"Drawing the balance between the need to protect the public, the civil liberties of job applicants and the dangers of creating a permanently unemployable criminal underclass is not an easy matter. But we believe that Section V as it is currently drawn does not get that balance right."
Those are very relevant representations by a body that is expert in this field, and its remarks were confirmed by the Home Office's consultation paper "Disclosure of Criminal Records for Employment Vetting Purposes", published in September 1993, which said, as confirmed in a recent parliamentary answer to me:
"35 per cent. of men and 8 per cent. of women will have a criminal record of some sort by the age of 35".
It is they who will suffer and become part of the criminal underclass.
Paragraph 48 of the 1993 consultation paper said:
"The argument for a closed record is essentially to do with rehabilitation. Those who have a criminal record need to be given a chance to reform and live it down. An open conviction record would make this more difficult, and in particular would reduce ex-offenders' chance of getting work."
Somewhere between the 1993 Home Office paper and the Bill, the Government changed their mind, but the arguments are still very relevant.
The Bill is a bad measure. Just before a general election, we often have ill-thought-out legislation, even if it is well intentioned. The Child Support Agency is an example of that; the Police Bill is another. However, because important civil liberties are at stake, I hope that the Bill fails as a result of an election being called; more sane consideration could then be given to the balance between civil liberties and essential policing work without the election pressures that are felt by Front Benchers, and civil liberties would be more protected.
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield, I intend to vote for the Liberal Democrat amendment. There are few matters on which I agree with the Liberal Democrats, but on this occasion I will vote with them and against the Bill.
7.43 pm
Mr. John Greenway: The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) concentrated, as have other hon. Members, on the civil liberties aspect of the Bill. Indeed,

405
the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) referred to "lost liberty". We really should put the other point of view.
The freedom of our citizens is being undermined not by some conspiracy at the heart of government or the institutions that uphold authority in this country but by terrorists, whose acts of barbarism maim and kill innocent people, close off streets and town centres and cause massive inconvenience to large sections of the population, including the House; by drug traffickers, who prey on our young people and destroy their lives and their future prospects; and by organised criminals who, through theft and fraud on a grand scale that makes the great train robbery look like a minor crime, are ruining and destroying the financial security and prosperity of businesses and individuals alike.
I say that because I believe that the House has to make up its mind. Are we serious about reducing crime and making this country safer for our citizens and unattractive for criminals? The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) made a point that I wanted to make about the policing arrangements that we need in order to achieve that objective. He said that we are not living in the era of "Dixon of Dock Green". Communities throughout the length and breadth of Britain face ruthless, determined and evil men who care nothing for the interests and property of others. That is the background against which we have to consider the measures in the Bill.
It is always rewarding to see recommendations from Select Committee inquiries in which a great deal of time and effort has been invested coming to fruition in Government action and legislative proposals. I am sorry that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) is not in his place, because he referred to the Home Affairs Select Committee report on organised crime. You will know from personal experience, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the Home Affairs Committee has an exemplary record, and many of its recommendations relating to criminal justice, the police and fighting crime have found their way on to the statute book or have been implemented in other ways.
The first three parts of the Bill refer to matters that were considered by the Committee and very closely follow our recommendations. In our report, we concluded that, although the extent of organised crime in the United Kingdom is not so great as in some other western democracies, the threat is nevertheless very real and, increasingly, criminal gangs are international in their organisation and are resourced to an unprecedented extent, very often because of their association with drug trafficking.
The Committee recognised, as does the House generally, that there is a need for greater action at national level to co-ordinate intelligence gathering and the efforts of regional crime squads in dealing with crime, which frequently extends way beyond police boundaries. In my own force area in North Yorkshire, where before coming to the House I was vice-chairman of the police authority, more and more serious crime is committed not by local villains but by gangs from Teesside—I mean no disrespect to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin)—from the north-east, from West Yorkshire, Humberside, the west midlands, Greater Manchester and occasionally even the south-east of England.
406
North Yorkshire police have had considerable success in endeavouring to counter this threat, but increasingly they face huge logistical difficulties. I came to the view some time ago that the sharing of intelligence and the co-ordination of activity between crime squads on a national scale is essential to achieve better results. Those are the key objectives of parts I and II of the Bill.
I will now deal with the new national structure for the National Criminal Intelligence Service. In both the gathering of criminal intelligence at the domestic level and as the focal point for effective contact with overseas law enforcement agencies, NCIS has a crucial role to play in the fight against organised crime, but it needs greater freedom of action and freedom to manage its affairs.
The Select Committee was also told that on occasions it was important for NCIS to undertake what might be described as operational activities, which could involve surveillance beyond mere intelligence gathering. Despite misgivings in some quarters about accountability, NCIS must be allowed the opportunity to ensure that its intelligence gathering is not frustrated by an inability to follow up leads and inquiries when gathering important information about criminal activity. Provision for that is one of the Bill's essential features.
I am glad that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton is now present, so that I can pay tribute to his work as Chairman of the Select Committee, which produced a tremendous report on organised crime. The evidence that we received confirmed that regional crime squads were an essential part of the policing system in the fight against crime. They have been reduced from nine to six in recent years. There was and remains an imbalance in their resourcing and effectiveness, because the funding of each squad is set by the police authority, which wants to contribute the least amount of money.
The former national co-ordinator of regional crime squads and the then director general of NCIS strongly recommended the creation of a National Crime Squad under the control of a national director. That would allow a more co-ordinated and effective use of resources, which reflected the fact that criminals do not limit their activity to one region.
Similarly, as regional forces concentrate on their local problems, full advantage has not always been taken of information provided by NCIS, which by its nature is often on a national and international scale. For some time there has been a pressing need for the response to serious and organised crime to be sharpened and made more effective. That requires a more co-ordinated national structure—a National Crime Squad.
The funding arrangements for NCIS and the National Crime Squad are unnecessarily complicated. I am aware of the well rehearsed arguments in favour of levies as opposed to top slicing. However, in my view those two new organisations are so important that they should be funded centrally.
Doubtless my right hon. Friend the Minister will seek to persuade me that neither the levy nor the charging system will be unnecessarily bureaucratic. I rather think, however, that that is precisely how it will turn out. Recommendations were made some time ago—you will recall them, Madam Deputy Speaker—on the Forensic Science Service. We were persuaded to recommend a charging structure. It has taken a long time for that to bed

407
down, and even now some of us are not entirely sure that forensic science is being used as often as it should be, because police forces are charged for the service.
The two new national bodies will be at the forefront of the fight against crime. We should be totally assured that they will have the resources they need to maximise their operational effectiveness. I think that the Home Secretary of the day is best placed to ensure that that happens, although I acknowledge that it will weaken the input on funding decisions from local authorities and police committees, which my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has been at pains to ensure is enshrined in the arrangements that he outlined.
The Police Federation is anxious that officers deployed in NCIS or the National Crime Squad will not be covered by police regulations but by new arrangements outlined in the Bill. The federation has expressed concern that the recently revised discipline procedures for the police service should apply nationally, including to these two national police organisations. Officers should also have the right to representation at complaints and disciplinary hearings.
That is important, especially for officers in the National Crime Squad, who will be serving at the sharp end of the police service. They will have to deal with some of the most ruthless, nasty and dangerous criminals in the country, who are not slow to make malicious and mischievous complaints against officers. It is crucial that those officers have the comfort of knowing that the disciplinary arrangements are the same as in their own domestic forces. If there is any reason to believe—as the Police Federation clearly does—that the proposed arrangements do not provide that comfort, that must be rectified either in Committee or on Report. That is an extremely important matter.
Part III of the Bill has proved to be by far the most controversial. It attempts to provide a regulatory framework for the use of intrusive surveillance. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) referred to the fact that that was a recommendation of the Select Committee on Home Affairs. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton said, the police asked for the use of surveillance to be regulated, and I think that it should be.
However, having listened to the arguments made in this debate and elsewhere in the past few weeks, I must say that some of the reaction to the proposals has been rather hysterical. Some media coverage has given the erroneous impression that the Bill provides the police with powers that they have not previously enjoyed. In fact, they have been using these powers for a very long time, but we need to regulate them.
It is clear that the use of intrusive surveillance has become an essential tool in the fight against organised crime and terrorism. In the great majority of cases when the police are in hot pursuit of organised criminals, a requirement for them to seek prior approval would seriously hamper their operational effectiveness.
Sir Ivan Lawrence: There is more in favour of the police's position than my hon. Friend has explained.
Mr. Greenway: I have not finished.
Sir Ivan Lawrence: It was unlawful for the police to trespass on someone's premises. It was not a criminal offence, but it was unlawful and they could be sued.
408
Although there were guidelines and the courts treated the evidence that was found as admissible, it was necessary for the police, who always want to be on the right side of the law, to take a risk that the legislation to regulate such action would be harsher than that which they had hitherto enjoyed. So the police deserve greater credit than my hon. Friend has given them.
Mr. Greenway: I entirely agree with my hon. and learned Friend. He has provided greater clarification than anyone else—he has even made it clearer than he did in his speech, which I listened to attentively.
To what extent do the new regulatory arrangements hamper the police's operational effectiveness? They have asked for this regulatory framework, but they have also made it abundantly clear that there are dangers in going too far and making life unnecessarily difficult. We should be a little more circumspect. I have listened to the concerns expressed on both sides of the House that this touches on some important and sensitive issues. The idea that the police will want to use bugging devices in solicitors' offices, doctors' surgeries, Catholic confessionals or even in people's homes on a daily basis is preposterous. However, I agree that the use of intrusive surveillance in homes and offices is a sensitive matter, which in normal circumstances should require prior approval. I made that point to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary several weeks ago.
My right hon. and learned Friend has clearly listened carefully to views about where the balance should best be struck. I have felt for some time that the best practical solution is to allow the chief constable authorisation, subject to immediate review by a commissioner, in the great majority of instances in which the police need to use intrusive surveillance techniques. We have already heard about car homing devices today.
When the use of intrusive surveillance in sensitive premises is planned, prior authorisation should be required, but I feel that in cases of extreme urgency chief constables must retain the power to authorise—although, again, that power should be subject to immediate review. I believe that they will use it extremely sparingly. I know that the House is being asked in effect to approve a proposed structure without any amendments having been tabled to the Bill, but I feel that the arrangements that we are discussing had to be aired on Second Reading, although in fact they are not contained in the legislation as it stands.
I also feel that, in reviewing the use of the powers with which we are dealing, the PACE test of reasonableness is probably the most appropriate test. If we do not use that test, there may well be occasions—as my right hon. and learned Friend pointed out—on which the police get it wrong and, with the benefit of hindsight, people want to second-guess and criticise. I touched on this in an intervention, but I may not have explained clearly enough. I think that the key consideration in a retrospective consideration should be based on what the chief constable knew—or should reasonably have known—at the time, rather than on information became available subsequently.
I honestly believe that, if we cannot trust our chief constables with these powers, we are in a sorry state. I have every confidence that our chief constables will use the powers effectively. I think that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary—and, to be fair, the

409
hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw)—deserve a great deal of credit for reaching such a sensible compromise, and I hope that the Bill can now progress without further delay.
Arrangements allowing better targeting and co-ordination of police operations to deal with organised crime are long overdue. Our constituents want nothing more than to see the police tackle crime more vigorously, so that more villains are brought before the courts. Our constituents expect us to give the police the support and powers that they need to achieve that worthy aim, and we should do so by allowing the Bill a Second Reading.
8.2 pm
Mr. Chris Mullin: I take a slightly more sceptical view than the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) of some of the activities in which the police engage. I am glad, but not surprised, that the Bill is having to be substantially rewritten. Just about all the legislation introduced by the present Home Secretary has had to be rewritten. With the possible exception of the Minister of State, Home Office, the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), I cannot think of a Minister who has been required to eat so much humble pie without its having the slightest effect on his demeanour.
The Home Secretary's change of heart is, I think, based on the belated realisation that the Bill, unamended, will not be passed. Indeed, I believe that he has been told as much by many of his hon. Friends, and all credit to them. The Bill raises serious issues, on which a number of hon. Members—not least my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen)—have touched. I do not take the apocalyptic view of the Bill expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who read out a long list of people who objected to it; I think that most of those people objected to the Bill as originally drafted, rather than the form that it will take after being amended.
I intend to concentrate on part III, but I want to make a couple of points about the National Crime Squad. It is important for that body to be accountable, but I am not convinced that the provisions in the Bill are adequate for the purpose. The matter needs to be explored in Committee. There is a history of unhappy experience with elite police squads: the West Midlands serious crime squad and the Metropolitan police pornography and drugs squads come to mind, but there are others. They became a law unto themselves, and senior officers lost control. Some members of those elite squads even turned to crime. Police authorities have proved entirely ineffective in bringing them to book, and have been rendered even less effective by the Home Secretary's recent reforms of their composition.
There are signs that some problems that are familiar elsewhere may already be surfacing at NCIS. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) mentioned some instances. Details of confidential inquiries appear to have been leaked to the subject of those inquiries, and only a few weeks ago it was reported that officers at NCIS were unable to account for records of large amounts of material that had been obtained as a result of surveillance. That is relevant to part III. If we are to have a National Crime Squad that will enjoy public confidence, it must be properly accountable.
410
I shall now deal with the most controversial part of the Bill. Let me say at the outset that I accept the central premise of part III—that there is sometimes a regrettable necessity for police to eavesdrop on those whom they have good reason to believe may be involved in serious crime. Given the intrusion into personal liberty, however, such action must be properly regulated.
I have no doubt that authorisation should be a matter for High Court rather than circuit judges. I am sure that there are many fine circuit judges who are perfectly capable of rigorously scrutinising applications to bug domestic premises, but they are not necessarily the ones who will be asked—more than once, at least. The judges who will be asked are those—there are many of them—who can be relied on to sign whatever is put before them. Circuit judges are often too much part of the local establishment to be relied on always to exercise the rigorous scrutiny that will be required. I should add that history records that some High Court judges have shown themselves extraordinarily gullible, not to say downright foolish, in accepting at face value the official version of events, especially when it has been delivered by men in police uniform. I recognise, however, that they are probably better placed than anyone to exercise proper scrutiny in this regard.
The police should not be allowed to pick and choose which commissioner to approach. If we allow that, there is a danger that the police will go for the softest touch. The commissioners should themselves draw up a rota to avoid that problem.
Clause 94 provides for authorisation to be given orally in urgent cases. As others have said, that is potentially a large loophole. The commissioners will need to watch the number of urgent cases carefully, and so shall we.
Inevitably—not much has been made of this so far today—much of the material gleaned through surveillance, perhaps all in some cases, will be irrelevant to the investigation. Some will be highly personal, while some will relate to people who are not involved in any way. My question—a question that I asked the Home Secretary in an intervention—is this: what happens to the material once it is no longer required? What assurance have we that it will be kept under lock and key and not used to entertain the troops, as has happened on some occasions? How quickly will it be destroyed?
There is a provision in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 allowing innocent fingerprints to be destroyed. What obligation is there on the investigating officer to report to the commissioner on the destruction of irrelevant material? That matter needs to be examined carefully. I have had a quick look through the draft code of practice that appeared belatedly in the Vote Office and I do not see the destruction of relevant material mentioned anywhere in the code. When I raised the matter in an intervention, I received no satisfactory reply from the Home Secretary. We shall have to consider the matter in Committee.
Incidentally, I note that, once signed, those warrants will last for six months in relation to non-urgent cases and 15 days in relation to urgent cases. In six months, much material can be accumulated and much of it will be irrelevant to the subject of the investigation. We need to find out what is going to happen to such material.
My fourth point arises from clause 92, which defines the circumstances under which bugging is permitted. Similar definitions are contained in the Interception of

411
Communications Act 1985 and in the Intelligence Services Act 1994, which regulate the activities of the police and security services in respect of telephone tapping. As others have remarked, the definition of serious crimes in subsection (5) is sufficiently wide to include all sorts of innocent or relatively innocent activities. In particular, there is the reference to
"conduct by a large number of persons in pursuit of a common purpose".
When pressed on the point, the Home Secretary said that the provision might, for example, refer to groups of neo-Nazis trying to disrupt a football match. It might, but it could include many other people: strikers, members of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament or indeed organisers of any public demonstration.
The solution is simple; the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) suggested it earlier. The "or" at the end of subsection (5)(a) should be changed to "and", which would bring only offences likely to attract a prison sentence of three years or more within the Bill's scope. Similar amendments should be made to the other Acts to which I have referred.
Fifthly, I wonder—I do this hesitantly, as I do not know much about the technology involved—whether I am right in thinking that technology already exists to enable conversations to be monitored simply by pointing a beam at a window. Could it be that, in a few years from now, it will hardly be necessary to break into premises to monitor conversations therein, and that most bugging of domestic premises, or indeed a lawyer's offices, will be exempt from the Bill because, as I say, it is necessary only to point a beam at a window?
I do not know: I just ask. I suspect that that is the way in which things are going. I would hate to discover in a few years' time that most bugging is carried out by some other method entirely than that which we all think is relevant in relation to the Bill. I would appreciate some clarification of that point from the Minister, if he has the opportunity when he sums up.
Sir Ivan Lawrence: The question is whether that is covered by the requirement for wireless telegraphy. Is a beam wireless telegraphy? That is something that the Minister might answer.
Mr. Mullin: I hope that we shall get clarification on the matter in due course because it is potentially an important one.
Finally, I have grave difficulty in accepting that there are circumstances when it is necessary to bug a lawyer's office. I would like to hear—perhaps Committee is the appropriate place to have this discussion—some hard examples of cases where it has been necessary to bug a lawyer's offices. I accept that some lawyers misbehave, but I wonder whether the intrusion into liberty involved in bugging a lawyer's office outweighs any possible benefits. I just remark on that for the time being, but we shall have to consider the matter more closely in Committee, quite apart from which, if we do monitor a lawyer's offices, we are bound to pick up information about all sorts of other cases that were not the subject of the authorisation obtained. That is inevitable, and a potential problem too.
As I have said, the Bill is long overdue. I have no objection to the fundamental necessity in some particular and carefully defined and carefully authorised cases for
412
the police to bug criminals or people whom they suspect are criminals. It brings within the law an area of police activity that has far too often been clouded in obscurity. It inevitably involves interference with liberties that we rightly prize. It is brought to us by a Home Secretary who has shown himself careless of personal liberty, so we must consider the Bill carefully. Subject to the amendments that the Government propose, I shall not oppose it tonight, but it must be considered carefully in Committee.
8.15 pm
Mr. Warren Hawksley: In following the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), I shall start by saying that I am afraid that I have perhaps more confidence in the police than he does. I believe that we should back them. We should back them against the civil liberties lobby in particular. In the Bill, we have a balance that is just about right.
This is an important Bill. It is one of a series that the Home Secretary is introducing. In the past four years, we have had a variety of Bills, some of which have not yet been implemented. I think particularly of the power to lock away young offenders, which Parliament gave, although the places to put them in are not yet ready. It is right that we should have the series of measures coming through to toughen up the law and to give agencies that implement the law the tools and the power that they need. The Bill will help them to reduce serious crime—in the Bill, we are talking particularly of serious crime.
In the other place, the parts of the Bill that cover the National Crime Squad and the National Criminal Intelligence Service have not had as much publicity as other aspects of the Bill, but both bodies are moves in the right direction. It is correct that we should put them on to a statutory footing. The fact that the crime squad will work with police forces to investigate crime not just locally, but at national and at international level is to be welcomed. That will bring great benefits in the fight against major crime.
It is important that we should support those bodies, particularly in relation to the fight against drugs, which is a major problem and which is not getting any better. Much of their work will involve that problem. Some 10 years ago or more, I was taken by a chief superintendent around a housing estate in my old constituency of The Wrekin. He pointed out that he believed that the estate probably had the worst house-breaking problem of any in the West Mercia police authority region. He reckoned that 80 per cent. of the burglaries were drug-oriented. If that was the position then, I am sure that the matter is no better today.
NCIS has worked well under the Home Office and it has had some great successes, which we have heard about from other Members during the debate, but it is right to put it, at this stage, on a statutory footing. The one concern I have, which has been mentioned by other hon. Members, was raised with me by the West Midland Police Federation. It did not seem to have been involved in the Bill. It welcomes it, as does the Association of Chief Police Officers, but it rightly feels that it has not been consulted to the extent that it used to be consulted in the earlier days of the Government.
It would have been better for more consultations to have taken place. Certainly, that is the view of my police federation. It raises three points, which I think are all legitimate. It is concerned about officers having different disciplinary regulations, different police regulations and

413
different complaints procedures when they are with the squad or NCIS than when they are with their own force. Members of the federation think that that is wrong and that it is confusing, and they do not find it very helpful.
Federation members also require clarification—I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will provide it in his reply—on whether it is intended that people working in those squads should be covered by the normal procedure allowing them to bring a colleague or friend to represent them. Conservative Members have already mentioned that matter. I remember that—in the early or mid-1980s, when I served on a Committee examining a Bill—I supported an amendment that had been tabled by the then Member of Parliament for Bury St. Edmunds, who was representing the Police Federation, which tried to give that right to charged officers. We should ensure that the facility is retained for police force members if they are brought under disciplinary procedures. It is very important that we should do so.
As for the issue of placing technology on a statutory footing, I cannot express it better than a letter sent to a newspaper by ACPO representatives. The letter covered the issue very well, and was signed by the president and officers of the organisation. It stated:
"The Police Bill does not provide for new tactics. It seeks to put existing activity on a statutory basis—a point which the police (and others, including Law Lords) believe increases accountability."
The letter goes on to describe the way in which announcements, discussions and debates have been reported. It states:
"Some editors and others, who really should know better—including some solicitors, barristers, and even some members of the House of Lords—have suggested that the police will seek to listen to conversations between solicitors and clients. It would be quite unlawful for chief constables to authorise such activity on those grounds alone."
The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) might be interested in the next part of the letter. It states:
"If, however, it were to be suspected that solicitors were discussing corrupt acts such as money-laundering and jury-fixing, they would not be protected—nor should they be."
I agree entirely with that view. It continues:
"If solicitors or their premises were to be specifically exempted from surveillance, we can readily guess where armed robbers could go to plan their next raid."
I think that we would be causing many problems if we took that route.
I listened carefully to the comments of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary on the compromise he reached with Opposition Front Benchers on the problems resulting from the amendments passed in the other place. Although I would have been quite happy with the original provisions, I am prepared to accept the changes that he has proposed. However, I believe that—in cases of emergency, although it would not be the norm—it is absolutely essential that there should be that discretion to obtain the commissioner's approval after the event.
It was very disappointing that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) suggested that such a discretion would drive a coach and horses through the legislation, because I do not believe that it would. The shadow Home Secretary covered the point very well, as did the Home Secretary, and he gave examples of when
414
the Bill's provisions would have to be used very quickly. It is essential that the amendment does not eliminate such emergency use.
It is interesting to see the way in which the Labour party has come round on matters of law and order during this Session of Parliament. New Labour now believes that the issue of law and order is important, and we are learning that Labour Members are very concerned by it. I have served on many Committees, and, right back to 1979, any attempt by the Government to toughen up the law has never had Opposition support. However, I also served on the Committee examining the recent Crime (Sentences) Bill, and I was fascinated at how rarely the Opposition forced divisions, even on such important matters as mandatory sentencing. Although the other place seems to be taking a more robust line against the Government, the changes we are witnessing in the Opposition are very important.
It is also important that the Labour party is supporting the Government's attempts to toughen up law and order. I welcome that conversion, and I hope that it is genuine and that it will continue. I hope that Labour is now seeing the error of its ways. I believe that the public are demanding that hon. Members of all political persuasions take a tough line and act very firmly on crime.
The criminal records agency, which I welcome, has caused many comments in this debate. However, I hope that it will be accurate. Within the past week, a constituent of mine, who is a mini-cab driver, needed to attain a certificate. He discovered that, according to police records, he apparently had a conviction 20 years previously for child abuse. There have been great problems in clarifying the matter, because it was claimed that the offence had occurred in what was originally the West Mercia police authority, but which is now the West Midlands authority. By establishing an agency, I hope that we shall gradually have a much more accurate record. I have been having problems in this specific case in clearing my constituent's record, although he has assured me that he has never been charged with or convicted of child abuse. The problem is that he has been refused a job as a cab driver until it is confirmed that his record is clear.
We have heard about various organisations, such as guides and scouts, with problems and fears about having to pay for certificates. I have received a letter from the Worcestershire Federation of Young Farmers Clubs—an organisation which one would not necessarily expect to be concerned and worried about certificates—that states:
"As a Voluntary Youth Organisation in Worcestershire we feel that, should this Bill be passed catastrophic implications for our group and many like ours will occur. We are a self funding organisation with NO County Council grant aid, with 450 plus members who's ages range from 11 years to 26 years together with a huge back up support of older, usually past members who give their free time to help up and coming new members.
To pay for a police check of TEN pounds for every person over the age of 18 would cover about half of our current membership, together with every parent and past member who offers to help coach netball or paint scenery for a pantomime. We would NOT be in a position to cover these costs which would mean that rural and city members alike would lose an organisation they love to be part of."
I am very concerned about the idea that we should charge. The description of the Bill's financial effects seems to be so vague, stating that about 8 million to 20 million might be affected. It also mentions
"uncertainties about the initial demand."

415
In his reply, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will tell us a bit more about those matters. I am not quite sure how many people will need certificates, and it would be helpful to know the number, and whether the cost will be as large as the £200 million figure he suggested. The description of the financial effects also states that, in the first year, the cost could be as low as £10 million. That would not be an unacceptable figure—if it would allow the voluntary sector to continue without concern for its future. We must look after those people.
I believe that we are right to support this Bill. I hope that it will receive massive support and a smooth passage, and I particularly hope that it will be on the statute book before the general election. However, I also hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will tell us, either in his reply to this debate or in Committee, how the legislation can be amended to reassure the Police Federation and such organisations as the Young Farmers Clubs.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next hon. Member, I should say that I know that several hon. Members still wish to speak. They will be disappointed unless succeeding speeches are kept succinct.
8.28 pm
Mr. Neil Gerrard: I shall do my best to follow that instruction.
It has been obvious during the debate, particularly from the number of interventions on the Home Secretary, that there is still a great deal of disquiet about the Bill on both sides of the House. The original drafting has been improved, but it is still defective. The Secretary of State said that action should be taken against organised professional criminals. We all accept that that is necessary. The test of the Bill is whether it does that, while maintaining the necessary safeguards for civil liberties.
I shall deal first with the provisions for surveillance and bugging of premises. Everyone who has spoken in the debate has recognised that there are circumstances in which bugging and surveillance are necessary. There is no dispute about that. However, we should also accept that the number of cases and the scope should be limited. There should also be easy redress when the bugging cannot be justified.
I welcome the fact that there will be regulation of an activity that the police have carried out in an unregulated way for many years. However, I still have great concerns about the Bill. Although we are told that there will be amendments, none of us has seen the text of them or the promised codes of practice.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) was the first speaker in the debate to raise two issues that I should like to address. They are worth repeating. First, we should consider what is being regulated. With modern technology, it is obvious that bugging techniques are improving all the time. The Bill refers to entry of or interference with property. I suspect, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South said, that we are close to the point—if we have not already reached it—at which it will be possible to listen to conversations going on inside a property without needing to enter that property to place a bug. It is not clear whether that will be regulated by the Bill. We might end up with
416
a measure dealing only with protection of entry to property rather than the central issue of intrusive surveillance.
The second point is what happens to the material collected. Let us suppose that a solicitor is bugged. I can imagine circumstances in which that might be justified, as the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Hawksley) pointed out. There might be evidence of a solicitor being involved in criminal activity, for example. However, it is impossible to bug a solicitor without also recording conversations with innocent clients who are in no way connected with the crime of which the solicitor is suspected. Those people may never know about that if the information obtained from the bugging is not used in a prosecution. What safeguards do they have? How can we be sure that the information gained in that way does not find its way on to police intelligence computers?
If, for whatever reason, my fingerprints are taken, I know that that has been done. If no charges result, I know that I can see those records destroyed. What happens if information is collected on me without my knowledge because there has been no charge or prosecution? I was far from convinced by the Secretary of State's reply to my intervention during his speech that it will be up to the courts to decide. The issue may never reach a court. It is not good enough to accept that information collected in that way may end up on police intelligence systems. That also relates to the other provision in the Bill that I want to consider—criminal records certificates. The bugging of a solicitor's office is just one example. I suspect that many bugging operations will inevitably involve the collection of large amounts of information irrelevant to the purpose of the bugging. What happens to that is very important.
I do not want to repeat important comments made by other hon. Members about the definition of serious crime and prior authority, because those issues have been adequately covered. My final point about this part of the Bill—the issue crops up again in the provisions relating to criminal records—relates to the complaints mechanisms. The mechanism in the Bill is inadequate. The commissioner's decision is not open to challenge by a court or open to appeal. I understand from the opening speeches that there will be some amendments and we shall not be left in the current position in which all that is at stake in any complaint will be on a judicial review basis. I should be happier if it was clear that the authorisation mechanisms and the complaints mechanisms were completely separate and there was no possibility of the commissioners being involved in both. That would give me more confidence.
On part V, I am less than happy at the growing demands—not just in the Bill—for information about people who have convictions to be made available to the public. We are in danger of losing some principles that we have always had about privacy mattering and people having the opportunity, after having a conviction and serving a sentence, to go back to normal, productive life.
I accept that there must be a balance. It would clearly be wrong for those with certain types of conviction to be able to hide the fact. There are particular problems with organised paedophile activity which have been clearly illustrated recently. If a conviction is relevant to a job, a mechanism is needed for establishing the fact. The current position is clearly not satisfactory. People slip through

417
the net of the current mixture of legislation and practices—Thomas Hamilton in Dunblane was mentioned as an example.
I believe that the Bill is too broad and has too few safeguards. I suspect that the criminal convictions certificate—the lower level of certificate—will become the norm. The Secretary of State suggested that there might be a time limit. I do not know what that limit will be. I suspect that some people will be asked repeatedly. Once criminal convictions certificates come into use, there will be an incentive for someone applying for a job to get one. If I were applying for a job and I knew that I had a clean record, I might well want to get a copy of my certificate and enclose it with my application. I suspect that it will not be long before they become the norm for a range of jobs, for many of which convictions will be irrelevant. It has been pointed out earlier that there is a danger of some people becoming unemployable and inevitably drifting back into crime.
Cautions are to be included in the enhanced checks. Many people accept a caution without realising that they are implicitly admitting that they have done something. I suspect that that will change and more cases in which people would currently accept a caution will go to court. The caution might become a less useful mechanism than at present.
Mr. Benn: Has my hon. Friend considered the position of someone who committed an act under the Sexual Offences Act 1967 which would no longer be an offence? He would have to submit a document saying that he had had a homosexual relationship at a time when that was an offence, even though it no longer is. The provisions are grossly biased against some people's backgrounds.
Mr. Gerrard: That is a very good example of an action having been an offence that led to a conviction but ceasing to be an offence. What is the position then?
I am particularly concerned about the enhanced certificates and the inclusion of acquittal information, information that may be acquired in bugging and speculative information from police intelligence. Anyone who has seen the quality of some police intelligence would be concerned. I do not believe that chief constables should be the sole power in deciding what can and cannot be disclosed. If we are to have such certificates, we must have mechanisms for redress.
The hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge raised a constituency case. I recently dealt with a similar case. A constituent of mine, Mrs. Iqbal, applied for a job with the social services department, which asked her to get evidence from the police of her criminal record. She wrote to me and explained that she had no worries about that because she had never been in trouble with the police and had never been convicted. The police responded to the social services department's inquiry telling it that she had a conviction for shoplifting. What proved to have happened was that the police had confused her with someone else of the same name who had a similar date of birth. Fortunately, the social services department was willing to hold open the job offer for four or five weeks until the matter was cleared up. She had resigned from her previous job and could have lost her new job. As it was, she lost several weeks' wages as a result of that trivial mistake.
418
How is it possible to correct such mistakes? All we have in the Bill as it stands is clause 107, which states:
"Where an applicant … believes that the information contained in the certificate is inaccurate he may make an application in writing to the Secretary of State for a new certificate."
I think that that is a completely inadequate mechanism for redress. We need much better safeguards, allowing people to challenge the accuracy of information on certificates. An amendment moved in another place would have set up an independent tribunal to which applications could have been made, which would have been a much more satisfactory mechanism. It is wrong that information can be sent to a prospective employer in an enhanced certificate that the applicant never sees and therefore does not have the possibility of challenging.
As I said at the outset, this Bill is better than the original draft, but it is still full of problems. There are no mechanisms by which people can seek redress, get compensation or challenge what is said about them. What happens if someone loses a job as a result of inaccurate information given about them—perhaps based on police intelligence? I still have very serious concerns about the Bill. I know that we are promised an amendment and that the Bill will come back to us eventually in a different form. It needs to be significantly different from its present form.
8.42 pm
Rev. Ian Paisley: At the beginning of the debate, I raised with the Home Secretary the question whether the Bill was a serious constitutional Bill. Speeches for and against the Bill have underlined over and over again that it is. It touches the very heart of society and the very heart of the life of society. As the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) put so well, it is strange that there is a one-way street when it comes to capital and labour. How can it be that I am not allowed to know the criminal background of my employer but he has the right to demand details of my criminal background if I have one? There is something very seriously wrong about that.
I deplore the attitude of the Home Secretary. I said that I did not want to hinder him in getting the Bill through the House, but that the matter must be thoroughly discussed. Undigested legislation is a curse. We find out later all the mistakes that we could have found out if we had had full discussion. The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) said that there are other Bills to get through, but that is absolutely no argument. If we push through legislation on this important matter because other Bills are lining up to get through, we shall not have a good Bill.
My record is well known: I am a supporter of the police. I have stood alone in the European Parliament to defend the Royal Ulster Constabulary against everybody who was present. I believe that the police need to be supported. I believe that the hour is grave and that we should listen to what action the police feel should be taken. Legislators have a responsibility to discern what they can support absolutely and what they must question—searching to see whether other provisions can be made. We cannot give policemen a blank cheque. They also must be subject to the law. When the police force or individual members of it are not subject to the law, they bring contempt on the whole power and moral authority of the police.

419
I regret the attitude of the Home Secretary. I also regret the attitude of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), who argued that the Bill was not a constitutional Bill. I believe that it is and that this House should not kick it upstairs after tonight's debate. I am convinced about that because those of us who support the principle of supporting the police are being asked to give a blank cheque in return for being shown amendments later. We want to see the thrust of the amendments now so that we can have a proper debate on Second Reading.
The amendment tabled by the Liberal Democrats should not just be dismissed as it was from the Labour Front Bench. By tabling an amendment, the Liberal Democrats are at least putting on a brake and saying that on some things we need to be absolutely sure. Any of us who have been long in the House have learned that, when both Front-Bench teams make an agreement, one's voice is a cry in the wilderness. Everybody knows that it is very hard to make the crooked path straight and the rough places smooth when the two Front-Bench teams have made an agreement. Yet due to the Bill's constitutional nature, both Front-Bench teams have a responsibility not to start rushing on but to listen.
The hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Hawksley), who is for the Bill, made some very trenchant criticisms and raised some questions that needed to be listened to. One of them was that we should dismiss any suggestion that records could be wrong, yet the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) have brought proof that the records have been wrong. I have had experience of it in my constituency. It took me months to get the records set straight, but all the damage was done and the individual suffered from it. It is not easy to repair such damage.
Let us consider the multitude of certificates that will be floating about. I have a criminal record—I am quite proud of it. I was sent to this House because the people of North Antrim said that I did right to go to gaol and make my protest—
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: A constitutional record.
Rev. Ian Paisley: A constitutional record, yes, but I do not mind. The Lord Jesus Christ was crucified for having a criminal record and we know that he was the sinless son of God who died for sins of poor sinners like the people who sit in this House, including myself. There is repentance, forgiveness and conversion. If we do not believe in that, there is no hope. Why should a person be held to ransom for ever because of something he has done? Christ taught that there can be no forgiveness without repentance, and if a man repents and shows that he has left his old path, he should be helped, not hindered, by society.
I was amazed by the Home Secretary's attitude to the fee for certificates. He said that everybody can pay £5 or £6. Can they? If people are unemployed for a long time, £5 is very precious to them. I had the biggest lobby that I have ever had on one subject from the voluntary organisations on this issue. People with time on their hands go to voluntary organisations to volunteer. Should the organisations tell people that they must pay £6 or £10 for a certificate before they can work? How many people will volunteer then? My constituency has a large
420
farming community and, like the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge, I was lobbied by young farmers' clubs. I hope that the Home Secretary will listen to their voices. Serious damage could be done to voluntary bodies, which form the cement of society, if we do not heed what they are saying. I plead with the Home Secretary to change his mind on this issue.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Gentleman has advanced an interesting and relevant argument. Why should we assume that those who are responsible for granting the licences have a better record or pedigree than those to whom they are granting the licences?
Rev. Ian Paisley: We have no assurance of that. We do not know whether those people have produced a certificate to get the job of issuing certificates. If the hon. Gentleman started to make inquiries into their pedigrees, a wall of steel would be erected to stop him finding out who they are.
Rev. William McCrea: Does my hon. Friend agree that, because support for this issue crosses party boundaries, we should be able to vote on it and ensure that those iniquitous provisions are removed from the Bill? That would show that hon. Members are listening to their constituents. I hope that the Opposition will strongly support that proposition, because they should stand up for the voluntary organisations and those who have little money but a lot to contribute to society.
Rev. Ian Paisley: My hon. Friend has not been in the House as long as I have. He will learn that those who sit on the two Front Benches cannot be stopped, once they make up their mind. If their minds are made up to go to hell, to hell they will go, and no amount of preaching from me or anybody else will convert them.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton indicated assent.
Rev. Ian Paisley: My hon. Friend knows what hardened sinners they are, but even the most hardened sinner can repent. There is hope and forgiveness for all.
We are here tonight because alarm bells were sounded in another place. I am not in favour of the House of Lords or the hereditary principle. Nominees are even worse, because we do not know where fellows on the honours list have come from or what they have done. We cannot look at their pedigrees. Those in the other place who sounded the alarm bells the loudest were former Members of this place, who knew what was happening in the constituencies.
It is amazing that, in a country that has an established Church and had the benefit of the reformation—and where the Roman Catholic Church has not formed the doctrine of the state—the Home Secretary and the leader of the Labour party can approve the seal of the confessional. What is the seal of the confessional? If a Roman Catholic goes to his priest for forgiveness and repeats all his sins, the priest must not tell anyone what he says, even if he confesses that he intends to murder his next door neighbour or that he has already committed an atrocious crime.
What will it mean if some places may not be bugged? Anybody who has read Irish republican history will know that republican priests were used in all the rebellions.

421
One active IRA priest was able to use his priestly authority to commit criminal acts that led to people being killed. I do not ask for any special privilege as the pastor of a large congregation. I know the secrets of many of my parishioners, but I believe that only God can forgive sins and I do not want to listen to their confessions.
A parishioner came to me once and confessed that he had committed a terrible crime. I got out my car and took him to the police station. I told the police that the man had committed a terrible crime and that the only way to clear his conscience was to make a clean breast of it. He did, he paid the price and he went to prison. He is out now and he often tells me that that was the best day's work I ever did, because his burden has been lifted and he no longer has to look over his shoulder and wonder what will happen to him.
I do not take it well when certain people say, "You cannot touch this," and, "You cannot touch that." I believe that the most private place of all is not any church building, but is in the recesses of a person's home when he sits with his family. That is a castle which should not be breached by this legislation. I do not think that any society should move lightly—as we seem to be doing in this Bill—to permit acts of burglary to install certain gadgets.
I do not believe that these gadgets will do what the Government expect. My office was, at one time, under surveillance. In reading the Bill, I had to smile when I read that I had been guilty of conducting myself with a large number of persons in pursuit of a "common purpose"—the "common purpose" being to do away with the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I thought that beams were being sent into my office, and I asked a technician—a member of my church—if he could tell me whether this was the case. He came down with a suitcase and produced all these gadgets, which he turned on. He then said he could see where the beams were coming from, and added that he could do something about it by pressing a button which would let the people sending the beam know that I was aware of it. He put the machine on, and the beam was gone. They got the message that I was breaking the beam and that I knew what they were doing. It would be nice to know from the Secretary of State whether he has the power to deal with that type of surveillance, because it could be the worst sort with which we have to deal.
These are the matters that affect me, and I think that the Bill should go to a Committee of the whole House where everybody from all parts of the United Kingdom could have a full say. I hope and trust that that will happen.
9 pm
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Apart from a brief absence, I have been present to listen to all the speeches in this debate. I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), as I wholeheartedly agreed with between 85 per cent. and 90 per cent. of his speech. The one particular message that was important was his reference to the constitutional importance of the legislation, and I support his view on this matter—that the Bill should be dealt with as a constitutional Bill on the Floor of the House.
One complaint that I have about the speech of the hon. Member for North Antrim is that he was far too charitable and courteous to the hon. Member for Halesowen and
422
Stourbridge (Mr. Hawksley), who opened his remarks by saying, "We must support the police"—implying that anyone not in the Lobby with the Home Secretary tonight would be against the police. That is an outrageous slur on hon. Members who wish to scrutinise legislation as well as do justice to the police. We need no lessons from him about supporting the police, and we wish to do a diligent job as hon. Members.
The hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge went on to refer to the civil liberties lobby as if they were loopy, but then complained—no doubt for local consumption—that his local police federation was concerned about some of the employment ramifications of the Bill. He also referred to the Worcestershire young farmers, who will be faced with enormous costs following this legislation. No doubt he will trot that out back home to show how strong and vigilant he has been in the Chamber. He should support the hon. Member for North Antrim and others who believe that there should be proper scrutiny of the legislation, The hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge needs to be put in his place.
I certainly recognise that some aspects of the Bill have merit. For example, we need to protect youngsters who are members of voluntary organisations, and we certainly need to combat organised crime and the appalling growth of terrorism. Earlier, I spoke with the chief executive of the Scouts Association who stated that the Scouts and other charitable organisations had real concerns about the cost implications of the Bill, and about the fact that it will deter people from taking part in important youth work.
It is no good the Home Secretary, or indeed the shadow Home Secretary, saying that this is not a real problem. If there are costs for charitable organisations, we are duty bound to minimise them—if not avoid them. The House must address itself to that matter. For the record, the Scouts Association considers that if the legislation is unamended, vetting will cost the Scouts £500,000 a year.
We have heard the Home Secretary state that he wishes to repeal the so-called Weatherill amendment. There were indications in another place that the Government had argued that there would not necessarily be a duty to vet all volunteers who have access to children and young people. That fills the Scout Association and me with concern. There is demonstrably a need for proper vetting, but it should not impose disproportionate costs.
Equally, the Bill needs scrutiny to ensure that absurd provisions are not included. For example, a piano teacher with a regular group of young pupils will, as the Bill stands, have to apply for vetting. That shows how the Bill is ill conceived, ill thought out and ill prepared; it does no credit to the Home Secretary or to those who are prepared to let it pass without criticism today.
The one subject on which I reserve support for the hon. Member for Antrim, North concerns ministers of religion. I would not dispute his great knowledge of the reformation, but I am told by Anglican ministers that the Act of Uniformity 1662 reinforced the concept of what is described as the sacrament of confession in the Church of England. It is a matter of English law. Indeed, I am told that Anglican ministers are prohibited from treating the seal of the confession as anything other than sacrosanct. The sanctity of confession is therefore not a matter only of Roman Catholicism; it concerns English law in relation to the established Church.

423
Ministers of religion, when acting in that capacity, must have some privilege, whether they be rabbis, Roman Catholic priests, Anglican ministers, Methodist ministers—my local Methodist minister, the Rev. Bob Pritchard, in particular, is concerned about the matter—along with members of the Presbyterian Church and ministers of many other religions.
The Anglican Bishop of Bradwell reminded me—perhaps this backs up to some extent what the hon. Member for Antrim, North said in the latter part of his speech—that any prudent, self-respecting and dutiful minister of religion who is consulted by someone who is troubled in conscience and may have committed a heinous crime, will counsel that, if there is remorse, one must own up to one's wrongdoing or crime.
There must be many instances—we have no way of measuring—in which ministers of religion have helped the police and minimised the trauma and hurt that come from prolonged investigations, because people have taken their advice, owned up and demonstrated contrition.
Electronic surveillance of the confessional or of discussions with ministers of religion that are not described as confessional is not an absurd notion. There was a serious case of that in the past 12 months in the United States of America, which has the same common law system as we do. That incident has now been challenged in the courts there.
I have some sympathy with law enforcement officers, who come under political, public and professional pressure to try to get an arrest in the shortest possible time; that is their duty. If they have no limitation by statute on how they should conduct their inquiries they would almost be failing in their duties if they did not exploit every means open to them.
That is why there should be a specific exemption in the Bill—not in the code of practice—to ensure that the discussions of ministers of religion and others, including lawyers, counsellors and social workers, who receive confidential information in a professional capacity, are not trespassed on by electronic surveillance.
I know that others want to speak, but I have been here throughout the debate, which is not true of every hon. Member who has spoken or who is present at the moment. I want to express my grave disquiet about the way in which the legislative process of the Bill is being conducted.
The Bill has a big chunk missing, which will be contained in the code of practice. Earlier, I had occasion to complain that, for two or three days, I had been seeking from the Vote Office any supporting material to the Bill. However, nothing was available. Today, I discovered that a senior churchman had for some days had a copy of the code of practice.
I telephoned the Home Secretary's private office, and was told that no code of practice relating to surveillance was available. I expressed concern, and said that someone outside the House had a copy. The good gentleman I spoke to was somewhat embarrassed, and said that he would come back to me. Just before 1 o'clock, a code of practice was faxed to me.
To be candid, between then and the beginning of this debate, I did not have the opportunity to give it the scrutiny, understanding and reading that I would have liked. We then found that the draft code was still not
424
available in the Vote Office. That is an outrage, and it shows what a charade our legislative process is. We pretend to A-level and university students that we give our legislation great scrutiny, but we do not.
The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), who is not in his place, told us that we could not deal with the matter on the Floor of the House because the general election is coming up soon. If one railroads legislation merely because of the impending general election, that demonstrates my point—we are not doing things properly, and our processes are being dictated by other considerations.
I am not prepared, therefore, to acquiesce in sloppy law making for anyone. I notice that the Opposition Front Bench is now vacant, which I regret. I was asked from a sedentary position whether I would like to serve on the Standing Committee that will consider the Bill. I do not mind doing so, but I give notice that I will seek to amend it.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I do not want to put the hon. Gentleman in a difficult position, but it is possible that the new Parliament will have a Labour Government—I say not probable, but possible. Would the hon. Gentleman then insist that all constitutional matters were taken on the Floor of the House and not upstairs in Committee, as has been indicated?
Mr. Mackinlay: "Insist" is the wrong term. I do not have sufficient clout. I have made it abundantly clear, however, both inside and outside the House, that the tradition whereby constitutional issues are dealt with on the Floor of the House should not be abrogated. On previous occasions when both the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary have been pushing through legislation, I have also as a matter of record said that I did not think that the legislation was being given sufficient scrutiny. I do not vary my line. It has probably not done me a great deal of good, but I happen to believe that we in this House must jealously guard the proper scrutiny of legislation. That is not happening at this time.
How can I be satisfied that, by giving a nod and a wink to this legislation tonight, the code of practice will be sufficient? We will debate that code, which is bigger in volume and importance than a whole Act of Parliament, for one and a half hours, and it is wrong that it cannot be amended. For those reasons, I have no alternative but to demonstrate my deep concern about the way the House is behaving, and the only way I can do so is by joining the Liberals in the Lobby tonight.
9.14 pm
Sir Michael Marshall: I am grateful for this opportunity to speak briefly. I understand that a number of my hon. Friends wish to speak.
My frustration is twofold. Many of the things that I would have wished to say in a considered way will inevitably be squeezed because of time constraints. My frustration is also due to the fact that there has been a total lack of comment about part IV of the Bill.
As the chairman of the all-party parliamentary information technology group, I must put this thought to the House. I believe that the battle against crime in the 21st century will be fought over information technology. Anyone who has visited the Metropolitan police, as our

425
group did recently, will realise that crime now encompasses a vast range of factories producing forged credit cards, and also the Internet, which is used in the promotion of pornography and racial discrimination.
Information technology is used not only in objectionable ways but to further intelligence. It is good to note, thank heavens, that Scotland Yard is gearing up. PITO, the Police Information Technology Organisation, allows the co-ordination of forces up and down the country, and it means that there is a chance of success against highly organised technical crime. The recent paedophilia case arrests show how police have developed such skills. PITO is important.
I hope that the Minister will address those issues. The proposed organisation is worthy of serious consideration. It enables us to overcome a problem that has persisted for generations: police forces that could not talk to one another. Their information technology was not compatible, but there has been a sea change, which the Bill reflects.
I shall touch on one or two things that are going on, which PITO is designed to help co-ordinate. In particular, I shall highlight the wider issues that reflect on that organisation's work. There are moral and ethical questions, which the Worshipful Company of Information Technologists brought out in the House of Lords in a symposium earlier this week. Such issues were mentioned by Commissioner Sir Paul Condon in talking to groups in this House. He showed how the way in which his force and others around this country co-ordinate their activities is critical.
When I speak of this country, I refer to pilot schemes in Scotland and London designed to bring service directly to the great British public. It is not commonly recognised that more than a quarter of all calls by individuals on police stations are made to produce documents in connection with motoring offences. When one considers the time and dispersion of effort involved, it is clear that providing kiosks in public places for document recognition, use of the 999 system and to provide a range of emergency services are the sort of wider issues that the organisation can help to co-ordinate and drive on.
We have a national strategy for police information systems, which is the basis on which the organisation and the various forces will operate. However, the police national computer service, which began 20 years ago, is in many ways out of date. It must be brought up to date.
I want to mention briefly my police force in Sussex, which can claim to be at the forefront of the use of IT against crime. Its communications centre in Bognor Regis in my constituency has a state-of-the-art example of what can be done. The way in which it has been able to respond to emergencies, such as terrorist bombings in my constituency, has demonstrated that in practice. More widely, the Sussex police have shown exemplary zeal in pursuing modern technology—for example, in chasing stolen cars by satellite surveillance as they move from Britain to other parts of Europe.
It is on the wider aspect that I shall conclude. One of the major schemes with which the Met is concerned, and in which PITO can help British national interests, is the EU Telematics programme. That goes under the wonderful acronym of ATTACH, Advanced
426
Trans-European Telematics Applications for Community Help. It is another example, like the kiosks, of the sort of work that will allow us to give the public a direct link to our police force. It is notable—I could quote several other cases—that half the funding for that scheme comes from a 4 million ecu scheme in the European Community. It is a positive case that should be taken into account among what I might call the welter of one-sided views of Brussels.
I could also cite the great hopes for GRASP—the global retrieval access and information system for property items. The greatest crime for the majority of our constituents is theft. The fact that there is another international scheme—again, half-funded through the European Community and involving this country, Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands and Spain—will enable us to trace stolen goods through the greater application of data and imagery.
This subject could be developed far more widely than I have had the opportunity to do tonight. I am particularly concerned that PITO should not only be given a fair wind by the House, but that its operations and activities in the battle against IT crime should be seen for what they are—the real challenge to crime in the 21st century. This House has a role to play in that endeavour.
9.20 pm
Sir Michael Shersby: I wish to declare an outside interest: I am parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation of England and Wales in accordance with the Police Acts.
The federation is the largest police staff association in Britain; it therefore has a keen interest in the contents of the Bill. It represents constables, sergeants, inspectors and chief inspectors—in all, some 127,000 police officers. The Bill—especially the clauses that affect the federation's members—was drafted in consultation with the Association of Chief Police Officers. There has not been any real consultation between the Home Office and the Police Federation, although I was glad to hear my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary say earlier that there would be consultation in future on the terms and conditions of employment of members of the police service.
The Government have given the federation some assurance that things will be all right on the night, so to speak, but the experience of the federation's members is that, unless their concerns are put on the record, these matters can be left to interpretation. With 43 forces and 43 chief constables, there are at least 43 possible interpretations, each different from the next. I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister to reflect and to consult with the federation before there are changes to its members' police regulations and complaints and discipline procedures.
All police officers carry out their duties under the auspices of the Police Regulations 1995. The regulations have been properly negotiated at the police negotiating board. The Bill suggests a change to those regulations for officers who work for the National Crime Squad and the National Criminal Intelligence Service. However, any amendment to existing regulations to enable NCS and NCIS officers can be properly negotiated through the tried and tested police negotiating board machinery. If that is not done, there could be problems when officers from those bodies work alongside non-NCS and NCIS officers and different regulations apply to both groups.

427
The Government have indicated that all officers serving in those two important organisations will be volunteers. That may well be so, but let us consider the case of an individual who, when asked or recommended to apply for NCS or NCIS posts, indicates that such a move is not in accordance with his wishes. I have to ask, would he in fact be committing career suicide by refusing to take the post? Police regulations apply nationally to 43 different forces and cover officers who perform a variety of tasks, from traffic patrol to drug squad, and from domestic violence units to firearms officers. There is no reason why they should not apply to officers serving in the NCS or the NCIS.
There is also the important question of the discipline regulations, which are referred to in two parts of the Bill, in clauses 37 and 81. Undoubtedly, the general public must have confidence in the police service in this country to ensure that there is an effective rule of law. The general public equally need to feel confident that a proper, structured complaints system is in being if the service or its operators are perceived to be acting wrongfully.
All police forces operate within the same discipline code and discipline regulations. Similarly, the method for making any complaint is universal, and well established. The Bill appears to suggest that officers seconded to the National Crime Squad and the National Criminal Intelligence Service will operate under a different discipline code and regulations. That may, I fear, cause confusion among members of the public. It might also create the impression that there is a lack of confidence in the existing complaints and discipline system.
There are practical problems. If an officer, for example, completes his or her duties at the NCS or the NCIS and is accused of a criminal act, does that officer have access to advice before responding to the allegations, as is the right of all people under the rule of law? Then there is the question, if that officer be found guilty and returned to his or her home force, will that finding of guilt be disclosable? How can fairness and equity for all be guaranteed when an officer is placed in that position? If the same officer is accused of a later disciplinary offence and appears before the chief constable of his own force, does that officer's antecedent contain a declaration of a finding of guilt from a different discipline code?
I therefore ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to reflect on those matters, and to give them careful consideration before the Bill is considered in Committee.
I shall briefly say two more things. The first concerns criminal records certificates. I do not welcome the widespread extension of those certificates throughout society, but I believe that, in today's debate, there has been a general misunderstanding of what is likely to happen when certificates are issued at the lower level.
The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act—introduced, I well remember, as a private Member's Bill in 1974 by Mr. Piers Dixon, who was then the Member for Truro—provided that the period of rehabilitation be related to the length of the sentence passed on the offender, and the rehabilitation periods guarantee that spent convictions are expunged from the records and will not be provided in response to requests for the lower level certificates. The offences that are expunged range from imprisonment to youth custody, detention in a young offenders institution, corrective training and so on.
428
I therefore believe that there is less need for concern than has been suggested by the comments in tonight's debate that young people, especially, will be adversely affected if the Bill passes in its present form, because of the very important provisions of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.
I support the Bill. I believe that it is right to put the powers of the police into statute. The police welcome the Bill from that point of view, and I hope that it receives a Second Reading tonight.
9.27 pm
Mr. Nigel Forman: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am grateful for the chance to catch your eye to make a brief speech.
I am sure that the whole House supports, as we have heard, the idea of legislation to give the police extra and more effective powers to fight crime, especially organised crime, by what are described, I understand, as firms of big time criminals. That is obviously in the public interest. In so far as the Bill is designed to achieve such a purpose, it definitely deserves a Second Reading tonight, and one which I hope will attract a good-sized majority.
However, when we legislate to provide extra powers for the police, as the Government have done on very many occasions in the past 18 years, we must always try to ensure that such measures are balanced by proper constitutional safeguards for the citizens of this country against the possibility of abuse of power by the forces of law and order. In that way, we can ensure that the practices of policing in this country remain justifiable in the eyes of our constituents and of the courts, and equally that the practices are effective in achieving the main purposes of preventing and detecting serious crime.
I do not have time to go into detail, but I hope to have a chance to develop my thoughts in Standing Committee. I have three principal concerns about the Bill and the ways in which it could still be improved. First, we need tighter and more justifiable definitions of serious crime than are in the Bill at present.
Secondly, the principle of prior independent authorisation should be followed as widely and as fully as possible in the legislation, and in so far as any exceptions are deemed absolutely necessary, they should be kept to a closely defined minimum.
Thirdly, the House should study and discuss fully the codes of practice to which we have heard reference, before the measure becomes law. We are all too well aware of the precedent of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. It took five years for the codes of practice to appear in all their glory, and a further six years thereafter for the revised edition to appear. That is intolerable, and that pattern must not be repeated in this case.
We in the House should be concerned not only to combat organised crime, but to preserve the civilised quality of policing and law enforcement in our society. We ought to be aware of the extent to which the nature of our society and its cherished freedoms can be degraded by oppressive and unreasonable police practices.
Ministers are to be commended for having rightly decided at last to put on a statutory basis police practices which hitherto have been unregulated by statute. We should do the job properly and completely while we are

429
at it. Otherwise, we may all live to regret an important and timely opportunity to legislate in a truly responsible and balanced way.
9.31 pm
Mr. Alun Michael: With the news tonight that a British soldier has been killed in Northern Ireland, we should remind ourselves that the protection of the public from terrorism and crime is a serious and difficult business.
The public expect the police to have the powers to protect them and their families, and they expect us to protect their civil liberties. In other words, the public expect Parliament to resolve conflict between the principles of public safety and civil liberty. Both are important. The public do not expect Parliament as a whole or individual Members of Parliament to be for one and against the other. They expect us to deal with such tensions. That is the essence of political responsibility.
I am looking forward to the Committee stage of the Bill, because it is a substantial piece of legislation that addresses a number of long-standing concerns on which the Labour party has sought action. The issues raised in the House are important and varied, which is why this has been an excellent debate. In his thoughtful contribution, short though it was, the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) demonstrated that some of the important remaining concerns are shared by Conservative and Opposition Members.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) made it clear that we will ensure that the Bill receives a Second Reading. We look forward to a constructive Committee stage. The Minister of State, Home Office, the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), can be combative in debate, but he can also engage in constructive debate.
That is not as cosy as those who rarely visit the Committee Corridor seem to think. It is harder work for the Opposition and for Ministers to engage in reconciling issues and trying to find a way through some of the difficult problems that face this Parliament. Opposition is easy; constructive opposition, in which the Labour party is engaged, is hard work for both sides, but it represents the House of Commons at its best and it shows real democracy at work.
Incidentally, I was one of those who voted for the television cameras, radio and the press to be admitted to the proceedings of the House. That resolution covered the Committee Corridor—not just the attractive cross-examination that goes on in Select Committees but the work of Standing Committees. That important work deserves greater scrutiny by the press and the media.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) asked where the pressure for the Bill comes from. It comes from the Labour party, among others, because in our view it is unacceptable in a civilised society and democracy for intrusive surveillance to be undertaken by the loose conventions that have applied for the past 30 years, and applied under the Labour Government of which my right hon. Friend was a Cabinet Member. Nor is it acceptable for an organisation like the National Criminal Intelligence Service to lack corporate entity and be unaccountable, as it is now. It has loose
430
accountability to the Home Secretary, but that is not practical day-to-day accountability; although the need for a national dimension to deal with crime is evident, it would not be right to set up a national crime squad without tying its activity back into the British tradition of local police accountability.
Those measures are contained in the Bill. We called for them and welcomed them when the Bill was published. There remain issues to be dealt with. It is right for hon. Members on both sides of the House to want to get the Bill right in respect of surveillance, and I am not surprised that that has been the most contentious issue under discussion.
That, however, is not helped by what my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) described as an apocalyptic view, which was illustrated by some hon. Members who spoke in the debate. On the other hand, several hon. Members, including the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) were right to say that we need to be careful to protect the confidentiality of client and lawyer or doctor and patient. As we go into Committee, we welcome the fact that Government and Opposition agree on the objective and are joined in the search for the right words.
The hon. and learned Member for Burton was right to reflect on the protection of volunteers and voluntary organisations, and to say that he had changed his views somewhat from the conclusion reached by his Committee. It is good that we should listen and learn, and I hope that that is how we shall continue on the Bill. It could be argued that the debate on the Bill is a good example of democracy in practice. Greater accuracy from the press and the media when they first started to look at the issues would have been helpful, but the debate in the House tonight has shown Members raising important issues on an informed basis.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) made some important points in a thoughtful speech about surveillance. He said that the subject of surveillance may know nothing about it, whereas one would know if one were having one's fingerprints taken. It is an important point and it is why a nominal oversight as proposed by the Liberal Democrats would not be adequate to meet the need to have a tight and specific oversight of the use of the powers proposed in the Bill.
In two interventions, my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) raised points that have not had great attention. She spoke about the regulation of data via mobile phones. As the reply of the Home Secretary, on whom she intervened, appeared to miss the point that she was making, I hope that the Minister of State will undertake to review the whole matter in preparation for the Committee stage. If the use of mobile phones is covered by the Interception of Communications Act 1985, will he ensure that the collection of information is undertaken in the same way as for telephones attached to land lines? If it is not so covered, will he deal with the problem and ensure that we understand the position? Will he also tell us the current legal position with regard to subscriber data? That information can identify the location of a mobile phone user to within some 50 yd, and a great deal more. I should have thought that it comes under the existing Act. Is that the case? I should be grateful if the Minister would clarify those points.

431
What is the position with regard to user data on land lines? As we all know from perusal of our own bills, a mass of information is available on our calls. Is that information protected from intrusion without some due process? If the Minister cannot answer tonight, will he undertake to give that information to the House or at least write to me, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn and my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley, to clear the matter up properly?
The Home Secretary had to take several interventions about where the Bill's consideration in Committee should take place, including a number of rather lengthy and convoluted contributions from his hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen). The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) made a similar point.
I am not sure that in all cases more is got out of a debate on the Floor of the House than in Standing Committee. The Committee stage is frequently the time when the most difficult issues are debated. Sometimes the Government are intransigent, as when we were debating the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill or the Police and Magistrates Courts Bill.
On other legislation, such as the Sexual Offences (Protected Material) Bill last week and, indeed, the Security Service Act 1996, there have been positive and constructive debates in Committee that improved and changed the legislation, precisely because the details could be teased out in the slightly different atmosphere of Committee sittings. Indeed, it was during the passage of the Security Service Bill last year that we called for independent police authorities to oversee the work of NCIS and the National Crime Squad.
It is interesting how the option of dealing with one bit of a Bill excites a number of hon. Members who rarely, if ever, participate in the detailed work of Standing Committees. The hon. and learned Member for Burton makes regular contributions in Committee, but he does not seem to expect to be on the Committee that will consider this Bill, which I assume is why he was so quick to offer a place on it to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. I have to include the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) in that, because there are occasions when the Liberal Democrats get bored very easily when they make appearances in Committee.
I stress the importance of careful examination in Committee. I hope that we will not reach the point where Standing Committees are regarded as unimportant. They are an important part of scrutiny to ensure that we get legislation right, and they should not be minimised, as some hon. Members have sought to do tonight.
The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) referred to concern expressed by the Police Federation that the same terms and conditions and the same discipline should apply to officers seconded to NCIS and the NCS. I am not clear—perhaps the Minister will help on this—whether there is an omission or intention in the Bill, but we need to get to the bottom of that matter in Committee, and consider amendments to tease out the situation or to clarify exactly whether change is being made. As a matter of principle, there should surely be only one police service in this country.
The hon. Member for Ryedale referred also to evidence given to the Home Affairs Select Committee, but I must point out the need to take care with that evidence. My
432
hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn and I were puzzled by the evidence of the Association of Chief Police Officers and the regional crime squads, in which they appeared to be tell the Committee that they favoured the process of application to a circuit judge.
A careful reading of the evidence showed that that was the view expressed by the regional crime squads, not the Association of Chief Police Officers, which subsequently made it very clear to us that it did not share such a view. The problem that seems to have arisen is that the regional crime squads thought that it would be much easier to get the go-ahead from circuit judges than to get permission from chief constables, who turned out to be quite stringent about their applications. We need to be careful when we look at evidence to be sure that we have understood the reality behind it.
The hon. Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall) referred to part IV. I am glad that he did, because until that point I thought that I would be the only person to refer to it. Police information technology has indeed been a mess over the years. Some forces are better than others. I pay particular tribute to the Dyfed-Powys police—a small rural police force that is trying to make use of new technology, precisely to overcome the problems of distance and sparsity with which it has to deal. Co-ordination has been bad in the past. Chief constables have often been scathing about the lack of support for new technology development. That part of the Bill requires scrutiny in Committee, and we will seek to be satisfied that the structure will work, and will not be an arm's-length location for a different set of excuses.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) made a series of points. I always listen to him with care, because he is a man of great principle and expresses genuine concerns. However, I think that he misunderstood a great deal of the Bill, and I offer him a private seminar, which would have been available to him before, had he expressed an interest.
The hon. Member for North Antrim referred to the confessional, and seemed to interpret that part of the Bill as referring to only the formal process of confession to a Roman Catholic priest. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) referred to it in much wider terms, and I think that he is right. I am not sure whether we have thought this matter through. The Home Secretary has clearly accepted the point in general terms, as with legal and medical confidentiality. It is a genuine matter for consideration in Committee to ensure that we get it right, so that the public can have confidence when they discuss personal issues with their minister of religion.
The code of conduct is very important. I appreciate the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock. In 1987, in the Committee considering the first major Bill in which I played some part as a Whip, I argued strongly that we could not deal properly with that legislation without the draft immigration rules. As Christmas approached, I asked for the draft and I presented the then Minister, the right hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton), with a gift-wrapped copy of the previous immigration rules. We knew that the draft existed—it was on his desk—but it was not published until the day after Third Reading.

433
I commend the Minister for publishing the draft statutory instrument last year at the start of consideration of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Bill, because it enabled us to deal coherently with that measure. It greatly improved debate in Committee, and the legislation that came back to the Floor of the House as a result.
If the Bill is moving, it is a moving target. I understand the criticism, given that the original draft was not available in the Vote Office today; but that is a lesser evil than not seeing the statutory instrument. I ask the Minister to keep us up to date. A moving target is harder to work with, but it is better to have the Bill, even if we do not have the detail.
There has been limited opportunities in the debate to cover a wide range of issues. I look forward to discussing these matters further in Committee, and then returning to the Floor of the House with an improved Bill.
9.46 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): We have had a full debate on this important Bill. The threat from serious and organised crime is real and growing. We are not defenceless: the police and Customs and Excise have had many successes in tackling organised crime. I pay tribute to their work, but we must never become complacent.
We have heard much about the use of intrusive surveillance. The impression is sometimes created that the police will be able to conduct surveillance whenever and wherever they like. That is not true, and it will not be true under the Bill. Intrusive surveillance is used to investigate only serious crime, and only as a last resort.
Major criminals make use of every modern technique to cover their tracks. They have no hesitation in using modern equipment to render police surveillance ineffective. They change premises and lines of communication quickly and frequently to escape detection. They will literally be laughing all the way to the bank if the police are hampered in their use of effective surveillance techniques against them. The House must not allow that to happen.
Of course there is a balance to be struck between civil liberty and the fight against crime. The proposed arrangements will strike that balance. The use of intrusive surveillance will continue to be strictly controlled. There will be additional safeguards against possible misuse. I stress that law-abiding citizens will have nothing to fear, but those engaged in serious crime must have nowhere to hide.
A number of hon. Members were worried about the definition of serious crime. It is a wide-ranging definition, but it has to be, to ensure that police can mount operations at an early stage, before there is any certainty about the precise criminal charges that may result some or many months later.
It is important to remember that, in addition to the criteria in the Bill, the draft code of practice specifically provides that authorising officers should satisfy themselves that the degree of intrusion into the privacy of those affected by the surveillance is commensurate with the seriousness of the offence. Even if the police were minded to pursue some lesser criminals, under the
434
provisions of the Bill the requirement for proportionality would bite on the type of operation that they could mount. The commissioners would, I am sure, respond to any failure to observe that requirement.
The definition has been around for many years. It has been used successfully under the Interception of Communications Act 1985 and, more recently, the Security Service Act 1996. It is clearly sensible to use the same test in regard to similar activities carried out by different bodies investigating the same type of crime.
The amendment expresses concern about criminal records. No provision in the Bill requires job applicants to produce a criminal conviction certificate. Such certificates are intended to be multi-purpose documents, issued only to individuals. They are likely to be used for purposes other than employment when individuals are required to produce a certificate of good conduct—for example, when applying for visas or permits to reside in foreign countries.
Unlike other certificates for which provision is made in the Bill, those certificates will disclose only information about convictions that are unspent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. It is open to any employer or organisation to seek that information, and the certificates will serve to confirm the accuracy of an individual's statement about his past. It will be for applicants and employers to decide when it is reasonable to produce a criminal conviction certificate.
I was astonished by the Liberal Democrats' concerns about NCIS and the National Crime Squad. I consider those concerns—articulated in their amendment—to be entirely without foundation. One of the Government's main aims was to ensure that the service authorities relating to NCIS and the National Crime Squad were fully consistent with the excellent tripartite arrangements that we have for policing, which provide proper local accountability.
The Bill already provides for police authority members of the National Crime Squad to be in the majority. Of the 17 members, nine will be representatives of local police authorities: nine out of 17 will be local authority members. NCIS is clearly a different kettle of fish from the National Crime Squad, because of its national responsibilities; even so, the Bill will provide for seven police authority representatives out of 19 members. That, I think, takes care of the Liberal Democrats' anxieties.
Hon. Members have raised a number of other concerns, relating to, for instance, police terms and conditions of employment. I paid particular attention to what was said by my hon. Friends the Members for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), for Uxbridge (Sir M. Shersby) and for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Hawksley). I intend to have another discussion with the Police Federation shortly—before the Committee stage, with luck—and I hope that I can assure the federation that its fears are groundless. I hope that I can assure my hon. Friends that theirs are as well.
Many hon. Members commented on volunteering and the cost of certificates—my right hon. Friends the Members for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott) and for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), the hon. Members for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) and for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) and, again, my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge. Let me tell my hon. Friend that I, too,

435
was a young farmer many years ago, and I do not share the concern expressed by the Worcestershire young farmers and others about the deleterious effect that the criminal conviction certificates or the criminal records agency provisions will have on those who volunteer to assist with young farmers' clubs. Nevertheless, we shall look forward to addressing those points in Committee, where I hope that we shall be able to reassure many more hon. Members.
Hon. Members also raised the question of security and destruction of unwanted material. Again, I look forward to giving reassurances in Committee about how that will be properly dealt with.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) asked about the technology for bugging. Once I discover how to work my own mobile telephone, I may become an expert on the technology to which he referred, but I understand that the reference in the Bill to interference with wireless telegraphy has nothing to do with remote surveillance. It is intended to cover the jamming of radio waves, for example, to prevent a criminal in a siege from hearing outside media broadcasts that could assist him. Others, however, may wish to deal with the hon. Gentleman's point about electronic surveillance in Committee.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) for his points on the codes of practice. My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) also raised those points. To assist the House, we intend to have valid codes of practice available for Bills going through the Committee, if we can possibly do so. The code of practice has to be rewritten substantially because of the changes in the other place and we shall try to bring a fresh code before the House as soon as we can.
The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) made an interesting speech. I always enjoy listening to his speeches; one day I may have a chance to listen to one of his sermons. He rightly pointed out that, even when the hardened sinner repenteth, he should be forgiven, but, before I could point it out, he went on to say that it was only for God to forgive sins. I think that the Home Secretary and I had better go no further than criminal conviction certificates on this earth at the moment.
The hon. Member for North Antrim also suggested that the Bill was a constitutional measure that should be considered on the Floor of the House, but I remind the House that two other important Bills of this nature, the Intelligence Services Act 1994 and the Security Service Act 1996, were also taken in Standing Committee. They were not given that unique treatment.
I want to set the Bill in context. It is a key part of the Government's programme of law and order reforms, the results of which are making this country a safer place. Recorded crime in the 12 months to June 1996 was 10 per cent. lower than three years before. That is a fall of more than 500,000 offences, the largest three-year drop since records began in 1857. We are determined to fight crime effectively with full backing for the police, the support of the community, proper emphasis on crime prevention and severe punishment for serious, persistent and dangerous offenders. We have demonstrated that progress can be made.
Since 1978–79, total spending on the police has more than doubled in real terms. Next year, total expenditure on policing in England and Wales will be around
436
£7.3 billion. Police authorities' spending power will be increased by £247 million, or 3.7 per cent. That includes extra funding for 2,000 more officers. There are now some 98,000 constables in England and Wales—more than ever before—and 16,000 more officers overall than when the Government came to power in 1979, but—this is of relevance to the debate—our commitment to law and order goes beyond ensuring that the police are properly resourced.
The Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994 set out a new framework for the organisation and management of the police in England and Wales. That Act successfully introduced a new style of police authority, policing plans, objectives and key performance indicators. It is that model, which has worked so well, that forms the basis for the Bill's proposals for the National Crime Squad and NCIS.
We have also continued to ensure that the police have the right tools to do their job, exploiting new technology to the full. We have established the world's first DNA database and we have more than 3,300 matches. The police national network has drastically improved communications between police forces, and the new national automated fingerprint identification system will lead to a 430 per cent. efficiency increase in the number of identifications of fingerprint marks recovered from crime scenes. The creation in the Bill of the police information technology organisation will build on those achievements.
Strengthening the police is not enough on its own. Only 16 months ago, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced our intention to bring the Security Service into the fight against organised crime. The Security Service Act achieved that, and this Bill will complete the package of measures that he announced.
We have also taken steps to ensure that the police can properly investigate crime. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 modified the right of silence for someone being questioned by the police. Initial research suggests that there is a 50 per cent. drop in suspects staying silent at the police station.
Therefore, our commitment to the fight for law and order continues. We have brought a comprehensive package of measures before this Parliament, intended to make this country a safer place in which to live and work. The Crime (Sentences) Bill, which goes before another place tomorrow, is designed to provide real protection for the public against some of the most serious, dangerous and persistent offenders in our society. We are also taking action, through the Sex Offenders Bill, against those who perpetrate vile crimes against children and commit other sex offences.
Today we are considering the Police Bill, which is part of the Government's overall package. It will strengthen the fight against organised crime and protect the most vulnerable members of our society. The creation of NCIS and the National Crime Squad will establish nationally focused organisations to combat organised crime. We will put intrusive surveillance on a clear statutory basis, but one which protects the civil liberties of our people. We will ensure that the police have access to 21st-century technology in the fight against crime.

437
The Police Bill will have real practical benefits in the fight against crime. I urge the House to vote against the wrecking amendment tabled by the Liberal Democrats, and to give the Bill a Second Reading. I commend it to the House.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 41, Noes 264.

Division No. 75]

[10 pm

AYES

Alton, David

Kennedy, Charles (Ross C & S)

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Llwyd, Elfyn

Barnes, Harry

Loyden, Eddie

Beith, Rt Hon A J

McCrea, Rev William

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Mackinlay, Andrew

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Maclennan, Robert

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

Carlile, Alex (Montgomery)

Nicholson, Miss Emma (W Devon)

Chidgey, David

Paisley, Rev Ian

Cohen, Harry

Rendel, David

Corbyn, Jeremy

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth Kinross)

Salmond, Alex

Skinner, Dennis

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Davies, Chris (Littleborough)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Etherington, Bill

Tyler, Paul

Foster, Don (Bath)

Wallace, James

Gerard, Neil

Welsh, Andrew

Gordon, Ms Mildred

Wigley, Dafydd

Harvey, Nick

Winnick, David

Johnston, Sir Russell

Jones, Dr Lynne (B'ham Selly Oak)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Ms Liz Lynne and

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Mr. Simon Hughes.

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Carrington, Matthew

Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

Carttiss, Michael

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Cash, William

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Amess, David

Chapman, Sir Sydney

Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

Clappison, James

Arbuthnot, James

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochf'd)

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Coe, Sebastian

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Colvin, Michael

Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

Conway, Derek

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)

Batiste, Spencer

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Beggs, Roy

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Bellingham, Henry

Couchman, James

Beresford, Sir Paul

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Curry, Rt Hon David

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)

Booth, Hartley

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Boswell, Tim

Day, Stephen

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Bowden, Sir Andrew

Devlin, Tim

Bowis, John

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Douglas-Hamilton, Rt Hon Lord James

Brandreth, Gyles

Brazier, Julian

Dover, Den

Bright, Sir Graham

Duncan, Alan

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Duncan Smith, Iain

Browning, Mrs Angela

Dunn, Bob

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Durant, Sir Anthony

Burns, Simon

Dykes, Hugh

Butcher, John

Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

Butler, Peter

Elletson, Harold

Carlisle, John (Luton N)

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'ld)

Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

438

Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Faber, David

Lord, Michael

Fabricant, Michael

Luff, Peter

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Fishburn, Dudley

MacKay, Andrew

Forman, Nigel

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stilling)

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Forth, Eric

Maitland, Lady Olga

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Malone, Gerald

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Mans, Keith

Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Marland, Paul

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Marlow, Tony

French, Douglas

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Fry, Sir Peter

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Gale, Roger

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Gallie, Phil

Mates, Michael

Gardiner, Sir George

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

Merchant, Piers

Garnier, Edward

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Moate, Sir Roger

Gorst, Sir John

Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Needham, Rt Hon Richard

Grylls, Sir Michael

Nelson, Anthony

Gummer, Rt Hon John

Neubert, Sir Michael

Hague, Rt Hon William

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

Nicholls, Patrick

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

Norris, Steve

Hannam, Sir John

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Hargreaves, Andrew

Ottaway, Richard

Harris, David

Page, Richard

Hawkins, Nick

Paice, James

Hawksley, Warren

Patten, Rt Hon John

Heald, Oliver

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

Pawsey, James

Hendry, Charles

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

Pickles, Eric

Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)

Porter, David

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (Grantham)

Powell, William (Corby)

Horam, John

Rathbone, Tim

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildf'd)

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

Richards, Rod

Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

Riddick, Graham

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Robathan, Andrew

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensb'ne)

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Hunter, Andrew

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

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Jack, Michael

Roe, Mrs Marion

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)

Sackville, Tom

Jessel, Toby

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Shaw, David (Dover)

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

Jones, Robert B (W Herts)

Shepherd, Sir Colin (Heref'd)

King, Rt Hon Tom

Shersby, Sir Michael

Kirkhope, Timothy

Sims, Sir Roger

Knapman, Roger

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsf'ld)

Knox, Sir David

Soames, Nicholas

Kynoch, George

Speed, Sir Keith

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Spencer, Sir Derek

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Spicer, Sir Jim (W Dorset)

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Spink, Dr Robert

Legg, Barry

Spring, Richard

Leigh, Edward

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Lidington, David

Steen, Anthony

439

Stephen, Michael

Walden, George

Stern, Michael

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Stewart, Allan

Waller, Gary

Streeter, Gary

Ward, John

Sweeney, Walter

Wardle, Chartes (Bexhill)

Sykes, John

Waterson, Nigel

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Watts, John

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Wells, Bowen

Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangf'd)

Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Whitney, Sir Raymond

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Whittingdale, John

Temple-Morris, Peter

Widdecombe, Miss Ann

Thomason, Roy

Wilkinson, John

Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)

Willetts, David

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Wilshire, David

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Townsend, Sir Cyril (Bexl'yh'th)

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesf'ld)

Tracey, Richard

Wolfson, Mark

Tredinnick, David

Yeo, Tim

Trend, Michael

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Trotter, Neville

Twinn, Dr Ian

Tellers for the Noes:

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Mr. Timothy Wood and

Viggers, Peter

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin.

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 60 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading), and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills),
That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House. —[Rev. Ian Paisley.]
Question negatived.
Bill committed to a Standing Committee.

POLICE BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]
Queen's recommendation having been signified—
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 50A(l)(a),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Police Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise—

(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) any expenses of the Secretary of State attributable to the provisions of the Act,

(b) any compensation payable, by virtue of the provisions of the Act, by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, and

(c) any increase attributable to the provisions of the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment; and

(2) the payment of any sums into the Consolidated Fund.— [Mrs. Lait.]

Question agreed to.

POLICE BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]
  Motion made, and Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
  DELEGATED LEGISLATION

    Pensions
    That the draft Register of Occupational and Personal Pension Schemes Regulations 1997, which were laid before this House on 28th January, be approved. —[Mrs. Lait.]
    Question agreed to.

TRANSFER OF CROFTING ESTATES (SCOTLAND) BILL [LORDS]
Motion made, and Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 94E(2) (Scottish Grand Committee (Bills in relation to their principle)),
That the Bill be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee. —[Mrs. Lait.]
Question agreed to.

TRANSFER OF CROFTING ESTATES (SCOTLAND) BILL [LORDS]

  SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE
  Ordered,
  That, at the meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee on Monday 17th February, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (3) of Standing Order No. 94E (Scottish Grand Committee (bills in relation to their principle)), the Chairman shall put any Question necessary to dispose of any Motion which may be made in relation to the Transfer of Crofting Estates Bill [Lords] at half-past Two o'clock, if not previously concluded.—[Mrs. Lait.]

  PETITION

    Pembrokeshire Ambulance Service
    10.15 pm
    Mr. Nick Ainger: I am here to present a petition that has been signed by more than 60,200 people in Pembrokeshire.
    The humble petition of the people of Pembrokeshire sheweth,
    that the proposal to end local control of the Pembrokeshire Ambulance Service by merging it with the West Wales Ambulance Trust will lead to increased costs and a significantly reduced quality of service.
    Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable house call on the Secretary of State for Wales to reject any proposal to merge the Pembrokeshire Ambulance Service and the West Wales Ambulance Trust.
    And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray etc."
    To lie upon the Table.

Basking Sharks
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mrs. Lait.]
10.16 pm
Ms Joan Walley: It is with some trepidation that I raise the issue of the quinquennial review of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, especially the consideration of the listing of the basking shark as an endangered species, although I am grateful for the opportunity to do so. I raise it with trepidation because, as you may have noticed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my constituency is a long way from the sea, although we have a very good canal system, so the sea is not totally inaccessible. Every attempt so far to put the basking shark on the endangered species list has failed. The time has come for action by the House.
In the long time that I have been involved in campaigning on various environmental issues, I have met many local people in environmental organisations and wildlife and countryside groups who are convinced of the soundness of the case for the basking shark to be listed under schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. They have convinced me, and I hope that, when the Secretary of State makes his decision on 1 April, all the efforts on behalf of the basking shark will have been successful.
I wonder whether it is an accident that the basking shark has been left off the list so far, because it is bizarre that such a species has not been afforded the same protection as the red squirrel and other animals. Speaking to many different environmental groups led me to find out more about the basking shark. I wanted to discover exactly what kind of creature it is and why it is facing the threat of extinction.
Unlike the killer whale, the basking shark is a gentle giant. I understand from those who follow this matter closely that it was a common creature in our coastal waters and was bound up with folklore. It used to arrive in the Isle of Man waters during the hot summer days around May, but nobody knew where it went in September. There is scope for more scientific experiments to gain an understanding of how this creature lives.
There has been a marked reduction in sightings of the basking shark, particularly around the coast of the Isle of Man. The basking shark project in the Isle of Man—which is run by Ken Waterson and various volunteers and is supported by the Isle of Man Government—has raised concerns about this. There is a fear that the basking shark faces a real threat of extinction. We understand that the population status of the basking shark is unknown, and we know that its biological characteristics—including a slow growth rate—make it more susceptible to exploitation.
I shall deal briefly with the role of the Isle of Man Government. Under Manx legislation, the basking shark is already afforded protection, and that protection is based on the work of the basking shark project. The next logical step was for the Isle of Man to apply to the United Kingdom Government for appendix II status under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species at the next round of negotiations, which I understand will take place in Zimbabwe in June this year. The application
442
from the Isle of Man exposed the nonsense that this creature is free to bask in Isle of Man waters, but not in United Kingdom waters beyond the Isle of Man limits.
Fortunately, we have not had a constitutional crisis on this, and I am glad to recognise that the Government have gone some way to making amends. I understand that the Isle of Man will be formally included in the delegation to Zimbabwe, and that Ken Waterson may be part of it. I look forward to being kept informed of the progress that is being made. It is important that the United Kingdom delegation should be able to contribute to the sharks working party which will meet under CITES. The whole episode has demonstrated our failure to get the basking shark on to the CITES appendix II list, and that has highlighted the real fiasco that we now face.
I want a commitment from the Minister that the Government will match the commitment from the Isle of Man, and that they will consider the basking shark under wildlife and countryside legislation. I want the Government to go further, and to discuss whether the Isle of Man, Jersey and other islands should have a say when we deliberate nature and conservation. I am not asking for the islands to play a full part, but it is essential that the Isle of Man should be included. I hope also that the Minister recognises that—in addition to the lack of scientific evidence—an obstacle to all this is the embarrassment of the Government being asked to negotiate internationally on what they were not prepared to do at home as recently as 10 January.
The real obstacle is the Government's unwillingness to take the precautionary approach. There would have been a different outcome to the application by the Isle of Man on 10 January to list the basking shark if the Government had accepted the precautionary approach and the recommendation of various organisations in previous reviews of the Wildlife and Countryside Act.
We want the Minister to give a commitment to the precautionary approach tonight. After all, the Government—whichever Government—of the day hold all endangered species in trust for tomorrow, for our children and grandchildren. It is the duty of Governments to ensure that biodiversity is maintained in United Kingdom waters. The Minister cannot pick and choose which threatened species to include, and an excellent case has already been made for the basking shark.
We should be doing far more to strengthen the Wildlife and Countryside Act. It is a question not only of which species are threatened by deliberate acts—trade, hunting and so on—but of the way in which we honour our obligations under the Berne convention and the habitats directive. We also need to protect threatened species effectively from the incidental results of lawful operations, whether in hedgerows, the seas, or anywhere else.
Perhaps the Minister will cast some light on why he has failed to accept the precautionary approach and on the reasons for previous recommendations being overturned. I have met a range of people through my concern for the basking shark, including the chairmen of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and of English Nature.
Will the Minister expand on where he expects objections to come from in the consultation exercise that he has recently undertaken? Is it the case that the Scottish Office and market forces have been given greater priority than the protection of endangered species such as the

443
basking shark? Why has the Scottish Office had such a large say, when so many people have acted in the best interests of the basking shark?
Is the Department of the Environment perhaps out of step with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? I am grateful to have the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), the Labour spokesman on fisheries and agriculture. Does the Minister have any knowledge—this is pure speculation and fantasy—of whether the Government have traded 100 tonnes of basking shark liver oil for an as yet undetermined quota for United Kingdom fishing of white fish in Norwegian waters?
I hesitate to put that to the Minister, but I am trying to work out why the basking shark has already been rejected twice for listing. Is it an accidental oversight or is there some bizarre reason? I would welcome an assurance that there is no prospect of Norwegian whaling boats sailing around the Isle of Man, or anywhere in the Irish sea—even up to the Wirral—and harpooning basking sharks. It would be helpful to know what exactly is the current understanding with Norway, and whether at some future stage Norway could fish our basking sharks in return for a white fish quota agreement.
I urge the Minister to take account of what I believe is overwhelming support for the protection of the basking shark. Support has been expressed by English Nature, Scottish Natural Heritage, the Marine Conservation Society, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature shark specialist group and the basking shark project in the Isle of Man.
I must pay tribute to the tireless work done by Ken Waterson in the surveillance of basking sharks. Indeed, he has brought together volunteers from all over the world to try to keep tabs on what is happening. The Manx Government, the English Wildlife Trust, the Scottish Wildlife Trust and the university of Liverpool have also expressed support. Will the Minister note that that is more support than for any other species proposed for protection in the review?
When the Minister reaches his decision, will he also take into account the JNCC, which has put forward proposals yet again to the Department of the Environment and does not want them to be overturned once again?
Finally, there is concern that failure to protect the basking shark within the framework of our domestic legislation has implications for the undertakings that we have given on biodiversity internationally. The species has been assessed as globally vulnerable under the IUCN red list of endangered species criteria. Other countries are already accepting that it requires protection. The United Kingdom should be playing a leading role in all this. Whatever cuts are being made to the budgets of English Nature—those cuts should not be being made at all—money should be found properly to fund and co-ordinate scientific research.
More help should be given to projects such as the basking shark project in the Isle of Man. If endangered species status is granted for the basking shark on 1 April when the results are known, I hope that the Government will involve themselves in extensive monitoring and be in a strong position to play a leading part in international discussions.
I urge the Minister to heed the warnings that we have been given and to take account of the significant number of Members of Parliament who signed the early-day
444
motion calling for action based on the precautionary principle—action already taken by the Isle of Man Government. I hope that, for the basking shark at least, it will be a case of third time lucky when the Government's decision is made in April.
10.31 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison): The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) has raised an important subject, in which there is wide interest. She need not feel any trepidation about raising the subject, as there is such interest in it; I acknowledge that she has taken a consistent interest in the status of the basking shark.
I shall deal with the position as far as the quinquennial review of schedules 5 and 8 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 is concerned, but first I shall briefly consider the wider context in which the hon. Lady set out this important issue. She will know of the active part that the Government play in the operation of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species.
While I understand that she is disappointed that the United Kingdom was unable to propose listing of the basking shark in appendix II of CITES—a decision that we think was soundly based on the Government's view that the proposal would not have met the internationally agreed criteria for listing a species in the appendix—I am grateful for the welcome she gave the incorporation of an Isle of Man representative on the UK delegation at the next CITES conference of the parties in June. I am sure that that arrangement will enable the issue to be discussed fully in the conference and its working groups, with additional expert knowledge and interest.
I am sure that the hon. Lady will also welcome the part that the Government's biodiversity initiative is playing, our response under our Rio commitments, and the fact that the basking shark is one of a considerable number of UK species whose status will be monitored by the UK biodiversity group in the next five years. We certainly believe that the current quinquennial review exercise will be helpful in that process and will assist the group in submitting its next report.
The hon. Lady also mentioned the EU habitats and birds directives. As she knows, we are playing a full part in responding to those European commitments on top of our other international commitments.
The 1981 Act is the primary Act for conservation in Great Britain. The JNCC began work on the third and current quinquennial review in 1995. Between mid-1995 and mid-1996, the JNCC sought the views of relevant scientists and non-governmental organisations to arrive at a list of 34 recommendations. The recommendations were that one animal, the bugloss moth, should be removed from schedule 5 and that 12 animals should be added to it; four animals already on schedule 5 should receive increased protection; 17 plants should be added to it. The basking shark is one of the animals recommended for addition to schedule 5.
The Government intend to be as open as possible in our consideration of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee's recommendations. To this end, a public consultation exercise began on 29 January. The consultation period expires on 1 April. I am sure that hon. Members will recognise that, until the exercise is

445
concluded and the views of all interested parties have been considered, it is impossible to predict whether the recommendations will be supported and acted on. Although I can give no indication of the likely outcome of our consideration of the JNCC's recommendations in respect of any of the 34 species concerned, I feel that I should respond to the concerns raised by the hon. Lady about the basking shark.
In its current recommendation, the JNCC claims that there is still inadequate data on the population status and vulnerability of the basking shark. As the hon. Lady said, it is a gentle creature and I believe that it is our largest fish. However, it can be vulnerable. She suggested that protection was justified on the basis of the precautionary principle. The lack of clear, comprehensive scientific data for the species in British waters makes the task of assessing the merits of the case difficult.
The shark was similarly recommended by the JNCC's predecessor, the Nature Conservancy Council, in earlier quinquennial reviews of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 in 1986 and 1991. Insufficient data about or evidence of an immediate threat to basking shark populations in UK waters meant that it was not listed for protection after those reviews. In its current recommendation, the JNCC recognises that the basking shark is notoriously difficult to monitor, with few verified records. The notable exception, as the hon. Lady said, is the Isle of Man waters.
It has been long been accepted that the primary threats to the species are, first, directed fisheries and, secondly, accidental disturbance and capture by man. Evidence from around the world suggests that where the species is targeted, it suffers severe declines from which it may not recover. At present, there is no UK basking shark fishery. The hon. Lady mentioned the position with Norway. Norway has a quota to take 100 tonnes of basking shark liver from UK waters. Only 5.8 tonnes, or roughly 15 basking sharks, were recorded in 1993, and nothing was taken in 1991, 1992, 1994 or 1995.
Evidence of damage to or loss of stocks commonly cited relates to directed fisheries in Canada during the 1950s and in Ireland between 1947 and 1975. Similar findings have been made in other shark fisheries off California and Florida. It is important to remember that such declines were the result of targeted fisheries and occurred in waters some distance from the United Kingdom, where different climates, both of population and meteorology, exist.
Ms Walley: Does the Minister agree that, while sightings are not scientific data as such, the evidence from the Isle of Man over five years has been of a drastic reduction in the number of sightings? We should take account of that surveillance, because fewer sharks are being seen.
Mr. Clappison: The hon. Lady has made an interesting point, and we shall consider the position scientifically during the consultation. We welcome views and evidence coming forward as part of the debate and during the consultation period.
The impact of accidental capture, or by-catch, of basking sharks in fisheries targeting other species is less clear. To date, British voluntary fisheries recording
446
schemes have provided no evidence of incidental capture of basking sharks in nets deployed for other marine stocks.
What is clear is that there appears to be a relative lack of robust scientific evidence concerning the basking shark in British waters and further afield within the north-east Atlantic region. It would appear appropriate, therefore, to investigate further the data available for the basking shark before reaching any conclusions. In part, the public consultation exercise will facilitate such a review.
Additionally, however, I would anticipate—this responds to the hon. Lady's point—that it will be necessary to hold one or more focused meetings to ensure that the Government consider all available information and evidence before reaching any decision. I would therefore like to take this opportunity to welcome the work that the hon. Lady has done to stimulate a debate on this species. I am sure that she will want to work with my Department to ensure that all the facts are made available as part of that debate.
Having spent some time discussing the basking shark specifically, I remind colleagues that the approach that I have outlined and that the Government will be taking to ensure that an informed and appropriate decision is taken in respect of the basking shark will also be applied to all the other 33 species subject to the JNCC's recommendations. The Government will be open in their considerations and would welcome information from all interested and affected individuals and organisations.
Mr. Elliot Morley: I listened carefully to what the Minister said about the Norwegian quota, and I accept his description of the take over the years. However, in the context of abiding by the precautionary principle that was laid out so clearly by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley), would the Minister, from his Department, be prepared to recommend to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that the fishery for basking sharks should be closed until more information is collected on the status of the basking shark and the effect on populations around the UK coast?
Mr. Clappison: The hon. Gentleman's point speaks for itself. He will agree that we have to look at the evidence and debate it before we can reach conclusions such as the one that he suggests, but I hear what he says in that respect.
I hope that, once the formal public consultation exercise concludes on 1 April 1997, we shall be able to reach a consensus decision on each species so as to enable those species which require additional protection to be added to schedule 5 or 8 as soon as possible thereafter.
In the course of this short debate, I hope that I have been able to reassure the hon. Lady about the rigour of our approach towards protecting this important species and other species under the auspices of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, our other commitments under the Rio convention and our European commitments, under which we are protecting much of our animal life and biodiversity.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

TRANSPORT

  Railcards (Disabled People)
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what consultations he has had with the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee concerning acceptance of railcards held by disabled people by automatic ticket machines; [15190]

  (2) if he will make it his policy to seek to ensure that automatic ticket machines have facilities for accepting railcards held by disabled people. [15191]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee has discussed this issue in its rail working group. Representatives of the Department and the Office of the Rail Regulator were present at those discussions.

  The Department will be pursuing this with the Office of the Rail Regulator in the context of the Rail Regulator's code of practice on meeting the needs of disabled passengers.

  Parking
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will review the law relating to parking near bus stops. [15351]

  Mr. Watts
  I have no plans to do so. The Government regard efficient enforcement of the existing law as more likely to improve compliance with waiting restrictions at bus stops than changes to the law.

  British Railways Board
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his current estimate of the out-turn of the British Railways Board for 1996–97. [15398]

  Mr. Watts
  I hope to announce shortly the British Railways Board external finance limit consistent with my latest estimate of its out-turn.

  Environmental Impact Directive
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what environmental impact assessment study has been prepared for the Newbury bypass under the provisions of the EC environmental impact directive; what information he has received in respect of the petition made to the European Parliament Petitions Committee concerning the environmental implications of this road project; and if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's monitoring of environmentally based petitions presented to the European Parliament on matters arising in the United Kingdom. [15434]
  178
  Mr. Watts
  The Government have taken the view consistently that directive 85/337/EEC on environmental impact assessment does not apply to projects such as the Newbury bypass, for which the formal development consent procedure was initiated before the directive came into force on 3 July 1988. In an announcement on 20 October 1995, the European Commission made it clear that it agreed with that view. The bypass scheme was, however, assessed carefully for its environmental effects in accordance with the Department of Transport's manual of environmental appraisal, which was the relevant guidance at the time.

  The Government have been informed by the President of the European Parliament about the petition made to the Parliament's Petitions Committee about the bypass.

  The Government are not informed routinely by the European Parliament of the content of petitions that it has received. It is for the European Parliament itself to decide how to handle such petitions.

  Vehicle Document Fraud
  Mr. Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received on the subject of reforming the current vehicle licensing and registration system to(a) prevent fraud and (b) enable (i) stolen vehicles and (ii) owners and drivers to be traced. [15421]

  Mr. Bowis
  My Department maintains close contacts with representatives of the motor, finance, leasing, insurance and salvage industries and with the police with a view to developing ways in which the vehicle registration system can be better adapted to deter and detect vehicle fraud and other related crime.

  Following wide consultation we shall shortly be introducing new arrangements for recording the transfer of vehicles and for the annual notification of unlicensed off-road vehicles. These measures will help to improve the accuracy of the vehicle record and facilitate the tracing of drivers and vehicles for enforcement purposes.

  Mr. Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated of foreign initiatives on vehicle title and document fraud; and with what result. [15420]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency maintains a register of vehicle keepers as opposed to owners because it is the registered keeper with whom the agency and police are normally concerned for law enforcement, revenue collection and road safety purposes.

  Accordingly, while the agency maintains close links with a number of foreign registration authorities, it has not commissioned specific research into initiatives on vehicle title and document fraud.

  Rail Companies (Profits)
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his current estimate of profits by companies previously owned by British Rail to be paid into public funds in 1996–97. [15403]
  179
  Mr. Watts
  Up to 11 February 1997, dividends paid into public funds in 1996–97 in respect of the Secretary of State's residual holding of Railtrack shares amounted to £865,335.96.

  Railways (Bus Services)
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many scheduled railway services were substituted by bus services during the week ended 18 January; for what reasons; and what penalty payments have been made by operators under their agreements with the franchising director. [15350]

  Mr. Watts
  The information is not available in the form requested. The Office of Passenger Rail Franchising monitors cancellations for franchised services. If an operator cancels more than a set threshold, that is a breach of the franchise agreement and enforcement action may follow. Some operators are also subject to a performance regime with Opraf and are penalised for each cancellation. Bus substitutions as a result of planned engineering work are not usually subject to penalty payments.

  Heavy Goods Vehicles
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the number of heavy goods vehicles on roads without an operator's licence vehicle disc but operating under the margin arrangement. [15380]

  Mr. Bowis
  It is impossible to make any accurate estimate of the number of vehicles operated under the margin arrangements. Vehicles used by any licensed operator within their total authorisation limit for up to one calendar month do not need to be specified and thus do not need to carry a disc.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many heavy goods vehicles have been found to be operating without proper authorisation under the Goods Vehicle Operator Licensing Regulations during roadside checks in 1995 and 1996. [15381]

  Mr. Bowis
  We have no separate figures for heavy goods vehicles found to be operating without a valid operator's licence.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many goods vehicle operators were successfully prosecuted in 1995 and 1996 for operating vehicles without authorisation under the Goods Vehicle Operator Licensing Regulations. [15382]

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

  Letter from Ron Oliver to Mr. Andrew Smith, dated 12 February 1997:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question asking how many goods vehicle operators have been successfully prosecuted in 1995 and 1996 for operating vehicles without authorisation under the Goods Vehicle Operator Licensing Regulations.
  Information about successful prosecutions against vehicle operators for the specific offence of unauthorised use is not currently available. The extent of illegal operations was quantified in a report published in April 1996, of the roadside survey of illegal operators
  180
  carried out by the Vehicle Inspectorate on behalf of the Department of Transport in October 1995. This indicated that illegal operators accounted for less than 2% of all miles travelled by goods vehicles.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he has taken to ensure that the operator licensing details of heavy goods vehicles are ascertained at roadside enforcement checks. [15383]

  Mr. Bowis
  It is one of a number of checks carried out by traffic examiners at each roadside vehicle check, and is followed up as part of routine enforcement action where necessary.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has completed his consideration of proposals to impound illegally operated and dangerous heavy goods vehicles as indicated in his response to the Transport Committee's Fifth report in November 1996; and if he will make a statement. [15384]

  Mr. Bowis
  We are still working on plans for a possible scheme for the impounding of illegally operated and dangerous heavy goods vehicles.

DEFENCE

  Land Mines
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list each of the supplier companies to his Department for(a) anti-personnel mines and (b) anti-tank/armoured vehicle mines since 1979; and if he will list the countries to which these companies have exported mines since 1979. [13527]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Available records indicate that the following companies/organisations have, since 1979, met orders from my Department for:

  (a) anti-personnel mines: Thorn-EMI, Royal Ordnance, the United States Department of Defence and Alliant Techsystems of the United States;

  (b) anti-tank/armoured vehicle mines: Royal Ordnance, Hunting Engineering Ltd. Alliant Techsystems, the MLRS European Production Group, and GIAT Industries and SOFMA of France.

  I understand that export licence records before 1991 are not readily available to the Department of Trade and Industry and could be researched only at disproportionate cost. An initial search by DTI of export licence records since 1991 has shown that anti-tank/armoured vehicle mine records are not immediately identifiable and I am advised that the research required to examine the records further could be undertaken only at disproportionate cost. It is clear from earlier research, however, that no mines considered to be anti-personnel mines at the time of export have been exported for over a decade. Records available in my own Department, which may not be definitive, indicate that mines considered at the time of export to fall into one or other of the two categories identified have been exported as follows:

  (a) Anti-personnel mines: by Thorn-EMI to Nigeria in 1981;

  (b) Anti-tank/armoured vehicle mines: by UK companies to two other countries in 1982 and 1991.

  Detailed information on these cannot be provided, since its release would cause harm in terms of one or more of the defence, security, international relations and

  181
  commercial confidence exemptions in the code of practice on access to Government information. These were the exemptions in the code referred to in my answer to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring) on 23 July 1996, Official Report, column 212.

  I am not in a position to provide information regarding exports by non-UK companies.

  Copex Internal Security Exhibition
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which company booked the Farnborough site for the Copex—contingency and operational procurement exhibition—internal security exhibition, between 30 September and 2 October; and if he will make a statement. [12562]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I understand that SBAC has entered into a contractual arrangement with British-American Promotions Ltd., and that the Copex exhibition will take place in September 1997.

  Public Records (Disclosure)
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress his Department has made in reviewing the files with Public Record Office class marks ES1/653 and ES1/654 with a view to opening them. [14387]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The review has been completed and the files are to be released to the Public Record Office.

  Army Ranges (Dartmoor)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the advertised usage of Willsworthy range in the Dartmoor national park for live firing in the year ended December 1996, expressed by number of days; and how many days' firing took place. [15354]

  Mr. Soames
  The advertised usage of Willsworthy range in the Dartmoor national park for live firing in the year ending December 1996 expressed by number of days was 194. The number of days when firing actually took place was 109.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the advertised usage of Merrivale range in the Dartmoor national park for live firing in the year ended 1996, expressed by number of days; and how many days' firing took place. [15352]

  Mr. Soames
  The advertised usage of Merrivale range in the Dartmoor national park for live firing in the year ending December 1996 expressed by number of days was 121. The number of days when firing actually took place was 61.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the advertised usage of Okehampton range in the Dartmoor national park for live firing in the year ended 1996, expressed by number of days; and how many days' firing took place. [15353]

  Mr. Soames
  The advertised usage of Okehampton range in the Dartmoor national park for live firing in the year ending December 1996 expressed by number of days was 72. The number of days when firing actually took place was 36.

  Royal Yacht
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence by what method it is proposed to ensure that the contract for the replacement royal yacht is placed with a ship building yard within the United Kingdom: [15248]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  On security grounds, the future royal yacht can only be designed and built in a British shipyard. An invitation to tender for construction of the vessel will be advertised in the MOD contracts bulletin in the usual way.

  Rugby League
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what to steps are being taken to facilitate the playing of rugby league football in the Royal Navy. [14253]

  Mr. Soames
  Those personnel who wish to play are offered encouragement and advice, and facilities are made available to them. Should enough people show an interest, consideration will be given to making rugby league an approved sport.

HEALTH

  Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps have been taken to evaluate the possible causes of the cluster of CJD and suspected CJD cases in Kent; and if he will make a statement. [15259]

  Mr. Horam
  The national Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease surveillance unit monitors the incidence of CJD throughout the United Kingdom, including the possibility of significant clusters of cases. Its analysis of the distribution of cases of CJD has never found any convincing evidence of clustering.

  Elderly People (Winter Assistance)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he has taken to help the elderly during the winter months in each of the last three years; and at what cost. [15388]

  Mr. Burns
  The Department is the major contributor to "Keep Warm Keep Well" campaigns. A breakdown of costs for the past three years is shown in the table. In previous years, the Department of Social Security—lately the Benefits Agency—has made contributions; the total expenditure column is inclusive of its contribution.

  £000

  Total expenditure

  DSS contribution

  1995–96

  578

  125

  1994–95

  568

  45

  1993–94

  510

  60

PRIME MINISTER

  EU Works Council Directive
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the employment impact of the implementation by British companies of the EU works council directive agreed under the EU social chapter. [15020]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the speech I gave at the European Policy Forum in Brussels on the 4 February, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

ENVIRONMENT

  Refugees
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he has taken to assess the additional costs to local government of concentrations of refugees seeking or having been granted asylum. [14963]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Secretary of State for Health has established special grants to help local authorities meet the additional costs they face in respect of asylum-seeking families with children, and in respect of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. He laid before Parliament yesterday a special grant report to establish a new special grant for adult asylum seekers who are not accompanied by children. Local authority social services departments must provide detailed information on costs when submitting claims for any of these grants.

  Rent arrears at 31 March 1995

  Percentage of rent roll

  Arrears outstanding at 31 March 1995 for:

  Empty council homes at 1 April 1995

  Percentage of dwellings

  (£000)

  Council tax (£000)

  Community charge (£000)

  City of London

  256

  4.2

  1—

  1—

  24

  1.1

  Camden

  8,986

  10.7

  12,379

  22,095

  543

  1.8

  Greenwich

  14,984

  19.6

  6,494

  9,737

  795

  2.5

  Hackney

  32,675

  31.6

  4,588

  10,470

  3,894

  9.8

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  6,553

  15.1

  6,752

  7,186

  343

  2.1

  Islington

  16,072

  16.0

  1—

  1—

  1,483

  4.0

  Kensington and Chelsea

  2,351

  9.4

  4,672

  5,083

  108

  1.4

  Lambeth

  19,491

  19.8

  40,172

  75,423

  2,176

  5.1

  Lewisham

  7,482

  9.3

  1—

  1—

  1,051

  3.0

  Southwark

  26,160

  20.8

  10,811

  25,290

  1,129

  2.1

  Tower Hamlets

  3,987

  5.5

  4,156

  5,437

  1,562

  4.2

  Wandsworth

  4,362

  6.7

  2,091

  181

  508

  2.4

  Westminster

  3,100

  6.0

  4,110

  67

  263

  1.7

  Barking and Dagenham

  942

  2.0

  1,440

  1,558

  427

  1.6

  Barnet

  1,401

  3.8

  6,678

  10,281

  124

  0.9

  Bexley

  505

  2.5

  1,679

  2,644

  139

  1.6

  Brent

  13,750

  29.3

  8,892

  26,035

  301

  1.8

  Bromley

  0

  0.0

  1,963

  1,944

  5

  6.3

  Croydon

  2,208

  4.7

  5,392

  4,246

  265

  1.6

  Ealing

  10,809

  19.1

  1—

  1—

  210

  1.3

  Enfield

  4,037

  9.9

  8,815

  8,396

  342

  2.2

  Haringey

  20,318

  33.4

  1—

  1—

  303

  1.5

  Harrow

  793

  3.6

  3,595

  4,787

  108

  1.6

  Havering

  561

  2.2

  1,506

  3,628

  219

  1.6

  Hillingdon

  933

  2.2

  4,857

  6,586

  159

  1.2

  Hounslow

  2,483

  7.1

  4,087

  15,618

  333

  2.0

  Kingston upon Thames

  507

  3.0

  1—

  1—

  97

  1.7

  Merton

  1,168

  4.5

  3,211

  4,238

  89

  0.9

  Newham

  7,886

  13.6

  12,052

  24,397

  735

  2.8

  Redbridge

  1,142

  5.0

  1—

  1—

  515

  7.6

  184
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his statement of 3 February,Official Report, columns 681 and 689, concerning special grants to localities most in need of assistance due to concentrations of refugees, what discussions he has had, or intends to have, with representatives of the areas concerned. [14956]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Ministers from my Department and the Department of Health as well as officials from the Department of Health have met local authority representatives on a number of occasions in recent months to discuss funding for local authorities who are supporting asylum seekers.

  Green Belt
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the size of the green belt in(a) 1979, (b) 1983, (c) 1987, (d) 1992 and (e) at the current date. [14691]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  We do not keep records of the size of the green belt on an annual basis. Figures are available for England for 1979, 1989 and 1993. In 1979, there were 7,125 sq km of green belt land. This more than doubled in 1989 to 15,485 sq km and reached 15,557 sq km in 1993.

  Council Housing and Tax
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the levels of(a) uncollected rents from council properties, (b) uncollected council tax, (c) uncollected community charge, and (d) empty council homes in each London borough. [14693]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The latest available information is as follows:
  185

  Rent arrears at 31 March 1995

  Percentage of rent roll

  Arrears outstanding at 31 March 1995 for:

  Empty council homes at 1 April 1995

  Percentage of dwellings

  (£000)

  Council tax (£000)

  Community charge (£000)

  Richmond upon Thames

  1,062

  5.5

  1,887

  4,056

  246

  3.2

  Sutton

  1,265

  5.2

  1,215

  1,555

  76

  0.8

  Waltham Forest

  2,404

  6.6

  8,134

  16,656

  465

  2.9

  1 No information was published by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy for these authorities.

  Itinerants and Trespassers
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the implementation of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 in cases involving itinerants and(a) Wealden district council, (b) Lincolnshire county council and (c) Wolverhampton borough; and what measures he proposes to make provisions in respect of itinerants and trespassers more effective. [15096]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Sections 77 to 79 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order 1994 give local authorities powers to evict unauthorised campers. The High Court quashed an eviction order by Wealden district council in 1995 because the local authority had failed first to make inquiries about the campers' housing and social needs. The court allowed Lincolnshire county council's eviction order to stand because the authority had made sufficient inquiries. In the Wolverhampton borough council case, the judge said that the 1994 Act powers were intended to offer a "robust and speedy" means of eviction, although local authorities should give careful consideration before exercising them. I believe that local authorities which use the powers responsibly; and in accordance with advice in my Department's circular 18/94, "Gipsy Sites Policy and Unauthorised Camping", should be able to evict successfully when it is in the public interest to do so. The Government have no plans to amend the legislation, but have commissioned research to establish good practice.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will state his reasons and the precedents for top-slicing the costs of specific local government reorganisation from the general grant available to local authorities. [15011]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The reorganisation transitional damping grant scheme for 1997–98 will damp those council tax increases directly attributable to reorganisation that come above a threshold of £52 at band D. Such increases are not the result of the reorganised authorities' spending decisions. They occur where the pattern of spend in the past has not followed the standard spending assessment. The scheme is transitional and will protect council tax payers from increases above the threshold while the reorganised authorities adapt to their new circumstances.

  A similar scheme operated in 1996–97 and was also funded through a top-slice of revenue support grant. Since 1994–95, we have also paid SSA reduction grant to authorities whose SSA has been reduced by more than a certain threshold as a result of changes in the SSA methodology. The funds for this have been top-sliced from RSG each year.
  186
  We consulted on the 1997–98 reorganisation transitional damping scheme as part of the consultation on the 1997–98 provisional local government finance settlement. We took all representations into account before taking our final decisions.

  Freedom of Information
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what considerations underpinned his policy as set out at paragraph 14 of the Government's response, to the House of Lords Select Committee report on freedom of access to information on the environment of 5 February, that the Government do not accept that information in a draft document should be withheld only if harm would result from its exposure. [15458]

  Mr. Gummer
  It is reasonable that access to information, in a draft document or another form, should wait completion of work so that analysis and interpretation can proceed unhindered. This is provided for in paragraph 4(d) of the Environmental Information Regulations 1992, and elaborated in paragraph 53 of the guidance.

  Elderly People (Winter Assistance)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he has taken to help the elderly during the winter months in each of the last three years; and at what cost. [15389]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Our home energy efficiency scheme helps householders who are aged 60 or over, or who receive income-related benefits or certain disability allowances, to keep their homes more comfortable and energy efficient by providing grants for basic home insulation and energy advice. The following amounts in grant have been paid to householders claiming on grounds of age in each of the last three years:

  1994–95: £40,374,000

  1995–96: £65,871,000

  1996–97 (to date): £27,074,000

  In addition, we are providing funding for various energy saving trust programmes which may benefit elderly people. These include their pilot pensioners' energy plan to demonstrate how local authorities and private finance providers in partnership can help pensioners to make energy efficient improvements to their homes; the cavity wall insulation programme and the heating controls cash-back scheme. We are providing around £7 million for these programmes.

  Waterways
  Sir Anthony Durant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has received preliminary reports from British Waterways and the Environment Agency
  187
  examining individual waterways in response to the Government's conclusions to the review of British Waterways and agency navigation functions; and if he will make a statement. [15832]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  British Waterways and the Environment Agency have submitted a joint report following a series of regional reviews of the river navigations under their control. I have placed a copy of their report in the Library.

  In the light of the regional reviews, BW and EA recommended further detailed studies. I have accordingly accepted the suggestion that BW and the agency undertake a detailed review of the division of responsibilities on the River Weaver. I have also invited BW to carry out a three-month study, in consultation with the agency, of the Great Ouse and the Nene to examine what it could do if it managed the navigation aspects of these two rivers. This study should cover, among other things, costs and benefits, environmental impacts and the views of all interested parties on such an arrangement.

  The report concludes that relationships between the two organisations are good and that BW and the agency are already working well together in many areas. The reviews have identified a number of steps that can be taken to improve this collaboration further. I endorse the organisations' efforts to identify efficiency gains, ways of working more effectively and means of providing service improvements.

  At the third annual inland navigation seminar on 4 December 1996, BW and the agency, together with the Broads Authority, created the Association of Inland Navigation Authorities. I support this initiative and look forward to it making a positive contribution across the range of navigation policy issues. I hope that BW and the EA will progress jointly their ideas to develop a national navigation strategy in consultation with the new association and the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council.

  Fire Services
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total element of standard spending assessments related to fire services in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what was the annual spending of fire authorities within the same period. [15250]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  [holding answer 11 February 1997]: The information requested is in the table:

  £ billion

  Year

  Fire standard spending assessment

  Revenue expenditure on fire

  1993–94

  1.139

  1.204

  1994–95

  1.168

  1.210

  1995–96

  1.168

  1.260

  1996–97

  1.185

  11,299

  1997–98

  1.237

  —

  Figures for 1993–94 and 1994–95 refer to fire and civil defence.

  1 Budgeted.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Television Licence Fee Regulations
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement about the television licence fee regulations. [15562]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I have today laid new consolidated television licence fee regulations before both Houses. These will:

  (i) bring into effect the licence fees for the year commencing 1 April 1997, as announced on 18 December last year columns 591–92—the colour fee will be £91.50 and the black and white one will be £30.50;

  (ii) extend coverage of a television licence to permit the installation and use of television in any mobile home, static or touring caravan, or other vehicle or vessel used by members of the household, subject to certain provisos; and

  (iii) fulfil the Government's undertaking to stop sheltered housing schemes from being disqualified from the concessionary television licence arrangements simply because a small number of units within them have been purchased under the right-to-buy provisions of the Housing Act 1985.

  The basic principle of the TV licensing system has always been that a TV licence is required for any place, vehicle or vessel in which TV is installed or used. The changes summarised in the following paragraph are designed to sustain the integrity and enforceability of the licensing system, to protect the BBC's income and to be fair and reasonable in applying the basic principle to the increasing use of television outside a household's main place of residence.

  Hitherto, the regulations have permitted a household's TV licence to cover all the TV sets at one place, vehicle or vessel, but no sets elsewhere, except in the comparatively rare case where such sets are powered by their own internal batteries. The regulations I have laid today extend the coverage of a TV licence in a number of ways:

  (a) A household with a licence for its main residence may also, under that licence, receive TV in a vehicle, touring caravan or vessel. None of these is commonly used as a residence for any substantial period of time. Households which do use them as their main residence will continue to need a TV licence.

  (b) Similarly, any TV set in a mobile home or static caravan which is not in use as a main residence will not require a separate licence, provided that there is no simultaneous use there and at the household's main residence. This qualification reflects the fact that mobile homes and static caravans are more likely to be used for lengthy periods as a household's main place of residence. Use of television in other, fixed, second homes will continue to require a separate TV licence.

  (c) Commercially operated caravan sites where caravans with TV are provided will continue to benefit from the concessionary hotel licence offered to establishments which provide units of overnight accommodation on a single site. The regulations extend this concession to units of entertainment, such as boxes at sports grounds or suites at conference centres.

  The Government undertaking concerning the impact of the right-to-buy legislation on the concessionary television licence scheme—under which qualifying households pay only £5 for a TV licence—was made during the Commons Committee stage of the Broadcasting Act 1996, on 18 June 1996, Official Report,

  189
  columns 749–51. The new regulations will enable residents of sheltered housing schemes which meet all the other qualifying criteria to benefit from the TV licence concession, provided that not more than 25 per cent. of the dwellings in the scheme have been purchased under the right-to-buy provisions.

  The consolidated regulations will also incorporate other changes made last year, by separate amending regulations. These relate to deregulation of the previous requirements for TV dealers to register with the licensing authority and to hold a separate TV dealer demonstration licence and the introduction last August of a new cash instalment payment scheme aimed at making it easier for those on low incomes to pay the licence fee.

  Tourism Strategy
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what response she has received to her Department's new strategy for tourism, "Success through Partnership". [15829]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  "Success through Partnership: A Strategy for Tourism" builds on the successful programme we have completed over the last two years, which has developed a closer working relationship than ever before between Government and industry. The recent report of the National Heritage Select Committee has helped to inform the development of this tourism strategy. The Government's strategy document has been warmly welcomed as a joint initiative with the industry.

  The strategy provides a clear statement of our objectives for the tourism industry and an agenda for future action. It represents a true partnership and involves key players from central and local government, tourist boards, the industry, trade and professional bodies and consumer groups. All have been fully involved in preparing and taking forward the strategy and are committed to developing tourism as a high quality, profitable and sustainable activity to realise the growth potential of the industry and the associated social and cultural benefits for the nation.

  The strategy covers six main areas:
  creating the right framework for success—raising the public profile and prestige of tourism;
  improving the quality of the tourism product;
  developing a world-class human resource;
  making marketing more effective—co-ordinating effort and pooling resources to optimise impact;
  improving information provision; and
  managing tourism demand and impacts—sustainable tourism that spreads the benefits and protects the environment that attracts tourists in the first place.

  Copies of the document are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Tourism (Suffolk and Norfolk)
  Mr. Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on the impact of Government tourism policy on(a) Suffolk and (b) Norfolk since 1987. [12722]
  190
  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 28 January 1997]: Norfolk and Suffolk have benefited from significant growth in tourism in the UK in recent years. The number of employees in the British tourism industry grew by approximately 24 per cent. between March 1986 and March 1996. In 1995, earnings from tourism were £38 billion—a record in real terms—and signs are that 1996 will be even better. The UK is now fifth in the world in terms of tourism earnings. The UK's domestic tourism earnings were £22.7 billion in 1995. Figures for tourism spend in individual counties are not available. However, domestic tourism spend in the east of England region increased from £490 million in 1987 to £960 million in 1995 and overseas visitor income increased from £183 million in 1987 to £566 million in 1995. International passenger survey figures show that the number of visits by overseas visitors to Norfolk increased from 164,000 in 1994 to 176,000 in 1995, and those to Suffolk from 129,000 in 1994 to 142,000 in 1995. Government support for the industry is channelled through the British Tourist Authority and the English Tourist Board.

  I am pleased to note that over £10.5 million of lottery funding has been awarded to Suffolk and Norfolk to date for projects to promote culture, heritage and the arts. Other Government programmes include a seven-year regeneration initiative launched last April in Lowestoft, which aims to improve and develop the local area, and also, to develop the tourism potential.

  London is one of this country's main draws for overseas visitors, and one of the main aims of the Focus London campaign, which has received £7 million of public funding over three years, has been to promote London as a gateway to the rest of the country. The Government are committed to encouraging overseas visitors to travel to all parts of the country. In 1995, the British Tourist Authority's British travel centre in London gave help and advice on travelling outside the capital to almost half a million overseas visitors. These initiatives will boost tourism in the regions and greatly benefit the employment prospects and wealth of those living locally.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Judges (Directorships)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) what steps are taken(a) at the time of their appointment and (b) subsequently, to ensure that his Department is informed of company directorships held by judges. [14379]

  (2) how many full-time judges at each level within the judiciary hold company directorships; and what guidance his Department issues to judges about the circumstances in which a conflict of interest arising from such a position might arise. [14369]

  Mr. Streeter
  Full-time judges are advised before appointment that they should not hold commercial directorships during their service on the Bench, although some forms of non-commercial directorships may be acceptable. Subject to these general principles, each case is dealt with on its individual circumstances.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Kenya
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list for each of the last five years for which figures are available

  (a) projects in Kenya which received aid and (b) the total amount of aid to Kenya; and if he will make a statement. [15226]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  The gross public expenditure to Kenya over the last five years has amounted to £166,493,000 broken down as follows:

  £ millions

  1991–92

  38,351

  1992–93

  37,514

  1993–94

  31,231

  1994–95

  30,214

  1995–96

  29,183

  Major sectors of involvement have been, and continue to be, health and population, education, renewable natural resources, roads and small enterprise development.

  Over the last two years, there has been major expenditure—over £1 million—on each of the following projects:

  Primary education in-service project: £2.3 million

  Moi university library: £2 million

  Supplies project for HIV-AIDS prevention: £1.6 million

  Essential drugs provision: £1.5 million

  Emergency supply of essential drugs: £1.5 million

  Molo-Litein roads upgrading: £1.5 million

  K-Rep's Juhudi credit small scale:

  Enterprise project: £1.5 million

  Protected areas wildlife project: £1.4 million

  Family planning services: £1.4 million

  Contraceptive supply: £1.2 million

  Tick-borne diseases research project: £1 million.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance his Department is giving to Kenya to combat the effects of the water hyacinth in Lake Victoria; and if he will make a statement. [15228]

  Dr. Fox
  We are giving no direct assistance to Kenya to combat the effects of the water hyacinth in Lake Victoria. Assistance is, however, being provided by other donors, including the World bank and the European Union.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Members' Tea Room (No Smoking Areas)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Chairman of the Catering Committee (1) if he will consult hon. Members about the location of designated no smoking areas in the Members' Tea Room; and if he will make a statement; [15174]
  192
  (2) what consultation took place with hon. Members concerning the designation of no smoking areas in the Members' Tea Room; and if he will make a statement. [15175]

  Sir Colin Shepherd
  The Catering Committee keeps under constant review the policy regarding smoking in all Refreshment Department outlets, including, of course, in the Tea Room. In each of the last three years, hon. Members have had the opportunity to respond to the Refreshment Department's customer questionnaire, which welcomes comments on smoking policy. The results of the last survey were considered by the Committee at its meeting on 22 January. The Committee was encouraged by the fact that, based on the responses to the specific questions on smoking, the existing arrangements appear to have the support of a majority of respondents. Hon. Members may also make their views known throughout the year by using the comments books available in all outlets, which I read frequently.

TREASURY

  Illegal Drug Use (Questions)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy as to when questions on statistics on illegal drug use are to be answered by(a) his Department, (b) the Department of Health, (c) the Home Office, (d) the Leader of the House and (e) other Departments. [14653]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 6 February 1997]: Ministerial responsibility varies according to the information sought and the availability of data, as follows:

  (a) The Office for National Statistics collects and publishes information on all deaths registered in England and Wales and codes cause of death.

  (b) The Department of Health deals with medical and health aspects of drug misuse, and compiles information on drug addicts in index form. Data are available on the age and sex of the addict, drug used, injecting behaviour and agency type, at regional health authority level, and at district health authority level. They are published on an annual basis.

  The Department of Health also compiles a variety of aggregated data on problem drug misuse. The data cover England and are published twice a year.

  (c) The Home Office collects and publishes information on persons notified as being addicted to opiates and cocaine and all drug-related deaths, as well as data on drug offences and drug seizures made by the police and by HM Customs and Excise. The Home Office also compiles data on drugs and criminal justice. They include details of offenders by age, sex, offence, drug involved, police force area, disposal and sentence, and are available by United Kingdom police force area. Data on drugs offenders have been collected centrally since 1967. Statistics on seizures are based on returns received directly from Customs and Excise and the police.

  (d) HM Customs and Excise also collates information on types and weights of drugs seized at frontiers. The Department for Education and Employment's principal role is to disseminate advice and guidance on drug education and prevention to schools, youth workers, and teachers in further and higher education. It also supports many local groups and funds the training of teachers and community workers who are engaged in tackling the problems of drug abuse and has published several documents accordingly.

  (e) Co-ordination of the Government's drug strategy is the responsibility of the Lord President.

  Parliamentary Questions (Cost)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what guidelines exist for determining whether providing the answer to a parliamentary question would involve disproportionate cost; what steps are taken to ensure that officials do not avoid undertaking work on researching information for Ministers by wrongly claiming that the research would involve disproportionate cost; and what sanctions(a) have been and (b) could be imposed on officials in such circumstances. [15431]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Treasury Ministers aim to answer written parliamentary questions as fully as possible and in accordance with guidance on disproportionate cost. Ministers may decline to answer, in whole or in part, a written parliamentary question where the marginal cost of preparing the answer is likely to exceed the current advisory limit of £450. The decision to use this cost threshold rests with Ministers, who may decide that questions should be answered irrespective of cost.

  I am not aware of any instances where officials have sought to make improper use of the threshold. If officials were to do so, this would be an internal matter for the Department concerned.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many and what proportion of people aged under 25 years are(a) in full-time employment, (b) in part-time

  Persons aged 16 to 24 years: at spring (thousands)

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Full-time employment1

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  346

  283

  269

  235

  233

  213

  England

  3,170

  2,738

  2,471

  2,319

  2,257

  2,166

  Part-time employment1

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  69

  86

  81

  89

  87

  93

  England

  732

  769

  778

  842

  853

  966

  Full-time education (with a job)2

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  49

  54

  45

  55

  62

  63

  England

  521

  534

  485

  589

  596

  682

  Full-time education (without a job)

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  96

  112

  117

  130

  132

  143

  England

  906

  1,101

  1,131

  1,191

  1,247

  1,172

  Government-supported training and employment programmes

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  28

  27

  27

  23

  21

  17

  England

  231

  196

  188

  174

  144

  125

  Note:

  1 Excludes Government-supported training and employment programmes.

  2 Included in employment estimates.

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey.

  Persons aged 16 to 24 years: at spring (per cent.)

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Full-time employment1

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  52

  44

  43

  39

  40

  37

  England

  51

  46

  43

  41

  41

  40

  Part-time employment1

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  10

  13

  13

  15

  15

  16

  England

  12

  13

  13

  15

  16

  18

  194
  employment, (c) in full-time education and (d) on Government-supported training schemes in (i) Yorkshire and Humberside and (ii) England, as at spring 1996.[14305]

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

  Letter from Dr. M. P. G. Pepper to Mr. Hugh Bayley, dated 12 February 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked the Director of the Office for National Statistics to reply to your recent Question on the proportion of people aged under 25 in employment, education and training in Yorkshire and Humberside and in England. The Director has asked me to reply in his absence.
  In answering your Question, I have incorporated two improvements when compared with the Answer on 24 July 1996 in the Official Report column 547, and for this reason I am providing comparable data for 1991 through to 1996.
  First: the information on numbers in employment, education and training relate to persons aged 16–24 and are expressed as a proportion of the corresponding age group rather than all persons aged under 25.
  Secondly: the number in employment include some persons who are in full-time education. Separate details are given for those in full-time education with and without jobs.
  The Answer in the attached tables is derived from the Labour Force Survey. However, participation in Government supported training schemes is known to be under-recorded in the Labour Force Survey compared with administrative sources. The employee figures in the tables therefore include a number who should otherwise be shown as on such schemes.
  195

  Persons aged 16 to 24 years: at spring (per cent.)

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Full-time education (with a job)2

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  7

  8

  7

  9

  11

  11

  England

  8

  9

  8

  10

  11

  13

  Full-time education (without a job)

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  15

  17

  19

  22

  23

  25

  England

  15

  18

  20

  21

  23

  22

  Government-supported training and employment programmes

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  3

  England

  4

  3

  3

  3

  3

  2

  Notes:

  1 Excludes Government-supported training and employment programmes.

  2 Included in employment estimates.

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey.

  Landfill Tax
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his letter of 3 April 1996 to the director general of the House Builders Federation constitutes Government policy on exemptions to the landfill tax; to what extent the policies in that statement were implemented in the Landfill Tax (Contaminated Land) Order 1996; and if he will make a statement. [13595]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 30 January 1997]: I assume that the letter to which my hon. Friend refers is the one written by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) when he was Paymaster General. In paragraph 3 of the letter, my right hon. Friend said
  "We now intend to provide the exemption for waste from the clearance of historically contaminated land where clearance of all or part of the contamination is necessary to allow the land to be used for the intended purpose when the development or work on the land is complete. The exemption will apply to waste arising from the reclamation of the land, but current polluters will not be able to benefit from it."

  He went on to say in paragraph 5
  "You suggest that the exemption should be widened to cover clay and other material that has to be removed from high density urban infill sites. I should first of all say that if a site is historically contaminated it is intended that all of the waste removed and disposed of to landfill will be exempt under our proposed exemption, not just that which is contaminated."

  This letter sets our Government policy that, to qualify for the exemption, such wastes would need to arise from a reclamation which facilitates development of the land and removes the potential for the pollutants to cause harm. The removal of the pollutants must be necessary for the development to proceed and any activity that gave rise to the pollutants must have ceased. Where these criteria are met, then all wastes, whether polluted or not, arising from the reclamation would qualify for the exemption. This policy is reflected in the Landfill Tax (Contaminated Land) Order 1996. Copies of the letter have been placed in the Library.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide a breakdown of the spending by his Department on external advice in relation to the Scott inquiry, indicating how much has been spent on legal advice and from whom it was obtained. [14539]
  196
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 6 February 1997]: The amount spent by my departments on external advice, including legal advice, in relation to giving evidence to the Scott inquiry and the preparation of the Government's response to it, is £83,740. Of this figure, the cost of legal advice amounted to £74,080, which was the cost to Customs and Excise of external legal advice obtained from two firms of solicitors, Lewis Silkin and Clifford Chance, including the cost of legal advice to counsel required to provide evidence to the inquiry in relation to the Customs prosecutions being examined. The balance of the figure was incurred by the Treasury for general consultancy services of a non-legal nature.

  Pension Contributions (Tax Relief)
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many individuals would be affected if relief for pension contributions were to be limited for income tax purposes to the standard rate; and what would be the total extra tax raised. [14869]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 10 February 1997]: The estimated full year yield of restricting income tax relief for pension contributions to the basic rate at 1997–98 income levels would be about £880 million. Some 2 million taxpayers would be affected. This is based on a projection of the 1994 survey of personal incomes and other survey data in line with the assumptions in the Budget forecast. It does not take account of any behavioural effects which might result from such a change.

  National Savings
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 4 February,Official Report, column 565, what was the date on which the decision was made to audit and certify all National Savings accounts. [15254]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 11 February 1997]: The decision to audit and certify all national savings product accounts was taken on 20 May 1994.

  German Unemployment Level
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the January
  197
  rise in German unemployment on (a) progress towards European convergence and (b) United Kingdom growth prospects. [15364]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 11 February 1997]: German claimant unemployment rose 510,000 to 4,658,000 in January 1997. On a seasonally adjusted basis, it rose 160,000 to 4,317,000. The Government take the view that it is unlikely, although not impossible, that there will be sufficient convergence for economic and monetary union to proceed safely on 1 January 1999. The UK recovery is broadly based and growth is forecast to continue to be faster than in our major European competitors.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Bread (Labelling)
  Mr. Chris Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what requirements are placed upon food manufacturers regarding the labelling of iron content of bread; and if he will make a statement. [14995]

  Mrs. Browning
  If the flour used in bread making contains no added ingredients other than the statutorily required nutrients such as iron, then the addition of these nutrients need not be declared in the ingredients list of pre-packed bread. If any other ingredient is added to the flour then all the ingredients added to the flour, including the nutrients such as iron, must be declared in the ingredients list of pre-packed bread.

  These labelling rules do not apply to non pre-packed bread.

  Habitat Depletion and Contamination
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures he has taken to reduce the contamination of the habitats of birds and wild mammals from herbicides and pesticides; what studies have been(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated by his Department into the effects on habitats of pesticides and herbicides; and what assessment he has made of the impact of habitat depletion and contamination on wild birds in the United Kingdom. [15064]

  Mrs. Browning
  The direct impact of each pesticide product on birds and wild mammals is assessed before an approval for that product is granted. Advice on the protection of wildlife and their habitats is provided particularly through the Code of Practice on the Safe Use of Pesticides on Farms and Holdings.

  Details of current Government research were provided in my reply today and by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on 17 December 1996, Official Report, column 544, to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). The results of this research will be evaluated when available.

  Song Birds
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the consequences for the numbers and varieties of song birds of the range of arable incentive schemes proposed by his Department. [14674]
  198
  Mr. Boswell
  The Ministry's agri-environment schemes encourage agricultural practices which are sympathetic to the requirements of song birds. We have also recently introduced new payments for retaining winter stubbles and undersowing arable crops with grass in two environmentally sensitive areas; and we have announced proposals for a pilot scheme as part of countryside stewardship to test the most effective arable farming methods to protect wildlife species such as farmland birds. On the basis of advice from English Nature and environmental bodies and of published research, these measures should bring significant benefits for song birds in England.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the summer use of(a) organophosphates and (b) pyrethroids on the numbers and range of songbirds. [14675]

  Mrs. Browning
  The Department of the Environment and English Nature, on behalf of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, are funding a review of the available information on the indirect effects of pesticides on farmland birds. I understand that the results will be published later this year.

  The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is also funding relevant research which was listed in the reply given to him by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment on 17 December Official Report, column 544.

  The results of these projects will be made available to the Advisory Committee on Pesticides and the Pesticides Forum.

  Fisheries Agreements
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will list those countries which benefit from the EU fisheries agreements with third countries, including their respective share of such agreements by weight of catch and value; [14828]

  (2) what share of EU fisheries agreements with third countries has been appointed to the United Kingdom in each year since 1986; [14829]

  (3) if he will list those third party countries which have fisheries agreements with the European Union. [14832]

  Mr. Baldry
  Much of this information is not available in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. I refer the hon. Member to the answers that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) on 28 October and 7 November 1996,Official Report, columns 52 and 660 respectively, which provided details of current fisheries agreements between the European Community and third countries.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the United Kingdom contribution in(a) sterling and (b) percentage terms to the cost of EU fisheries agreements with third countries for each year since 1986; [14830]

  (2) what was the cost in sterling of the EU fisheries agreements with third countries in each year since 1986. [14831]
  199
  Mr. Baldry
  Details of the cost to the EU budget of fisheries agreements with third countries are given in the table.

  Cost of EU fisheries agreements with third countries

  ECU (million)

  £ (million)

  1986

  55.6

  36.0

  1987

  81.9

  58.9

  1988

  139.5

  94.6

  1989

  161.5

  105.7

  1990

  173.0

  122.8

  1991

  171.4

  119.9

  1992

  195.6

  138.4

  1993

  188.9

  148.5

  1994

  140.6

  107.7

  1995

  158.1

  127.7

  19961

  270.0

  226.7

  1 Budget appropriation. Final outturn expenditure figures not yet available.

  Source:

  EU budget documents 1988–1996.

  Exchange rates used

  1986: 1 ecu = £0.64785

  1987: 1 ecu = £0.71932

  1988: 1 ecu = £0.67834

  1989: 1 ecu = £0.65474

  1990: 1 ecu = £0.70995

  1991: 1 ecu = £0.69973

  1992: 1 ecu = £0.70765

  1993: 1 ecu = £0.78627

  1994: 1 ecu = £0.76626

  1995: 1 ecu = £0.80792

  1996: 1 ecu = £0.83991

  The United Kingdom contributes to the EU budget as a whole and it is not therefore possible to identify separately the UK contribution to EU fisheries agreements with third countries. Details of UK contributions can be found in the annual White Paper statements on the EU budget. In 1996, the UK's gross contribution to the budget was about 15 per cent. of the total.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will support the recommendations of the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities in its Third report of Session 1996–97 on third country fisheries agreements, HL 28, that the recipients of EU fisheries agreements with third countries should pay a greater share of the cost of such agreements. [14833]

  Mr. Baldry
  The Government welcome this timely and balanced report and will provide a full and considered response in due course. I made it clear in my oral evidence to the sub-committee that I consider it reasonable that those fishermen and member states benefitting from fisheries agreements with third countries should contribute a greater share of the costs.

  Water Pollution (Thruxted)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what information he has received concerning the possible contamination of drinking water by waste discharged from Canterbury Mills, Thruxted, Kent; and if he will make a statement; [15260]
  200
  (2) what reports he has received from the Environment Agency concerning their investigation of wastewater arrangements at Canterbury Mills, Thruxted, Kent; and if he will make a statement. [15261]

  Mr. Baldry
  Drinking water quality is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for the Environment and of the drinking water inspectorate. The local water company, Mid Kent Water, confirms that its tests show that water supplies taken from the area are of the highest chemical and microbiological standard. The tests are subject to stringent analytical quality control and independent scrutiny by the drinking water inspectorate.

  This Department has received a copy of the draft report of the risk assessment carried out into waste water disposal options at Canterbury Mills and the possible effect on the quality of drinking water. The Environment Agency has commissioned studies into the possible effects of waste water disposal arrangements at Canterbury Mills and has made these available to the planning inspector for use during the public inquiry now underway to determine a planning application by Canterbury Mills.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what evidence he plans to submit to the forthcoming public inquiry relating to planning proposals for a new underground water drainage system adjacent to Canterbury Mills, Thruxted, Kent; and if he will make a statement. [15262]

  Mr. Baldry
  This Department prepared a statement regarding the operation of Canterbury Mills rendering plant in the context of animal health legislation, to the planning inspector on 10 January 1997 for use at the public inquiry. A copy is being placed in the Library of the House.

  Salmonella Gold Coast Contamination
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when his Department first received evidence of the possibility that cows from Wyke Farms of Somerset were source of Salmonella gold coast infection; and if he will make a statement. [11793]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 22 January 1997]: Epidemiological evidence first linked an outbreak of Salmonella gold coast to the consumption of cheese produced at Wyke Farms on 14 December 1996.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement about the methods used to monitor the efficiency of each Government Department in answering parliamentary questions, with particular reference to the expected lengths of time to answer questions and the action taken in the case of excessive delays. [14902]

  Mr. Freeman
  Each departmental Minister is responsible for answering the parliamentary questions put to them in a timely manner.
  201
  For questions for written answer on a named day, Standing Order 18(4) requires that an answer should be given on the day named by the Member. Wherever possible, this will be a substantive reply but, where this is not possible, Ministers will give a holding reply and provide a substantive reply as soon as possible thereafter.

  Within my Department, instructions have been given that Ministers will wish, wherever possible, to be in a position to provide a substantive reply on the day named; and, in the case of ordinary written questions, within five working days of the question being tabled.

  Information Systems (Millennium Compliance)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what measures his Department has taken to ensure that each Government Department's information systems will be millennium compliant; and if he will make a statement. [15132]

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) on 9 December 1996,Official Report, column 4 and to the reply given to Lord Stallard on 27 January by the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, column 963.

  The integrity and continuity of government information systems are essentially the responsibility of individual departments. However, the Deputy Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster have personally ensured that all ministerial heads of Department and permanent secretaries are aware of the problem and are implementing plans of action in relation to their computer systems and that all Departments plan to complete the work in time—Official Report, 27 January 1997, column 963.

  "Government Direct"
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what assessment he has made of the costs of the proposals set out in the Green Paper, "Government Direct"; and if he will make a statement. [15072]

  Mr. Freeman
  The scale of investment required has not yet been fully determined. However, the proposals will not involve capital investment of public funds. The Government's private finance initiative will allow the private sector to provide services of the type outlined in the Green Paper. Money to pay the contractors would come from part of the savings in the cost of government administration.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prison Officers (Bravery Medal)
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made with the initiative to introduce a medal for prison officers recognising exceptional bravery in the course of their work. [14670]
  202
  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Spencer Batiste, dated 12 February 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about introducing a Prison Service medal.
  Consideration is currently being given to the establishment of a Queen's Prison Service medal. I strongly support this proposal and hope that it will be possible to create it.

  Armed Police Officers
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on the presence of an officer with a sub-machine gun in Mansell street, Whitechapel, at midnight on 3 February; [14834]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the arming of police officers with sub-machine guns in London. [14835]

  Mr. Maclean
  I understand that an officer armed with a carbine was carrying out counter-terrorist duties in the Mansell street area. The officer was part of a patrol exercising powers under section 13A of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 to stop and search vehicles and their occupants for articles which could be used for terrorist purposes. The weapon was not a sub-machine gun, but a carbine specially adapted to fire only one shot at a time. Such carbines are one of a number of weapons available for general issue to members of the City of London police tactical firearms group.

  The City of London police have no automatic carbines. The Metropolitan police have a small number of automatic carbines. These are to be issued only under the most stringent conditions and in the most exceptional circumstances. It would not be in the interests of security for me to discuss any further details about the circumstances or conditions under which these weapons might be deployed.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many asylum applications are currently awaiting an initial decision by his Department's asylum directorate; and how many of these applications were made in(a) 1991 or earlier, (b) 1992, (c) 1993, (d) 1994, (e) 1995 and (f) 1996; [13264]

  (2) how many asylum applications are outstanding from nationals of (a) Afghanistan, (b) Iran, (c) Iraq, (d) Somalia and (e) the former Yugoslavia; and how many of these applications were made in (i) 1992 or earlier, (ii) 1993, (iii) 1994, (iv) 1995 and (v) 1996. [13267]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The number of asylum applications awaiting an initial decision as at 31 December 1996 was 55,695, a reduction on the equivalent figure for the end of 1995–69,650. Of those applications currently awaiting an initial decision, the number which had been made following the implementation of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals
  203
  Act 1993 has now been revised to 43,025. This follows an extensive count of cases which has shown that the method of estimation previously used underestimated the number of pre-1993 Act cases that have been decided. An

  Asylum applications from requested nationalities awaiting an initial decision as at 31 December 1996, by year of application

  Nationality

  Applications outstanding1

  Year of application2

  Number

  Per cent.

  1996 Per cent.

  1995 Per cent.

  1994 Per cent.

  1993 Per cent.

  1992 Per cent.

  Pre-1992 Per cent.

  Afghanistan

  730

  100

  50

  35

  10

  5

  0

  0

  Iran

  1,095

  100

  30

  35

  15

  5

  15

  0

  Iraq

  985

  100

  45

  40

  10

  5

  0

  0

  Somalia former

  450

  100

  45

  45

  10

  5

  0

  0

  Yugoslavia

  4,045

  100

  10

  25

  10

  15

  35

  0

  All nationalities

  55,695

  100

  20

  35

  20

  10

  10

  10

  1 Provisional figures rounded to the nearest 5.

  2 Estimates rounded to the nearest 5 per cent.

  Crime and Detection
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for(a) West Yorkshire, (b) West Midlands, (c) Tyne and Wear, (d) Greater Manchester, (e) South Yorkshire and (f) Merseyside in 1994–95 and 1995–96 (i) the crime figures and (ii) the detection rate by category of crime. [14809]

  Mr. Maclean
  The available information is contained in the following table:

  Notifiable offences recorded by the police and clear ups

  Offence group

  Number of offences

  Percentage cleared up1,2

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1994

  1995

  West Yorkshire

  Violence against the Person

  8,997

  8,520

  81

  82

  Sexual offences

  1,387

  1,530

  84

  93

  Robbery

  2,910

  3,497

  28

  25

  Burglary

  86,332

  91,389

  15

  16

  Theft and handling stolen Goods

  131,233

  128,306

  18

  19

  Fraud and forgery

  5,411

  4,876

  57

  55

  Criminal damage

  44,795

  45,691

  12

  13

  Other offences

  2,766

  2,948

  100

  100

  Total

  283,831

  286,757

  20

  21

  West Midlands

  Violence against the person

  9,714

  8,528

  70

  66

  Sexual offences

  1,325

  1,148

  71

  66

  Robbery

  87,571

  8,081

  19

  18

  Burglary

  7,201

  91,842

  27

  30

  Theft and handling stolen goods

  140,812

  152,187

  23

  21

  Fraud and forgery

  7,892

  7,573

  31

  27

  Criminal damage

  52,605

  54,329

  13

  11

  Other offences

  1,866

  1,973

  95

  94

  Total

  308,986

  325,661

  25

  24

  Northumbria (including Tyne and Wear)

  Violence against the person

  6,111

  5,482

  74

  73

  Sexual offences

  702

  545

  77

  75

  Robbery

  1,234

  1,653

  23

  26

  Burglary

  55,398

  51,513

  14

  14

  Theft and handling stolen goods

  81,073

  77,275

  24

  25

  204
  estimated breakdown of the years in which those asylum applications awaiting an initial decision were made, in total and for the nationalities requested, is given in the table.

  Notifiable offences recorded by the police and clear ups

  Offence group

  Number of offences

  Percentage cleared up1,2

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1994

  1995

  Fraud and forgery

  2,935

  2,447

  44

  43

  Criminal damage

  51,381

  51,256

  16

  17

  Other offences

  995

  1,060

  98

  100

  Total

  199,829

  191,231

  22

  23

  Greater Manchester

  Violence against the person

  8,609

  9,610

  74

  70

  Sexual offences

  1,192

  1,369

  74

  73

  Robbery

  5,229

  5,938

  29

  22

  Burglary

  89,092

  86,474

  32

  19

  Theft and handling stolen goods

  152,603

  149,500

  33

  23

  Fraud and forgery

  7,726

  5,853

  70

  48

  Criminal damage

  65,339

  70,384

  19

  16

  Other offences

  2,544

  2,761

  98

  97

  Total

  332,334

  331,889

  34

  24

  South Yorkshire

  Violence against the person

  4,957

  4,842

  82

  81

  Sexual offences

  647

  634

  88

  81

  Robbery

  1,004

  1,266

  31

  27

  Burglary

  48,084

  46,555

  20

  22

  Theft and handling stolen goods

  69,827

  72,610

  23

  22

  Fraud and forgery

  2,876

  2,557

  40

  35

  Criminal damage

  25,084

  28,441

  16

  15

  Other offences

  1,345

  1,203

  99

  100

  Total

  153,824

  158,108

  24

  24

  Merseyside

  Violence against the person

  7,726

  8,162

  63

  67

  Sexual offences

  857

  889

  77

  82

  Robbery

  2,090

  3,103

  17

  20

  Burglary

  32,927

  33,948

  27

  19

  Theft and handling stolen goods

  67,372

  75,960

  35

  26

  Fraud and forgery

  3,044

  4,687

  70

  64

  Criminal damage

  23,033

  27,055

  18

  15

  Other offences

  1,740

  2,109

  96

  99

  Total

  138,789

  155,913

  33

  27

  1 Excluding criminal damage value £20 and under.

  2 Published on a calendar year basis only.

  Metropolitan Police Stations
  Mr. Keith Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which police stations(a) have been closed and (b) opened and on what dates in the Metropolitan police area in the last five years for which information is available; and which police stations (i) will be opened and (ii) will close in the next 12 months. [15139]

  Mr. Maclean
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has provided the following information:

  Year

  Stations/offices closed

  Stations/offices opened

  1992

  Kings Cross Road

  Archway

  Islington

  Canary Wharf

  Forest Gate

  Brick Lane

  Bow Street

  Chalkhill

  Islington

  Forest Gate

  Charing Cross

  1993

  Rochester Row

  Walworth

  Gerald Road

  Belgravia

  Carter Street

  Ashford

  Marks Gate

  North Greenford

  Wapping

  1994

  Bexleyheath

  Bexleyheath

  Erith

  Doran Walk

  Haggerston

  Bluebeat

  Little Ilford

  Broadwater Farm

  1995

  Ilford

  Ilford

  Roman Road

  Bethnel Green

  Jesus Green

  Harefield

  Harefield

  Cray

  Wornington Green

  Dalston

  Erith

  1996

  Bethnel Green

  Hoe Street

  Leman Street

  Caledonian Road

  Wornington Green

  Police stations which were closed and re-opened after being completely renovated and/or extended in the last five years

  Year

  Station

  1992

  Fulham

  1993

  Barkingside

  1996

  Hammersmith

  Hounslow

  Stations/offices to close in the next 12 months

  Stations/offices to open in the next 12 months

  West Hendon

  Archway

  Isle of Dogs (old)

  Colindale

  Mill Hill

  Kings Cross

  Vine Street

  Isle of Dogs

  Walhamstow Market

  West End Central

  Young Offender Institutions
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has to withhold access to card-operated telephones from young offenders held at(a) Her Majesty's young offenders institution, Colchester and (b) other young offender institutions; [15155]

  (2) what plans he has to censor mail sent to young offenders held at (a) HM YOI Colchester and (b) other young offender institutions. [15154]

  Miss Widdecombe
  For the first two stages of the regime at Colchester young offender institution, young offenders will be allowed a supervised weekly call to their family on an official telephone. In the third and final stage, access to card-operated telephones will be as it is in other young offender institutions. In addition, young offenders will be allowed welfare calls at the discretion of staff. Staff will read all mail sent to young offenders at Colchester, with the exception of legal correspondence.

  There are no plans to change the access to card-operated telephones or the arrangements for reading inmates' correspondence in other young offender institutions.

  Illegal Immigrants
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of persons who come to the United Kingdom as visitors but stay on as illegal immigrants in each of the last three years; and if he will take measures to provide the maximum flexibility in permitting visitor entry, with the maximum checks on overstaying. [15095]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The information available relates to all overstayers who were issued with a notice of intention to deport. There were 4,850 such persons in 1994, 4,660 in 1995 and 5,600—provisional figure—in 1996. All persons seeking entry as visitors are given leave to enter providing they satisfy the immigration rules, and enforcement action is taken against those who breach their conditions of leave to enter by, for example, overstaying.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what was the crime clear-up rate and annual percentage change in each year since 1979 in each region; and if he will make a statement; [15013]

  (2) what was the clear-up rate for all crimes in (a) England and (b) Wales in (i) 1979, (ii) 1983, (iii) 1987 and (iv) in each year since 1992 for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [15016]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is given in the tables.
  207

  Percentage change on previous year in number of notifiable offences cleared up by police force area

  Police area

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Avon and Somerset

  -6

  8

  5

  12

  -4

  7

  4

  -7

  13

  Bedfordshire

  14

  -9

  1

  2

  1

  7

  -4

  -13

  5

  Cambridgeshire

  -30

  44

  12

  -32

  -2

  -1

  10

  -8

  -1

  Cheshire

  6

  15

  3

  4

  3

  -2

  -4

  -2

  2

  Cleveland

  -8

  -9

  21

  6

  -2

  -8

  2

  5

  5

  Cumbria

  1

  -23

  4

  8

  7

  24

  8

  -5

  4

  Derbyshire

  10

  -10

  29

  -1

  4

  19

  -5

  -15

  -5

  Devon and Cornwall

  -1

  8

  4

  17

  2

  3

  14

  -8

  2

  Dorset

  -11

  4

  -6

  16

  -1

  9

  5

  -8

  12

  Durham

  -2

  7

  10

  1

  -5

  4

  17

  -10

  7

  Essex

  -2

  5

  5

  3

  5

  -3

  13

  -7

  -4

  Gloucestershire

  -4

  -1

  17

  3

  -4

  -1

  5

  -11

  49

  Greater Manchester

  5

  5

  12

  8

  -8

  -19

  25

  -6

  -3

  Hampshire

  -1

  -8

  2

  0

  -2

  12

  12

  -6

  7

  Hertfordshire

  6

  -22

  4

  18

  -5

  11

  4

  -6

  -3

  Humberside

  3

  -2

  11

  14

  -3

  1

  18

  -18

  18

  Kent

  21

  -6

  -2

  10

  2

  1

  4

  -12

  2

  Lancashire

  7

  -2

  2

  2

  3

  6

  0

  4

  11

  Leicestershire

  -6

  16

  3

  1

  3

  -1

  9

  1

  6

  Lincolnshire

  3

  9

  11

  5

  -3

  -24

  32

  -10

  12

  City of London

  0

  -9

  4

  0

  -5

  -3

  -5

  -10

  39

  Merseyside

  -2

  7

  -6

  25

  5

  7

  -16

  16

  12

  Metropolitan police

  -5

  4

  -9

  3

  3

  10

  6

  -5

  -3

  Norfolk

  -9

  12

  10

  1

  11

  0

  7

  -6

  6

  Northamptonshire

  -7

  4

  8

  6

  8

  -2

  3

  -13

  35

  Northumbria

  4

  8

  4

  14

  -1

  4

  8

  -10

  13

  North Yorkshire

  -8

  -9

  11

  15

  -7

  5

  -10

  3

  14

  Nottinghamshire

  4

  4

  27

  -21

  -16

  -19

  22

  -4

  7

  South Yorkshire

  -4

  2

  19

  8

  7

  -5

  7

  -2

  4

  Staffordshire

  -2

  -8

  17

  8

  2

  10

  9

  -7

  -4

  Suffolk

  9

  -10

  7

  -5

  4

  13

  3

  1

  15

  Surrey

  -2

  -24

  -12

  8

  9

  0

  5

  10

  2

  Sussex

  -1

  -7

  1

  13

  -11

  6

  -2

  -16

  5

  Thames Valley

  5

  -14

  13

  9

  9

  9

  4

  -5

  -12

  Warwickshire

  -2

  -2

  11

  11

  1

  2

  4

  -1

  6

  West Mercia

  -1

  -1

  14

  12

  11

  -4

  4

  -5

  2

  West Midlands

  5

  -1

  10

  17

  8

  -9

  1

  8

  25

  West Yorkshire

  -27

  24

  5

  11

  8

  -3

  1

  -7

  9

  Wiltshire

  -11

  4

  8

  5

  7

  6

  -3

  -5

  -5

  England

  -2

  2

  6

  7

  1

  1

  6

  -4

  6

  Dyfed-Powys

  -5

  -6

  6

  10

  1

  19

  -2

  0

  4

  Gwent

  1

  -5

  0

  19

  1

  1

  13

  -13

  7

  North Wales

  -2

  -7

  8

  6

  5

  -2

  -2

  -24

  43

  South Wales

  -3

  5

  9

  13

  1

  0

  2

  1

  3

  Wales

  -3

  -1

  7

  12

  2

  2

  3

  -7

  10

  Total

  -2

  2

  6

  7

  1

  1

  5

  -5

  6

  Police area

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Avon and Somerset

  16

  -7

  10

  1

  -19

  3

  15

  2

  Bedfordshire

  31

  -10

  -14

  -7

  7

  4

  -6

  -2

  Cambridgeshire

  -3

  21

  21

  24

  -15

  -6

  -8

  -16

  Cheshire

  17

  0

  11

  -2

  -13

  -9

  11

  1

  Cleveland

  5

  2

  -17

  43

  2

  -22

  -27

  26

  Cumbria

  6

  1

  4

  24

  -8

  0

  -7

  7

  Derbyshire

  -22

  10

  10

  10

  -7

  -2

  -2

  -8

  Devon and Cornwall

  -4

  -2

  7

  8

  -35

  52

  -4

  -5

  Dorset

  0

  21

  1

  27

  -22

  3

  -4

  -10

  Durham

  3

  1

  -5

  9

  2

  -1

  2

  -15

  Essex

  -11

  6

  13

  25

  -3

  11

  5

  -17

  Gloucestershire

  3

  -5

  11

  42

  -27

  -15

  19

  3

  Greater Manchester

  1

  3

  22

  26

  2

  -10

  -10

  -32

  Hampshire

  -7

  3

  20

  7

  -1

  -5

  -1

  -1

  Hertfordshire

  -7

  4

  -25

  37

  -18

  -19

  8

  17

  Humberside

  8

  5

  21

  -3

  -21

  -23

  4

  5

  Kent

  9

  -6

  -4

  26

  37

  -4

  8

  -7

  Lancashire

  13

  -26

  32

  4

  0

  -3

  -12

  3

  Leicestershire

  -5

  1

  21

  -1

  12

  -4

  5

  -7

  208 209

  Police area

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Lincolnshire

  8

  9

  15

  23

  -8

  1

  -20

  19

  City of London

  13

  -12

  4

  3

  -12

  -9

  15

  -6

  Merseyside

  -9

  -7

  0

  11

  -5

  -11

  -16

  -10

  Metropolitan police

  3

  6

  7

  9

  -4

  3

  20

  7

  Norfolk

  11

  8

  14

  16

  -3

  -22

  7

  -17

  Northamptonshire

  6

  -3

  3

  6

  0

  -8

  8

  -9

  Northumbria

  -6

  0

  13

  -4

  -53

  10

  6

  -3

  North Yorkshire

  3

  -5

  47

  2

  -4

  -2

  -14

  -5

  Nottinghamshire

  9

  4

  26

  -13

  7

  8

  -9

  -17

  South Yorkshire

  1

  -1

  16

  -6

  -18

  -14

  21

  -3

  Staffordshire

  7

  1

  12

  13

  -7

  -3

  0

  2

  Suffolk

  -8

  3

  12

  -1

  17

  -9

  -13

  -6

  Surrey

  -1

  3

  1

  2

  3

  -9

  33

  -3

  Sussex

  -6

  14

  8

  2

  7

  -6

  -2

  17

  Thames Valley

  4

  7

  -2

  6

  -5

  7

  1

  0

  Warwickshire

  6

  -2

  9

  1

  8

  -8

  6

  -5

  West Mercia

  2

  -7

  41

  -7

  4

  -13

  4

  -8

  West Midlands

  4

  -11

  6

  -3

  -6

  2

  -11

  -3

  West Yorkshire

  4

  -4

  12

  3

  -6

  -28

  8

  1

  Wiltshire

  0

  31

  17

  9

  -1

  -5

  -7

  -15

  England

  2

  0

  11

  8

  -7

  -4

  1

  -4

  Dyfed-Powys

  10

  -10

  14

  25

  14

  -18

  -9

  -3

  Gwent

  -7

  1

  21

  13

  1

  -2

  2

  -9

  North Wales

  -7

  2

  0

  6

  3

  6

  -3

  -19

  South Wales

  -1

  5

  9

  -6

  8

  -7

  -18

  17

  Wales

  -2

  2

  10

  3

  7

  -5

  -10

  1

  Total

  2

  0

  11

  7

  -6

  -5

  0

  -4

  Clear up rates by police force area

  Police area

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Avon and Somerset

  43

  42

  39

  40

  39

  38

  36

  29

  30

  Bedfordshire

  48

  44

  41

  39

  39

  38

  37

  29

  29

  Cambridgeshire

  47

  55

  56

  40

  40

  39

  40

  37

  35

  Cheshire

  58

  59

  53

  52

  51

  49

  46

  43

  40

  Cleveland

  51

  45

  48

  46

  45

  37

  37

  34

  34

  Cumbria

  56

  47

  44

  43

  44

  49

  49

  42

  46

  Derbyshire

  50

  45

  49

  46

  49

  54

  55

  48

  45

  Devon and Cornwall

  46

  45

  42

  45

  45

  44

  46

  40

  39

  Dorset

  46

  46

  40

  41

  38

  40

  40

  34

  36

  Durham

  52

  49

  49

  45

  42

  39

  45

  39

  42

  Essex

  42

  43

  43

  40

  41

  40

  43

  37

  35

  Gloucestershire

  51

  44

  46

  42

  41

  37

  35

  30

  38

  Greater Manchester

  45

  43

  41

  40

  36

  27

  32

  27

  27

  Hampshire

  46

  42

  38

  34

  33

  35

  37

  33

  34

  Hertfordshire

  54

  46

  45

  47

  49

  51

  52

  46

  44

  Humberside

  45

  40

  40

  41

  41

  39

  40

  30

  32

  Kent

  50

  47

  45

  41

  42

  40

  39

  34

  33

  Lancashire

  56

  55

  50

  45

  47

  47

  47

  45

  46

  Leicestershire

  54

  54

  50

  46

  47

  44

  45

  44

  45

  Lincolnshire

  60

  59

  57

  52

  49

  35

  42

  36

  37

  City of London

  21

  20

  20

  20

  18

  18

  17

  13

  19

  Merseyside

  42

  42

  34

  40

  42

  41

  35

  37

  43

  Metropolitan police

  21

  20

  17

  16

  17

  17

  18

  16

  16

  Norfolk

  47

  46

  42

  37

  41

  41

  41

  36

  36

  Northamptonshire

  48

  45

  45

  41

  45

  41

  39

  31

  41

  Northumbria

  53

  52

  50

  49

  48

  45

  46

  40

  44

  North Yorkshire

  51

  47

  44

  43

  41

  38

  31

  32

  34

  Nottinghamshire

  51

  49

  55

  43

  38

  30

  35

  33

  34

  South Yorkshire

  51

  47

  50

  49

  49

  41

  48

  43

  43

  Staffordshire

  51

  47

  49

  49

  47

  48

  52

  44

  42

  Suffolk

  57

  52

  51

  45

  44

  47

  45

  41

  45

  Surrey

  47

  39

  33

  31

  34

  33

  34

  34

  34

  Sussex

  53

  50

  47

  45

  40

  38

  36

  30

  32

  Thames Valley

  45

  39

  41

  39

  41

  41

  40

  35

  31

  Warwickshire

  46

  43

  40

  39

  38

  36

  38

  36

  34

  West Mercia

  49

  45

  44

  43

  48

  45

  45

  41

  42

  210 211

  Clear up rates by police force area

  Police area

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  West Midlands

  37

  33

  32

  33

  36

  30

  30

  29

  36

  West Yorkshire

  37

  43

  41

  42

  47

  42

  42

  38

  39

  Wiltshire

  42

  43

  41

  40

  43

  42

  39

  36

  36

  England

  41

  39

  37

  36

  37

  34

  35

  31

  32

  Dyfed-Powys

  62

  58

  57

  57

  57

  58

  55

  51

  51

  Gwent

  60

  57

  54

  57

  55

  53

  55

  50

  53

  North Wales

  59

  54

  51

  50

  51

  46

  45

  32

  43

  South Wales

  46

  45

  46

  47

  47

  43

  44

  39

  39

  Wales

  52

  50

  49

  50

  50

  47

  47

  40

  43

  Total

  41

  40

  38

  37

  37

  35

  35

  32

  33

  Clear up rates by police force area

  Police area

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Avon and Somerset

  36

  33

  29

  24

  17

  17

  21

  23

  Bedfordshire

  39

  34

  22

  19

  20

  21

  22

  22

  Cambridgeshire

  34

  38

  38

  36

  27

  25

  25

  19

  Cheshire

  50

  52

  50

  41

  29

  26

  30

  31

  Cleveland

  37

  36

  25

  33

  32

  27

  19

  25

  Cumbria

  51

  49

  43

  40

  37

  38

  37

  40

  Derbyshire

  38

  37

  32

  28

  22

  21

  21

  20

  Devon and Cornwall

  38

  36

  32

  29

  18

  25

  27

  27

  Dorset

  39

  42

  35

  41

  32

  33

  30

  28

  Durham

  44

  42

  34

  30

  30

  30

  32

  30

  Essex

  32

  32

  29

  32

  29

  32

  36

  33

  Gloucestershire

  39

  36

  33

  35

  24

  20

  24

  27

  Greater Manchester

  29

  30

  32

  36

  35

  34

  34

  24

  Hampshire

  34

  32

  32

  28

  26

  26

  27

  28

  Hertfordshire

  43

  44

  30

  33

  26

  21

  24

  28

  Humberside

  36

  35

  37

  32

  23

  16

  17

  19

  Kent

  36

  32

  25

  23

  27

  25

  29

  26

  Lancashire

  50

  40

  44

  40

  37

  35

  33

  34

  Leicestershire

  43

  40

  36

  29

  30

  28

  30

  29

  Lincolnshire

  42

  42

  43

  46

  39

  37

  32

  39

  City of London

  25

  20

  21

  20

  20

  22

  27

  23

  Merseyside

  45

  45

  44

  45

  42

  39

  33

  27

  Metropolitan police

  17

  17

  17

  17

  16

  17

  22

  25

  Norfolk

  40

  40

  37

  37

  34

  28

  34

  31

  Northamptonshire

  46

  43

  35

  31

  30

  27

  31

  28

  Northumbria

  44

  40

  40

  35

  17

  20

  22

  23

  North Yorkshire

  39

  35

  40

  36

  33

  30

  25

  23

  Nottinghamshire

  38

  35

  35

  27

  26

  29

  28

  23

  South Yorkshire

  47

  43

  44

  36

  26

  20

  24

  24

  Staffordshire

  45

  43

  39

  37

  30

  29

  31

  32

  Suffolk

  44

  43

  41

  37

  39

  37

  35

  34

  Surrey

  34

  33

  27

  23

  22

  20

  30

  31

  Sussex

  30

  31

  26

  23

  23

  24

  24

  28

  Thames Valley

  34

  33

  26

  22

  19

  21

  22

  23

  Warwickshire

  39

  35

  29

  24

  23

  21

  24

  25

  West Mercia

  45

  39

  46

  35

  34

  29

  29

  28

  West Midlands

  42

  39

  36

  31

  27

  27

  25

  24

  West Yorkshire

  43

  38

  34

  28

  25

  18

  20

  21

  Wiltshire

  37

  46

  44

  40

  37

  35

  36

  32

  England

  35

  33

  31

  29

  25

  25

  26

  26

  Dyfed-Powys

  53

  52

  50

  50

  53

  50

  53

  57

  Gwent

  54

  54

  51

  47

  44

  45

  47

  50

  North Wales

  42

  44

  40

  36

  33

  36

  39

  32

  South Wales

  37

  39

  36

  29

  30

  28

  24

  29

  Wales

  42

  43

  40

  35

  35

  34

  32

  34

  Total

  35

  34

  32

  29

  26

  25

  26

  26

  212

  Car Crime
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many private motor vehicles have been stolen and not recovered in the past five years in the United Kingdom. [15181]

  Mr. Maclean
  The available information relates to recorded offences of theft or unauthorised taking of a motor vehicle and is given in the table. The information given relates to England and Wales. Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for the respective Secretaries of State.

  Notifiable offences of theft of motor vehicles recorded by the police

  England and Wales

  Year

  Recorded offences1

  Vehicles recovered

  Vehicles not recovered2

  1991

  581,901

  372,412

  209,489

  19923

  586,362

  363,956

  222,406

  19933

  596,128

  350,862

  245,266

  19943

  540,639

  315,111

  225,258

  19954

  448,143

  283,903

  164,240

  (1) Includes attempts. Please note that it is not possible to exclude attempts for all forces.

  (2) The number of vehicles recovered subtracted from the number of recorded offences.

  (3) Excluding Dyfed-Powys.

  (4) Excluding Metropolitan Police and Dyfed-Powys.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding delays in obtaining hearings of claims by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board; and what is his estimate of the number of unresolved claims which were more than three years old in(a) 1990 and (b) at the latest date for which such figures are available. [15422]

  Mr. Maclean
  Since 1 January 1996, we have received 15 letters about delays in appeals directly from claimants and 15 through hon. Members. In addition, two hon. Members tabled questions on the subject.

  The board advises that data about numbers of outstanding appeals in 1990 are no longer available, but of 26,000 cases currently awaiting oral hearing, 2,067 have been waiting for more than three years.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I increased membership of the board from 43 to 50 in 1996 to help clear the hearings backlog more speedily. Under the new tariff scheme introduced in April 1996, which has a new review procedure and a new independent appeals panel, we expect appeals to be dealt with considerably more quickly than under the superseded scheme.

  European Year Against Racism, Xenophobia and Anti-semitism
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he has taken in relation to the European Commission's decision to make 1997 the European Year Against Racism, Xenophobia and Anti-semitism; and if he will make a statement. [15263]
  214
  Mr. Kirkhope
  The decision to make 1997 the European Year Against Racism, Xenophobia and Anti-semitism was taken by member states of the European Union in July 1996 and is fully supported by the United Kingdom.

  I am chairing the national co-ordinating committee for the year in the United Kingdom. The committee met for the first time on 2 December and meets again on 26 February.

  The year was launched at European level on 30 and 31 January at a conference in The Hague at which I led the United Kingdom delegation. I shall also be hosting the launch of the year in this country which will take place at Lancaster house on 19 February.

  The Government are working closely with the Commission for Racial Equality in the running of the year. The Home Office is providing specific funding to the Commission for Racial Equality to run a helpline and information service. A newsletter has been issued and details of funding available from the European Commission are now being disseminated. We are also in the process of pulling together a calendar of events: this will be sent out shortly and updated periodically throughout the year.

  Whitemoor Prison
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reasons the six category A exceptional risk prisoners who escaped from Whitemoor prison in 1994 did not have category A books showing their period at Whitemoor in the special secure unit; and if other prisoners in that unit had such books. [14883]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 11 February 1997]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Kevin McNamara, dated 12 February 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about Category A books for prisoners in the special secure unit (SSU) at Whitemoor prison.
  Category A exceptional risk prisoners held in the SSU in 1994 did not have movement recorded in Category A books because it was judged that, within the discrete area of the SSU, this was unnecessary as it was a small location in which no significant movement was possible.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the nature of the deteriorating health condition of each of the accused in the Whitemoor prison escape trial; what psychiatric and other medical examinations the accused have had since the trial was discontinued; and if he will make a statement. [14884]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 11 February 1997]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Kevin McNamara, dated 12 February 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the nature of the deteriorating health condition of each of the accused in the Whitemoor prison escape trial.

  215
  For reasons of medical confidentiality, it is not possible to give detailed information on the health of individual prisoners.
  All prisoners in special secure units are subject to medical review by the prison medical officer at three monthly intervals. As the prisoners who were charged with escaping from Whitemoor prison are held in special secure units they are subject to these regular medical reviews.
  There is no medical evidence that the health of prisoners held in special secure units is being significantly affected by their imprisonment in these units.

  Interception of Communications
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) under what statutory basis the police are able to trace the movement of people by reference to their mobile phone records; [14364]

  (2) what discussions he has had with (a) the Association of Chief Police Officers and (b) mobile phone operating companies, concerning police access to mobile phone records to trace the movement of people; [14365]

  (3) what guidelines he has issued concerning police access to mobile phone records; and if he will make it his policy to review the current practice in respect of access to mobile phone records; [14366]

  (4) if he will list by police authority the number of applications made by the police for permission to access the United Kingdom Cellnet system; and how many applications have been (a) granted and (b) refused; [14629]

  (5) which foreign organisations are permitted to receive data obtained from the United Kingdom Cellnet system under existing interception of communication agreements; [14633]

  (6) under what circumstances (a) the police including special branch, (b) the security services and (c) the Benefits Agency are allowed access to the national Cellnet system; what are the mechanisms for making and processing such applications; what factors apply in their assessment; who grants access; and what safeguards exist to ensure that information obtained is not misused; [14631]

  (7) if he will list by police authority the number of applications made by special branch for permission to access the Cellnet system; and how many applications have been (a) granted and (b) refused; [14630]

  (8) how many cases have been recorded by his Department where information obtained by accessing the Cellnet system has been used (a) in proceedings before the civil and criminal courts and (b) in proceedings before statutory and non-statutory tribunals. [14632]

  Mr. Howard
  The circumstances under which the four mobile telephone operators may disclose personal information which they hold on computer for their own purposes—including for billing, fraud prevention and statistical analysis—are regulated by the Data Protection Act 1984, by the Telecommunications Act 1984, and by the terms of their Telecommunication Act licences which require them to take all reasonable steps to ensure the confidentiality of customer information. It is an offence, under section 45 of the Telecommunications Act, for an operator to disclose any information concerning subscribers' use of the system except where the disclosure is made for specified purposes including the prevention or detection of crime; for the purposes of any criminal 216
  proceedings; in the interests of national security or in pursuance of a court order. All operators are also required to observe a code of practice on the confidentiality of customer information, and they are subject to the normal civil law obligations towards their subscribers.

  The police and other agencies concerned with law enforcement and national security may request the operators to provide them with data which they require for one or more of the purposes described above. Additionally, the law enforcement agencies may apply for a court order under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Information concerning the number of such applications which have been made to the operators, and the number of cases in which such information has been used in proceedings before courts and tribunals, is not held centrally.

  I see no need to intervene in these arrangements which are properly a matter for the relevant authorities and the operators, within the framework of the safeguards which I have described. Interception of communications—as distinct from the provision of subscriber data—is governed by the Interception of Communications Act 1985 which provides that interception may be carried out only under a warrant issued by the Secretary of State, and that material may be disclosed only in accordance with arrangements made under section 6 of the Act.

  Police Escorts
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who is responsible for the costs incurred in respect of police escorts of United Kingdom road transportation of nuclear waste cargos; and if he will make a statement. [14370]

  Mr. Page
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave her on 22 January 1997, Official Report, column 642 in which I explained
  "there is no requirement for police escorts to accompany the road transport of radioactive waste."

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Supervisory Bodies
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many individuals and firms have been licensed by each of the recognised supervisory bodies created under the Companies Act 1989. [14791]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The table sets out the number of firms currently registered as auditors with each of the recognised supervisory bodies—the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland, the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants, and the Association of Authorised Public Accountants—and the number of responsible individuals within those firms:

  ICAEW

  ICAS

  ICAI

  ACCA

  AAPA

  Firms

  7,974

  650

  538

  2,866

  1263

  Individuals

  16,039

  1,154

  1,385

  4,369

  —

  1 All sole practitioners.

  Scientific Research and Development
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of gross domestic product in the United Kingdom has been invested in scientific research and development in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [15091]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The figures requested are as follows:

  Gross expenditure on scientific Research and Development in the UK

  Percentage of GDP

  1990

  2.23

  1991

  2.16

  1992

  2.18

  1993

  2.20

  1994

  2.19

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to increase his Department's budget for science and research development. [15081]

  Mr. Taylor
  The science budget for 1997–98 announced by the President of the Board of Trade on 28 November will be £18 million above the equivalent allocation for the current year. Information about the Department' s other science and technology expenditure will be provided in the expenditure plans report to be published in March.

  Cable Entertainment
  Mr. Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to lift the prohibition on BT operating in the cable entertainment market; and if he will make a statement. [15090]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  BT is not prevented from operating in the cable entertainment market. It is able to do so on the same basis as all other companies, by competing for franchises. BT can even use its existing network within the franchises it holds. It can also deliver on its existing network broadcast television nationally to businesses, and it is free to offer interactive, on-demand services nationally to both businesses and homes. This freedom includes such services as video on demand, with an appropriate licence from the ITC. The only prohibition is on BT using its network nationally to convey or provide broadcast television to homes, as this would give it an overwhelming advantage over cable and other operators that are still building their networks. The Government will review these limited restrictions in 1998 and 2001 for conveyance and provision, respectively, if the Director General of Telecommunications advises that competition continues to become sufficiently established to warrant it. Stability in this regard remains an important factor in underpinning the investment in alternative infrastructure of more than £12 billion which cable and other operators have scheduled for this decade.

  Sellafield (Safety)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he was notified of the radiation contamination 218
  accidents that took place at Sellafield on (a) 2 and (b) 4 February; what was the nature of each accident; and if he will make a statement on safety at Sellafield. [15063]

  Mr. Page
  The incidents were reported to this and other interested Departments and relevant regulatory bodies on 3 and 4 February, respectively.

  The incident on 2 February occurred during the dismantling of redundant equipment in the Magnox reprocessing plant at Sellafield. Six workers received slight contamination to their person following the removal of their protective clothing. They were subsequently decontaminated by normal washing/showering and were monitored as clear of contamination before going home. There was no release of radioactivity beyond the Magnox reprocessing plant building where the incident occurred.

  The incident on the night of 3/4 February occurred during the transfer of medium active concentrate along a pipeline between storage tanks when some of the liquor spilled onto a tank roof. Heavy overnight rain washed some of this liquor along the installed drainage system and into a large concrete lined pond for the collection of storm water. The pumps which discharge the contaminated water to the sea were stopped automatically as a result of low levels of radioactivity being detected by the installed monitoring equipment. No one received contamination to his or her person or any significant radiation exposure.

  The incidents are being fully investigated by British Nuclear Fuels to establish their causes and to make recommendations to prevent a recurrence. Inspectors from the Health and Safety Executive's installations inspectorate and the Environment Agency are on site obtaining further information. The NII would not allow any nuclear site to operate if it were not satisfied as to its safety.

  In accordance with normal procedures, details of both incidents were contained in last week's Sellafield site newsletter, copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  Cosmetic Products
  Mr. Donald Anderson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list those organisations consulted by his Department on the draft Cosmetic Products (Safety) Regulations 1996, indicating the date when each meeting took place. [15129]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  One hundred and fifty-five organisations and individuals were sent one or both of the consultation documents on the draft cosmetics regulations. A list of these organisations and individuals has been placed in the Library of the House. Representations received, including meetings, are regarded as confidential unless otherwise agreed with the parties concerned.

  Mr. Anderson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will amend section 8(3) of the Cosmetic Products (Safety) Regulations 1996 (No. 2925) in 1997 to bring the wording into line with article 7A.1(e) of the Council directive 76/768/EEC as inserted by Council directive 93/35/EEC of 14 June 1993. [15124]
  219
  Mr. Taylor
  I am advised that regulation 8(3) of the Cosmetic Products (Safety) Regulations 1996 transposes correctly article 7A.1(e) of the cosmetics directive. However, in light of the concerns raised about the interpretation of article 7A.1(e), my officials will be meeting the Commission in order to seek a way in which we can resolve concerns expressed by industry without placing the UK in breach of its Community obligations.

  Mr. Anderson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the text of section 8(3) of the draft Cosmetic Product (Safety) Regulations 1996, was based on the text of article 7A.1(e) of the Council directive 76/768/EEC as inserted by Council directive 93/35/EEC of 14 June 1996. [15122]

  Mr. Taylor
  Draft regulation 8(3), issued for consultation in July 1996, was intended to reflect the meaning of Article 7A.1(e) of the cosmetics directive, but following further consideration, it was decided that correct transposition of the directive required revised wording.

  Mr. Anderson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the role of the Royal Society of Chemistry as defined in the annexe to directive 89/48 EEC. [15126]

  Mr. Taylor
  The Royal Society of Chemistry is listed in the annexe to directive 89/48/EEC. However, article 7A.1(e) of the cosmetics directive 76/768/EEC, as amended, requires that the person responsible for the safety assessment"must hold a diploma as defined in Article 1 of Directive 89/48/EEC in the field of pharmacy, toxicology, dermatology, medicine or a similar discipline."

  My officials will be seeking clarification from the Commission as to what constitutes a similar discipline.

  Mr. Anderson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the representations he had received on section 8(3) of the Cosmetic Products (Safety) Regulations 1996 (No. 2925). [15123]

  Mr. Taylor
  My Department has received representations from five organisations. Representations to the Department from individuals or organisations, on any topic, are treated as confidential unless it is agreed that they can be made public.

  Mr. Anderson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has to amend the Cosmetic Products (Safety) Regulations 1996 (No. 2925). [15127]

  Mr. Taylor
  The Cosmetic Products (Safety) Regulations 1996 implement in the UK the cosmetics directive 76/768/EEC and all subsequent amendments made to it. On average, the cosmetics directive is amended once a year. The Commission has recently amended the directive for the 20th time and we will need to amend the regulations to implement the requirements of that directive by 30 June 1997. The Commission has proposed further amendments to the directive. If, and when, these are agreed, we will amend our regulations accordingly.

  Mr. Anderson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many representations he has received about section 8(3) of the draft Cosmetic Products (Safety) Regulations 1996. [15125]
  220
  Mr. Taylor
  Of 51 written responses to the consultation documents issued in October 1995 and July 1996, five commented on regulation 8(3).

  Mr. Anderson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what factors led his Department to amend section 8(3) of the draft Cosmetic Products (Safety) Regulations 1996, following the completion of the consultation process initiated on 30 July 1996. [15121]

  Mr. Taylor
  On close and detailed examination of the text of article 7A.1(e) of the cosmetics directive 76/768/EEC, as amended, it became clear that draft regulation 8(3) failed to implement the directive correctly.

  Mr. Anderson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when his Department sent the Royal Society of Chemistry its consultative note on the proposed new regulations on cosmetic products. [15128]

  Mr. Taylor
  The Royal Society of Chemistry was not on the mailing list for the draft regulations issued for consultation in July 1996.

  Business Links
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list each business link by region, indicating the amount of DTI funding to each for the period 1995–96. [15098]

  Mr. Page
  Table 1 shows, by region, the pump priming grant for each business link area.

  A list of business link services expenditure by business link area could only be provided at disproportionate cost since the information on services grant for each business link is not held centrally and the total services grant for each business link would have to be calculated from local, generally paper-based records of expenditure from each of the services budgets. However, data on expenditure by region are held electronically and table 2 shows expenditure on business support services funded by DTI through training and enterprise councils and business links. These data include expenditure of non-business link services in those areas where the business link had not yet opened in 1995–96.

  Table 1: Pump-priming grants for Business Links 1995–96

  (£000s)

  Area

  Heart of England

  211.1

  Thames Valley

  663.0

  Isle of Wight

  284.3

  Milton Keynes

  720.9

  Hampshire1

  0.0

  Kent

  901.1

  Surrey

  666.0

  Sussex

  603.3

  South East

  4,049.6

  BL London

  2,966.5

  North London

  309.5

  South London

  206.9

  West London

  382.9

  Central London

  429.7

  London East

  329.0

  221

  Table 1: Pump-priming grants for Business Links 1995–96

  (£000s)

  Area

  North West London

  124.4

  South West London

  747.2

  City/Inner London

  652.3

  London

  6,148.5

  Bedfordshire

  614.9

  Central and S. Cambridgeshire

  357.5

  Essex

  538.7

  Greater Peterborough

  579.6

  Hertfordshire

  819.9

  Norfolk

  492.1

  Suffolk

  396.6

  Eastern

  3,799.3

  West (Avon)

  1,363.0

  Devon and Cornwall

  1,948.0

  Dorset

  287.1

  Gloucestershire

  508.0

  Wiltshire

  382.3

  Somerset

  779.3

  South West

  5,267.7

  Birmingham

  594.3

  Solihull

  397.0

  Wyre Forest

  276.8

  Redditch

  314.4

  Coventry and Warwickshire

  824.0

  Dudley

  500.4

  Hereford and Worcester

  194.5

  Sandwell

  603.4

  Shropshire

  185.7

  Staffordshire

  305.3

  Walsall

  216.5

  Wolverhampton

  193.2

  West Midlands

  4,605.5

  Greater Nottingham

  573.1

  Leicestershire

  391.4

  Lincolnshire

  289.3

  North Derbyshire

  466.1

  North Nottinghamshire

  256.6

  Northamptonshire

  207.1

  Southern Derbyshire

  174.1

  East Midlands

  2,357.7

  Barnsley

  135.2

  Doncaster

  196.6

  Bradford

  100.0

  Calderdale/Kirklees

  578.9

  Humberside

  335.5

  Leeds

  605.1

  North Yorkshire1

  0.0

  Rotherham

  216.9

  Sheffield

  368.2

  Wakefield

  289.7

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  2,826.1

  Bolton/Bury1

  0.0

  Cumbria

  642.1

  East Lancashire1

  0.0

  Halton

  146.8

  High Peak1

  0.0

  Manchester

  350.4

  Mid Cheshire1

  0.0

  OIdham

  257.6

  Rochdale

  452.1

  South and East Cheshire

  56.1

  Stockport

  77.4

  Warrington1

  0.0

  222

  Table 1: Pump-priming grants for Business Links 1995–96

  (£000s)

  Area

  West Lancashire1

  0.0

  Wigan

  86.5

  North west

  2,069.0

  Wirral and Chester1

  0.0

  Merseyside

  1,143.4

  St. Helens

  233.6

  Merseyside

  1,377

  Durham

  535.1

  Northumberland

  382.9

  Teesside

  533.8

  Tyneside

  336.5

  Wearside

  216.6

  North east

  2,004.9

  BL Support

  5,030.8

  National total

  39,536.1

  1 Pump-priming expenditure began after 1995–96.

  Table 2: Expenditure on business support services funded by DTI through TECs and Business Links 1995–96

  Region

  £ million

  South East

  6.41

  London

  5.59

  Eastern

  5.02

  South West

  4.83

  West Midlands

  6.06

  East Midlands

  4.32

  Yorkshire and The Humber

  2.89

  North West

  4.60

  Merseyside

  1.37

  North East

  2.54

  Total

  43.63

  Ford Factory, Halewood
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the conditions attached to each Government grant to the Ford factory at Halewood since 1974 indicating whether they were conditional on job creation or job protection and when those conditions were met. [15256]

  Mr. Greg Knight
  [holding answer 11 February 1997]: Grant payments given under the regional development grants scheme between 1974 and 1987 required the relevant assets to remain in place for a minimum of four years. Payments were not linked to job creation or safeguarding. The scheme provided for recovery of a proportion of the grant where the conditions were not met in full.

  Grant payments given under the RDG scheme between 1991 and 1992 were based on set targets for capital expenditure and job creation. The assets were required to remain in place for a minimum of three years and the jobs for 18 months following the completion of the project. The scheme provided for withholding and recovery of grant where these conditions were not met. One project remains within these conditions until 31 December 1997.
  223
  Grants given under the RSA scheme were phased over a number of years against targets for capital spend and the creation and safeguarding of jobs. Final payments were made on the satisfactory completion of the projects and were based on the actual capital spend and jobs achieved. From November 1984, assets were required to remain in place for a minimum of three years and the jobs for 18 months following the completion of the project. None of these grants remains within the conditions of the scheme.

  Mr. Hall
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list Government assistance to the Ford factory at Halewood prior to 1974(a) at current prices and (b) at constant prices. [15257]

  Mr. Knight
  [holding answer 11 February 1997]: Information about all Government assistance awarded prior to 1974 is not held centrally and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Hall
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list(a) the dates on which Government grants to the Ford factory at Halewood authorised after 1974 were paid and (b) the amounts in constant prices using the gross domestic product deflator for 1995–96. [15255]

  Mr. Knight
  [holding answer 11 February 1997]: Payments made by the Department under the regional development grants and regional selective assistance schemes were as follows:

  £000 (1995–96 prices)

  RDGI

  RDGII

  RSA

  Total

  1974

  188

  188

  1975

  5,816

  5,816

  1976

  7,092

  7,092

  1977

  1,952

  1,952

  1978

  933

  66,235

  67,168

  1979

  1,187

  20,199

  21,386

  1980

  15,887

  4,067

  19,954

  1981

  27,235

  27,235

  1982

  11,618

  11,618

  1983

  7,310

  7,310

  1984

  6,167

  6,167

  1985

  1,680

  1,680

  1986

  12,820

  12,820

  1987

  949

  4,154

  5,103

  1988

  1,711

  1,711

  1989

  3,640

  3,640

  1990

  476

  475

  1991

  4,371

  4,371

  1992

  3,657

  483

  4,141

  Total

  100,834

  8,028

  100,965

  209,827

  Post Office (Privatisation)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much his Department has spent over the last five years on preparation for, and feasibility studies of, Post Office privatisation, indicating the amounts spent on(a) contracts with consultants and (b) the employment of full-time and part-time staff. [15371]

  Mr. Page
  [holding answer 11 February 1997]: The amount spent on consultancy advice between July 1992 and the Government's decision in November 1994 not to proceed with legislation on the Post Office in the current Parliament was £1,613,002.28. The amount spent on
  224
  full-time and part-time staff working on matters relating to preparation for, or feasibility studies of, Post Office privatisation during this period could be established only at disproportionate cost.

  Publicity
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was his Department's expenditure on contractors to provide publicity and news services from centrally managed budgets in each year since 1979–80. [15365]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding answer 11 February 1997]: For the publicity and news services expenditure for 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) on 11 November 1996, Official Report, column 15.

  The expenditure for 1990–91, 1991–92, and 1992–93 is as follows:

  £'000

  1990–91

  15,820

  1991–92

  10,203

  1992–93

  10,117

  The figures for previous years are not available.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was his Department's expenditure on staff employed full time or part time to provide(a) publicity and (b) work on press and media in each year since 1979–80. [15366]

  Mr. Taylor
  [holding answer 11 February 1997]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) on 11 November 1996, Official Report, column 15.

  Figures for previous years are not available on a comparable basis.

  Biomass Projects
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to(a) encourage development work in biomass projects and (b) increase the level of their support from the non-fossil fuel obligation. [15374]

  Mr. Page
  [holding answer 11 February 1997]: The Government consider that biomass is one of the most promising renewables and has the prospect to contribute to UK energy supplies. In order to secure the electricity generating capacity required by the fourth non-fossil fuel obligation order, NFFO4, announced on 6 February 1997, seven biomass projects with an aggregate capacity of 67.4 MW are expected to be contracted. The value of these contracts is almost twice that of the three biomass projects with an aggregate capacity of 19.1 MW contracted under the third NFFO order, NFFO3, which was made in 1994. The Department of Trade and Industry spent about £2 million in 1995–96 on development work in biomass with matching funding from industry, and the programme is set to continue.

  Exports (Yorkshire and Humberside)
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the value of exports form the Yorkshire and Humberside region for each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [15484]

  Mr. Page
  This information is not officially collated on a regional basis and is therefore unavailable.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Data Collection (Postcodes)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what use her Department and its agencies make of postcode areas for the collection of data and in formulas for the distribution of grants and awards; and when such usages were last reviewed.[14803]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Postcodes are used in the collection and analysis of some DfEE statistics. Grants and awards are distributed mainly at local education authority or local authority level, or to specified organisations. In view of the wide-ranging nature of the DfEE's activities, it would not be possible to provide a full analysis of the use of postcodes without incurring disproportionate costs.

  Modern Apprenticeship Scheme
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is her latest estimate for(a) the annual apprenticeship scheme, (b) the number of young people on the scheme and (c) the number of employers in the scheme; and if he will list the outcome figures for those who have completed an apprenticeship. [15088]

  Mr. Paice
  In December 1996, there were around 60,000 young people participating in modern apprenticeships in England. The cost of modern apprenticeships is included within the overall budget for youth programmes in 1996–97 of £763.5 million. The number of participating employers is not available; neither is information on the outcomes of those completing a modern apprenticeship, as the number who have so far completed their training is small.

  Education Standard Spending Assessments
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list, in real terms, the change of total education standard spending assessments in England for each financial year since 1997–88, indicating also significant structural changes affecting totals. [15093]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The following table shows the real-terms change of total education standard spending assessments in England for each financial year since SSAs were introduced in 1990–91. The notes set out the principal changes in local education authorities' financial responsibilities. When allowance is made for these changes, SSAs have increased over this period by 15.6 per cent. in real terms.
  226

  Real terms change in education SSAs 1990–91 to 1997–98

  SSA in cash terms £ million

  SSA in real terms £ million (1997–98 prices)

  Change in real terms £ million

  Changes in function

  1990–91

  14,752.5

  18,362.9

  1991–92

  17,137.0

  20,046.9

  1,684.0

  1992–93

  18,352.7

  20,601.0

  554.1

  1993–94

  16,530.7

  18,034.1

  -2,566.9

  1

  1994–95

  16,826.0

  18,037.1

  3.0

  2

  1995–96

  17,024.1

  17,798.7

  -238.4

  1996–97

  17,764.2

  18,119.5

  320.8

  3

  1997–98

  17,840.2

  17,840.2

  -279.3

  3

  1. Transfer of further education responsibilities from April 1993.

  2. Transfer of responsibility for careers guidance and inspection from April 1994.

  3. SSAs reduced to reflect phase 1 of the nursery voucher scheme in 1996–97 and phase 2 in 1997–98.

  Schools (Essex)
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of(a) primary and (b) secondary school pupils in Essex attend (i) grant-maintained schools, (ii) voluntary-aided schools and (iii) local authority schools. [15418]

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

  Percentage of pupils1 in grant-maintained, LEA2 maintained, and voluntary-aided schools in the Essex local education authority area in January 1996

  Grant-maintained

  Voluntary aided

  Other LEA maintained

  Primary

  16.7

  10.9

  72.4

  Secondary

  70.8

  2.4

  26.8

  1 Includes part-time pupils in primary schools.

  2 Schools operating as grant-maintained on the schools' census day January 1996.

  Internet
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the number of(a) primary and (b) secondary schools which have access to the Internet in each local education authority area; and if she will make a statement. [15274]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to provide Internet access to all primary and secondary schools; and if she will make a statement. [15273]

  Mr. Squire
  Government support for the purchase of IT systems, software and networking—including Internet connections—by schools is provided through the school effectiveness grant under the DfEE's programme of grants for education support and training.

  The Government are also supporting the evaluation of the educational potential of emerging technologies and models of implementation through their piloting programme, the Education Department's superhighways initiative. Several of these projects pilot the use of the Internet, including Internet services designed specifically

  227
  for schools. The results of the pilot projects will be made available later this year along with guidance for schools on purchasing and good practice in the use of new technologies.

  Education (Finance)
  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) to what percentage of the education standard spending assessment the labour area cost adjustment is applied; and on what basis this percentage is calculated; [15336]

  (2) what factors she took into account in her decision to include all salaries in the determination of area cost adjustment for education standard spending assessment. [15338]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  In calculating the area cost adjustment for education, all the employment groups relevant to the local authority labour market for education are taken into account—not just teachers—since the area cost adjustment seeks to reflect non-teaching as well as teaching costs.

  As far as teaching costs are concerned, there is evidence that teachers' salaries, including London weighting payments, do not on their own represent the full additional costs of providing a standard level of service in London and the south-east, since they do not reflect lower levels of experience, higher vacancy and turnover rates, or non-salary payments.

  In order to take account of these factors, the area cost adjustment is based on income levels in the general labour market of occupational groups relevant to the local authority labour force. The area cost adjustment for education redistributes some 3 per cent. of the total of education standard spending assessments to authorities in London and the south-east.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps she is taking to ensure that the extension of nursery education to all four-year-olds does not lead to a reduction in places currently available to three-year-olds. [15271]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The funding for the nursery education voucher scheme is specifically designed to leave untouched the funding for three-year-olds. Local authorities can continue to spend on such places as they judge appropriate.

  Medical Students
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many medical students have begun courses since 1990 in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) England and (c) the west midlands. [15176]

  Mr. Forth
  The available information, which covers full-time entrants to first degree courses only, is as follows:228

  Number of full-time home domiciled entrants1 to first degree Medicine/Dentistry

  Year of entry

  United Kingdom2

  England3

  West Midlands2

  1990–91

  4,679

  3,526

  n/a

  1991–92

  4,733

  3,568

  227

  1992–93

  4,883

  3,677

  244

  1993–94

  4,957

  3,744

  227

  1994–953

  5,924

  4,215

  242

  1995–963

  6,496

  4,581

  250

  Notes:

  n/a = not available.

  1 Based on students who were in their first year of study.

  2 Location of institution rather than domicile of student.

  3 Figures collected on a new basis and are not directly comparable with earlier years' figures.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for education and Employment how many medical students have graduated since 1990 in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) England and (c) the west midlands. [15177]

  Mr. Forth
  The available information is as follows:

  First degree graduates in medicine/dentistry

  Year of graduation

  United Kingdom1

  England1

  West Midlands1

  1990

  4,388

  3,298

  210

  1991

  4,395

  3,207

  217

  1992

  4,519

  3,327

  211

  1993

  4,572

  3,361

  218

  1994

  4,567

  3,430

  203

  19952

  5,654

  4,199

  211

  19962

  5,631

  4,443

  226

  1 Location of institution rather than domicile of student.

  2 Figures collected on a new basis and are not directly comparable with earlier years' figures.

  Project Work
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many claimants on the project work pilots in Hull and Medway had benefit reductions of (i) two weeks or less and (ii) two to four weeks for failure to attend or complete work placement; and, of these, how many applied(a) successfully and (b) unsuccessfully for hardship payments. [13591]

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 30 January 1997]: Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Robert Horne to Mr. Terry Rooney, dated 12 February 1997:
  The Secretary of State has asked Leigh Lewis to reply to your question about the number of people involved in the Project Work pilots in Hull and Medway who have had their benefit cut and about how many of those have applied for hardship payments. This is something that falls within the responsibilities delegated to Leigh Lewis as Chief Executive of the Agency. I am replying in his absence.
  The latest information, up to 31 January 1997, shows that 108 Project Work clients had been sanctioned for a period of 2 weeks and 16 for a period of 4 weeks in the Hull pilot area. Over the same period, in the Medway and Maidstone pilot area, 92 clients were sanctioned for a two week period and 11 for a 4 week period.

  229
  These sanctions were given following decisions by adjudication officers that the clients had, without good cause, failed to attend a Project Work place, refused a place, left a place early or lost a place through misconduct.
  Peter Mathison, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency has agreed to write to you separately on issue on the number of clients who made a claim for a hardship payment.
  I hope this is helpful.

  School Performance Tables
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when she expects to publish the school performance tables of key stage 2 results for 1996 and the estimated cost of their publication. [14300]

  Mrs. Gillan
  [holding answer 5 February 1997]: The tables will be published in March, at an estimated cost for data collection and printing of less than 50p per booklet.

  Education Bodies (Administration)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the names, salary and other emoluments for each year since 1987–88 for which figures are available of (i) the chief executive and (ii) the chairmen of the(a) National Council for Vocational Qualifications, (b) National Council for Educational Technology, (c) Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research,
  (d) Education Assets Board, (e) School Curriculum and Assessment Authority, (f) Further Education Funding Council, (g) Higher Education Funding Council for England, (h) Funding Agency for Schools and (i) Teacher Training Agency. [14514]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 6 February 1997]: The information requested is listed in the following table. Salaries and emoluments for the chairmen of the bodies mentioned have always been publicly available. Chief executives' salaries are negotiated individually on the basis of their responsibilities and for most of the period were confidential. Since 1995–96, following publication of the White Paper on Open Government, this information has been in the public domain.

  Year

  Chief Executive

  Salary and other emoluments

  Chairman

  Salary and other emoluments

  (a) National Council for Vocational Qualifications:

  1987–88

  Professor Peter Thompson

  —

  Sir Oscar De Ville

  10,000

  1988–89

  Professor Peter Thompson

  —

  Sir Oscar De Ville

  10,000

  1989–90

  Professor Peter Thompson

  —

  Sir Oscar De Ville

  10,000

  1990–91

  Professor Peter Thompson

  —

  Sir Oscar De Ville/Sir Bryan Nicholson

  12,500

  1991–92

  Peter Reay/John Hillier

  —

  Sir Bryan Nicholson

  12,500

  1992–93

  John Hillier

  —

  Sir Bryan Nicholson

  12,500

  1993–94

  John Hillier

  —

  Sir Bryan Nicholson/Sir Michael Heron

  14,487

  1994–95

  John Hillier

  —

  Sir Michael Heron

  17,924

  1995–96

  John Hillier

  79,731

  Sir Michael Heron

  18,462

  (b) National Council for Educational Technology:

  1987–88

  Noel Thompson

  —

  Donald Grattan

  5,455

  230

  Year

  Chief Executive

  Salary and other emoluments

  Chairman

  Salary and other emoluments

  1988–89

  Noel Thompson

  —

  Donald Grattan

  5,620

  1989–90

  Noel Thompson

  —

  Donald Grattan

  6,030

  1990–91

  Noel Thompson

  —

  Donald Grattan/Lady Parkes

  Unpaid

  1991–92

  Noel Thompson

  —

  Lady Parkes

  Unpaid

  1992–93

  Graham Walters(acting)/Margaret Bell

  —

  Gordon Law (acting)/Jon Richards

  Unpaid

  1993–94

  Margaret Bell

  —

  Jon Richards

  Unpaid

  1994–95

  Margaret Bell

  —

  Jon Richards

  Unpaid

  1995–96

  Margaret Bell

  70,016

  Jon Richards/Heather Du Quesnay

  Unpaid

  (c) Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research:

  1987–88

  Alan Moys

  —

  Sir Hugh Byatt

  Unpaid

  1988–89

  Alan Moys

  —

  Sir Hugh Byatt

  Unpaid

  1989–90

  Alan Moys

  —

  Sir Hugh Byatt

  Unpaid

  1990–91

  Alan Moys

  —

  Sir Hugh Byatt

  Unpaid

  —

  Professor Martin Harris

  Unpaid

  1991–92

  Alan Moys/Dr. Lid King

  —

  Professor Martin Harris

  Unpaid

  1992–93

  Dr. Lid King

  —

  Professor Martin Harris

  Unpaid

  1993–94

  Dr. Lid King

  —

  Professor Martin Harris

  Unpaid

  1994–95

  Dr. Lid King

  —

  Professor Martin Harris

  Unpaid

  1995–96

  Dr. Lid King

  38,423

  Professor Martin Harris

  Unpaid

  (d) Education Assets Board:

  1988–89

  Bryan Emmett

  —

  Sir Tom McDonald

  18,200

  1989–90

  Bryan Emmett

  —

  Sir Tom McDonald

  20,310

  1990–91

  Bryan Emmett/Stuart Hoare

  —

  Sir Tom McDonald

  20,515

  1991–92

  Stuart Hoare

  —

  Sir Tom McDonald

  23,365

  1992–93

  Stuart Hoare

  —

  Sir Tom McDonald

  24,030

  1993–94

  Stuart Hoare

  —

  Sir Tom McDonald/Roger Suddards

  31,400

  1994–95

  Stuart Hoare

  —

  Roger Suddards

  32,185

  1995–96

  Stuart Hoare

  59,628

  Roger Suddards/Keith Bridge

  26,523

  (e) School Curriculum and Assessment Authority:

  1993–94

  Chris Woodhead

  —

  Sir Ron Dealing

  41,750

  1994–95

  Chris Woodhead/Dr. Nick Tate

  —

  Sir Ron Dearing

  63,000

  1995–96

  Dr. Nick Tate

  78,740

  Sir Ron Dearing

  46,670

  (f) Further Education Funding Council:

  1992–93

  Sir William Stubbs

  —

  Sir Robert Gunn

  33,170

  1993–94

  Sir William Stubbs

  —

  Sir Robert Gunn

  34,975

  1994–95

  Sir William Stubbs

  —

  Sir Robert Gunn

  34,975

  1995–96

  Sir William Stubbs

  109,000

  Sir Robert Gunn

  36,024

  (g) Higher Education Funding Council for England:

  1992–93

  Professor Graeme Davies

  —

  Sir Ron Dearing

  33,170

  1993–94

  Professor Graeme Davies

  —

  Sir Ron Dearing/Brandon Gough

  41,120

  1994–95

  Professor Graeme Davies

  —

  Brandon Gough

  34,974

  1995–96

  Professor Graeme Davies/Brian Fender

  119,000

  Brandon Gough

  37,080

  231

  Year

  Chief Executive

  Salary and other emoluments

  Chairman

  Salary and other emoluments

  (h) Funding Agency for Schools:

  1994–95

  Michael Collier

  —

  Sir Christopher Benson

  34,350

  1995–96

  Michael Collier

  86,000

  Sir Christopher Benson

  35,210

  (i) Teacher Training Agency:

  1994–95

  Anthea Millett

  —

  Geoffrey Parker

  15,000

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Ministerial Advisers
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what subjects he is advised by Mr. John Kennedy and Mr. Perry Miller. [13974]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  None.

  Arms Sales (Indonesia)
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met representatives of the United States Government to discuss the sale of arms to Indonesia; and if he will make a statement. [13975]

  Mr. Hanley
  There has been no recent ministerial discussion of this subject. However, British and US officials keep in regular touch about relations with Indonesia, as with other countries, and issues of defence procurement co-operation sometimes arise.

  Artists' Resale Rights
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will raise the issues of artists' resale rights and the misuse of article 100(a) of the treaty of Rome by the Commission at the forthcoming intergovernmental conference. [13976]

  Mr. David Davis
  We have put forward proposals in the intergovernmental conference which are designed to provide safeguards against the misuse of legal bases for Community legislation.

  Gibraltar
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the future of Gibraltar. [13977]

  Mr. David Davis
  Her Majesty's Government stands by its commitment to the people of Gibraltar, enshrined in the 1969 constitution. The Government will not enter into arrangements under which the people of Gibraltar would pass under the sovereignty of another state against their freely and democratically expressed wishes. That commitment remains steadfast.

  Malta
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of Malta's application to join the European Union. [13978]
  232
  Mr. David Davis
  Malta has suspended its application to join the European Union. But the new Maltese Government have made clear that they want to continue to develop close links with the EU and they are discussing with the European Commission how to take this forward. We welcome this.

  Anglo-Russian Relations
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to meet the President of the Russian republic to discuss Anglo-Russian relations; and if he will make a statement. [13979]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has no present plans to meet President Yeltsin. He will meet the Russian Foreign Minister when Mr. Primakov visits London from 27 February to 1 March.

  Kashmir
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the opportunities for political reconciliation in Kashmir following the recent state elections. [13980]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  We hope that dialogue between the new Government in Jammu and Kashmir and the Indian Government in New Delhi will lead to an improvement in the situation in Kashmir. I hope to discuss Kashmir during a visit to India and Pakistan later this month.

  Bahrain
  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with his counterpart in Bahrain about the workings of the state security law there; and if he will make a statement. [13981]

  Mr. Hanley
  We have friendly relations with Bahrain and our frequent discussions cover a wide range of issues. The Government of Bahrain are aware of our view that legal proceedings, including under the security law, should be in accordance with international standards.

  National Parliaments
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress there has been in the intergovernmental conference as regards the role of national parliaments. [13982]

  Mr. David Davis
  The draft revision of the treaties submitted by the Irish presidency includes a useful section on national parliaments. Among its proposals are a binding minimum scrutiny period, as proposed by the United Kingdom, as well as an advisory role for the Conference of European Affairs Committees—COSAC.

  India and Pakistan
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to meet non-governmental organisations to discuss the political situation in India and Pakistan; and if he will make a statement. [13983]
  233
  Dr. Liam Fox
  I have occasional meetings with non-governmental organisations and other interested groups and individuals on the political situation in India and Pakistan. I hope to visit both countries again later in the month.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to visit China to discuss Hong Kong. [13984]

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to meet Chinese Government Ministers to discuss Hong Kong. [13993]

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Members to the oral answer I gave to the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) earlier today.

  European Union Institutions
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what powers he is seeking to have returned to the United Kingdom from European Union institutions during the current intergovernmental conference negotiations. [13985]

  Mr. David Davis
  The Government have tabled proposals to disapply the working time directive in the UK, and reduce the risk of misuse of existing treaty articles by introducing unanimous voting to article 118a, and parts of article 54 and 57. In addition through their proposals on subsidiarity the Government are seeking to ensure that action is taken at European level only where necessary.

  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in achieving the Government's objectives in respect of the European institutions in the intergovernmental conference. [13987]

  Mr. Davis
  Although there have been several discussions of institutional issues in the IGC, the final position of many member states will only be decided in the negotiating endgame. The UK has considerable support for its position on many of these issues.

  Zaire
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has recently received regarding the situation in Zaire; and if he will make a statement. [13986]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  We remain gravely concerned by the situation in eastern Zaire, and remain in close contact with partners in the Security Council, the EU and in the region. We urge all parties to the conflict to call an immediate ceasefire and to enter into negotiations on a peaceful resolution. We welcome the appointment of Mohamed Sahnoun as UNSG's special representative for the Great Lakes. We will give full support to efforts by him and regional leaders, who most recently met in Pretoria on 28 and 29 January, to broker a settlement.

  Caribbean Countries
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the political stability of Caribbean countries. [13988]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  We continuously assess the political stability of all Caribbean countries. We see drugs and drugs-related crime as the main regional threat to stability in the Caribbean and are playing a major role in helping them fight drugs. My right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister and President Chirac launched the EU Caribbean drugs initiative in 1995.

  Anglo-Korean Relations
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations between the United Kingdom and Korea. [13989]

  Mr. Hanley
  We have an important political and economic partnership with the Republic of Korea. They work closely with us on the UN Security Council. We have recently welcomed them as a new member of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and we are delighted that the UK has attracted over 50 per cent. of Korean investment in Europe.

  Western European Union-EU Relations
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last discussed the relationship between the European Union and the Western European Union with the French and German Foreign Ministers. [13990]

  Mr. David Davis
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary last discussed these issues with the French Foreign Minister on 8 November 1996 and with the German Foreign Minister on 20 November 1996.

  Argentina
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on United Kingdom relations with Argentina. [13991]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  The United Kingdom enjoys excellent relations with Argentina.

  World Service
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received about the future of the BBC World Service. [13992]

  Mr. Hanley
  None since the beginning of the year.

  European Court of Justice
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on how many occasions the United Kingdom has(a) won and (b) lost cases before the European Court of Justice in the past 10 years. [13967]

  Mr. David Davis
  Consolidated figures for the last 10 years are not held in the form requested. However, a recent internal survey of the 125 cases in which the UK
  235
  was directly involved or intervened between 1993 and 1995 showed that the court accepted the principle UK submissions in 82 cases or 66 per cent. and wholly rejected them in 24 cases or 19 per cent. The UK has a very creditable record before the ECJ.

  United Nations Agencies
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has recently received regarding British funding of United Nations agencies; and if he will make a statement. [13973]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  We have received no such representations.

  Estonia
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on bilateral relations with the Republic of Estonia. [15225]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  Our bilateral relations with Estonia are close and friendly, extending across a wide range of areas including political and economic co-operation, trade and investment and defence co-operation. Our close partnership was noted by Estonian Foreign Minister lives when he visited the United Kingdom earlier this month and paid tribute to the UK's consistent support for Estonia's sovereignty and independence.

  Burma
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Burmese Government's treatment of(a) the democracy movement and (b) Aung San Suu Kyi. [15392]

  Mr. Hanley
  We remain deeply concerned by the harassment and detention of many supporters of the democracy movement in Burma and the continuation of road-blocks outside the home of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. The EU has adopted a common position in Burma, which urges the ruling State Law and Order Restoration Council—SLORC—to allow the National League for Democracy and other legitimate political parties to pursue freely their normal activities.

  Antarctica (Rift)
  Sir Michael Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will call for a report from the commissioner of the British Antarctic Territory on the rift that has appeared in the Larsen B ice shelf; what assessment he has made of the extent to which it indicates changing global temperatures and the possibility of rising sea levels; and if he will make a statement. [15236]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  Additional rifts on the Larsen ice shelf have been identified in the past two years. However, the most recent scientific expedition to the area, in November 1996, found nothing extraordinary about these rifts.
  236
  The British Antarctic Survey interpretation is that the retreat of ice shelves around the Antarctic peninsula is due to local atmospheric warming. This is not necessarily correlated with temperature trends elsewhere in Antarctica or globally. If local warming continues, it is almost certain that another part of the Larsen ice shelf will disappear.

  Since the ice shelf is already floating, and therefore displacing the equivalent of its own mass in water, there would be no rise in sea level even if it were to disintegrate and melt.

  Ministerial Visit (France)
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to pay an official visit to his counterpart in France to discuss Franco-British developments in the European Union; and if he will make a statement on the expected agenda at this meeting. [14158]

  Mr. David Davis
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary plans to visit Paris on 3 March when he expects to meet M. Charette, the French Foreign Minister, and to discuss with him European issues as well as other topical matters. He will also deliver a speech on the British vision for the future of the EU.

SCOTLAND

  Basking Shark
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received anent the proposal for the designation of the basking shark as an endangered species; and if he will make a statement. [14623]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The Joint Nature Conservation Committee has recommended protection of the basking shark by adding it to schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The recommendation, part of a third quinquennial review of schedules 5 and 8 of the 1981 Act, has been presented to the Secretary of State for the Environment on the basis that the species is likely to become endangered unless such protection is implemented. The Scottish Office is participating in the Government's consideration of the recommendations.

  The JNCC recommendations are presently the subject of a wide-ranging consultation exercise being carried out by the Department of the Environment. Any representations received will be given full consideration before any decision is taken.

  Highlands and Islands Enterprise
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 31 January,Official Report, column 373, when he expects the chairman of Highlands and Islands Enterprise will reply to the hon. Member for North Tayside. [15188]

  Mr. Kynoch
  I understand that the hon Member's question was answered on 6 February 1997.

  Nursery Schools
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) three-year-olds and (b) four-year-olds had nursery schools places in each year since 1992. [15007]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  Number of pupils attending nursery schools/classes

  Education authority schools

  Independent schools

  As at September

  Age 3

  Age 4

  Age 3

  Age 4

  1992

  12,357

  33,787

  529

  996

  1993

  13,302

  33,815

  520

  923

  1994

  13,064

  35,245

  558

  968

  1995

  12,634

  35,331

  559

  947

  1996

  12,677

  36,121

  n/a

  n/a

  The 1996 figures are provisional. The 1996 data are not currently available for independent schools because of a computer malfunction.

  Mrs. Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many qualified nursery school teachers were employed by each local authority in each year since 1992. [15008]

  Mr. Robertson
  The numbers of teachers working in education authority nursery schools and classes in the years 1992–96 are set out in the table.

  Number of teachers in nursery schools/classes as at September

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Scotland

  1,116

  1,085

  1,135

  1,152

  1,188

  Education Authority Aberdeen City

  92

  86

  91

  80

  —

  Aberdeenshire

  41

  45

  45

  46

  —

  Angus

  18

  18

  23

  23

  —

  Argyll and Bute

  2

  3

  4

  4

  —

  Clackmannanshire

  16

  13

  16

  16

  —

  Dumfries and Galloway

  24

  24

  31

  30

  —

  Dundee City

  52

  47

  48

  55

  —

  East Ayrshire

  19

  17

  17

  17

  —

  East Dunbartonshire

  3

  3

  3

  3

  —

  East Lothian

  20

  30

  31

  34

  —

  East Renfrewshire

  9

  9

  9

  9

  —

  Edinburgh, City of

  137

  140

  135

  168

  —

  Falkirk

  32

  32

  36

  36

  —

  Fife

  144

  117

  128

  115

  —

  Glasgow, City of

  165

  154

  156

  154

  —

  Highland

  28

  26

  29

  28

  —

  Inverclyde

  13

  12

  13

  12

  —

  Midlothian

  26

  29

  29

  28

  —

  Moray

  24

  24

  25

  26

  —

  North Ayrshire

  8

  6

  6

  6

  —

  North Lanarkshire

  41

  40

  41

  37

  —

  Orkney Islands

  6

  8

  9

  8

  —

  Perth and Kinross

  24

  23

  27

  28

  —

  Renfrewshire

  30

  29

  29

  38

  —

  Scottish Borders

  15

  13

  14

  15

  —

  Shetland Islands

  14

  15

  15

  13

  —

  South Ayrshire

  5

  5

  5

  5

  —

  South Lanarkshire

  19

  22

  21

  21

  —

  Stirling

  21

  20

  22

  20

  —

  West Dunbartonshire

  24

  23

  24

  23

  —

  Western Isles

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  West Lothian

  44

  52

  53

  54

  —

  238
  The 1996 figure is provisional and cannot, at this stage, be disaggregated between authorities.

  Mrs. Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is currently the average class size for nursery schools for each local authority. [15009]

  Mr. Robertson
  Information on class sizes in education authority nursery schools is not collected because most nursery provision is not delivered in the context of a class structure.

  Scottish Grand Committee
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the cost to the Scottish Office of the meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee in Selkirk on 3 February; what was the cost of the catering arrangements; and who were the contractors for the catering arrangements. [14678]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The cost of hiring venues, catering, security and so on is borne by the House authorities. Scottish Office officials supporting Ministers in connection with Committee meetings do so as part of their normal duties and no additional staff costs are incurred apart from travelling expenses.

  I understand that the cost of the catering arrangements for the Scottish Grand Committee in Selkirk on Monday 3 February is of the order of £750. The caterers used by Scottish Borders council for the meeting were Graylee Jimson Catering.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make arrangements for the food hygiene inspector to be present at the next meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee on 17 February. [14679]

  Mr. Forsyth
  I see no need for an environmental health officer to be present.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will require that future meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee take place in towns to which there is access by rail. [14680]

  Mr. Forsyth
  No.

  Crime (Clear-up Rates)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what was the crime clear-up rate and annual percentage change in each year since 1979 in each region; and if he will make a statement; [15014]

  (2) what was the clear-up rate for all crimes in Scotland in (a) 1979, (b) 1983, (c) 1987 and (d) in each year since 1992 for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [15015]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is set out in the table. During the period in question, the overall Scottish crime clear-up rate has increased significantly—from 30 per cent. in 1979 to 39 per cent. in 1995. It is expected that further measures such as the provision of additional officers, funding for closed circuit television schemes and enhanced technological support to help the police in solving crime will contribute positively to the continuing fight against crime in Scotland.
  239

  Crime clear-up rates (percentages) and annual changes (percentage points) by police force area, 1979–1995

  Central

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Fife

  Grampian

  Lothian and Borders

  Northern

  Strathclyde

  Tayside

  Scotland

  1979

  Clear-up rate (percentage)

  37.6

  40.4

  43.4

  37.4

  29.3

  60.7

  25.6

  35.0

  30.0

  1980

  Clear-up rate (percentage)

  38.3

  39.1

  39.7

  36.3

  34.6

  61.1

  28.3

  37.1

  32.6

  Change

  0.7

  -1.3

  -3.7

  -1.1

  5.3

  0.4

  2.7

  2.1

  2.6

  1981

  Clear-up rate (percentage)

  37.8

  38.7

  38.9

  35.9

  29.1

  57.7

  28.0

  36.5

  31.2

  Change

  -0.6

  -0.4

  -0.8

  -0.4

  -5.5

  -3.4

  -0.3

  -0.6

  -1.4

  1982

  Clear-up rate (percentage)

  36.9

  37.8

  38.3

  31.9

  25.1

  57.6

  27.4

  39.2

  29.8

  Change

  -0.9

  -0.9

  -0.6

  -4.0

  -4.0

  -0.1

  -0.6

  2.7

  -1.4

  1983

  Clear-up rate (percentage)

  40.4

  39.2

  40.6

  33.8

  25.2

  59.0

  28.4

  42.5

  30.9

  Change

  3.5

  1.4

  2.3

  1.8

  0.2

  1.4

  1.0

  3.3

  1.1

  1984

  Clear-up rate (percentage)

  39.9

  44.7

  38.1

  35.1

  27.4

  58.1

  27.4

  41.0

  30.8

  Change

  -0.5

  5.5

  -2.5

  1.3

  2.2

  -0.9

  -1.0

  -1.6

  -0.1

  1985

  Clear-up rate (percentage)

  44.1

  46.8

  40.6

  34.5

  33.2

  62.5

  28.9

  44.1

  33.6

  Change

  4.2

  2.1

  2.5

  -0.5

  5.8

  4.4

  1.5

  3.1

  2.8

  1986

  Clear-up rate (percentage)

  47.6

  54.3

  41.5

  31.3

  38.2

  62.4

  28.4

  41.0

  34.2

  Change

  3.5

  7.5

  0.9

  -3.2

  5.0

  -0.1

  -0.4

  -3.1

  0.6

  1987

  Clear-up rate (percentage)

  48.8

  53.8

  41.8

  31.5

  38.9

  62.9

  29.3

  42.7

  34.9

  Change

  1.2

  -0.5

  0.2

  0.2

  0.7

  0.5

  0.8

  1.7

  0.7

  1988

  Clear-up rate (percentage)

  48.2

  51.0

  39.8

  33.9

  38.4

  65.4

  28.0

  42.4

  34.0

  Change

  -0.5

  -2.8

  -2.0

  2.4

  -0.5

  2.5

  -1.3

  -0.3

  -0.9

  1989

  Clear-up rate (percentage)

  47.0

  50.6

  38.5

  35.3

  38.5

  61.4

  27.5

  40.7

  33.4

  Change

  -1.2

  -0.3

  -1.3

  1.4

  0.2

  -4.0

  -0.5

  -1.6

  -0.6

  1990

  Clear-up rate (percentage)

  46.1

  42.7

  36.2

  33.0

  35.1

  61.8

  26.7

  41.4

  32.1

  Change

  -0.9

  -8.0

  -2.3

  -2.3

  -3.4

  0.4

  -0.9

  0.6

  -1.3

  1991

  Clear-up rate (percentage)

  44.7

  45.0

  32.9

  32.4

  33.9

  59.2

  26.1

  38.2

  31.1

  Change

  -1.4

  2.4

  -3.3

  -0.7

  -1.2

  -2.7

  -0.6

  -3.1

  -1.0

  1992

  Clear-up rate (percentage)

  56.0

  40.7

  32.7

  31.1

  34.4

  56.9

  28.0

  37.5

  32.3

  Change

  11.3

  -4.3

  -0.2

  -1.3

  0.5

  -2.3

  1.9

  -0.8

  1.2

  1993

  Clear-up rate (percentage)

  55.4

  46.1

  38.2

  32.6

  36.5

  56.8

  30.6

  32.5

  34.3

  Change

  -0.5

  5.4

  5.5

  1.5

  2.2

  -0.2

  2.6

  -5.0

  2.0

  1994

  Clear-up rate (percentage)

  57.0

  48.1

  42.4

  34.3

  37.4

  59.2

  33.9

  37.1

  37.1

  Change

  1.6

  2.0

  4.2

  1.7

  0.9

  2.5

  3.3

  4.6

  2.8

  1995

  Clear-up rate (percentage)

  61.2

  57.4

  48.1

  35.9

  38.2

  65.8

  34.6

  38.6

  38.8

  Change

  4.2

  9.3

  5.8

  1.7

  0.8

  6.6

  0.7

  1.5

  1.7

  Song Birds
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the consequences for the numbers and varieties of song birds of the range of arable incentive schemes proposed by his Department. [14676]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The rules of the arable area payments scheme have always encouraged arable farmers to maximise environmental benefits on their set-aside land and further changes announced last year will be of additional benefit. Furthermore, the environmentally sensitive area scheme, and forthcoming countryside premium scheme, contain prescriptions and measures directly aimed at conserving, improving or providing particular habitats which will increase the areas of cover, feeding and nesting sites for a wide range of bird species including song birds.

  Crime Prevention Budget (Prisons)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of the current crime prevention budget has been allocated to projects in prisons; and if he will make a statement. [15109]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No part of the Scottish Office's current crime prevention budget is used for projects in prisons since the costs of programmes which address the offending behaviour of prisoners are met from the prison service budget. A significant part of the crime prevention budget has, however, been allocated to two projects designed to prevent re-offending by persistent young offenders.

  Electro-convulsive Therapy
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to modify the rules,
  241
  regulations and guidelines concerning the use of electro-convulsive therapy in the treatment of patients suffering from mental illness; and if he will make a statement. [15110]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend proposes to consult very soon on the Scottish Law Commission's report on incapable adults, which includes recommendations relating to the use of electro-convulsive therapy. A copy of the consultation paper will be placed in the Library when published.

  AIDS (Prisoners)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) male prisoners and (b) female prisoners (i) are HIV positive and (ii) have AIDS; and if he will make a statement. [15111]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The subject of the question relates to matters undertaken by the Scottish Prison Service. I have asked the chief executive, Mr. E. W. Frizzell, to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from E. W. Frizzell to Dr. Norman A. Godman, dated 12 February 1997:
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton has asked me to reply to your question about the number of prisoners in Scotland who are HIV positive or have AIDS.
  Prisoners are encouraged to undergo testing for transmissible diseases on a voluntary basis. The results are confidential to prison medical staff and individual prisoners and are not collated centrally. Independent research surveys have been commissioned, however, to estimate the prevalence of HIV among prisoners. Eleven surveys were carried out in 8 establishments between 1991 and 1996, conducted by Drs Graham Bird and Sheila Gore. Prisoners gave a saliva sample and completed a questionnaire, on a voluntary and anonymous basis. Although HIV is not found in saliva, the tests can identify antibodies which the body makes against the virus. The results are given in the following table. Cornton Vale holds female prisoners.

  Results of voluntary anonymous screening of prisoners for HIV+

  Year

  Establishment

  Number of prisoners tested

  Number of prisoners HIV+

  1991

  HMP Edinburgh

  363

  17 (5 per cent.)

  1992

  HMP Edinburgh

  236

  8 (3 per cent.)

  HM YOI Polmont

  421

  0 (0 per cent.)

  1993

  HMP Glenochil

  227

  12 (3 per cent.)

  1994

  HMP Glenochil

  296

  7 (2 per cent.)

  HM YOI Glenochil

  162

  0 (0 per cent.)

  HMP Barlinnie

  978

  10 (1 per cent.)

  1995

  HMP Perth

  304

  6 (2 per cent.)

  HMP and YOI Cornton Vale

  136

  0 (0 per cent.)

  1996

  HMP Low Moss

  293

  2 (1 per cent.)

  HMP Aberdeen

  157

  2 (2 per cent.)

  Farms (Negative Equity)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many full-time farm businesses were in a negative equity position in each year since 1985; and if he will make a statement. [12755]
  242
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 28 January 1997]: The table presents the percentage of farms in the farm accounts survey in Scotland that had liabilities exceeding business assets. The information is available only from 1986–87 onwards.

  Year

  Percentage of farms surveyed in Year FAS with negative equity

  1996–97

  0.2

  1995–96

  0.4

  1994–95

  0.7

  1993–94

  0.4

  1992–93

  0.8

  1991–92

  0.7

  1990–91

  0.3

  1989–90

  0.5

  1988–89

  1.1

  1987–88

  1.2

  1986–87

  1.9

  Local Enterprise Companies (Training)
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland in what ways the eligibility, financial and operating rules which apply to the delivery of training programmes by LECs in 1997–98 will differ from the rules outlined in the new contracting documents which replace the training and enterprise councils annual funding agreement in England. [13593]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 30 January 1997]: The rules in England are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. The rules for Government training programmes in Scotland are contained in the management statements and manual of project and programme rules of Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise. Copies have been placed in the House of Commons Library. Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise have responsibility for the delivery of Government training programmes through their respective networks of local enterprise companies. The contents of the annual operating contracts which exist between these enterprise organisations and the individual local enterprise companies within their networks are a matter for the enterprise organisations.

  Northern Isles (Ferry Services)
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland by what date final tender proposals have to be submitted to his Department in respect of the provision of passenger ferry services for the Northern Isles. [14872]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 10 February 1997]: The shipping operators who are competing for the award of subsidy under the new block grant arrangements for the support of passenger ferry services to the Northern Isles have been asked to submit their tenders by Monday 24 February 1997.

  Northern and Western Isles (Freight Services)
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he proposes to issue a consultation paper on the future subsidy arrangements for the carriage of bulk freight to the Northern and Western Isles; and if he will make a statement. [14873]
  243
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 10 February 1997]: A consultation paper on bulk freight shipping services in the highlands and islands area was issued on Friday 7 February 1997. Responses have been invited by Friday 19 April.

  Departmental Staff
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many staff his Department employs to advise schools on attaining self-governing status; and what is their current salary. [15172]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 1 February 1997]: Self-governing schools matters are dealt with by four officials within a policy branch of the Scottish Office Education and Industry Department which also deals with a range of other matters, including registration of, and liaison with, independent schools, the administration of the assisted places scheme, and school transport. Other officials, including Her Majesty's inspectors of schools and those dealing with legal and financial issues, also have occasional involvement on such matters when the need arises. It is not Scottish Office policy to disclose the salaries of individual officials.

WALES

  Farms (Negative Equity)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many full-time farm businesses had a negative equity in each year since 1985; and if he will make a statement. [12756]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  [holding answer 28 January 1997]: Results of the farm business survey show only isolated incidences of farm businesses in the sample with negative equity—defined as liabilities greater than assets—since 1986–87, the first year for which information is readily available.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many full-time farm businesses in Wales had negative equity in each year since 1985. [13894]

  Mr. Evans
  Results of the farm business survey show only isolated incidences of farm businesses in the sample with negative equity—defined as liabilities greater than assets—since 1986–87, the first year for which information is readily available.

  Public Information Videos
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many public information videos produced by his Department and the agencies for which he is responsible have been subtitled or signed. [14382]

  Mr. Hague
  In the past five years, no public information videos produced by my Department or agency Cadw have been subtitled or signed.

  Economic Activity
  Mr. Donald Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what changes he plans to make to his policy to 244
  redress the imbalance in economic activity and inward investment between south-east Wales and south-west Wales. [14422]

  Mr. Hague
  I would like to see more investment in the western parts of Wales and in those other areas that have so far not been the principal beneficiaries of inward investment.

  I will therefore set the Welsh Development Agency new and more demanding targets for inward investment outside the eastern M4 and A55 corridors. Additionally, I am asking the WDA, within agreed UK and European limits, to recognise the extra costs of locating in some areas by being prepared to give more assistance to companies locating in those areas than to equivalent projects elsewhere.

  Hospital Waiting Times
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on current hospital waiting times in(a) Clwyd and (b) Powys. [14889]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Since 1 April 1996, the residents of Clwyd are the responsibility of North Wales health authority and the residents of Powys are the responsibility of Dyfed Powys health authority.

  At 30 September 1996, 95 per cent. of north Wales residents and 93 per cent. of Dyfed Powys residents who were waiting for a first out-patient appointment had been waiting less than six months. In both areas, 99 per cent. of those waiting for in-patient or day-case treatment had waited less than 18 months and no one had waited over two years.

  Maternity Beds
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the number of maternity beds provided by each(a) NHS and (b) non-NHS hospital in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [14893]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  A list of NHS hospitals in Wales providing maternity beds is given in the following table. There are no specifically designated maternity beds in private hospitals in Wales.

  NHS Hospital

  Average daily number of maternity beds 1995–961

  Aberdare General

  4

  Breconshire War Memorial

  6

  Broddyfi Community

  2

  Bronglais General

  16

  Bryn Beryl

  5

  Builth Wells Cottage

  3

  Caerphilly District Miners

  23

  Chirk Community

  3

  Deeside Community

  3

  Dolgellau and Barmouth

  6

  East Glamorgan General

  40

  Knighton

  2

  Llandough

  50

  Llandrindod Wells

  4

  Llanidloes and District

  3

  Montgomeryshire County Infirmary

  4

  Neath General

  27

  Nevill Hall

  31

  Prince Charles

  41

  Princess of Wales

  38

  245

  NHS Hospital

  Average daily number of maternity beds 1995–961

  Royal Gwent

  68

  Singleton

  68

  Tywyn and District War Memorial

  2

  University Hospital of Wales

  40

  Victoria Memorial

  8

  West Wales General

  32

  Withybush General

  40

  Ysbyty Glan Clwyd

  48

  Ysbyty Gwynedd

  43

  Ysbyty Maelor

  53

  1 Obstetrics and GP maternity. Provisional.

  Music Lessons
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what guidelines his Department has issued to(a) local education authorities and (b) schools in Wales regarding making music lessons available to pupils without consideration of parental payment; and if he will make a statement. [14780]

  Mr. Hague
  Welsh Office circular No. 4/89, "Charges for School Activities", a copy of which is in the Library, gives guidance on charges for individual tuition in playing a musical instrument unless the tuition was necessary as part of the syllabus for a prescribed public examination or of the national curriculum, when it must be provided free of charge. Amending legislation in 1993 subsequently extended charges to groups of up to four pupils.

  Hospital Services
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many NHS hospitals in(a) Clywd and (b) Powys are currently paying private sector hospitals to treat NHS patients; if he will list the (i) hospitals concerned and (ii) costs involved; and if he will make a statement. [14892]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I am advised that no NHS trusts based in the former county of Clwyd or in Powys are currently paying private sector hospitals to treat NHS patients.

  Roads
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the(a) road building and (b) road repairing work planned to take place during 1997, and for each the (i) start date, (ii) planned completion date and (iii) cost; if he will identify those where the construction of a flyover is involved; and if he will make a statement. [14915]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Our spending plans for roads in 1997–98 were announced by my right hon. Friend on 12 December 1996. All major schemes in the forward trunk road programme are being reviewed in the light of that announcement. We are reassessing the competing priorities of individual schemes in the programme against the resources available. Details of the revised forward trunk road programme will be published in the Welsh Office departmental report shortly. Copies of the report will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Asthma
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people are currently being treated for asthma in(a) each county and (b) Wales; and if he will make a statement. [14888]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information on the number of people treated for asthma in Wales is not available centrally. However, a health survey of adults was carried out in Wales during 1995 and one of the questions asked was "Do you have any of these chest troubles or breathing difficulties now?"—asthma was one of the conditions included. The results, by health authority, were published in chapter 1 of "Welsh Health Survey 1995", a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many homeless households there are in each of the local authority areas in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [15140]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Information on the number of households accepted by local authorities as homeless is provided in the following table:

  Number of households accepted as homeless, July to September 1996

  Authority

  Number

  Blaenau Gwent

  59

  Bridgend

  365

  Caerphilly

  113

  Cardiff

  342

  Carmarthenshire

  71

  Ceredigion

  35

  Conwy

  57

  Denbighshire

  45

  Flintshire

  56

  Gwynedd

  28

  Isle of Anglesey

  25

  Merthyr Tydfil

  35

  Monmouthshire

  31

  Neath Port Talbot

  129

  Newport

  172

  Pembrokeshire

  65

  Powys

  111

  Rhondda Cynon Taff

  204

  Swansea

  310

  Torfaen

  60

  The Vale of Glamorgan

  38

  Wrexham

  109

  Wales

  2,460

  Source:

  Local authority returns.

  Unfit Homes
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many houses in(a) the Alyn and Deeside constituency and (b) Wales his Department estimates to be unfit for human habitation. [15145]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The latest Welsh house condition survey was conducted in 1993. From this, it is estimated that 151,200 occupied first homes in Wales were unfit. Information on individual constituency or local authority areas is not available from the survey. A
  247
  further house condition survey, which will provide results for local authority areas, is under way. Information from this survey will be available in 1998.

  Housebuilding
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the level of housebuilding in Wales. [15144]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Provisional data available from local authorities and the National House Building Council on house building in Wales for the third quarter of 1996 show 2,543 dwellings were started and 2,227 were completed during the period. This represents a 12 per cent. increase in the number of starts and a 2 per cent. increase in the number of completions over the third quarter of 1995.

  Planning Guidance
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received since the publication of "Technical Advice Note (Wales) 5"; how many expressed continuing concerns; and what those concerns were. [15241]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend has received no representations on "Technical Advice Note (Wales) 5" since its publication.

  European Anti-racism Year
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action he has taken in relation to the European Commission's decision to make 1997 the European Year Against Racism, Xenophobia and Anti-semitism; and if he will make a statement. [15264]

  Mr. Hague
  The Home Office has established a national co-ordinating committee which brings together representatives from a range of key organisations from across the country and will act as a focal point for the UK contributions to the European Year. The committee is currently drawing up a national programme of events for the Year and details will be announced in due course.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefit Recipients
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 28 January,Official Report, column 190, how many recipients of council tax benefit were (a) retirement pensioners and (b) retirement pensioners also receiving income support; what estimates he has made of the numbers of retirement pensioners drawing council tax benefit who are eligible for, but not claiming income support in (i) Great Britain, (ii) the United Kingdom and (iii) Bristol, East. [14292]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is set out in the table.
  248

  Number of council tax benefit recipients in receipt of the state retirement pension for Great Britain as at the end of May 1995.

  Number of recipients (000s)

  All recipients of council tax benefit and retirement pension.

  2,431

  All recipients of council tax benefit, retirement pension and income support.

  1,100

  Estimated recipients of council tax benefit and retirement pension, eligible for but not claiming income support

  260

  Notes:
  1. The information applies only to Great Britain.

  2. Information on Bristol East is not available.

  3. The first two figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand. The estimated figure has been rounded to the nearest 10,000.

  4. Figures refer to benefit units which may be a single person or a couple.

  Source:

  1. Housing benefit management information system annual 1 per cent. sample enquiry of housing benefit recipients with and without income support for Great Britain taken at the end of May 1995.

  For information on Northern Ireland I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. and Learned Friend, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Data Collection (Postcodes)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what use his Department and its agencies make of postcode areas for the collection of data and in formulas for the distribution of grants and awards; and when such usages were last reviewed. [14802]

  Mr. Burt
  Postcodes are used as one of the eligibility criteria for determining entitlement to a social fund cold weather payment. Each residential postcode is linked to one of 70 representative weather stations within Great Britain. The use of postcodes was introduced in November 1991. This enables those eligible for a payment to be identified quickly and a payment issued. After the end of each winter the scheme is reviewed. The review includes postcode to weather station links.

  The family resources survey, which is sponsored by this Department, uses the Office for National Statistics small users postcode address file to select a representative sample of households in Great Britain. The sample selection is carried out by the Office for National Statistics. There has not been a comprehensive review of the usage of postcodes since the survey was launched in 1992, but the coverage achieved by the selection method is under constant surveillance.

  The War Pensions Agency, in the annual report, "Pensioners by War Pension Committee Regions", shows the number of pensioners resident in specified war pension committee areas, which are broken down by postcode. The report is produced by the war pensions computer system. The method of compiling the report was last reviewed in June 1996.

  The Child Support Agency uses postcodes to estimate broadly travel to work allowances which may form part of a maintenance assessment. The agency began using postcodes for this purpose following the introduction of child support legislation in April 1995, which allowed

  249
  parents to have such costs reflected in their maintenance assessment. There has been no review of the usage of postcodes since that date.

  Social Security Appeals
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what targets exist for the Benefits Agency staff involved in adjudication and appeals of social security claims regarding appeal processing; [15220]

  (2) to what extent the pay of Benefits Agency staff involved in adjudication and appeals of social security claims is related to targets on appeals processing. [15221]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, dated 11 February 1997:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions asking what targets exist for the Benefits Agency (BA) staff involved in adjudication and appeals of social security claims regarding appeal processing; and to what extent the pay of BA staff involved in adjudication and appeals of social security claims are related to targets on appeals processing.
  The information is not available in the format requested. Responsibility for the overall clearance of appeals is for the Independent Tribunal Service (ITS).
  National targets set by the BA for appeals processing relate to the period between receipt of an appeal by BA and the despatch of the submission to ITS. Once despatched, further action on the appeal is the responsibility of the ITS. Each individual benefit contributes towards these national targets and have their own targets for clearing claims to the ITS. The targets set for BA are shown in the attached Annex.
  The pay of all Benefits Agency staff is performance related. The amount each receives depends on the achievement of a set personal key work objectives, and annual appraisal of performance.
  Staff involved in adjudication and appeals processing would have key work objectives which support the achievement of those targets. The achievement of key work objectives informs the overall performance marking for individual staff which in turn determines annual performance pay awards.

  I hope that you find this information useful.

  The national targets set for the 3 types of appeal administered by BA are as follows:

  Type of appeal

  Primary target Per cent.

  Secondary target Per cent.

  Social Security

  69 in 28 days

  94 in 90 days

  Medical

  60 in 35 days

  85 in 60 days

  Disability

  60 in 30 days

  90 in 60 days

  The individual benefit targets are as follows:

  Benefit

  Primary target Per cent.

  Secondary target Per cent.

  Income Support and Contributory Benefits

  70 in 28 days

  95 in 90 days

  Job Seekers Allowance

  70 in 28 days

  95 in 90 days

  Family Credit

  69 in 28 days

  94 in 90 days

  Disability Living Allowance

  69 in 28 days

  94 in 90 days

  Attendance Allowance

  69 in 28 days

  94 in 90 days

  Disability Working Allowance

  69 in 28 days

  94 in 90 days

  Invalid Care Allowance

  61 in 28 days

  93 in 90 days

  Child Benefit

  50 in 28 days

  90 in 90 days

  250

  Benefit

  Primary target Per cent.

  Secondary target Per cent.

  Guardians Allowance

  93 in 28 days

  —

  Pension Services Division

  64 in 28 days

  94 in 90 days

  Overseas Benefits Division

  51 in 28 days

  90 in 90 days

  Disability Appeals

  Primary target Per cent.

  Secondary target Per cent.

  Disability Living Allowance

  60 in 30 days

  90 in 60 days

  Attendance Allowance

  60 in 30 days

  90 in 60 days

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what further studies he has made to measure the amount of benefit fraud; and if he will make a statement. [15901]

  Mr. Burt
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, announced in July 1995 that he had instigated a series of benefit reviews across the major social security benefits to identify and quantify the level of fraud and error. Results of the reviews of income support, unemployment benefit, housing benefit, retirement pension and invalid care allowance have already been announced.

  A review has now been completed on disability living allowance, a benefit which is paid to disabled people to help with some of the extra costs associated with disability. Not all disabled people satisfy the conditions for an award of DLA, which is based on the care and mobility needs arising from the effects of a disability rather than on the disability itself.

  The review shows that some 73 per cent. of customers are entitled to the DLA they are receiving. In 27 per cent. of cases, therefore, DLA is being paid at an incorrect rate. Reasons for incorrectness, which involved both underpayments and overpayments of DLA, ranged from departmental or customer error right through to deliberate fraud.

  In 12.2 per cent. of the cases surveyed, officials considered that customers did not satisfy the qualifying condition for receipt of either all or part of the benefit in payment due to their deliberate overestimate of their care or mobility needs or failure to report an improvement in their condition. Grossed up from the sample this represents an estimated annual overpayment of £499 million.

  In addition there was a further 3 per cent. of customers who were found by the review to have been overpaid but where they might have been unaware that the changes in their condition was such that they should have reported it to the Benefits Agency. These represent an estimated annual overpayment of £83 million.

  The exercise also identified another 9.3 per cent. of customers who were not receiving the appropriate rate of benefit because of an unreported deterioration in their condition. This represents an estimated annual underpayment of £227 million.

  The results of this exercise will be studied and will help to inform plans to tackle incorrectness in DLA.
  251
  Customers who are entitled to the benefit have nothing to worry about from the findings of this exercise. But there are changes in medical conditions which can affect that entitlement level. The nature of some disabilities is such that there can be improvements where care or mobility needs, or both, become slight or non-existent. Customers have a duty to report such subsequent changes in their condition to the Benefits Agency and this requirement is clearly set out to customers when they receive benefit.

  Elderly People (Winter Assistance)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures he has taken to help the elderly during the winter months in each of the last three years; and at what cost. [15385]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  During the last three years, help has been available to pensioners awarded income support through the social fund cold weather payments scheme. This gives help towards additional heating costs during sustained periods of very cold weather. Estimates of benefit expenditure for each of the last three years are as follows:

  £000

  Year

  Total cold weather payments expenditure

  Estimated expenditure to pensioners

  1993–94

  12,400

  6,3741

  1994–95

  77

  391

  1995–96

  61,600

  31,1081

  1 Estimated expenditure figures for pensioners are based on the income support quarterly statistical enquiry at February 1994, 1995, and 1996. Families with children under five, disabled people and pensioners on income support were eligible for cold weather payments. Expenditure on pensioners has been estimated on a pro rata basis.

  Expenditure figures rounded to nearest £1,000.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Civil Service Briefings
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make it his policy to offer to hon. Members briefings by the Northern Ireland civil service similar to those provided for the Anglo-Irish Secretariat on appropriate topics. [12173]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Briefings are provided for the Irish side of the Anglo-Irish secretariat, in accordance with the terms of the Anglo-Irish agreement, on appropriate matters. These briefings can be instigated by either side.

  My ministerial colleagues and I also offer briefings to hon. Members on occasions but, in addition, always stand ready to consider favourably requests from hon. Members on issues relevant to the Northern Ireland Departments.

  Gallaher Ltd.
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland from which budget the award of £9.957 million to Gallaher Ltd. towards development at its Ballymena factory was made. [15182]
  252
  Mr. Ancram
  The selective financial assistance offered to Gallaher Ltd. for development at the Ballymena factory will be payable from the Northern Ireland block, Department of Economic Development vote 1 section D (Assistance to Industry).

  Job Skills Programmes
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what requests he has received from the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action to discuss matters relating to the use of European Union funding for mainstream job skills programmes and related programmes; and if he will make a statement. [14910]

  Sir John Wheeler
  My right hon. and learned Friend has not been asked by the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action for a meeting to discuss these matters.

  EU Funding
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to modify his proposals for the mainstreaming of current temporary funding schemes from European Union programmes, with particular reference to the special support programme for peace and reconciliation and the European social fund; and if he will make a statement. [14906]

  Sir John Wheeler
  All projects developed under the special support programme for peace and reconciliation and the community initiatives component of the European social fund will be evaluated in due course to see what lessons may be learned. Apart from this, there are no such plans.

  Training and Employment
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what has been the change in the funding of the action for community employment scheme in the past 12 months; what further changes are planned in the near-future; and if he will make a statement; [14907]

  (2) what recent representations he has received concerning the role of the voluntary sector in reducing unemployment; and if he will make a statement; [14908]

  (3) if he has received the report of the review of long-term unemployment conducted by the Training and Employment Agency; and if he will make a statement. [14909]

  Mr. Ancram
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Training and Employment Agency under its chief executive Mr. Ian Walters. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Ian Walters to Dr. Norman Godman, dated 12 February 1997:
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me, as Chief Executive of the Training and Employment Agency, to reply to your questions about the Action for Community Employment (ACE) scheme, the role of the voluntary sector and long-term unemployment.

  14907
  Resources allocated to ACE have been reduced in each of the last two public expenditure rounds. In the 1995–96 financial year £49.6 million was spent providing, on average, 9,189 ACE places. This year £39.8 million has been allocated to provide, on average, 7,200 places. In 1997–98 and the following two years ACE has

  253
  been allocated £28.5 million which will support around 5,200 places. There are no plans to make further changes to ACE. Any such plans will only emerge following extensive consultation on the Training and Employment Agency's review of long-term unemployment which will be published shortly.

  14908
  The Agency has frequent discussions with the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action (NICVA) which is the body most representative of voluntary sector organisations working with the unemployed. NICVA has provided very constructive advice, along with other organisations in the voluntary sector, on the preparation of the Agency's consultation document on long-term unemployment.
  The consultation document is intended to stimulate an informed and forward looking debate on the types of approaches and measures which might most effectively help the long-term unemployed to reintegrate into the active labour market. It will examine the roles which different sectors, including the voluntary sector, might play within the overall strategy.

  14909
  Baroness Denton has received a copy of the draft consultation document which the Agency expects to complete and publish shortly.

  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Fee-paying Schools
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the fee-paying schools which have received funds under(a) the targeting social needs scheme and (b) the raising school standards initiative, indicating the amounts received in each of the past three years and the sums forecast to be paid in 1997–98; and if he will make a statement. [15108]

  Mr. Ancram
  Fees in Northern Ireland's voluntary grammar schools are, with two exceptions, limited to a maximum capital fee of £80. All voluntary grammar schools receive some level of assistance from targeting social needs resources, on the principle that money follows the pupils eligible for free school meals. The amount going to voluntary grammar schools represents only 4 per cent. of the funds allocated under the scheme.

  The table lists the sums received by each voluntary grammar school.

  School

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Armagh Royal

  6,790

  8,849

  5,871

  4,422

  Ballymena Academy

  8,692

  7,421

  5,284

  7,076

  Ballymoney Dalriada

  13,581

  13,987

  12,036

  12,972

  Bangor Grammar

  6,519

  5,423

  4,697

  5,012

  Belfast Bloomfield

  6,519

  8,849

  6,752

  6,781

  Belfast Campbell

  1,358

  856

  2,055

  3,243

  Belfast High

  12,223

  11,132

  10,862

  14,446

  Belfast Hunterhouse

  8,148

  10,276

  11,742

  11,793

  Belfast Methodist

  8,148

  10,276

  9,100

  12,972

  Belfast RBAI

  8,148

  8,563

  5,871

  6,191

  Belfast Royal Academy

  15,482

  15,414

  19,081

  16,510

  Belfast Strathearn

  3,803

  3,996

  3,816

  5,307

  Belfast Victoria

  4,074

  5,423

  7,339

  9,434

  Coleraine Acad Inst

  14,396

  12,274

  12,623

  13,856

  Dungannon Royal

  5,976

  8,278

  12,330

  10,024

  Enniskillen Portora

  4,074

  5,709

  7,045

  4,717

  Holywood Sullivan

  2,716

  2,569

  1,761

  2,948

  Larne Grammar

  7,062

  5,423

  4,697

  6,486

  Lisburn Friend's

  5,704

  6,851

  7,633

  6,781

  Lisburn Wallace

  4,889

  6,565

  9,394

  9,729

  Londonderry Foyle

  20,099

  19,695

  18,201

  21,227

  Magherafelt Rainey Endowed

  13,309

  13,416

  13,504

  19,163

  Armagh St. Patrick's

  27,976

  32,255

  34,053

  34,788

  Ballymena St. Louis'

  25,532

  24,548

  32,585

  24,764

  254

  School

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Ballynahinch Assumption

  16,840

  13,701

  17,907

  23,585

  Belfast Acquinas

  6,519

  11,988

  19,081

  21,227

  Belfast CBS

  74,966

  87,059

  90,417

  85,201

  Belfast Dominican

  30,149

  35,395

  34,053

  32,724

  Belfast Our Lady and St. Pats

  21,186

  22,264

  25,540

  21,521

  Belfast St. Dominic's

  45,360

  68,220

  67,813

  58,078

  Belfast St. Malachy's

  24,989

  33,111

  34,640

  34,198

  Coleraine Loreto College

  29,063

  31,113

  30,530

  29,481

  Donaghmore St. Joseph's

  35,582

  36,822

  39,044

  44,517

  Downpatrick St. Patrick's

  15,754

  13,987

  16,146

  17,689

  Dungannon St. Patrick's Boys'

  61,113

  59,942

  62,529

  68,387

  Dungannon St. Patrick's Girls'

  57,311

  59,942

  58,419

  60,732

  Dunmurry Rathmore

  18,741

  25,119

  25,833

  20,637

  Enniskillen Convent

  46,446

  52,806

  46,838

  50,118

  Eniskillen St. Michael's

  38,026

  38,820

  36,695

  37,147

  Garron Tower

  23,630

  21,693

  26,714

  25,059

  Kilkeel St. Louis'

  19,013

  19,981

  23,191

  29,481

  Londonderry St. Columbl

  20,869

  111,036

  113,021

  114,682

  Londonderry Thornhill

  90,719

  91,912

  95,701

  98,468

  Lurgan St. Michael's

  28,248

  25,975

  23,485

  28,007

  Magherafelt St. Mary's

  49,162

  48,525

  55,189

  58,963

  Newry CBS

  33,680

  42,245

  40,218

  40,979

  Newry Our Lady's

  45,903

  53,092

  48,731

  50,118

  Newry Sacred Heart

  37,211

  41,674

  49,905

  47,170

  Newery St. Colman's

  28,520

  31,113

  31,998

  33,609

  Omagh CBS

  28,791

  33,682

  36,695

  39,210

  Omagh Loreto

  36,125

  42,245

  45,502

  45,106

  Portstewart Dominican

  6,519

  7,992

  9,394

  9,434

  Strabane Convent

  36,396

  32,826

  33,760

  37,441

  1,342,049

  1,442,328

  1,496,866

  1,533,621

  (b) No fee-paying school receives any assistance under the Raising School Standards Initiative.

  Bloody Sunday
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent representations he has received from the Taoiseach concerning Bloody Sunday; and if he will make a statement. [15258]

  Sir John Wheeler
  None. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spoke to the Taoiseach on Friday 31 January; Bloody Sunday was among the many items discussed. The subject was also raised when my right hon. and learned Friend met the Tanaiste on Thursday 6 February.

  CORRIGENDUM
  Official Report, 3 February 1997: In col. 458–59, written answers, the question and answer relating to the new parliamentary building should read as follows:
  Mr. Dixon
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee when construction of the new parliamentary building will commence; and if he will make a statement. [11925]

  Sir Raymond Powell
  I am pleased to report that good progress is being made with the design and procurement of the new building. Contracts for over 70 per cent. of the work by value have been awarded. For example, prefabrication of the roof is proceeding apace in
  255
  Lancashire, of the stone columns in Derbyshire and the contractors are well advanced with the detailed design and ordering of the mechanical and electrical services.

  It had been planned that work would start on site today, 3 February 1997. Unfortunately London Underground Ltd. and its contractor have not made as much progress as they planned with the construction of the new Westminster station and are not able to hand back the site. My Committee has taken evidence in public and in private from the chief executive of LUL and from the project director on a number of occasions and, while we appreciate the magnitude of their task, they have been left in no doubt of the considerable disappointment that they have not been able to return
  256
  the site on the due date. In due course the House will be pursuing the remedies available under the terms of the agreement with LUL.

  At this stage I cannot advise my right hon. Friend when work will start on site. There have been progressive slippages in the forecast date for the first stage handover and all the indications are that the current forecast of 29 July 1997 may not be achieved. My Committee continues to press London Underground and will keep the matter under continuous scrutiny.

  Until there is a date from London Underground in which we can have confidence, it is not possible to give a firm date for the completion of the building. The aim, however, is that occupation should start during the summer recess 2000.

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

Message from the Queen: Succession to the Crown
Viscount Ridley: My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships a message from Her Majesty the Queen signed by her own hand. The message is as follows:
"I have received your Address and, relying on the wisdom of my Parliament, I desire that my prerogative and interest, insofar as they relate to the succession to the Crown, should not stand in the way of the consideration by Parliament during the present Session of any measure providing for the removal of any distinction between the sexes in determining the succession to the Crown".

Gulf War: Health Studies
2.37 p.m.
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the results of the Gulf War Assessment Programme, and the epidemiological studies recently commissioned, will accurately reflect the health status of the participants in view of the lack of evidence as to vaccines and other medication administered.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe): My Lords, the epidemiological studies recently commissioned by the Ministry of Defence will collect self-reported data on the health status of Gulf veterans and their families and on exposures in the Gulf. This will be validated wherever possible by reference to civilian or service medical records, and to the epidemiological database on health status which has been compiled within the Ministry of Defence.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there are a great many other factors which have hitherto been denied by the Ministry of Defence which should be taken into account? He knows of one about which I spoke to him on Monday. There is also the evidence given by Mr. Richard Turnbull, which, I understand, is in the hands of his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence. Does he agree that all that should be taken into account, and that it is time the MoD came clean about exactly what was used in the Gulf?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am sure the noble Countess is not suggesting that officials in my department may have deliberately withheld relevant information from Ministers. If she is saying that officials may be fallible
238
in some way, I can only agree that they have that characteristic in common with us all. However, I can assure her that officials throughout the MoD are well seized of the importance which the Government attach to the successful conclusion of the research that we have commissioned. I have every confidence in their ability to provide all the relevant evidence available.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will that study take into account also the vaccination records, as mentioned by the noble Countess in her Question? It seems to be the case, and perhaps the Minister can confirm this, that at least one soldier received 12 vaccinations in a period of 10 minutes. Furthermore, it appears also that the incidence of asthma is very high in Gulf War veterans. It may well be that there are factors other than purely epidemiological factors. Would the Minister care to comment on that?
Earl Howe: My Lords, details of the programme of vaccinations given to British troops during the Gulf War as a protection against biological weapons were declassified in December of last year, as the noble Lord will be aware. Any Gulf veteran who requests information about the vaccinations he or she received will be provided with the details recorded on their medical file. If those details are incomplete, the veteran will also receive advice as to what vaccinations he or she was likely to have been given. Common allergies such as hay fever and asthma are not, I am advised, contra-indications for any vaccine and therefore there was no need to screen recipients of vaccines in the Gulf.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, will the Minister explain why it should be self-reported data only?
Earl Howe: My Lords, in the first instance it will be self-reported, because that is the methodology which the team of scientists has chosen. That methodology has been approved by the MRC. After phase one we shall move to a further phase which will build on the work already achieved to see whether any patterns of ill health are emerging and where those patterns occur.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, are our Government keeping in touch with the American Government, who are doing splendid research into this matter? I know that they would be only too willing to share it with our great old country.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the noble Lord makes an extremely important point. I can assure him that we are in close touch with the US authorities on these matters. My honourable friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces visited the United States some weeks ago for that very reason.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that while it is correct that every investigation should be made to ascertain whether there are adverse consequences as a result of the inoculation programme for the troops, that programme was undertaken in the

239
best interests of the health of those troops and the fact of the matter is that in the general run the health of the soldiers during the Gulf War was at a very high level?
Earl Howe: My Lords, my noble friend makes an extremely important point. I agree that the vaccination programme was intended to provide our forces with the best protection available in the face of what was a clearly assessed and potentially deadly threat. We should remember that the incidence of the disease which might ordinarily occur in such circumstances was extremely low.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, will the Minister comment on the report which I have read several times that the troops of the French Foreign Legion were not subjected to spraying with insecticide nor the other measures and that no ill results have been reported in the health of the veterans of that body?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked a similar question when we last debated this subject. As I confirmed to him then, the French authorities have said that they recognise no medical syndrome connected with the Gulf War and that no French soldiers have claimed to be ill with the so-called Gulf War syndrome. The French did not give their troops any form of protective immunisation against either chemical or biological agents.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, in an earlier question I mentioned asthma and the noble Earl denied that there was a contra-indication. Is he aware that troops in the Gulf were given NAPS tablets (nerve agent pre-treatment set) and that the following condition is listed under caution for the use of the tablets: "Asthma; extreme caution"?
Earl Howe: My Lords, my advice is that NAPS is a very effective and safe counter-measure against chemical warfare nerve agents. The active ingredient is pyridestigmine bromide. That is known to have minor side-effects when the drug is taken, but those side-effects stop when the drug is no longer taken. As far as I am aware, there are no known long-term adverse effects from taking pyridestigmine bromide.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is easy to be wise after the event? If nerve gas had been used and we had not given those pills there would be far more cause for complaint?
Earl Howe: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. I am sure that if today the Armed Forces were faced with a similar decision as to whether to administer protective medication to our forces they would do so.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I hope that the Minister is aware that I have absolutely no desire to make political capital out of this matter. My objective is to see that these very sick men receive recognition and treatment for their illness.
240
In view of the information which I have and constantly receive, will the Minister kindly arrange to meet me so that I can give him that information, together with the corroborative evidence, in order that we can get to the bottom of this awful problem?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am delighted to agree to the noble Countess's suggestion. I stand ready to receive any information which she has on these important matters as soon as possible.

Nuclear Weapons
2.47 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the light of their commitment to nuclear disarmament and of the opinion of the Canberra Commission that the present lack of control of nuclear weapons is dangerous, they will support the commission's recommendation for the gradual internationally agreed and verified reduction of nuclear weapons to zero.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, we remain committed to pursuing nuclear disarmament under our international obligations, including Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Nuclear disarmament measures cannot be divorced from the broader global security context. As we have previously made clear, we disagree fundamentally with the Canberra Commission's assertion that nuclear deterrence has no role.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is somewhat hypocritical to be in favour of something theoretically but to oppose any steps taken in that direction? In the circumstances, will the Government reconsider their attitude in particular towards the Canberra Commission and the general view in the world that the time has come not merely to be theoretically in favour of nuclear disarmament but to do something about it?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, there is nothing theoretical about the Government's commitment to disarmament. We have already made reductions to our nuclear arsenal on a national basis. Our deterrent is set at a minimum consistent with our security needs.
I shall try not to repeat what I said in answer to the noble Lord's Question yesterday. But while we welcome the recognition in the Canberra Commission report that nuclear arms control can be negotiated only between the nuclear weapon states themselves, I have to disagree that the role of deterrence has disappeared. As I said, disarmament measures cannot be divorced from the broader global security context. Deterrence continues to make a substantial and essential contribution to European security.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, is the Minister aware that both General Colin Powell and Madeleine Albright, the new US Secretary of State, have publicly declared that they look forward to the day when the number of nuclear weapons is zero and when, in the words of Mrs. Albright, they are nothing but a memory? Can the Minister explain why the Government are lagging behind our American allies in declaring their eventual elimination as an important policy objective?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, first, I should say to the noble Baroness that we too wish to see a zero situation, but it is not right—and the Americans would agree with this—to go to zero while other nuclear powers refuse to do so. We are not lagging behind. As I said yesterday, we have eliminated our maritime surface tactical nuclear capability and we have withdrawn our nuclear artillery and Lance missiles and further reductions are planned. When the WE-177 free-fall bomb is withdrawn by the end of next year, we shall have one system left—Trident. Our deterrent will then be 21 per cent. smaller in terms of warheads and 59 per cent. smaller in terms of explosive power than in the mid-1970s when the party opposite was in power.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that, although the heart of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, might be in the right place, the same cannot always be said of his references? Is it not a fact that the Canberra Commission made no reference at all to the present lack of control over nuclear weapons, although it referred to a potential loss of control in certain circumstances, which is very different? Will the Minister confirm that whatever may be the dangers elsewhere in the world, the command, control and communications of our own nuclear weapons are as effective and safe as human ingenuity can make them?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord is once again absolutely right. I shall not comment on his reference to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney. But we must have a sense of proportion about what is going on and stick to the facts. The Canberra Commission's report made specific recommendations for immediate steps to be taken. As regards an end to nuclear tests, the CTBT has effectively done that. As regards further US/Russian cuts, we have made clear our support for the START process. As regards fissile material cut-off, we have already supported the beginning of negotiations with the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva. As regards the command, control and communications of our own weapons, I believe that it is the best in the world.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, will the Minister concede that the world circumstances when the Labour Party was last in power were very different from today?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, indeed they were. The country was in a terrible state.
Lord Carver: My Lords, will the Minister explain who is supposed to be deterred by the deterrent to which she referred, and from doing what?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, anyone who seeks to use aggression against this country and its allies.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, while we are all accustomed to what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, says, and he is very apt to confuse hypocrisy with common sense, it is rather worrying when the very distinguished noble Baroness from the Front Bench opposite talks a lot of nonsense about us lagging behind the Americans?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we work extremely closely with our American and other allies. We shall make sure that we are not lagging behind anybody. I am sure that the noble Baroness will wish to do some more reading after today's Question Time.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, did I understand the Minister correctly in replying to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, that we should use the nuclear bomb as a weapon to stop aggression?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we have made it absolutely clear that we would not use a bomb except in self-defence, and that would be after everything else had been tried.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, has the Minister noted a report that a very senior Russian military figure has said quite clearly that in the event of a conventional attack upon Russia, which we must all hope will never happen, Russia reserves the right to use a nuclear deterrent? Does not that make nonsense of the idea that deterrence has somehow vanished from the strategic armament?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. The proposal by Mr. Rybkin, the Russian Security Council Secretary, to abandon the no-first-use principle is not new. It is restating the 1993 military doctrine. There are still risks in this world. What we are seeking to do—and it is important to understand this—is to embrace Russia in European security issues and not to isolate her. By that embracing, we hope to avoid the use of any nuclear weaponry whatever. That is why the Russians need not fear that anyone in NATO will ever contemplate taking advantage of their present difficulties in maintaining their conventional forces.

Coal: UK Stocks
2.55 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they expect there to be a shortage of coal in the United Kingdom in the foreseeable future.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, we do not expect the United Kingdom to suffer a shortage of coal in the foreseeable future.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that coal stocks have fallen from 47.2 million tonnes in 1992 to 15 million tonnes in 1996 and that at the same time last year the demand for electricity rose by 7 per cent. as against the expected rise of 2 per cent.? Is he aware further that when there is a 1 per cent. rise in the demand for electricity, a further million tonnes of coal are required? Is not the ending of preferential treatment for nuclear power and gas long overdue, particularly as the coal industry is the cheapest provider of energy?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am not sure that I can agree with the noble Lord's last proposition. However, the situation is that there is a diverse range of fuels used to generate electricity. Increasingly the situation has been that gas is used more than coal. I cannot contradict the exact figures which the noble Lord has given. He is correct that only a very small stock of coal is kept at power stations; namely, something like 2.5 million tonnes. But in our view, that is an adequate defence against the disruption of supplies, given the wide variety of fuels which are now available.
As the noble Lord will appreciate, such has been the performance of the electricity generating industry that in the course of last month there was a peak demand of all time and there was still something like 13 per cent. of spare capacity.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, does not my noble and learned friend agree that the fall in coal stocks has more to do with the improvement in industrial relations than any other factor?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am not surprised that my noble friend should make that observation. Certainly, the coal stocks have reduced for that reason. I am sure that my noble friend will recall that during the course of last year we discovered that in 1995, for the first year on record, no working days were lost through strike action in the coalmining industry. I have no doubt that everyone welcomes that. Indeed, that is one of the reasons that it is no longer necessary to keep excessively large stocks of coal.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that at present there is a shortage of British-produced coal in that 8 million tonnes of power station coal are being imported? Is he further aware that according to information which I have received, had the capacity existed, we could have replaced that tonnage, thus saving some £200 million of foreign exchange and providing some 2,000 extra jobs?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, as I am sure the noble Lord knows from his long experience in the industry, of the coal which is imported into the United Kingdom, some half is in respect of coal for which we either do not have any capacity or certainly do not have an adequate quantity. The other half is imported essentially because coal which is imported is sold to generators and others at a price cheaper than coal can be produced in this country. I agree with the noble Lord
244
that if coal were to be subsidised, it would be possible to provide it all in the United Kingdom. But I am far from convinced that that is an appropriate way forward for our generating industry.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, the coal that I was talking about is coal that is easily substitutable. There are 7 million tonnes of coking coal imported to which I did not refer. I was not talking about subsidised coal. Is the Minister aware that, had the extra capacity been there and bearing in mind our present experience of the cost of British coal, it could easily have been replaced?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I have indicated to the noble Lord what I understand to be the position. The total amount of coal imports is either in grades or types, including anthracite for which we have insufficient sources of supply.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister agree that the industrial use of coal is bedeviled by pollution problems?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Yes, my Lords; it has been, although I am sure that my noble friend now appreciates that very substantial improvements have been made in terms of washing out the gases which are emitted from power stations fired by coal. What was a problem in the past has been eliminated in large measure, although it clearly could be improved.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, does the Minister agree that a sensible fuel policy should be based not predominantly on one source of energy but on a number of sources of different fuels? That being the case, would the noble and learned Lord care to comment on the proposition that imports of orimulsion and pet coke, which themselves are the dirty fuels in use, represent a threat to the coal industry which would not be desirable?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I certainly agree with the noble Lord's opening proposition that there should be a variety of fuels which can be used to generate electricity. However, as far as concerns orimulsion, I am bound to tell the noble Lord that there is an application by a generating company in this country to use orimulsion in Pembrokeshire. That is a matter which is presently before my department for consideration. Therefore, in those circumstances, I am sure that the noble Lord will appreciate that no comment from me would be appropriate at present.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, the Minister did not refer to that part of my supplementary question in which I said that both nuclear power and gas receive what in effect is a subsidy. It is no wonder that the electricity generating industry is using more gas. We all know about the "dash for gas" which this Government encouraged. Surely the Minister agrees that from time to time—and certainly within the past two years—there have been very critical periods when electricity supply has almost not come about because of the lack of power. That is why we are staying on coal.

245
Is it not ludicrous to be importing 15 million tonnes of coal, which is much more than the special kind of coal to which the Minister referred?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, we could have a long discussion about the extent to which nuclear power is being subsidised in historical terms. However, so far as concerns gas, I do not accept from the noble Lord that it is in any sense subsidised at present. It is a fuel which is very cheap at the moment; it is very available and very efficient in the way that it is used for generating purposes; and it also has very significant advantages in environmental terms. For all those reasons, it seems to me to be appropriate that we should be using gas to generate electricity; indeed, the noble Lord's noble friend on the Opposition Front Bench indicated that it would be desirable to have a variety of fuels used for the purpose.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, although I do not believe everything that I read in newspaper reports, has my noble friend the Minister read a recent press report about heavily subsidised German coal coming into the United Kingdom? If he has, can he tell the House what the Government are doing about it?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, if my noble friend saw such press reports then that is correct. We are aware of allegations that German coal producers have been dumping subsidised anthracite, especially in the North East of England. That is a matter which this Government have brought to the attention of the European Commission.
Lord Varley: My Lords, now that the private companies have depleted the very large stocks of coal that they inherited following privatisation, are the Government aware that there is much anecdotal evidence that essential development work is not now taking place in the deep mines that remain and that we could be in a very serious position in two years' time? Are the Government indifferent to the situation; indeed, do they know about it? Finally, has the Coal Authority any role to play in the matter?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I have heard some allegations that that type of developmental work is not being undertaken. However, I do not know how sound such allegations are. I certainly have no broad indication that significant problems are likely to emerge over the next few years. If there is a problem confronting the coal industry, it is that it must be in a competitive position over the next few years when, undoubtedly, there will be a number of other options for generating electricity following the increased use of gas and the combined cycle gas turbines which are very efficient in every possible way.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, if the private owners of the coal industry run down that industry and do not invest in it to such an extent that in a few years' time this country runs out of power generating capacity and
246
ability, will those people be sent to gaol for effectively destroying a national asset which is important for our future survival?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am bound to say that I believe the private owners of coal are somewhat wiser than the noble Lord. They have no purpose in deliberately running down an industry at a loss. They are in business to ensure that the industry is efficiently and competitively run. Although production levels have been dropping, those companies that are in private hands are running at a profit at present. That is the best safeguard of their long-term future.

Poverty and Ill Health
3.5 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington rose to call attention to the impact of poverty on ill health in Britain today and the case for action to raise the standards of health of the nation's poorest families; and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the Motion before the House this afternoon is about social justice—it is about poverty and inequity which is perhaps why it seems to be of little interest to noble Lords on the Benches opposite. Certainly social justice has found no place in the agenda of the present Government.
In your Lordships' House we often debate health policy, usually in the context of the National Health Service. Your Lordships are rightly very concerned about the state of the NHS, about its funding and about its organisation. But good health is about more than the NHS. It is about how we live. It is about the kind of country we are. It is about what priorities we give to things like proper childcare, to worthwhile employment for school-leavers—and, indeed, for everyone of working age—to decent housing, to the environment and to building cohesive communities.
Those are the underlying factors which affect the well-being of the whole population and which determine everyone's health. The tragedy is that we live in an increasingly divided society. The income gap between the rich and the poor is now wider than at any time since 1945, and that divide has grown faster than in any other comparable industrialised country. Sadly, the economic gap is now mirrored by a stark health divide.
Today in Britain in 1997–50 years after the NHS was created—the average life expectancy in the lowest tenth of the income scale is eight years less than those people in the highest tenth. Men and women of working age in the poorest groups in society are more than twice as likely to die prematurely as those in the highest groups. It has been calculated that 30,000 to 40,000 people die before their time every year because of their standard of living. As one commentator observed, if that number of people died unexpectedly in a series of air crashes, floods or in any other catastrophic natural disaster, the public outcry would be overwhelming, but the deadly effects of poverty tend to he ignored. The particularly alarming fact is that as

247
economic inequality has widened in Britain in the past 18 years, so these health inequalities have widened in step.
Death rates at all ages in some of the most disadvantaged areas in our country have not only worsened in relative terms to better-off places but, among some age groups—notably, and very disturbingly, among young men—death rates have actually risen. That is particularly shocking when we remember that death rates overall have been going down since the 1930s. It is shocking but it has little to do with the performance of the National Health Service. As my right honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition in another place said at a recent health service conference:
"When I meet people who have been unemployed for many years in poor housing with bad health, I know what will transform their lives is not just a better hospital or more regular visits to a doctor: it is a job, good housing and a sense of security. The way to improve the nation's health is to start to build a more inclusive society".
I was vividly reminded of those points last week at a meeting about preventing heart disease. Heart disease is the biggest killer in the United Kingdom and, once again, there is a social divide. You are more than twice as likely to have a fatal heart attack if you are in social class V than in social class I. The medical experts believe that heart disease can be largely prevented. At that meeting they explained that it is about getting the right messages across about healthy lifestyles and about making those clear to people. However, a distinguished cardiologist from Manchester was angrily disputing that view. He said that most of his patients came from the Moss Side area. They were surviving on benefits and could not afford the recommended low fat diet foods and expensive fresh fruit. It was often too dangerous for them to take exercise by walking in their neighbourhoods, and they certainly did not belong to gyms. They were suffering from stress because of the circumstances of their lives and smoking was sometimes their only luxury. Health education would not help them; only a much broader social policy approach to improving their lives would reduce the number of heart attacks of that doctor's patients.
There are now three main causes of death in Britain today. Heart disease is the first and the others are strokes and cancers. All three hit the poorest worst. Social class differences affect health during life, as well as length of life. Overall there is compelling evidence that people who live in disadvantaged circumstances have more illnesses, greater distress, more disability and shorter lives than those who are more affluent.
This is of special concern when we consider the health of our children and the numbers of families living in poverty today. Families with young children are disproportionately represented among the poorest families. They make up 43 per cent. of the total population, but 57 per cent. of them are living on the lowest incomes. One third of our children—over 4 million—are being brought up in poverty, often in single parent households. Not surprisingly, this economic fact is reflected in depressing facts about the children's health. Those facts show that inequalities are built in from birth.
In 1997 we are three generations into the history of our welfare state. In spite of what are on the whole excellent maternity and obstetric services, there are still 50,000 babies born every year who are officially recorded as having low birth weights. Infant mortality in the poorest neighbourhoods is 11 per 1,000 live births. That is more than twice the number in our more affluent communities. A child in social class V who survives infancy is still twice as likely to die before the age of 15 as a child from social class I, and five times more likely to die in an accident. I know that my noble friend Lord Murray of Epping Forest will speak further about the dreadful impact of accidents later this afternoon.
My next point is less catastrophic but it is still serious. There is more and more evidence of poorer children being malnourished or of being more susceptible to respiratory diseases such as asthma because of pollution or damp housing. I know that my noble friends will return to these subjects later in the debate. Last autumn the Health Visitors Association produced a disturbing national survey of children's health and nutrition. Some 61 per cent. of the health visitors surveyed reported seeing iron deficiency and 93 per cent reported gastro-enteritis.
In another report, rather pathetically entitled Children who have no Breakfast, researchers found that in the most deprived inner city schools, 15 out of every 100 primary school children had no breakfast to eat at all before they left home, and nine were not even given a drink. This kind of malnutrition, combined with generally unsuitable and often overcrowded living conditions, is causing the so-called "poverty" diseases to return. In 1997 health visitors across the country now report seeing rickets and TB among families they visit. Recently the British Medical Journal reported that there had been a 35 per cent. increase in TB in the poorest tenth of the population. It is no wonder that the Health Visitors Association report concluded that Britain seems to be returning to the social conditions of 100 years ago. This is an intolerable situation. We cannot passively sit and observe as the great gains in health and welfare which most of us have enjoyed in the 20th century are undermined by the desperate poverty of our most vulnerable families.
The independent health policy institute, the King's Fund, recently issued this challenge:
"the socio economic causes of health inequality can be amenable to changes in public policy. Such injustice could be prevented but this requires political will".
For the past 18 years the political will has been singularly lacking.
I remind your Lordships of the present Government's record on poverty and ill health. In 1977 the Secretary of State for Health in the previous Labour Government—our much missed noble friend the late Lord Ennals—commissioned Sir Douglas Black, the distinguished physician, to investigate the whole subject. Sir Douglas's seminal report was published in 1980. It could have provided the essential base and policy guide to any responsible government wanting to take action in this area. However, by 1980, of course, the Conservatives were in power and the new Secretary

249
of State, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding—I am sorry that he does not appear to be present—simply refused to accept the findings of the Black Report. He said he could not endorse what had been written.
Sir Douglas was unlucky to hit the tide of Thatcherism as it began to surge. Social analysis and collective solutions to any problems were unfashionable in a country where the concept of society itself was under threat from the highest level. During the 1980s the Black Report gathered the proverbial political dust somewhere in the recesses of the Department of Health. Fortunately this did not deter the health research community, including my noble friend Lord Rea, whom we shall hear from later. As unemployment rose and economic inequalities widened, researchers have continued to build up an incontrovertible dossier about the links between deprivation and disease and early death. Recently we have had the authoritatively comprehensive overview of the Social Justice Commission which stated:
"by analysing the different causes of good and poor health we can understand why tackling inequalities in health goes well beyond what is conventionally thought of as health policy".
I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Borrie, who chaired the Social Justice Commission, will speak in this debate.
Belatedly even the present Government have come to recognise that there is something in this approach. In 1992 they launched the public health strategy The Health of the Nation. However, this flagship policy failed even to mention social inequality as a factor in health. The need to address poverty on a broad front was simply ignored. Instead over the past few years we have had many ministerial exhortations to change our individual personal behaviour. Noble Lords no doubt recall Mrs Edwina Currie's advice to old people who were threatened by hypothermia because they could not afford heating. She advised them to wear woolly hats and socks in bed. Mrs Bottomley recommended her solution to heart disease; namely, to eat fewer biscuits and to run up and down stairs.
I well remember attending one high level presentation to launch The Health of the Nation where a group of rather exasperated London doctors challenged the then Secretary of State and told Mrs Bottomley that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was far more important to the health of their patients than she was. Latterly there have been some initiatives by the Department of Health to examine what it rather euphemistically calls variations in health and variations in health services across the country. The most recent guidance speaks of,
"reducing variations by targeting resources where needs are greatest".
However, as the House will be only too well aware, this is almost impossible in the fragmented health service we have today where services are devolved to local trusts and there is little capacity for overall strategy, let alone direction of resources. It certainly does not address the broader issues of social policy which go beyond the remit of the health department.
The Department of Health may have simply neglected the problems of inequality in health, or else responded rather belatedly and inadequately. However, the rest of
250
the Government are guilty of actions which have positively damaged the health of poorer people. Apart from the economic decisions which produced record levels of unemployment and a widening income divide, policies about public transport, road traffic, rented housing and homelessness have all contributed to worsening health. Benefits policy has also had a negative input. Importantly, the removal of one parent benefit announced in the previous Budget is bound to make life more difficult for the millions of children already living in poverty. Their health is bound to suffer. All the evidence shows that when poor families become poorer they first economise on food. The children's parents are likely to suffer additional mental stress as well as increased physical deprivation.
Perhaps the single greatest government failure in this area is the failure to tackle the tobacco industry. Smoking related diseases are the greatest cause of premature death and serious ill health in Britain today. And today smoking is predominantly a habit of the poor. Three times as many people in unskilled occupations smoke compared with professional groups. There are particularly high rates among the unemployed and young lone parents; and most smokers start between 13 and 15 years old.
All of that is widely known. It is equally clear that conventional health education will have little impact on disadvantaged people who may see cigarettes as an important prop in difficult lives. The long term approach is of course to improve those lives. But in the short term it is disgraceful that the Government have not taken tougher action to curb smoking, and in particular have resisted demands to ban tobacco advertising. An incoming Labour Government will ban tobacco advertising as a priority in our public health policy. There will be a new Minister of public health to lead public health policy at the national level and to co-ordinate local action as well as to encourage good practice.
We shall review and republish the Health of the Nation in 1998 to coincide with the 50th anniversary of the start of the NHS. The new Health of the Nation will be more likely to follow the Australian national health strategy which calls for action in five areas: the distribution of economic resources; education; living standards; conditions of work; and social support. That approach would reflect the determination on this side of the House to make improved health a central goal of all social policy. We shall aim to reduce poverty and inequality through the commitments to help people move from welfare to work, to end poverty pay by introducing a national minimum wage, and to improve housing conditions by the phased release of local authority capital receipts.
The ambition is to ensure that those measures individually produce improvements in the health of our poorest families and that together they create more equity—a more inclusive society. To achieve an inclusive society where everyone, not just the advantaged and affluent, has the opportunity to achieve their greatest health would indeed be a victory for social justice. I beg to move for Papers.
3.21 p.m.
Baroness Brigstocke: My Lords, we are all most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, for initiating this important debate. I have not been a Member of a political party in the past. I am new to debates. I have never taken part in a debate in another place. I am not experienced in debates in this Chamber. However, one thing I know is that noble Lords on the Benches opposite do not have the monopoly on caring for the health of this nation and in particular for those who suffer from poverty. We differ in the ways in which we seek to cope with the problem, but we recognise the problem. I do not have with me at present the report on the variations in health. However, I believe it states that we do not need sudden new developments but a continuation of those already being undertaken.
The trouble with considering improvements in both health and education services is that whatever action is taken it is never enough. While we must keep our eyes firmly on the highest possible standards, it is also important to take regular stock of what has been and is being achieved. I am glad that in a recent report the Chief Medical Officer recognises that,
"The Department of Health is leading a government-wide strategy to improve the nation's health".
The report also urges the department to work actively in alliance with other government departments and other bodies. I can tell noble Lords that the Health Education Authority, of which I am a non-executive director, is already working effectively with the department. I hope that the Minister agrees.
I shall refer to two groups whose health is particularly affected by poverty: children and teenagers, and the elderly. The first group is natural for me because I have been teaching, or trying to teach, all my life. And the health problems of the elderly are becoming increasingly relevant to me personally as the days go by.
We do not need an official report to tell us of the many health hazards which endanger the young today. We already know that teenage mothers are more likely to come from lower socio-economic groups—a phrase which I do not enjoy using, but it seems to be the technical one. In the past there has been and still is much controversy over sex education in schools. I should like to see greater co-operation and liaison between the Department for Education and Employment and the Department of Health, and such excellent voluntary organisations as One Plus One and Relate, in order to provide good sex education classes in schools. However, perhaps I may express a word of caution. It is not reasonable to put the whole weight of sex education, with the essential moral and spiritual considerations, on the shoulders of school-teachers.
I should also like to see more care taken with university students and those in further education. So often at university they are living away from home for the first time in their lives. The Health Education Authority is undertaking work at present—I hope that it will have great support from other bodies—to give more useful information and help through the university student unions.
252
We do not yet know the full effect of the new alcopops on the susceptible young. But I believe that the lower socio-economic groups of teenagers, and even I hear sub-teenagers, will be most at risk as regards alcoholism.
We have statistics on smoking. I believe that we have had some success. Health promotion is producing a steady drop in adult smoking. We have had national campaigns linked to national smoking helplines which help more and more people to quit smoking. Those campaigns are tailored by the HEA to appeal to people in lower socio-economic groups. There is some evidence that they are succeeding. The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, referred to measures to counter the smoking problem of this country. I was surprised to hear that because several noble Lords on the other side of the House have been rather antagonistic towards what they have called nannying by the Health Education Authority; but perhaps that is a problem they can solve together. One has only to look at groups of young boys and girls near schools, often in school uniform, to see the enormous size of the problem of under-age smoking.
I worry particularly about nutrition and children from poor homes. During term time they qualify for school meals from Monday to Friday, though I should like to see some provision for the holidays. I wish to quote from an excellent publication from the HEA entitled Young People's Health Network. A short article by a reader states:
"Last year, during the long school holidays £ a local mum from Bates Green, Norwich, became concerned by the fact that so many children were going without proper meals as their parents couldn't manage the extra cost of feeding them during the six-week summer break.
"So Sharron came up with the idea of providing the children with a healthy meal for less than the price of a bag of chips. Together with a friend, and help from a community health worker, she set up a café in the local community centre. Wholesome pitta breads, jacket potatoes, fruit and yoghurt dominated the menu—a far cry from the fat-filled junk food previously eaten by the children".
The article continues:
"The National Food Alliance £ has details of this project and many more on the Food and Low Income Database, which has been developed jointly with the Health Education Authority".
So there are things that are being done.
Finally, I turn to the elderly. One in three of today's pensioners live at or below the poverty line. Evidence shows that older people who have been poor during their life die younger and suffer more ill health and disability. Yet older people now generally have lower levels of disability and fewer chronic disabling conditions than in the past.
The HEA gives high priority to one of those risk factors; namely, physical activity. In 1996 it started a national campaign entitled Active for Life—Stage 1 being to raise general awareness of physical activity for health—
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I am terribly sorry to interrupt, but this debate is very tight on time.
Baroness Brigstocke: My Lords, I am so sorry; I thought the instruction said 12 minutes. (I had to borrow some glasses.) It is my fault. I shall sit down.
3.32 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke, for entering the debate on such a cue. It is the sort of thing that happens all the time.
I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, for introducing the debate. She and I have argued in favour of causes with a considerable degree of overlap since we were undergraduates. I am very glad to continue that process. When I heard the noble Baroness refer to the Black Report, I was reminded of the story of the 16th century Spanish theologian Fray Luis de-León, who in the middle of a lecture was snatched out of his lecture-room by the Inquisition, imprisoned and interrogated. When he was released, 25 years later, he went back into his lecture-room and began with the words, "As we were saying".
I, too, shall go full circle. I return to the public expenditure White Paper of 1980. It drew attention to the marginal propensity of the budgets of both health and education to increase regularly faster than inflation and GNP. When the noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke, said that there is never enough she was quite right. Any Chancellor of the Exchequer at any time will be concerned by that.
The debate today does not deal with the attempt made to tackle that through the use of market forces. I shall merely say that I think it is agreed in every quarter of the House that it has not brought the problem to an end. In those circumstances, it was very obvious to turn to prevention as the next area to examine.
Listening to undergraduate essays the day before yesterday, I was reminded that the bubonic plague in western Europe was in effect wiped out long before anyone had any idea of treatment or cure, simply by methods of prevention. The same to a rather lesser extent goes for cholera. So there is a lot to be said for prevention.
But obviously there is a limit to what I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke, will forgive me for referring to as "puritan" methods of prevention. I assure her that there is no smoke coming out of my ears at the moment. I recognise the justice of the bulk of her remarks. But by itself that is not enough. If we are seriously concerned with prevention, we must end up by looking among other things at poverty.
I do not want to become "hung up" on the definition of poverty. I merely say that, unlike John Moore, it is always with us. When I talk about poverty, I think of going to bed hungry because you cannot afford any more to eat; or, as my noble friend Lady Robson of Kiddington reminded me over lunch, of going to bed with no coal, or no heat, because you cannot afford any more. I am talking about real levels of physical deprivation.
Nor do I want to get hung up on an argument about how great is the extent of poverty. I shall take figures given by the Government and which I think are reasonably quantifiable; namely, numbers of people actually in receipt of social security benefit. According to my last Written Answer, which was not so long ago, those on income support are 13 per cent. of adults of
254
working age and 24 per cent. of children. In addition, the numbers of people over 50 who have not worked for 10 years and who are excused from actively seeking work are 2,594,000. A lot of those ought to be included in the unemployment figures. For the sake of saving time, I hope that if I take that to mean poverty I shall not be thought to be pulling a fast one.
The National Consumer Council recently complained that many consumers living on social security benefits are being denied the opportunity to follow healthy eating guidelines because they do not have enough money to buy healthy food. The National Children's Home, I believe in 1993, studied a sample in which it found that 20 per cent. of those on benefit could not afford an adequate diet. Miss Widdecombe, who was then at the Department of Social Security, said that she did not see the problem because, after all, 80 per cent. could afford it. I am reminded of William Chillingworth's judgment on Thomas Hobbes that, like the elephants of antiquity, he would deal some lusty back-blows at his own side. That, I think, was one such back-blow.
The Rowntree study of January 1995 was particularly concerned with evidence of nutritional deprivation among lone parents. I agree with the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, on that subject. She drew attention to the lack of iron intake. It seems that the further they were from benefit collection day, the worse their diet was. Many were going without meals altogether.
We have a series of Chinese Walls in government statistics. The noble Baroness the Minister told me in a Written Answer of just over a year ago that she was attempting to improve government screening in hospitals for malnutrition. I am extremely glad that she is. However, there is no way in which we can discover whether the people whom she finds to be suffering from malnutrition are the same people who are on inadequate benefit or indeed disentitled to benefit altogether. That is a defect in the Government's statistical resources.
It is even more serious for those who fall through the holes in the safety net altogether, usually to justify a small saving in the budget of the Department of Social Security. As noble Lords know, I suspect that on those occasions the Department of Social Security is exporting its costs and that the Minister is their unfortunate recipient.
Let us take the case of student health, which the noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke, mentioned. I have observed among my pupils—I do not know whether they are a representative sample—that the amount of working time lost by ill health has approximately doubled since the loss of social security benefits in 1990. Among the people I should have been teaching this morning the figure reached 50 per cent., but that is not a statistically significant sample. It was only six people and therefore I put no weight on it.
We have a much clearer body of evidence about the effect on the street homeless. The expectation of life among the street homeless is only 42 years. Fortunately, we have not yet had a repetition of the crisis study of 1995 which found a rate of TB 200 times the national average. I hope we never do. Among the most recent

255
studies we find that the excess mortality ratio for assault was 54.1 and the excess mortality ratio for suicide was 35. Suicide is one of The Health of the Nation targets and it deserves attention.
I hope the Minister has already read the Shelter study Go Home and Rest? It deals with the effects of homelessness on the National Health Service budget: inappropriate use of accident and emergency departments because the homeless have difficulties registering with a GP, difficulties to which the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, drew the House's attention well before the Minister was even in the House. So the Government have had plenty of notice of the point.
The problem is the working of the financial targets. If the homeless move on and re-register with another doctor within a quarter of a year, the doctor does not receive a capitation fee. If they have a temporary registration, he gets nothing for vaccination fees or other fees.
All those disentitlements have costs. The House will not expect me to go through the catalogue. I am sure it knows them. They are all introduced in order to produce savings. The question is: are the savings greater than the costs incurred? That seems to me to be a question of considerable interest to us all. The Chinese walls in government statistics mean we do not know the answer. I think we should.
3.42 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Lichfield: My Lords, I am fortunate to have an ordained colleague working in my diocese with me who happens, as well as being ordained, to be an NHS manager in one of our West Midlands health authorities. The person concerned has recently drawn my attention to a government document entitled NHS Priorities and Planning Guidance 1997–98. In it, one of the main NHS priorities is stated thus:
"to ensure £ that integrated services are in place to meet the needs for continuing healthcare for elderly, disabled, vulnerable people and children which allow them £ to be supported in the most appropriate available setting".
Through my own observation, I see many examples where our regional health authorities are succeeding in some of that. I am told that people in Staffordshire and Shropshire live longer, fewer children die in infancy and many former dangerous illnesses are now treatable. At the moment I have immediate personal contact with an Alzheimer's sufferer and the district nursing services and social services are doing excellent and valuable work under the heading of that NHS priority.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for this debate because I must go on to say that we also have in the diocese of Lichfield metropolitan boroughs which have the highest proportion of long-term unemployed anywhere in this country. One borough in my diocese ranks as the fourth highest nationally in its proportion of long-term unemployed. That borough moreover contains Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities which have unemployment rates more than three times higher than those of their neighbours.
256
The close relation between long-term unemployment and various forms of ill health is well known. It was experienced in my family in the 1920s. Research by Moser back in 1987 revealed particularly high mortality rates among unemployed men, caused by such things as lung cancer and coronary heart disease. It revealed equally high mortality rates for their wives.
In particular, in the borough to which I refer, which is not alone in my diocese, unemployment is impacting seriously on people with physical disabilities and mental health problems. That is true in several of the communities where I serve. A recent study of patients with serious mental illness in one borough found that only 7 per cent. of the 400 patients surveyed had any kind of access to paid employment as they improved. In the terms of the noble Baroness's Motion, here surely is a case for action—for the local health authority, in partnership with the social services, firms and economic development partners, to develop new job opportunities of an appropriate kind for families struggling to rehabilitate relatives suffering either physical disability or mental illness. That is a perceived need in the area where I live and work. Those are precisely the kind of vulnerable people to whom the NHS and government document Priorities and Guidance 1997–98 refers.
I now wish to make a general point. I do not hold, nor do I imply, what has sometimes been called in your Lordships' House "a purely sociological explanation" of either ill health or of poverty itself. I have often noticed during debates in your Lordships' House the tension between those who stress the role of social factors in human ills and those who, on the other hand, stress personal responsibility. It is a real tension. Surely it is not a question of "either/or" but of "both and", yet in a complex interrelation. Ill health is caused by a complex mixture of the external social factors over which victims have no control and of personal choices at times by those victims and the groups to which they belong.
In 1992 the government White Paper The Health of the Nation set national targets for improvement in health. They included reducing the number of teenage conceptions, reducing levels of smoking among 11 to 15 year-olds and reducing the incidence of obesity among children and adults. Clearly, success in achieving such targets must lie partly in the region of human choices and the self-responsibilities of families and others. I wish to go further and claim that where I live such self-responsibility can rest successfully with local communities as well as with individuals in several areas of deprivation that I know of.
In one of the most deprived outer housing estates in the Stoke-on-Trent/Newcastle-under-Lyme conurbation, the local community and church have worked up a very successful single regeneration budget that is producing schemes which make a real contribution to raising the standards of health among some of the poorest families. The local people on the estate now have a community house which provides out-of-school clubs five nights a week; a childcare co-operative training scheme for local people to act as registered child minders; courses on family health, run by community dieticians, to offer advice on nutritional meals on low budgets; and so on. I question the secure continuity of such provisions, but

257
I would not want to rub out of the equation the issue of self-responsibility and choices both of communities and individuals.
But the final word must remain with the serious ongoing challenge of the noble Baroness's Motion, both for the present Government and any new Government in the future. In particular, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, we need resources for prevention rather than cure, and that applies to the unemployment link.
I conclude by referring briefly to two or three other areas. First, some of my most experienced priests, who have spent most of their ministries in urban priority areas, bitterly regret the loss of so many of the former statutory youth services which ran football clubs and youth clubs—just the kind of things which are vital contributions positively to the health of young people. Is action not needed there?
Secondly, I am glad to learn, and hope I understand rightly, that the use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation by local authorities is decreasing. But yet—the Children's Society report has proved it—there remain many children at risk in dirty overcrowded bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Parents, usually mothers, often find it impossible to provide an adequate diet and there is no space for the children to play. Homelessness, as well as long-term unemployment, is an enemy of health, and needs long-term solutions.
Thirdly, there is the importance of financially supported maternity leave. The birth of a child is surely a key event in the health story of any family. Yet in this country only a proportion of women receive earnings related to pay during maternity leave and for only six out of the 18 weeks of maternity absence itself. Would not some action there also protect good standards of family health?
Perhaps I may add a short postscript from the Bishops' Bench. For a religious mind—a Christian mind also—health and healing are fundamental to our understanding of the purposes of God. We see that in history in the figure of Jesus of Nazareth. Health is the strength to be fully human. It is, therefore, an issue which embraces not only the body but the conscience, the will and the soul. Therefore, at the centre of health must be faith. That is why the Church in poor areas is committed still to raising, as it did in other ages, the standards of health of the nation's poorest families.
3.53 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lady Jay for introducing this important debate today. I offer my apologies to the House. I very much regret that I have to leave before the end of today's debate but I look forward to reading noble Lords' contributions in Hansard.
As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, pointed out, on occasions we can get a little hung up on definitions. But ill health can certainly be measured in death rates and in chronic debilitating illness, which renders individuals unfit to work or to lead a normal life. We all know too that the way in which poverty is defined is a subject of some controversy. We can perhaps all agree that those who are living homeless on our streets are by any
258
definition living in poverty. But there is much poverty behind closed doors in this country, among families with young children and among the elderly.
Put plainly, according to the Department for Social Security's most recently published statistics, 9.9 million people in the United Kingdom—that is 17.4 per cent. of our whole population—relied on income support for all or part of their income in 1994. Again, according to the DSS, one person in four in this country is living on below half the average income after housing costs are taken into account, and of those 4.3 million are children. That figure has increased threefold since 1979, which is a deplorable statistic by any standard.
We all know that in any country poverty is a comparative term. But, according to the Government's own sources, the gap between the rich and the poor in this country has widened enormously in the past 20 years. The real weekly earnings for men in the bottom 10 per cent. of employees increased by 27 per cent. in the years from 1971 to 1993. Over the same period, the increase for those in the top 10 per cent. was 69 per cent.
In 1995, the Rowntree Foundation Report on income and wealth pointed out that incomes rapidly became less equal in the 1980s. It went on to say:
"Britain needs a far-reaching programme of economic and social reform to avert the damaging consequences of a deepening divide between the rich and the poor".
So however we define poverty, the evidence is of a widening gap in earning power; and using the Government's own yardstick, more children are living in comparative poverty than was the case in 1979.
But we must acknowledge that an individual has responsibility for his or her health, as the right reverend Prelate pointed out. Taking enough exercise, eating properly and not smoking—a sensitive point in your Lordships' House—are straightforward enough; but poverty makes some of them more inaccessible. Poor housing means damp and insanitary living conditions. Lack of money means less heating and less nourishing food. It can, and for many old people does, mean a real choice between heating and eating.
Undoubtedly the taxation policy of the current Government has affected the poorest worst in that respect. The theory is that indirect taxation leaves the individual more choice on how to spend his or her income. But we all need to heat our houses in winter; that is not a matter of choice for anyone. It is certainly not a matter of choice for the elderly. It is shocking that in this country, even when the weather is mild, nearly 30,000 more susceptible elderly people die in the six winter months than die in the summer. It does not have to be like that. It does not happen like that in many countries, even those with far more severe winters than ours, such as Canada or Sweden. The elderly need to keep warm but thousands cannot afford to do so. Cold aggravates circulatory and respiratory problems, which in turn lead to bronchitis, pneumonia, heart attacks and strokes. In short, cold kills the elderly and too many of them are cold because they are poor.
Other difficulties may affect families with young children: diets which are low in fresh fruit and vegetables, and even the cost of water, which has risen

259
by 37 per cent. since privatisation—three times the rate of inflation. Is it any wonder that the diseases of squalor, which most of us associate with Victorian Britain, have returned: scurvy, TB and scabies, the incidence of which has doubled in the past five years?
We can acknowledge that since the 1970s health in general has improved in all social classes. But the fact is that the mortality rates of the better-off have reduced faster than those of the less well-off. It is true throughout life. According to the BMA, a baby born to an unskilled manual worker is one-and-a-half times more likely to die before the age of one than a baby born to a manager or a professional.
In adult life we all now expect to live longer, but the widening gap in health remains. Non-manual groups have experienced a much greater decline in the death rates up to the age of 65 than their manual worker counterparts. The mortality rate among those up to the age of 65 is four times higher in the most deprived areas of our country than it is in the most affluent.
Of course, we all have a direct interest in our National Health Service, but perhaps I can make some personal points. Five years ago my husband was diagnosed as suffering from acute myeloid leukaemia. His life expectancy at the age of 38 was two months unless he responded to very aggressive chemotherapy, but even then the chances of his surviving another four or five years were about one in four or five.
He spent six months in hospital. I went to see him three times a day—not only because I wanted to but because I could afford to. I could afford the childcare at home. I could afford the taxi fare to the hospital. I could afford to take in three meals a day with me because the sterile food in the hospital was so unappetising. But so many people cannot afford to look after their family members in hospital in this way. We close our hospitals and, as a result, the families of those in acutely distressing situations simply cannot visit those who need them. Stress and loneliness are added to illness. The hidden cost of ill health bears hardest upon those on low incomes—financially yes, but also in terms of anxiety, stress and who knows, possibly their eventual chances of survival.
Of course, explaining the relationship between economic status and health is the subject of a great deal of research, much of which is still in progress. But that should not prevent an incoming Secretary of State, after the election, using the wealth of evidence we already have. Of course we need to address the reasons why the burden of ill health is associated so clearly with deprivation, but we need to address poverty.
We, on this side of the House, believe in a co-ordinated approach to the growing problems of health inequality. A cross-departmental strategy is needed so that all government departments are co-ordinated, not only on the policy but on the operational requirements to deliver that policy. In that respect the current way in which individual departments operate is too fractured, but primary health care and public health campaigns need to be combined with
260
policy and strategy on education, on urban regeneration, on housing, on the environment and, of course, on job creation.
A new Labour Government will understand the need for frank and targeted public health campaigns, health education in our schools, setting targets to reduce water pollution in our towns and our cities, letting councils build houses which are properly heated and insulated, and introducing policies to get the long-term unemployed into work.
These are positive measures and when put into practice they will substantially improve the health of many in this country: many men, many women and many children.
4.4 p.m.
Lord Birdwood: My Lords, I would like to put down a marker right at the beginning of my short offering today, and that is a measure of my unease, verging on distaste, at the spectacle of a score of able-bodied Lords and Ladies of varying degrees of prosperity pronouncing on the problems of being sick and poor. And I must reinforce the point made by my noble friend Lady Brigstocke. It has always been a signature of the party opposite to claim ownership of compassion, and this Motion is no exception. Only socialist thinkers can empathise with poverty, we are told. It is like the extraordinary assumption of a few years ago that only the Left understood the consequences of nuclear conflict. The word which, again uneasily, comes to mind is "patronising" or perhaps it is "paternalistic". And let us not assume that "Nanny knows best" is the sole property of the Labour Party.
For something like 10 of the past 17 years of government the citizens of the United Kingdom have been fed a stream of hectoring, counselling, persuasion and sweet-voiced bullying from successive Health Secretaries about what to eat and how to take enough exercise. What is it about the British that thinks a government can change behaviour when all the evidence is that behavioural change percolates upwards from individual and collective social influences?
The noble Baroness has focused on a linkage between poverty and ill health. Note I said "a" linkage, not "the" linkage. There is always a problem, is there not, when issues like this are aired of where in the spectrum of intellectual rigour the body of a debate should rest? At one end there are the cold equations of the social statistician, and, as those in this House who have suffered in the past knew, nothing kills discussion more than a procession of numbers flowing from one or other of the Front Benches. As a listener one begs silently for humanity, for feeling, for the reality of being hungry or ill or in despair when force-fed those figures. But just as insidious is the anecdote masquerading as the general, pandering to the eye-blink attention span of the television audience or the newspaper reader who, our media masters believe, can only be captured by another outrage.
One understands the pressures which result in either. A single episode can illuminate a general injustice or blow away complacency. But statistics are not immune,

261
as we all know too well, from political shading. And what I long for and still have never found in these areas is calibration. What is poverty? What is ill health? There are some stark measurable figures, of course, and the noble Baroness opposite has made them with exemplary lucidity. But I still feel a vacuum of forensic analysis of these issues.
To return for a moment to my point about linkage, the true pattern is a triangle surely, in which individual self-esteem or lack of it is the causal initiator. To give the Government their due, it surely cannot be ignorance any more, and you would have to be deaf and blind to escape the deluge of health advice from the media in all its colourings and techniques. Health sells, and don't all of us consumers know it!
I appreciate that previous speakers have not been trapped by the bell-curve fallacy and that we are concentrating on the demography at the end of Maxwell distribution. I cannot say the same of some of the pronouncements which come from other sources, where we are fed the nonsense about relative poverty or that everybody below the median point can be classified as poor.
The triangle I have just proposed of poverty, bad health and low self-esteem feels to me to be a valid model for our deliberations. If lack of material wealth were a cause of sickness, would not ill health be a necessary and sufficient condition always associated with lack of money? Observably, this is not so. So what is the variable? To my intellectual satisfaction I make the case for the lack of self-esteem. What this does is largely de-couple health from material ownership, except in so far as an individual who cares nothing for himself or herself will be more at risk.
What can a government do in this area? America certainly has a lesson for us in recent social policy in its utter rejection of a minimum wage by statute. I believe we can junk this rubbish idea once and for all, because getting into the world of work, in whatever way, at whatever reward, has social benefits. It has human consequences which go far beyond the material.
The American lesson is that all work works. And there is a correlation between American benefit policy and its much lower figure for the long-term unemployed. And now that we cannot put a cigarette paper, if your Lordships will forgive my metaphor in this of all debates, between the two main parties on education, I think that this subject has found its rightful high place in political priorities. Education is a key route to self-esteem and, therefore, in my proposition an essential precursor of the national well-being.
4.9 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I feel that I have far more in common with many of the ideas, if not the conclusions, of the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, than I usually have with someone who addresses us from the other side of the House. I agree with his assumption that if we throw around statistics on this subject, as on many others, we shall find ourselves seeing nothing but statistics. I have received a good deal of briefing matter
262
for the debate. I had to read through some of it several times in order to understand how those who produced the analysis actually see poverty.
Previous speakers have said that "poverty" is a relative term. It always has to be so. The links between poverty or lack of income and ill health are irrefutable. There is no dispute about that. The noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, said that much of that is down to low self-esteem or lack of education about health. I received a briefing from a group called the Life Project, working in the Win-al. It is interesting that a group from that part of the world has an input into our debate at the present time. The work carried out by the project shows what the problems are and what can be done to address them.
Primarily it shows that people on low incomes tend to have a bad diet and take little exercise. The food of those on low incomes—I make the assumption that these are people on low incomes and not people completely on the poverty line in the literal sense—tends to be cheaper and easier to prepare. The project also makes an interesting point about lack of exercise. We have an exercise culture for the first time in our society. We have the sense that "thou shalt be fit"; "thou shalt be fit in many different ways";"thou shalt be fit wearing certain items of clothing"; "if it isn't Lycra or doesn't have the right brand name, don't wear it in this place". Indeed, we even have brand names with regard to aerobic exercise. We have brand name step aerobics.
With that kind of pressure it is not that difficult to see why certain types of activity are associated with a level of consumption and economic activity. For the first time we see people taking exercise as a status symbol. That probably applies more to younger groups. In the older groups in society, where high activity or high explosion exercise or training for sporting events become less common, poverty or lack of funding are even more relevant. If you live in an unpleasant inner city you are far less likely to go for a nice, gentle walk. It is not fun to walk around grey, rotting, concrete blocks. Crime—or, more importantly, the fear of crime—may prevent you taking that walk. In addition, other kinds of gentle exercise such as gardening are difficult to carry out when you are dealing with a window box. What are you going to do—put it on your shoulder and walk around your house with it? Other activities such as golf may also be non-starters. Unless you happen to live in a certain part of Scotland and can pick up a half set of second-hand clubs cheaply, you do not have public courses available to you and you cannot afford the equipment.
The Life Project in the Wirral recognised these problems and went out to educate people on how to reduce their levels of ill health, obesity and high blood pressure. Those involved first tried to do this by going around in vans and handing out leaflets asking people to come and see them. Those who already had above average health—they were predominantly female—turned up to get advice on how to become healthier. Often when you are doing this you are preaching to the converted to come and listen to a sermon. That is what happens. Is it not always easier to listen to what we know about? We always turn up to hear it. So the

263
Life Project did something different. It went to pubs at lunchtime with blood pressure testing devices and callipers to test body fat and carried out assessments. This was incredibly well received because those involved were going to people on the right level. They also discovered among people a frightening degree of ignorance about what happens to their bodies. Twenty per cent. of people thought that taking any exercise increased the risk of having a heart attack. One presumes that they were thinking of someone who is grossly overweight trying to run a marathon. In that case they were probably right, but the rest of the time they are not.
The Life Project also started to institute exercise patterns that were relevant to people. It instituted single sex exercise sessions for people who were very overweight and it provided special tuition. If you say to a 40 year-old woman who is four stone overweight that she should look like whoever is the equivalent of Jane Fonda in a modern exercise video, she will laugh at you, wander off and have another packet of crisps. You have to make things relevant. That was done by having the right type of training and by going out and becoming active.
This idea of addressing the problem is something we have to do. Whoever forms the government must address the fact that we have to try to make the message more relevant to people. Certain advertising campaigns—for instance, the heart campaign in which I am told that my heart is a killer—have missed the mark. You have to start talking to people. Unless we address this point and give better education to people in a way they can understand and, more importantly, identify with, all the advice given out by various Ministers and bodies will ultimately fall on deaf ears. We have to talk not at people but to them.
4.18 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I have worked for many years with voluntary and Church organisations like Christian Aid whose primary objective is the relief of poverty overseas. We were engaged, in the 1970s, in an international struggle whose motivation was based on the certainty of our own wealth and security in this country. Without going into the whys and wherefores, the situation today is markedly different, partly because of the reluctance of many of the supporters of those organisations to help abroad except in dire emergency, but mainly in the sense of our own ability to relieve poverty and ill health in our own country. I am not denying that in many specialised areas welfare programmes have expanded—infant mortality is well down and the social services have improved day by day—but I do not believe there is the same confidence as there was 20 years ago that the Government are actually on the side of the poorest communities—not the social services on the ground but the government, the national visible government.
In fact, if one visits north-east Coventry, as I was privileged to do when visiting a parish priest and I stayed for a night and met families, one gets a sense of deprivation such as that which exists in the
264
third world and such as I have identified many times overseas, but not in this country. There is an acute sense of deprivation. I am very much in sympathy with what the right reverend Prelate said about long-term deprivation. After all, the social services and the Churches, however well equipped and however good the partnership, cannot deal with the problem instantly. There is also the long-term hardship of the many unemployed car workers and their families.
This sense of deprivation is well summed up in a few phrases contained in a recent report made by the Wildside Trust, which is one of those organisations that helps young people to escape from their urban environment into the countryside. It says:
"As urbanisation spreads it is important that we recognise that £ lack of social cohesion often leads to destructive life styles and lack of care for the human and natural environment. People feel isolated and unable to make a difference £ Feelings of powerlessness lead to lack of action and increasing neglect".
As a measure of their concern and in response to what their supporters are saying, some overseas aid organisations have now built up a substantial anti-poverty programme in the United Kingdom as well. Some are now working closely with local authorities in urban areas, often those with ethnic minority populations where they have special expertise. That was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, in our education debate together with what is happening very successfully in Tower Hamlets with the Bangladeshi community.
This Government are well aware of the advantages of working with non-government organisations in the health sector and of the necessity to support low-cost and innovative projects, which involve local communities more in their own care. That is a philosophy—almost a tradition in the voluntary movement—which applies universally, whether we are talking about a shanty town in India or in our own cities. But that does not mean that more and more primary healthcare services should be contracted out from the centre to a point where local government, so deprived of central funds, is forced almost out of existence.
I should like to mention some of the excellent projects of a particular charity with which I have worked; namely, Save the Children. Its achievements in the United Kingdom are much less publicised than its successful projects overseas. Those projects are specifically designed to promote positive change and partnership with the local authority and the community.
Perhaps I may give a few examples. Save the Children works with children and their families in the By-Pass Project in Bolton where it has set up a food co-operative to help young people to buy affordable healthy food such as fruit and vegetables. It is a simple project such as that already mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke, which can make a great deal of difference. There is the Pennywell Neighbourhood Centre in Sunderland where a group of mums and new mothers can discuss concerns with a midwife. It also benefits from a loan scheme for parents on low income. There is also the Blackburn Young Families' Project in Scotland. Local women share their problems; look at ways of coping with stress and are also offered

265
opportunities to take their children out. It is this encouragement of local initiative which is so important. The organisation, Save the Children, is only one of many. There are also health projects with prisoners' families, which include one of the most deprived groups of children in our population. I have mentioned the refugee communities, and, to give an example, the Vietnamese have benefited a great deal from this form of partnership.
In the voluntary sector it is people and not just money, which is the essential resource. Very small amounts of money are needed. Perhaps I may give noble Lords one tiny illustration. The charity called Kids VIP was started a few years ago because one young woman saw children loitering outside Winchester prison and decided to help them. I believe that there are tens of thousands of children in the families of prisoners. Today, that organisation runs crèches in prisons all over the country and it is fully recognised as such by the Prison Service. Perhaps I may give one further illustration. Only a few hundred pounds can mean an enormous amount.
I end with what I believe are our international obligations under the terms of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Many of the charities that I have worked with believe in these articles of faith. Briefly, Article 24 of the UN Convention states,
"The right of the child to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standards of health".
Article 27 states,
"The right of every child to a standard of living adequate for the child's physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development".
In this short debate I hope that we are able to contribute one iota towards the UN Convention. Perhaps I may beg the indulgence of the House for having to leave for another appointment later in the afternoon.
4.25 p.m.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, as already apparent from the debate that we have had so far, there are many factors linking poverty and health. The two that I intend to speak about are two environmental aspects of poverty: housing and air pollution. Poor housing has been linked to ill-health since the middle of the 19th century. The Public Health Acts of that century and the production of clean water, sewers, slum clearance and so on, had much more impact on health and life expectancy than medical treatments, which we tend to concentrate on today.
There is no coincidence in that long history of improvement that housing was the responsibility of the Ministry of Health until 1951. In contrast, the Government publication of 1992, The Health of the Nation, made no direct reference to the link between housing and health, although there is a general reference to the importance of healthy surroundings.
The survey of English houses of 1991 found that 7.6 per cent. of housing was unfit for human habitation, but that rose to 20 per cent. for dwellings in the privately rented sector, which are of course those generally inhabited by the poorest families. In addition to those, 20 per cent. of houses had problems
266
associated with damp and 5 per cent. were in need of urgent repairs. I apologise for this use of statistics, but it is essential to drive home the particular point. Twenty per cent. of homes in England have an internal temperature below 12 degrees centigrade when the weather is freezing outside. It is generally agreed that a temperature of at least 17 degrees centigrade is necessary for health. Scandinavians and Americans would expect room temperatures to be very much higher even than that.
The poorest families, one-parent families and the elderly, are most likely to be living in poor, cold and damp accommodation. Studies in several cities—notably in Edinburgh, where climatic conditions are of course worse—have shown a clear association between damp housing and the fungus spores and moulds associated with damp and bronchitic, asthmatic and other illnesses in children. These chronic illness lead to frequent absences from school and all the potential ills of unemployment, crime and drug dependency that are often associated with poor scholastic performance. Illness is an additional factor that can only exacerbate the difficulties of a group of children that is often already educationally vulnerable due to overcrowding and poor living conditions.
Over the past 20 years there has been a decline in public spending on housing. In 1994 the UK was ninth out of 11 European countries for housebuilding completions. The balance of public spending on housing in this country has shifted towards means-tested housing benefit and away from support for capital and current spending by local authorities and housing associations. There has been no provision to improve our existing housing stock.
Moreover, as the building rate falls, less affordable rented housing in particular declines. Market forces—the law of supply and demand—which should be something dear to the heart of the present Government, ensure that rented housing becomes ever more expensive. The consequence is that more and more tenants become dependent on housing benefit, promoting the very dependency culture which the present Government deplore. Unless that trend is reversed, the health of the poorest 8 million to 9 million low-income householders will continue to decline, with an ever-widening gap between families of comfortable means in warm, well insulated houses and those condemned to bring up their children in cold, damp and overcrowded conditions.
An example of further misdirected spending is the announcement only three weeks ago of the award of nearly £7 million to Saatchi & Saatchi for a government-backed campaign directed at social classes A, B and C to persuade them to save energy by installing double-glazing and by insulating their homes. That £7 million targeted through the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme would have insulated 40,000 homes of the poor and vulnerable. The £7 million media campaign, moreover, follows directly on the heels of a £31 million cut in the grant-aid for energy-efficient measures for low-income householders.

267
The other topic that I wish to address as particularly affecting poor families is air pollution. The current eduction of Social Trends acknowledges that,
"the increase in the number of people with asthma, particularly young children, may he partly attributable to an increase in vehicle emissions".
It is estimated that the health costs of air pollution in our cities may amount to £3.9 billion per year and this is a problem that is rapidly getting worse. Over the past decade there has been a 73 per cent. increase in nitrogen dioxide emissions from motor vehicles, a 43 per cent. increase in carbon monoxide emissions and an 86 per cent. increase in black smoke. Research has shown that life expectancy is shorter for those who live or work near major roads. Poor families are more likely to be living in inner-city areas beside major commuter and commercial routes and are therefore more likely to have their health affected by air pollution, further exacerbating the other factors of damp and cold that I have already described.
If we are to live as one healthy nation, we must do more to improve our housing stock and to reduce air pollution by diverting people and freight from road to rail.
4.32 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, despite what the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, said, this debate is of interest to noble Lords on this side of the House. Seven speakers does not constitute a lack of interest. As president of the Motorsport Industry Association, I was interested to hear her party's commitment to ban tobacco advertising. Clearly, the noble Baroness has thought out the devastating effect that that would have on jobs in the motorsport industry—at this time, a real British success story.
It takes real chutzpah on the part of the Opposition—Labour and Liberal—to lecture us on action to raise the standards of health of the poorest families. So many of the local authorities they control fritter away money on their own wasteful schemes while front line services are cut, and the poor suffer.
I live in Kent, where the county council, a Left-wing old Labour Party, assisted by its weak Liberal allies, has dramatically and irresponsibly overspent its budget. Consequently it has imposed more cuts on services for the needy and vulnerable than any other county in England. However, it refuses to implement efficient savings or embark on a restructuring programme, as it has been advised to do by Price Waterhouse, the auditors. A memorandum sent to Liberal members by their leader states,
"a large part of the budget pressures are a result of our own policy decisions".
As a long-suffering Kent resident commented to me,
"they are not so much out of their depth as 3 miles from the shore".
The result is incompetence, debt, and chaos, and after seeing Labour and Liberal politicians at local level, I can anticipate what they may be like in government. Of course, the Shadow Chancellor has stated that there will be no extra funding, above what this Government
268
have already set out, for the health and social security departments for two years, so clearly he considers that those departments are not underfunded by this Government.
The vast majority of people, spread across all sections of our population, are better off as a result of this Government's policy of promoting economic growth. The UK recovery since 1992 has been the strongest of any of our major European competitors. Britain is a magnet for inward investment and job creation, resulting in a great deal of social mobility and increased prosperity for all—not just top earners. Meanwhile Germany's unemployment figures have increased by half a million. But still New Labour is attracted by the social chapter, the minimum wage and job security deals, not to mention the Tartan tax for the Scots. Social costs are destroying jobs across all sections of the population in Germany. New Labour's fondness for the social market economy could lay waste the livelihood of hundreds of thousands of British families and will particularly hit the poor.
The Opposition are continually running down our social security system, but it does successfully focus resources on vulnerable groups, such as low income families, poorer pensioners, and sick and disabled people on low incomes. Benefits for most groups have increased by significantly more than the rate of inflation since 1979. Compared to 1988, an extra £1.5 billion a year is being provided in income related benefits for families with children. Poorer pensioners now receive an extra £1.2 billion a year. The least well-off pensioner couple is entitled to over £100 a week, as well as having their rent and council tax paid in full. Since 1979, over four times as much is being spent on helping disabled people as was spent by the last Labour Government.
The Department of Social Security is now testing whether in-work benefit assistance is effective in getting single people and those without dependent children, back to work. The Government have launched Project Work, an innovative programme offering job search help and practical work experience to people unemployed for two years or more. A current pilot scheme near me in Medway has so far been very successful. Family credit, which boosts the incomes of those with low or moderate earnings, is now providing help to a record 692,000 families, including nearly 305,000 lone parents, with an average award of over £55 per week. Recent changes have made family credit more accessible to lone parents who may have found it difficult to combine the longer working week with their family responsibilities.
The Labour Party tells us that a healthy diet is not possible on income support. I have discussed this with the Department of Health, which advises me that a wide range of foodstuffs is available at affordable prices within everyone's means. Food is cheaper in this country than most EU countries, particularly as food is subject to VAT in 12 of those countries. May I ask my noble friend the Minister if her department might consider issuing again an information leaflet with suggested cost-effective and healthy recipes? This need not be advice on what should be eaten, but what could be eaten. I know this has been done in the past,

269
unsuccessfully, and that some people prefer an unhealthy diet, but I do feel it would be worth another effort. With imagination, exciting dishes can be made from basic and healthy ingredients.
The Government have just announced the publication of a new guide to community child health services, Child Health in the Community: A guide to good practice. This guide is being sent to health authorities, NHS trusts, community health councils and local authorities with a view to stimulating wide-ranging local reviews of the objectives and provision of community child health services.
The guide brings together policy statements and advice on good practice in child health surveillance, health promotion, school health services and community children's nursing. There has been a steady improvement in the overall health of the nation. Clearly there is always room for improvement.
Action can be carried forward specifically on three fronts: first, the pursuit of even greater economic prosperity; secondly, we must work towards increasing the understanding of variations in health status. To this end the Government are committed to launching a £2.4 million research initiative into variations; and, thirdly, specific initiatives towards particular vulnerable groups. It is a key Government aim to promote equitable distribution of health services throughout the UK and to ensure their availability to all social and ethnic groups. The Health of the Nation White Paper focuses efforts on those groups, and areas where particular effort is needed to achieve the targets set.
I believe that the Government's policies have been good for the people of this country, whatever their circumstances. I also believe the Government are taking effective action to continue the overall improvement in the health of all the nation's families.
4.41 p.m.
Lord Paul: My Lords, our distinguished colleague, my noble friend Lady Jay, deserves congratulations on having initiated this discussion. It is both important and unfortunately often neglected. It is a subject very close to my heart. Your Lordships may be aware of the circumstances which brought me to this country. That experience sensitised me as to how very important, how fundamental, health issues are for society. It is the enduring imprint of these personal concerns which has sustained my long interest in this subject and its larger implications.
I am a new boy here but I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, whose side has been in government for 17 years, wants to palm off the problem and responsibility to the councils, and the Shadow Chancellor.
In an advanced industrial democracy it is sad that we should even have to discuss this issue. The right to good health is surely one of the most basic rights of a citizen. If we can develop sophisticated scientific systems for everything from military weapons to traffic control, should we not be able to provide and administer a system which assures consistent access to improving health care? We can transfer billions of pounds sterling
270
around the globe through marvellous electronic gadgetry, yet we do not seem able to deliver satisfactory health care to working men and women in our neighbourhoods.
In human terms, that is irritating at best and tragic at worst. In economic terms, that has consequences which range from declining morale to declining productivity. Noble Lords who have been associated with various areas of manufacturing know how relevant is the relationship of morale to output.
We too often equate morale with economic incentives and rewards. Morale is also linked closely to physical and emotional health. All of us want to advance the British economy—all of us must then take a broader view of workers' well-being. And to do this we need to begin where action is most needed—at the bottom of the economic scale.
Nineteen centuries ago, the Roman poet-philosopher Juvenal suggested that we must all seek mens sana in corpore sano—a sound mind in a sound body. The same ethic is embraced by the old Indian concept of Yoga. The ancients, in their wisdom, understood how individual performance related to fitness of body and mind. With all the techniques and technologies available to modern society, we seem unable to grasp those truths today.
The conditions of life are now such that individuals have drifted away from those verities. It is surely the duty of the state to mobilise its resources and encourage non-governmental groups to make people aware of that and to take remedial action. Where else do we begin but at the most deprived level of our society—those who are unable to help themselves? Generally, it is the winners who get applause and attention. But if we neglect those less fortunate, if we cannot or will not encourage improvement in their standards of well-being, we risk a deterioration in the entire social fabric. The results will be devastating. Poverty, enduring poverty, is both a human tragedy and the most debilitating sickness which afflicts a nation.
In that context, I need not remind your Lordships of the startling decline in social indicators in several Eastern European countries recently, and the resulting national disintegration. I hope that the nations of Western Europe, including our own, will learn from those situations and not follow in those pathetic footsteps. Perhaps it is more true today than at any other time to say that a physically ailing state is an economically ailing state; and an economically ailing state is always a study in human misery.
We live at a time when it is fashionable to talk of individual enterprise, self-motivation and personal initiative, but all such endeavour is predicated on human energy. We surely cannot expect those who are unable to afford the nutrition and care which begets that vigour to generate it. No longer is this an issue peripheral to society or to the economy. It does concern working people most directly, but it profoundly affects all classes and the future of this country. That is why I hope that it will engage the attention not only of this House but of everyone who wants a better Britain. No price, my Lords, is too much to pay for that.
4.49 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Jay for introducing this debate and for the opportunity to participate. There is little doubt that poorer people are more likely to suffer from ill health than the better off. There have been numerous studies which would appear to confirm that. Some of that information has already emerged in the debate. It is useful to look at definitions of poverty. We are often told that we do not have much absolute poverty here, and that may be true if we are comparing with the desperately poor people of third world countries. However, it is useful to look at what Faith in the City says, a publication with which I am sure the right reverend Prelate is familiar. It states:
"Poverty is not only about shortage of money. It is about rights and relationships; about how people are treated and how they regard themselves; about powerlessness, exclusion and loss of dignity. Yet the lack of an adequate income is at its heart".
That final sentence is most important.
There is no denying that inequality has greatly increased in the UK since 1979. Indeed, the UN Human Development Report shows that Britain has the largest and fastest-growing income disparity of any industrialised country. The richest 20 per cent. have 10 times as much income as the poorest 20 per cent. This country has more than any other pursued what the UN calls "ruthless growth", where the already well-off benefit. Between 1979 and 1994–95, the poorest tenth of British households experienced a loss of 14 per cent. in their real income—that is, after housing costs—while the richest 10 per cent. improved their income by about 65 per cent.
That did not happen by accident or because of something now called globalisation, or because of membership of the EU. It happened because of positive policies initiated by the Government during the years of Conservative power. The Government have placed great faith in the "trickle-down" theory; that is, the idea that gains from economic growth for the wealthy will trickle down to the poorest parts of society. So we have had tax changes which benefit the rich at one level and at another the general tightening up of social provision in order to cut down on public spending at the lower level, plus a series of measures designed to weaken the ability of people in employment collectively to secure better terms and conditions.
The most marked effect has been on the lowest paid. Since the Government abolished wages councils, rates in the industries previously regulated by them have been reduced. According to a recent TUC survey, 1.3 million people in Britain earn less than £2.50 an hour. Furthermore, 342,000 people earn less than £1.50 an hour. Every year the taxpayer must find £2.4 billion in benefits for people who simply do not have enough to live on. So for such people, their reality is "poverty pay".
There is no doubt, however, that the major cause of poverty in Britain is unemployment. The Government have made great play of the most recent figures which indicate that unemployment is diminishing. However, as we have said from these Benches on many occasions, while we are always very glad to see improvements, the
272
Government should not be surprised that there is some scepticism about the validity of the figures since they have changed the method of counting them so often. The claimant count is not an entirely reliable record of those without work and wanting it. This gives a figure of unemployed as 6.7 per cent. of the workforce, while the Labour Force Survey, which is another means of counting, puts the figure at 7.9 per cent.
Long-term unemployment, particularly among men in the former areas of heavy industry, remains a problem. Moreover, just over 15 per cent. of unemployed people leaving the claimant count moved on to sickness benefit. Those who do get other jobs are more likely to end up on the claimant register after a relatively short period. The Employment Audit concluded that the job opportunities on offer depend strongly on the length of time a person has been unemployed. The longer people have been unemployed, the less likely they are to enter permanent jobs, whether full-time or part-time.
The Government have frequently cited the decrease in the claimant count as being evidence that unemployment is being effectively dealt with by present policies. However, large numbers of newly created jobs are either part-time or temporary—perhaps better described as casual employment. Much of that is quite appallingly badly paid. There are frequently no non-wage benefits, such as sick or holiday pay. A man made redundant and forced to accept casual work as a rent-a-car driver, recently told the TUC that as a casual he did not receive holiday pay or entitlement to a pension and that his pay was only £2.45 an hour. Another man employed part-time on print finishing was receiving £2 an hour, again with no paid holidays or paid meal-breaks.
The entrepreneurial society, with the lack of any employment regulation at all and the pressure on the unemployed to take any kind of job after a period of unemployment, has certainly created a very happy environment for sweat-shop employers. As I indicated earlier, there is little doubt that poverty created by unemployment or low-paid employment is a prime cause of ill health. Unemployment undoubtedly increases stress and causes depression. We live in a society in which we tend to define ourselves by what we do. Those without work therefore automatically feel excluded. The World Health Organisation concluded after a survey of extensive literature on the subject that:
"it is almost certain that unemployment damages mental health and probably that it also damages physical health".
Tuberculosis, the classic disease of poverty, is making a comeback after declining for most of this century. It is far more likely to spread among people living in overcrowded conditions. The rate of tuberculosis rose 12 per cent. between 1988 and 1992, but the increase was noticeable only among the poorest 30 per cent. of the population. The rate of infection of the poorest 10 per cent. rose by 35 per cent. Furthermore, if you are poor you are more likely to die earlier. The mortality rate for unemployed men who are unskilled is nearly three times that of employed men from the professional classes, a point which has been made today.

273
Everyone should be concerned about the link between poverty and ill health for the obvious reason that it costs taxpayers more through increased NHS costs. Moreover, as the Victorians discovered in the last century, communicable disease can become established among the poor and then can be passed on throughout the rest of the community, ultimately threatening those who are not poor.
It also makes sense to deal with the problems arising from low pay. Why should the taxpayer subsidise sweat-shop employers through the social security system? Those are reasons why a minimum wage makes sense, despite what noble Lords opposite have said today. Far from reducing the number of jobs available, it could well increase them. It would force low paying employers to pay for the work that they want done. It is not true that the minimum wage is responsible for unemployment in a number of EU countries. Other considerations are involved in their unemployment statistics. Indeed, France has had a minimum wage since 1950, and for long periods during that time unemployment figures were not so high. It is quite wrong to say that if we introduced a system under which very low-paid people received at least a minimum standard there would be less work. I believe that the opposite will be true. We have already seen what has happened since the abolition of wages councils. People are working for appallingly low rates which are being subsidised by the benefits system.
Poverty and ill health resulting from unemployment and low pay actually costs us all far too much. I refer to NHS costs and social benefits and to the threat to the general health of the population. We can and should take steps to deal with these social evils.
4.58 p.m.
Lord Butterfield: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I take a slightly different tack in the discussion. I am confident that everyone in the Chamber would like to alleviate the problem of some people in this country having poorer prospects as regards sickness. I wish to bring to your Lordships the idea that some—I do not say all—of people's ill health is due to self-inflicted, serious mistakes in judgment about what they are doing to their bodies and their health.
I was most impressed by the opening statement of the noble Baroness, Lady Jay. I am grateful to her for launching the discussion, which is close to my own heart.
I was very impressed by the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield. I could not help but agree with so much of what he said. I believe that I could have spoken earlier in the debate. However, I make a personal point on that. One wonderful thing about coming in late is that one can make remarks to so many of one's colleagues and in that way improve one's friendships and collaboration in the House. Therefore, although I thought that I was to speak earlier, I am very happy to bat at number 13.
Many noble Lords have touched on the evidence as regards the relationship between income groups and illness. In a survey with which I was involved recently,
274
I noticed that references were made to Quick and Wilkinson, who published in the Socialist Health Association Journal; to Whitehead, who published from the Health Education Authority, and Williamson from the Trafford Centre at the University of Sussex. Of course, that centre was set up in memory of a former Minister of Health in this House, although sadly he was Minister for only a very short time. This is not for the record, but he died from smoking. It is dreadful for that to happen to a doctor, but that is the truth.
Something which has been touched upon and appreciated in the debate this evening has been the question of poverty and ill health and the relative poverty in some developing countries. The question about the adverse effects of poverty not being so obvious in, for example, Africa, was rebutted in a way by those two remarkable men who worked in backward parts of the world—Cleave and Burkitt. They brought to us in this country the importance of fibre in the diet. That may perhaps have fended off the need to pay proper attention to the Black Report. I do not know, but I suspect so.
I am intrigued by the fact that policy has been framed on the studies of people who are extremely concerned and link closely with statistics on health. I am thinking about Tom McKeown, professor of social medicine at Birmingham, who underlined the importance of income and housing in relation to health. I am thinking about Sir George Godbar who was a doughty supporter of the poor. We have all heard of Sir Douglas Black today, but his successor, Acheson, and our present Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Cadman, are both very concerned about the relationship between income and health.
As a practising doctor, I was not a statistically-minded man. My approach has come from my experiences of a person-to-person relationship. I noted quite early on when I went to work at Guy's Hospital that I had one or two patients whom I could not convince of the devastating effects of smoking on their lungs. Perhaps the first time that I recorded real failure was when I wrote a prescription for a Mr. Baker who needed antibiotics to ward off infections on his chest when they overwhelmed him rather than waiting at home until he became sick and came to the hospital casualty department.
I remember on another occasion a man of immense wealth, an American with diabetes. Despite all I said to him, he put on a beautiful pair of new shoes, drove in his beautiful new Jaguar motor car to see his son-in-law who was a whisky distiller in Scotland. He was appalled when it was clear that he had early gangrene in his little toe as a result of those tight shoes. Man-to-man, one becomes very worried about health education when that kind of thing goes on, when one is doing one's best for the patient.
Another man whom I knew—and this is an aside but I cannot resist talking about him—was the harbour master at Virginia Beach in Virginia. While playing poker on Christmas Eve, he was infuriated by the chief of police who was cheating. He snatched his gun and shot him in the chest. Of course, he ended up in prison where he was a volunteer for some studies with

275
which I was involved. He was gaoled in America with A1 Capone's safe cracker. His punishment for the rest of his life was to know that he could crack any safe and walk off with the contents at the drop of a hat.
I wish to tell your Lordships that I became involved with the idea that behaviour is very important as regards ill health in the 1970s and the 1980s. I became involved with the Health Promotion Research Council in the late 1980s. I have been sending your Lordships copies of our reports which I expect quickly found their way into waste bins. But those of us who were concerned with that felt that we were doing some quite good work.
We found plenty of evidence that bad judgment and risk-taking have extremely adverse effects on health. We became more and more aware also that there was not quite such a close relationship as my good friend Douglas Black pushed between pay and remuneration and health. We found that those groups of people who had quite marked rises in their salaries—perhaps 30 per cent. or 50 per cent. over 10 or 20 years—very often were rapidly running towards obesity and diabetes. Since I have been interested throughout most of my career in diabetes, I am appalled that people between our first and second survey for the Health Research Trust were putting on between five and seven pounds and over an inch on their girth in just seven years. If that continues, that will lead to a great deal more diabetes which costs the health service something in the order of £0.5 billion per year.
Therefore, I am personally very anxious that we should develop more man-to-man or person-to-person attempts to improve health behaviour. I am sure that that is extremely important. The Moslems make the point that men dig their graves with their teeth. In the case of obesity and diabetes, that is certainly true. It seems to me that as we are all very concerned about this, it must be for someone like me to try to lead to some collaboration between us all. It is extremely important that we should get more help from those who know how to deal with individuals. My profession grew out of the Church. I believe that the Church and the medical profession should spend more time trying to improve health knowledge, education and behaviour.
There must be a big drive to help unemployed people. I do not know how that can be done. I believe that people from the Church can help, as can social workers. The Department of Health should perhaps work with the Home Office in that very important field. In helping criminals' families—a group very much at risk—again, there should be a link between the Department of Health and the Home Office. That might achieve much. We doctors and nurses must realise that the provision of such help must not rest solely on the professions. There needs to be a wide group of people who can provide support and who will work together towards that objective, irrespective of immediate political loyalties.
5.9 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I begin by thanking my noble friend Lady Jay for giving us the opportunity to discuss this very important subject. Some
276
noble Lords have apologised for the excessive use of statistics in their speeches. I must warn your Lordships that I too shall use a lot of statistics but I shall not apologise for it. I believe that whoever said that there are lies, damn lies and statistics was quite wrong. When properly interpreted, statistics give a picture of truth that even the most backward-looking of governments or political parties cannot fail to ignore. I wish to talk about the effects of childcare on the family as a whole in relation to their health.
For many families today having children leads to poverty. In 1992–93, 33 per cent. of children were living in families with below 50 per cent. of the average income. In 1979, the figure was 10 per cent. According to that definition of poverty, some 4.3 million children live in poverty today—that is three times higher than in 1979. Moreover, 18 per cent. of children in two-parent families, some 185,000 children, are living on or below the income support level and 78 per cent. of children in one-parent families (some 184,000 children) are living on or below the income support level. One-parent families have a high risk of living in poverty. In 1990–91, 11 per cent. of the poor were one-parent families, whereas 6 per cent. of the population were one-parent families. Therefore, one-parent families are almost twice as likely to be living in poverty.
Poverty has an enormous impact on the lives of families. It affects what they eat, what they wear, their housing conditions and their safety. The Health of the Nation report, about which we have heard this afternoon, stated that life expectancy at birth is around seven years higher in social class I than in social class V. Recent research from the Family Policy Studies Centre has shown that, on current benefit levels, one-parent families who live in the poorest conditions, and who have lived in such conditions for some time, cannot afford to eat a healthy diet.
The DSS commissioned research from the Social Fund which showed that 35 per cent. of single parents on low incomes did not have adequate bedding for all members of their household. It also showed that 31 per cent. lack hot water, that 58 per cent. have inadequate heating and that 38 per cent. have dampness problems in their properties.
In order to support a family, most families need both parents to be in work. Currently six out of ten couples with dependent children have both parents in employment. The majority of mothers are in part-time work, many of them working very short hours. The lack of good quality, affordable childcare is an important factor in determining a mother's position in the labour market. There is only one childcare place for every nine children under eight years of age and there are about 800,000 children under 12 years of age who go home on their own after school every day.
Many women are unable to keep their jobs when they have children and, when they return to work, they return to jobs with much lower rates of pay. Childcare is an important factor in the process. Although there is a system for subsidising childcare for the low paid in the form of the childcare allowance, for those on family credit, few two-parent families benefit from this allowance.

277
I turn now to statutory paid maternity leave, which is only 18 weeks in this country, and many women do not even qualify for that. There is no statutory paternity leave and that is out of step with standards in the rest of Europe. In addition, there is no right to introduce flexible working hours which would help so many parents. On top of all that, British men—as I know only too well—work the longest hours in Europe. That is no doubt partly to compensate for their wives' low wages. Indeed, I can say with some feeling that long hours do absolutely nothing for family life.
Single parent families face the particular problem of having to combine being a parent and providing an income for the family. I should point out that 90 per cent. of single parents are women and that 75 per cent. of single parents have to rely on income support. Poverty and ill health become a vicious circle. In the recent survey of single parents, one in six were unable to work because of ill health either of themselves or their children.
There are practical measures which can be taken to ease the situation for all parents, especially single parents; for example, enhanced maternity leave, the introduction of paternity leave and the increased availability of flexible working practices. Tackling the quality, the availability and the affordability of childcare would enable more parents, especially those on low wages, to support their families through work while ensuring a good quality of life for their children. These are not necessarily expensive measures but they would make an enormous difference to all parents in this country.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I believe that being 15th on the speakers' list Is a positive advantage, to follow what the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, said. Perhaps I may start on a very different tack from that outlined by other noble Lords. I should begin by congratulating my noble friend Lady Jay on what has proved to be a most interesting and multi-faceted debate on aspects of poverty and health.
The interesting thing about the Black Report, which came out in about 1981, was that it pointed out to us that the effect of poverty on health persists despite much effort on the part of society to reduce it. I should like to cite one interesting statistic in that respect. My noble friend Lord Ponsonby told us that the difference in life expectancy of those in social class I and social class V is seven years. In America, a comparable difference between the life expectancy of a white male and a black male is 30 years; in other words, the life expectancy of the black urban male in the United States is below that of a man in Bangladesh.
The difference between life expectancies in this country and in America is a great achievement of the NHS. Let us not forget that fact. We cannot say that we have achieved nothing. The Black Report really said that despite making healthcare accessible independent of income—at least as regards medicinal care, while not mentioning other expenses—a national health service can achieve a great deal but it cannot achieve everything. On the other side of the equation is poverty,
278
and a national health service cannot eliminate poverty. Indeed, poverty has to be tackled by other measures. That is a most important point with which to begin.
I turn now to the subject of definitions. Perhaps I may give your Lordships an historical account as regards defining poverty. Interestingly enough, the defining of poverty originated in this country in the 1870s when primary school education became compulsory. The fee for such education was one penny per week for each child. Local school boards had to make a decision and decide whether those children whose parents could not afford to pay should still be allowed to attend school. That is when the first poverty line was defined in this country. So the original concept of poverty concerned not so much the mundane considerations such as food and clothing; it concerned the life chances of children who could not go to school.
As my noble friend Lady Turner of Camden said, that amounts to exclusion. If you cannot send your child to primary school and all the other children in the neighbourhood can attend, your child is effectively excluded. That is why poverty matters. Indeed, it matters very much to me because, if you are born into a poor family or if your family becomes poor, it affects your life chances. Therefore, we must make other arrangements to ensure that the life chances of children are not affected by the poverty of the parents. As much as we have been able to do that in the provision of healthcare, we must also think how we can deal with the problem by way of other measures. That is what will make us a better society.
Many points have been raised by other speakers but perhaps I may just make one or two comments which are relatively complimentary. It is not true to say that demand for healthcare is unlimited; that we cannot afford it; and that, therefore, we must do something drastic to cut government expenditure. I have looked at Social Trends. I promised the noble Baroness who is to reply to the debate that I would not give too many statistics. I shall try to make a spiritual speech, as far as an atheist can make a spiritual speech. Social Trends shows that real government expenditure has decreased over the past 15 years by about £20 billion or 6 per cent., while real disposable income has risen by 50 per cent. Therefore, we are not spending unlimited amounts of money. Government expenditure is not out of control. If there is less government expenditure, yet we allow higher private incomes, while that is good for most people it hurts the poor the most.
If properly directed, government expenditure provides the poor with a cushion. This is where I think poverty and ill heath come together. One simple example of that is overcrowding in housing. Over the past 15 years we have spent only half as much on housing and community facilities as previously. Over the past 15 years the figure has decreased from £20 billion to £10 billion. However, we have had to spend considerably more on social security. Had we spent as much on housing as we used to, we would have had to spend less on social security and there would have been fewer health consequences. If people cannot afford good housing, they go into bad housing. Bad housing is more expensive because, ultimately, it leads to ill health.

279
Of course the National Health Service bears the cost of ill health but that does not mean that society does not bear the cost of ill health. We have to remember to take not a Treasury view of costs and benefits but a more common sense view of costs and benefits. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, has always pointed out that if you make cuts somewhere, costs arise somewhere else; it is just that we do not see those costs arising.
We have tried to make economies in areas such as housing by, as it were, privatising it. That is helpful if one is an owner-occupier. However, it does not help if one does not have the means to buy a property. One has to resort to rented accommodation, which is expensive. Consequently people become homeless, live in hostels or accommodation which is not properly heated, is damp and which causes ill health. That is a cost.
I now wish to mention another hidden cost of ill health. About 4 per cent. of the labour force is absent from work due to sickness. The figure of 4 per cent. may not sound high but even if that 4 per cent. of people contributed 2 per cent. of GDP, that is £15 billion. That is not a small sum of money. Absenteeism is costing us that sum of money, despite having a good health service. We must look again at the issue of poverty. There has been a fall in the number of adult working males who are between the ages of 25 and 55. Jobs for the relatively unskilled have disappeared. Therefore we must systematically consider how we can restore jobs for the relatively unskilled. Sooner or later we shall once again have to grasp the nettle of restoring and increasing real public spending, because that is the best hope for the poor.
5.24 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I too wish to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, for introducing this debate. As the noble Lord, Lord Desai, quite rightly said, it has been a most interesting and varied discussion covering a wide area. I apologise to the House and to my noble friend Lady Cumberlege in that I have a prior engagement this evening and will not be able to stay until the end of the debate.
Income levels are important for the health of families and of individuals right across the board and not only to those living in the most abject poverty. I refer to the two Whitehall studies of the Civil Service. This research has shown that those in the lowest ranks of the Civil Service are three times as likely to die in a given period as those in the senior ranks—the administrators. Similarly, there is a gradient. In each rank people are more likely to die in a given period than those in the rank immediately above. As I understand the research, income levels across the board affect people's health.
Similarly, men and women in the lowest grade of the Civil Service are shown to have six times more sick leave than those in the highest grade. I do not believe that even those in the lowest ranks of the Civil Service are people that we would consider to be living in real poverty. The higher one's income, the better one's health. That is common sense to me but it is something which needs to be pointed out in this debate.
280
Why is it that the higher one's grade and one's income, the more likely one is to have better health? Many of the reasons for that have already been mentioned. The higher one's grade, the more likely one is not to smoke; the more likely one is to take exercise; the more likely one is to have a healthier diet and the more likely one is to have better resources as regards housing, transport, heating and diet. All those points have been well made and they are obviously relevant to one's health.
There are two other factors which are also relevant to health, one of which is called the psycho-social factor. To put that in English that I understand, I believe it means that an individual has support, affirmation and encouragement both at home and at work. Today I had lunch with a man with whom I discussed the need for the employees in an enterprise with which we are both involved to receive much affirmation and encouragement from those of us who are involved but do not work there. We all need that support and it is relevant to our health. The support I receive from my wife helps and encourages me. I am sure that it is conducive to better health than would be the case if I were without her. As I said, I believe this support is important for health. In this place we can all offer one another that support. We can offer that support to people in employment, to our families, to charities or whatever we are involved in. We can offer support and thereby contribute to the health of the nation.
The second factor I wish to mention—our income levels are relevant to this—is that those in unskilled and repetitive jobs are more liable to stress than those in high pressure, varied jobs. I found that piece of research interesting because it contradicted my own thinking. I had always thought that people who had high powered jobs working at great levels of intellectual capacity and physical pressure were most subject to stress. But it now appears that those in unskilled and repetitive jobs are more subject to pressure. They have less control over what they do; they have less variety in what they do; and less prospects for future development. I believe that all employers need to bear that in mind and endeavour to give everyone variety in what they do. That, again, will contribute to the health of the nation.
I referred to smoking. I am interested to read that people in the lower social groupings in the country are five times more likely to die from lung cancer than those in the top social groupings. That is a message we all need to hear.
Last week in this building, I listened to a talk about drugs. When one bears in mind that someone on drugs may have to pay out something like £500 a week, one can see that there are grounds for poverty let alone ill health in that situation, regardless of criminal tendencies.
Much healthcare in this country is equally available for all whatever their income group. I have recently seen the excellent provision by the NHS for a mother in the course of a birth—the hospital services, the midwives and the health visitors. Those services are available for all whatever their income level. I believe that the NHS does a magnificent job in that regard.

281
I understand, too, from research that all social groupings visit GPs to a similar extent. However, the indications are that the lower social groupings make less use of available health resources. We have talked about the need for education on using the available resources, and in regard to behaviour patterns, exercise, and so on. Perhaps I may ask my noble friend Lady Cumberlege whether the NHS prioritises inner cities and other areas of deprivation to ensure that those people are encouraged to use the available health resources which the NHS provides.
The average income of the poorest 10 per cent. of the country has risen by nearly 50 per cent. in real terms in the past few years according to the DSS. That is encouraging. I know that the mortality rates among those in the lowest income levels are not good, as some noble Lords have said. That issue needs attention. But I believe that we are on an improving pattern. As the noble Earl said earlier, the poor are always with us. That is not a ground for complacency. Those words of Jesus Christ are a challenge to all of us to keep improving our standards. That is what I believe the Government are doing and what all parties seek.
Lord Rea: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, and as we have a little time in hand, perhaps I may say how grateful I am that he referred to the Whitehall study. However, he implied that the better health of the higher grades was due to the fact that they led a better life style—less smoking, more exercise and so on. But Professor Marmot and colleagues took that factor very much into account. They allowed for all known risk factors that one can think of, and still they accounted for only a 25 per cent. difference in mortality and sickness absence rates. All known risk factors accounted for only 25 per cent. of the gradation.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I make no comment on that. I agree with it. I do not think that that affects the main thesis of what I said, but I thank the noble Lord.
5.35 p.m.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, drew our attention to comparative death rates of people in lower social classes. It is a fact of life, and of death, that children born into social class V, essentially defined by level of income, are 50 per cent. more likely to be stillborn or to die in the first week of life than those born into the top social class. Sixty per cent. are more likely to die in their first year of life than those born into the top social class. The life expectancy of children born to social class V is around seven years less than those born into the top social class. Many factors contribute to that. One factor on which I propose to speak, and to which reference has been made by several noble Lords, is poor housing.
Low income is correlated with poor housing and there is a particularly strong correlation between low income and temporary accommodation, including bed-and-breakfast hotels and short life flats. "Temporary" can be anything from a couple of weeks to several years.
282
Many studies have highlighted the ways in which the long-term use of temporary accommodation affects the physical health of children, notably through bronchitis, colds, flu, and so on, as well as their mental health and their behaviour.
However, no less significant—it is a point to which I particularly wish to draw your Lordships' attention—is the higher incidence of children who sustain accidents in those substandard living conditions. The Government's report The Health of the Nation recorded that children in social class V are four times more likely to suffer accidental death as those in social class I. I shall address my remarks to the incidence of accidents to children and to the relationship between child accidents and inequality. I very much welcome the observations on this issue made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield.
Accidents are the single biggest cause of child deaths in the UK, killing more than even childhood cancers such as leukaemia. In 1993, the most recent year for which I have figures, 585 children aged under 15 died in the UK as the result of accidents. The Child Accident Prevention Trust estimates that no fewer than one in five of the population under 15 attends hospital accident and emergency departments each year because of accidents. My noble friend Lord Desai drew our attention to the cost of many factors. It is worth noting that the cost to the NHS alone is estimated at £150 million a year, without taking account of the costs to the police and other emergency services.
The rate of child deaths in the UK through accidents is falling. That in itself is more than welcome, even though the rate of decline is lower than the general fall in child deaths as a result of illness and disease. Unfortunately, there are no comprehensive official statistics for non-fatal child accidents, but estimates by the Child Accident Prevention Trust suggests that there has been little, if any, change in recent years. Does the Minister agree that this is an obstacle to the development of an effective prevention strategy? What is being done to improve the collation of statistics on accidents?
What is beyond doubt is the higher incidence of accidents to children in poor families living in poor accommodation. I refer, to burns, falls from heights, spillages of hot liquids, and so on. Child accident statistics published by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys shows that children in social class V are nine times more likely to die as a result of a fire than those in social class I. We are always hearing of fires caused in bed-and-breakfast accommodation by the use of substandard gas heaters and overturned paraffin oil heaters.
Until 1988, families on benefit could claim one-off payments for household equipment if they could show that, without it, there would be serious risk to health and safety. That covered household equipment such as efficient heating appliances and fireguards, as well as such items as stairgates. Since the introduction of the Social Fund those payments are no longer available. The only way to get money for a fireguard is through a discretionary loan repayable by

283
deductions from income support—itself set at a level which falls well short of meeting minimum tolerable standards. My noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean drew our attention to the invidious choice imposed on many people between heating and eating. No less invidious is the choice imposed on many mothers between feeding themselves and protecting their children against danger.
Those hazards are increased by the location and quality of accommodation for poor families. Children are particularly at risk from accidents on the higher floors of high-rise flats—notably falls from windows or balconies. Most housing authorities accept that it is inappropriate to house families with children in such conditions; but as the number of homeless families increases, some authorities are forced to compromise their policies in order to reduce the number of families living in B&Bs.
It is also a matter of concern that, according to the Health and Safety Executive, injury rates are rising in our schools. In a 1994 survey, the National Union of Teachers reported that in nearly one school in five a pupil or staff member suffered an injury or illness linked to the condition of the school's fabric. With capital spending on school buildings and maintenance at half the level it was in real terms 20 years ago, that is not surprising. What does surprise me is that I understand that the minimum standards laid down in the 1981 Education (School Premises) Regulations are to be replaced by weaker standards. That will only intensify the risk of accidents in schools.
I fully take the point made so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, about the relationship between behaviour and health. I believe it is quite consistent with that to suggest that there is also a relationship between the Government's behaviour and the health of our citizens. I suggest that there are in particular three ways in which the Government might with advantage modify their own behaviour in order to help reduce the number of accidents to children and reduce the inequalities which expose the children of low-income families to greater risk of accident.
First, essential safety equipment should again be made available through grants, not by loans against income support. Secondly, as was emphasised this afternoon, we need much more vigorous action to improve the housing options for low-income homeless families. And, thirdly, local authorities should be firmly directed, and adequately funded, to enforce acceptable safety standards in bed-and-breakfast and other forms of temporary accommodation.
I welcome the assurances of shared concern and protestations of solicitude from so many speakers from the opposite—I almost said, prematurely, Opposition—Benches, notably the noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke, and the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood. Against that background of support I urge these proposals on the noble Baroness the Minister with yet more confidence.
5.44 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, in 1980, the Secretary of State for Health of the new Conservative Government dashed many hopes when he promptly rejected the recommendations of the Black Report, claiming that the cost was:
"quite unrealistic in present or any foreseeable economic circumstances, quite apart from any judgment that may be formed of the effectiveness of such expenditure in dealing with the problems identified".
That seems to be as depressing a decision as one can imagine from any government department. The failure since 1980 to implement any of the Black Report recommendations has caused disappointment to many and must have caused a great deal of needless suffering on the part of many of the poorest families.
However, as we heard from many speakers, the Black Report has not gone away. I noted the caveat of the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, but it seems to me that the basic theme of the Black Report has been re-stated by many subsequent authoritative studies and papers which gave ample warning of a correlation between health and poverty. That is one of the reasons for our concern; namely, that the gap in health status between the social groups has grown since 1980. That point was forcefully made by my noble friend Lady Symons.
To my mind the most striking support for the recommendations of the Black Report comes from the medical profession and is to be found in the 1995 report from the Board of Science and Education of the BMA. After acknowledging that there will always be a need for more research into the correlation between health and poverty, the BMA nevertheless concluded:
"the currently available evidence is more than sufficient to enable effective policy development".
I should be grateful if the Minister will tell the House how the Government respond to that finding of the BMA. We are entitled to know how they view it.
There is also the impressive evidence of Sir Donald Acheson, the department's former Chief Medical Officer. In his 1991 annual report—his final report—he summed up:
"The clearest links with the excess burden of ill-health are: low income, unhealthy behaviour and poor housing and environmental amenities".
I should very much like to hear from the Minister when she replies whether the Government agree that poorer families need more income, better nutrition, improved homes and better access to education, as well as health education and equal access to the best medical services according to their illness needs.
Do the Government still maintain, as they did in The Health of the Nation, that health inequalities are too difficult to understand? Is that their position?
There has been frequent reference during the course of the debate to The Health of the Nation. I should tell the House that we in Wales find ourselves in a dilemma over that document as we are still awaiting a health strategy document from the Welsh Office. The Welsh Office produced a draft health strategy document some two or three years ago, but for reasons that are not well understood it has never seen the light of day.

285
Although the noble Baroness the Minister has no special responsibility for the Welsh Office, can she explain the delay and say whether or not a strategy document will be produced before the general election?
The importance of children is properly included in the Motion. It has been thoroughly examined by many speakers this afternoon and I have nothing to add except to make one brief comment. I believe that the first textbook to be written in the English language on children's diseases was written by a physician practising in rural Wales, Thomas Phaere. In his book, The Boke of Chyldrene, there is the sentence which in modern English reads:
"Here to do them good that have most need, that is to say children."
Those words were written about 400 years ago. They are still true today.
I wish to mention the need to reduce differences in health status between and within regions to which reference has been made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield. I believe this particular need is relevant to the Motion before the House.
Over the last few months I have been trying to help a small ad hoc group of professional people to develop a scheme which would improve conditions for young mothers and children in the small township of Blaenau Ffestiniog, high up in Snowdonia. It is a clearly defined community with a population of about 5,500. It has a sense of history and belonging, but it has also a sense of deprivation. It has exceptional problems, many jobs have disappeared. There is long-term unemployment as well as youth unemployment. Many young mothers are without work and often without skills. Income is low. Social security dependency is high. There seems no immediate prospect of economic growth and there is much ill health and mental illness. There may be a problem of drug misuse but surprisingly, according to the local office of the clerk of the magistrates, the relevant information on drug abuse is not readily available. So to my mind there are signs of bureaucratic inertia.
However, my hopes are raised because at shopfloor level an ad hoc group of devoted and imaginative local child health professional workers and voluntary workers has not allowed barriers to come between them. They have brought forward a scheme for assisting young families and young people of the area. It seems to me that that is similar to what was described by one speaker this afternoon and it is just the kind of local initiative that requires encouragement. Barnados in Wales has been and remains a considerable source of advice to the group. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us an assurance that the need to support the initiative at Blaenau Ffestiniog and similar initiatives will be brought to the attention of the Secretary of State for Wales.
Looking generally into the future, a new Labour government will, of course, have a huge agenda. Nevertheless, I hope that it will in the first Session of the new Parliament aim towards implementing the Black recommendations, because that would be a move in the right direction, although I have no doubt that there may be snags of which the civil servants will advise.
5.54 p.m.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to take part in a debate on health initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay. I must apologise to the House for missing some of the earlier speeches, particularly the noble Baroness's opening speech. It is not easy trying to contribute to a debate and having to miss an explanation of what it is all about, but noble Lords will forgive me when I say that my first duty has to be to my patients. Many of them are understanding when appointments are moved to enable me to take part in a debate, but I have to admit that I had not noticed the debate for this afternoon until it was pointed out to me by my noble friend Lord Oxfuird two days ago.
Although we sit on opposite sides of the House, I am well aware of and appreciate the continuing commitment of the noble Baroness to the state of care in the community and this afternoon her crusade on behalf of the less well off. The noble Baroness's debate is very interesting. I believe that successive governments—I mean Labour as well as Conservative administrations—have done all they can to raise standards of health throughout the community, providing ever-escalating funding to improve the quality of the health service.
Our debate this afternoon should be concerned not with the impact of poverty on ill health but with the poverty of knowledge on ill health today. The health service is free at source. Anyone can see a doctor, visit a hospital, have free treatment. What is often lacking is quality advice on the prevention of illness and on the maintenance of good health.
I agree with some of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. The greatest advances in the promotion of health during the last century have been entirely due to the installation of efficient plumbing and drainage systems. Chronic illness is rising. I believe that I am correct in saying that at any one time almost one-third of the adult population has a long-standing illness of some kind.
The NHS has very little to do with health and far too much to do with sickness—with dis-ease. Sadly, instead of the NHS focusing on health, it has concentrated resources on illness. Surely it is a case of waiting for the horse to bolt. Only a dentist could mix a veterinary metaphor into an NHS debate. All that is taking place within the context of a general increase in the use of pharmaceutical drugs. Seventy-five per cent. of all visits to a GP end with the prescription of a synthetic drug. About 20 per cent. of all adults—that is something over 15 million people—are constantly taking some form of prescribed medicine.
I find that fact very disturbing, but it becomes even more menacing when considering the amount of illness which is induced by these very drugs. The assumption that the body can be regarded as a machine whose protection from disease and its effects depends primarily on internal intervention and the idea that illness can be classified into specific named diseases, each of which has a single cause, have led to indifference to and disregard of the external influences and personal behaviour which, without doubt, are the predominant determinants of health.

287
With our present attitudes to health, it is inconceivable to think that illness should be viewed as a helpful, although often severe, reminder that perhaps there is something at fault with one's lifestyle or attitude. It is precisely because this possibility has been largely ignored that so little attention is being paid to the whole concept of health promotion. Health promotion is about the maintenance of good physical and mental health. It has very little to do with medicine and disease management and everything to do with the ways in which people live and the social and psychological environments in which they do it.
Millions of people, whether they be rich or poor, suffer unnecessarily simply because they are not being directed towards maintenance of health. Merely to increase funding for the health service, to simplify access to doctors and hospitals, without first identifying key factors of health is a recipe for disaster. Many of your Lordships will have seen the recent plethora of articles and programmes on health in the newspapers and on television and the radio. They all have one message in common and I think that the commentators are finally coming round to the idea that health is very much related to environment, nutrition and good sense.
I have to admit that some of us here—and I declare my interest as President of the All-Party Group for Alternative and Complementary Medicine—have been saying for years and years that good health depends on what you eat, where you eat it and the maintenance of a good immune system.
May I quote an article from the Sunday Times of 19th January. It stated:
"Big increase in infant diabetes blamed on cow's milk feeding £ Doctors have discovered diabetes is increasing at an alarming rate of more than 10 per cent. a year among children under five. Experts believe that using cow's milk to feed infants and exposure to certain viruses at birth may be to blame".
How many families do noble Lords know who could have told them 20, 30, 50 or more years ago that mothers' milk is best? The article went on:
"In New Zealand, researchers have found that large doses of a B vitamin can help prevent diabetes".
I am sure that my noble friend will be aware of the recent problems concerned with the Committee on Toxicity's recommendations to the Food Advisory Committee on the toxicity of vitamin B6, which were accepted without any input or advice from the health food manufacturers or professional nutritionists. It is an issue which I hope to take up with my noble friend on another occasion, but it is an example of ignorance affecting health outcomes.
In the Sunday Times last weekend I read of a startling new discovery by Professor Phillip Lamey at the Royal Victoria Hospital in Belfast claiming to have worked out how to treat long-term migraine by adjusting the way teeth bite together, using small plastic splints to avoid the production of neuropeptide chemicals which trigger violent headaches. Is that a new discovery? A major breakthrough, indeed. My Lords, my dental colleagues and I have been treating such headaches for 20 years and the treatment has been dismissed by the majority of the medical fraternity as inconsequential.
288
So the answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Jay—and I hope the answer that she will elicit from my noble friend—is that the maintenance of health is dependent—as well as on housing and full employment—on water supplies, sewage disposal, elimination of atmospheric pollution and provision of a diet containing high proportions of unprocessed food and raw vegetables. Then, and only then, when we deliver a true health service to all should we be able to eat our words concerning the present concept of a health service based on sickness.
6.2 p.m.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, the debate initiated by my noble friend Lady Jay of Paddington has already been worth while and there are more speakers to come. The debate has attracted a large number of speakers.
Two years ago this month, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation published its authoritative report—some noble Lords referred to it this afternoon—on the subject of income and wealth. Among its key findings were that income inequality in the UK rose rapidly between 1979 and 1990 and that the pace at which inequality had increased in the UK was faster than in any other country of the world except New Zealand.
One of the members of the Rowntree team was Mr. Howard Davies, then Director General of the CBI and now Deputy Governor of the Bank of England. In a newspaper article on the day of the Rowntree Report's publication, he wrote that, when growing numbers of people become detached from the market economy, it represents a significant waste of resources and increases other social costs, in the health service and in the criminal justice system, as well as the social security budget.
Who can doubt, especially at this point in the debate this afternoon in your Lordships' House, that poverty and ill health are closely linked? The BMA paper of 1995 on inequalities in health, to which my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies referred a moment ago, confirmed the view of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation that inequalities in living standards had indeed increased in the UK since 1980 and that severely unequal societies—not just societies with high rates of poverty—had worse health and worse economic growth than less unequal societies. In 1987 the Health Education Council said that:
"all the major killer diseases affected the poor more than the rich".
I shall not give your Lordships a number of statistics, partly because of the objections of my noble friend Lord Birdwood and partly because an adequacy of perfectly good statistics has already been given. Nor shall I refer to the particular problems relating to children's health because many of your Lordships have referred to children. I simply want to emphasise the importance also of the need to raise the standards of health and care of those at the other end of the age spectrum—the elderly. I do so because poverty among the elderly is widespread. It has a serious adverse effect on the health of the elderly. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke, who said earlier that one-third of our elderly are at or below the poverty line—I repeat, one-third of the elderly are at or below the poverty line.

289
Fifty years ago almost all the elderly were poor. We know that that is no longer the case, at least for some elderly people—an increasing proportion of the elderly. A number of people enjoy the fruits of occupational and other private pensions and adequate care, if needed, either at home or in residential facilities. But there is tremendous and increasing inequality among the elderly. Apart from the group that I mentioned, there are those who are dependent on the state pension, topped up by various means-tested benefits, if they are understood and applied for, including income support. The very worst off are often those who are entitled to income support or other benefits but are put off from claiming through the difficulties involved, the stigma attached or otherwise in some way.
The elderly are living longer, which is partly due to the benefits of the health service and the rest, but inevitably as the years go by they become more prone to physical and mental ill health. If they are poor, they are likely to have a less healthy diet, poorer housing conditions, inadequate heating and less opportunity for and access to exercise facilities. All those factors will exacerbate the risk of ill health. The impact of such expenses as those for eye tests, which are essential to check on the possible advent of eye disease, may cause them to neglect or postpone taking desirable precautions, which better-off elderly people would take. It will be interesting to hear the Government's response to the Starred Question of my noble friend Lord Molloy, which deals with that matter, in two weeks' time.
Sadly, while it is generally understood that babies and very young children are extremely vulnerable and dependent, it is not always recognised and understood that there is at least a possible vulnerability, possible dependency and possible disability among the elderly. They are often overlooked. Some noble Lords may have noticed newspaper accounts last week of a report by the Association of Community Health Councils, backed up by over 200 complaints from families of hospital patients, which showed that in some hospital wards food for elderly patients is placed beyond their reach and no attempt is made to see whether they are strong enough to feed themselves. The eminent medical correspondent of The Times, Dr. Tom Stuttaford, formerly a Conservative Member of the other place, recounted in his column a personal experience of visiting in hospital an octogenarian relative, who was too debilitated to feed herself. Yet her meals were just put on her bedside table. Half an hour later, the food was gathered up again, with the jolly quip, "No appetite yet, I see".
Where, one might ask, is the old-fashioned nursing that would have coaxed the frail into taking the nourishment essential for their recovery and well-being? I am concerned that someone of Dr. Stuttaford's experience and eminence should comment—I use his words—that there is a "creeping tendency" in the National Health Service to regard the very old as expendable and undeserving of the expense of high quality care which ought to ensure their survival.
If I might draw a conclusion from the particular and, one hopes and believes, exceptional circumstances that I have just quoted about the possible position of the frail elderly in hospital, it is that here and more generally we
290
need an approach that is holistic. Responsibility for the care of the elderly is surely not something which can be neatly divided up between, let us say, the dispensing of antibiotics, on the one hand, and the provision of food and cups of tea, on the other hand, with the availability perhaps of occupational therapy. Such divisions of responsibility may mean that really no one has responsibility for the patient as a whole person.
Similarly, as the BMA has put it, a "total approach", rather than just a service-oriented approach, is needed if inequalities in health are to be addressed in general for the whole population. People's health can be influenced by many different aspects of public policy ranging from dealing with the squalor of poor housing conditions to the adequacy of income in old age, from improved working conditions to the banning of advertisements for tobacco. As my noble friend Baroness Symons said, there is a need for a co-ordinated approach across a number of different government departments. This debate is as much about fiscal and welfare policies, public policy generally, as it is about the state of the National Health Service. It is surely a debate which is welcomed from all parts of the House.
6.11 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, that poverty leads to disease and early death is beyond dispute. That is why poverty is a matter of morality and not just a matter of economics. This debate is precisely about that—to draw attention to the moral issue of poverty and inequality causing ill health—and I congratulate my noble friend Lady Jay on her rather angry introduction, a justifiable anger if I may say so, shared by many of us.
On these Benches we have always been anxious to attack poverty and the causes of poverty because we see it as a moral issue. The noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke, implied that this view is shared by the Government. That is not so. The Government's view on poverty was clearly stated by the right honourable Mr. Peter Lilley, who, on 13th June, 1996, in a speech on welfare reform and Christian values in Southwark Cathedral, stated:
"Conservatives believe that eliminating poverty and pursuing equality are not merely different, they are ultimately incompatible."
In other words, a trickle down view. Trickle down is a fantasy. All it does is lead to greater inequality and more poverty. My noble friend Lady Turner told us that, the Government know that, and I think even Mr. Lilley knows that because in November 1994 he said,
"The single most significant social change affecting the United Kingdom is not the ageing of the population, nor the breakdown of the family, nor the increasing proportion of women at work. Rather, it is a phenomenon which is still largely unrecognised—a growing dispersion of earnings".
And he is right.
Many noble Lords have told us how income inequality has grown further and faster in Britain than in any major industrialised country except New Zealand, as my noble friend Lord Borne reminded us. My noble friends Lady Turner and Lady Symons gave us the figures. If we define poverty as net income at less than half the average earnings, poverty was 7 per cent. in 1979 and today it is 24 per cent.—nearly one in five

291
of the working population. The noble Lord, Viscount Brentford, told us that the poorest 50 per cent. are better off. If this is the case they must have carried the bottom 10 per cent. of the population because they are considerably worse off in absolute terms. The richest 10 per cent. are much better off and this is what Mr. Lilley meant by the "growing dispersion of earnings".
My noble friend Lord Borne spoke of the elderly. The composition of the poor today is much more weighted towards the workless than the retired. The percentage of pensioners in the poorest decile has halved since 1979, while the percentage of unemployed has doubled. My noble friend Lady Turner reminded us that in Autumn 1996, 4.3 million people in Britain were without paid employment and wanting a job—more than twice the number of officially unemployed. This is why the Bank of England—and may I assure the noble Lord, Lord Astor, that they are no apologists for the Labour Party—in their quarterly inflation Report in July 1996 concluded:
"Almost the entire net improvement in unemployment performance in the 1990s, compared with the 1980s, was accounted for by the rise in inactivity".
So the root cause of this inequality is not the tax and benefit changes since 1979, but the increased worklessness and widening income distribution. This was clearly brought out by the Rowntree Report and the report on social justice chaired by my noble friend Lord Borrie. And many noble Lords who have spoken have told us that poverty is caused by an absence of education, an absence of skills and an absence of opportunity.
But there are the poor who are in work caused by this widening income distribution. Among male workers, the gap between the highest paid and the lowest paid is now at its greatest this century. New evidence has shown that the growth in wage inequality is driven by skills.
Nor has just raising benefit been shown to be the answer to poverty. Welfare used to be a stop gap for short spells of unemployment. Now, welfare has become a way of life. What is worse, if you do get back into work, you are more likely to become unemployed again. Those who leave poverty have a tendency to fall back into it and the poverty trap has deepened in the modern labour market.
Paul Gregg's recent book Job, Wages and Poverty, shows why there has been a massive increase in workless households because of the poverty trap, and how the poverty trap has deepened with a cycle of low pay and no pay.
And so we have a picture of poverty: a large group of people who stand little chance of leaving poverty and unemployment behind because they lack the skills, the education and the opportunity; the unemployed, the economically inactive, and those on low pay subsidised by welfare. In total, one household in five has no breadwinner.
After almost two decades of Conservative Government, little has been done about this. Their failure to educate our workforce is legendary. And their
292
legendary policy of a flexible labour market has left us with even greater poverty. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield said that prevention is better than cure. He is absolutely right. That is why the best way to attack poverty is by getting people into good jobs. And that is why Labour's anti-poverty strategy concentrates on raising education and skills level in the workforce and introducing welfare to work measures rather than just raising benefits. That will create a flexible workforce; not a flexible labour market to easily hire and fire but a workforce flexible in skills and abilities which can adapt to the changing demands of the economy.
That is why we will use the windfall tax to train 250,000 youngsters. That is why we will use the money from the assisted places scheme to reduce class sizes, and that is why we will seek to reduce the starting rate of tax instead of eliminating capital gains tax and inheritance tax. We will help the many to move out of poverty rather than help the privileged few. That is why we will also have a national childcare strategy.
The Minister will say that the Government are now intending to follow the same policy. They steal our clothes. Indeed, Mr. Lilley made announcements last week about training schemes designed to get people off welfare. I can only say that it is too little and too late, and point to the years of missed opportunity. And what a missed opportunity! Since 1979, there has been an unparalleled opportunity available for this Government to invest in Britain's people and to eliminate poverty. Let me explain. In today's money, the Government's income from the North Sea and from privatisation is equivalent to £35 million every single day for the past 16 years. Many would argue that this income comes from assets which belong to us all. To save the Minister time, I can tell her that this is equivalent to £6 per person per day.
My noble friend Lord Desai spoke about the effect of misdirected public expenditure on poverty. Would you not think that with an extra £6 per person per day, a reasonably competent government would have been able to reduce poverty and inequality? Instead of reducing poverty, this Government have managed to treble it. What an indictment of the Government's mismanagement! What an indictment of their priorities! What a missed opportunity to reduce poverty and inequality! What a missed opportunity to improve the nation's health!
6.21 p.m.
Lord Luke: My Lords, I should first like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, for introducing this important debate. There have been some excellent speeches. I have not agreed with everything that has been said and particularly not with what the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, has just said, but I shall try very hard not to be repetitive.
My interest in this subject stems from my family's involvement with health matters over four generations. Bovril was my old family company. We made a product called Virol, which was based on malt extract, and was widely known as a valuable food supplement for

293
children and adults to help prevent rickets and other diseases derived from chronic malnutrition. So noble Lords can imagine that I was a little worried when I heard the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, say that the incidence of rickets had increased recently.
I have carried out a little research. I find that a recent survey by the Health Visitors' Association claimed that 4 per cent. of the health visitors asked had encountered a child with rickets. Whether or not that is true, I do not know. However, the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food and Nutrition Policy is inquiring via an expert sub-group into bone health in the United Kingdom population.
I belong to the Court of the Sons of the Clergy, a 350 year-old charity devoted to the relief of clergymen and women and their families. It does not, thank God, have to deal with extreme poverty, or penury, but frequently with the results of relatively low pay coupled with less than adequate management of limited resources. I mention this because it shows how difficult it is to define the word "poverty". Here I rather dangerously cross swords with the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I think it is important to define the word "poverty". In the Oxford English Dictionary it is inter alia,
"the condition of being without adequate food, money, etc.".
I prefer to use the words "relative poverty", "inequality", "penury" or "extreme poverty", as "poverty" by itself conjures up in the minds of those who have not been attending this debate harrowing photos of starving children in Africa and other third world countries.
I believe there is no valid reason to find malnutrition through shortage of funds in this country. Available benefits, concentrated by this Government where they are most needed, have increased in value by more than inflation since 1979. They undoubtedly provide enough resource for living; not plush, luxurious living, but sufficient to get by on, and with good and sensible management of funds, a little more. This may not be ideal, but I believe that everything possible should be done to encourage independence and a move away from reliance on the state. However, many Labour politicians talk a great deal about poverty—we have heard a great deal of it today—high poverty levels and indeed increasing poverty levels. But really, my Lords, how many of those earning below the national average income do not have a freezer, central heating, often a car and sometimes a microwave, and, of course, that most important staple of all, a television set?
If the level of "poverty" is based by Labour on a percentage of the national average income, rather than as an absolute standard of living, then the goal posts continually move, and however rapidly the standard of living rises in this country there will always be relative poverty. Poverty itself—that extremely emotive word—can be used to show that the wicked Conservatives are condemning millions of fellow citizens to "poverty", implying a lack of resource to buy food—hence malnutrition of children. It is a poor argument.
The quality of food, and whether it will or will not keep people healthy, is a highly complex matter. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that it is probably
294
true that many teenagers and young adults do not receive in an acceptable and understandable way good advice and training on the nutritional value of different foods; for instance, the simple fact that fresh food should, by and large, be more healthy and does not often cost more.
In carrying out some research for this speech I have taken some information from a report from the Family Policy Studies Centre entitled Diet, Choice and Poverty 1994. Some rather interesting facts emerge from its survey of 48 of the poorest families in a deprived area of the Midlands. Junk food is often superficially more attractive to children and their parents too often take the line of least resistance. I can remember being in awful trouble through not wanting to eat my cabbage. I was made to, my Lords, and much the better I am for it. The report also shows that when a family is very poor pride has much to do with the priorities in terms of how it spends its money. If money is short, it appears that extra emphasis is put into keeping up appearances—street cred. That is very interesting. It also seems that there is a strong tendency to buy only food that it is known the children like, to avoid the possibility of waste, because there is no inclination to say, "Eat it, there isn't anything else". That does not seem to be right.
I have been concerned in the past with the Order of St. John. For a long time it has been trying to widen first-aid teaching in schools. I believe that first aid should be a compulsory part of the national curriculum in all schools. That would do more to save life and injury than anything else.
I shall finish with a brief quotation from Izaak Walton:
"Look to your health; and if you have it, praise God and value it next to a good conscience; for health is the second blessing that we mortals are capable of; a blessing that money cannot buy".
6.28 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, when I first became a Member of your Lordships' House, one of the best pieces of advice I was given was never to speak in anger, so I shall seek to abide by that. I speak with some trepidation in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, who is not in his place, referred to those of us who dangerously increase our risk factor by putting an inch on our girth as we get older. I am disqualified to speak. I am a self-admitted smoker but I support the Labour Party's ban on tobacco advertising.
In this debate I wish to speak about the effect of homelessness on the health of young people. Homelessness is generally devastating for young people and it impacts very severely on their physical and mental well-being. An NCH Action for Children survey of vulnerable young people, the majority of whom were in temporary accommodation or homeless, found that one-third had had only one or no meal within the past 24 hours; nearly all were following unhealthy diets—good, home-cooked broth is very difficult to make on the streets of Victoria at night. A disproportionately high number have been recently physically ill and the overwhelming majority were depressed and nervous.

295
Unsurprisingly, these problems are most acute among those whom we shall pass tonight on our way home from your Lordships' House.
The 1995 Mental Health Foundation survey found a disturbingly high level of psychiatric disorder among homeless young people. A quarter had attempted suicide in the past year; more than half had been the victims of parental abuse or neglect; they had twice the likelihood of psychiatric disorder as other young people in that age group and only 15 per cent. were receiving treatment.
These are among the factors highlighted last week at the NCH Action for Children's Youth Homelessness Initiative, House Our Youth 2000. It calls for changes in housing and social services to develop a partnership approach; to develop policies and to respond to the need in particular for mediation when the young person first becomes homeless and seek to return him or her to the family; to devise strategies to improve access to, and the quality of, private rented accommodation and a more effective benefits safety net.
To those very sound objectives I would add the points raised by my noble friend Lord Haskel in his contribution to this debate. In particular, I single out investment in a satisfactory supply of high quality, well-insulated housing for people in need in this country. It is a scandal—I speak with sadness, if not in anger at this stage—that billions of pounds have been wasted, as the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, said, tied up in local authority budgets. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Astor, that the real tragedy lies in money which is tied up. The housing need is there, but local authorities are prevented from spending that money to meet the need.
It is a vicious circle. Many of the homeless young people come from poor quality, overcrowded accommodation which has put intolerable pressure on families. The grinding poverty that many have experienced in their families has contributed to the inability of the family to cope with a growing young person. I would not dare to go to those living in overcrowding and poverty—I declare an interest in local government as a councillor in Lancashire—and tell any young Lancashire woman that if only she borrowed my cookery book she could cook a meal for a family for 40p. on the day of the week before her benefit is due.
While there are examples of people who despair and give in and who lack the proper skills to be able to feed their families properly, most of them look at good quality food. I refer to those who have the confidence to look at the issues and organically produced food. They look at the price tags and go for the cheapest offer of processed food with which to fill their children. It is a vicious circle. It is the young people in communities with poor housing who are most likely to suffer unemployment themselves. We waste so much money in this country on the cost of unemployment instead of putting those young people to work.
We had this matter explained at Question Time. If it is right to tax the banks with a windfall tax, how much more worth while is it to tax the privatised utilities and their high level of resources in order to get
296
these young people back to work. We have family pressure and poverty wages. I believe that the figure was 250,000 over-50s who have been excluded from the unemployment list. They are excused from being considered available for work. If this Government stay in office, those over-50s, single grandfathers, will be told that they may no longer seek help from social security in order to stay in their homes. They too will put pressure on family accommodation as they seek to get away from cheap rooming houses and try to move in with their married sons and daughters, creating greater pressure.
All these factors contribute to homelessness. I do not believe it is possible to look at what has happened in society and say that all the faults are those of the Government and their policies. That would be unreasonable. There is a cycle of factors which has occurred to create this very vulnerable group of young people. What has happened as that problem has grown? More and more young people sleep on our streets, first in the poorest areas of London, Glasgow and Edinburgh and then in the large cities like Manchester and Liverpool and now in some of our smallest market towns. It is possible to find homeless young people in those places. Health breakdown is one of the factors.
We on these Benches share all the concerns of the Government about law and order. But the most likely victim of violent crime is a young man. Statistically, a young man is most at risk. We walk past those young people whose health and housing needs are not being met, and who are not a worthwhile investment for those whose interest is making money out of housing. Their housing needs cannot be met by market forces. They are also the most likely victims of crime in the streets of our towns and cities tonight.
I said at the beginning that I had been advised not to speak in anger. I would speak in despair, were it not for one fact. I cannot stop because, like noble Lords, I am a parent and I cannot avoid seeing those young people on the streets. I do not come here in a paternalistic spirit. Despair will not solve their problems. I have been fortunate in my life. The young people to whom I have referred could have been my children in different circumstances. Any one of us can have a child on the streets if we are unfortunate. We all have a duty to work together to get them off the streets.
6.38 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, spoke as the 13th speaker, he considered himself lucky because of all the friends that he had gathered through listening to the previous speeches. However, by the time one reaches the 24th speaker just before the gap in the list of speakers, it is almost un embarras de richesse of friends that one has to think about. The other problem is that almost everything that one was going to say has already been said. Therefore, perhaps I may crave your Lordships' indulgence because I have had to do some mental cutting and pasting with my speech.
The noble Lord, Lord Luke, spoke about different kinds of poverty. He said that he preferred to speak about relative poverty. That is a reasonable aspect of the

297
matter to look at. So let us think about the relevance of relative poverty rather than the people at the very bottom of the scale.
The importance of that has been demonstrated by Dr. Richard Wilkinson, who was introduced to us by the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield. He has stated that the greater the proportion of wealth going to the lowest 70 per cent. of the population—that is, to the majority of our people—or the more equal the distribution, the higher the life expectancy or, conversely, the lower the mortality rate. That is the case over quite a range of incomes per head in the developed world. Indeed, Dr. Wilkinson showed that that applied when 25 developed countries were compared. It has also been shown to be true when the individual states of the USA are compared. The more unequal the income distribution, the higher the mortality rate.
It was the same Richard Wilkinson who, when a post-graduate student, wrote an open letter which was published in the Guardian in 1977, to Lord Ennals (who was mentioned by my noble friend) when he was plain David Ennals, the Secretary of State, pointing out some worrying statistics that were beginning to appear which suggested that the mortality rates of the different social classes were again beginning to diverge after nearly two decades—the 1940s and 1950s—when the gap had started to narrow. Those were the decades of the 1939–45 war, of the first Labour Government and of the early years of "Butskellism".
Unlike the present government, David Ennals took immediate steps and within three months had set up the working group on inequalities under Sir Ronald Black, about which so much has been said. Although the Government rejected the Black Report, it was taken seriously by the research community, the World Health Organisation and by a number of other countries which began to look into their own health inequalities with considerable concern, even countries with Conservative health ministers such as the Netherlands.
Although the causes of the inequalities could not be fully disentangled by the Black working group, it concluded,
"there is £ much which cannot be understood in terms of the impact of so specific factors, but only in terms of the more diffuse consequences of the class structure: poverty, working conditions, and deprivation in its various forms".
In other words, the health inequalities related to patterns of living over which the National Health Service is relatively powerless.
Practically all of the 37 recommendations of the Black Report are highly relevant today and although starting a decade late, the Government have partially implemented some of them. I refer, for instance, to the Health of the Nation strategy. That comes close to one of the recommendations, as does the setting up of a Cabinet committee, under Tony Newton, to monitor the progress of those Health of the Nation programmes. However, neither of those initiatives directly addresses the problems of social inequalities, as Black suggested they should. It would be interesting if the Minister could tell us how many times that high-level Cabinet committee on the Health of the Nation has met and something about its deliberations.
298
In much strengthened form, such a Cabinet-level, cross-departmental committee should be able to make a serious impact on many of the factors affecting health which lie outside the remit or capabilities of the Department of Health itself, such as poverty, housing, nutrition, working conditions, education and transport. Transport is particularly important in terms of the nutrition of people with lower incomes. If you live on a housing estate, you often cannot get to where the food is cheapest because the public transport system is not very good, particularly since the privatisation of bus services. There are also those much more subtle areas such as community support and stability, to which noble Lords on all sides of the House have referred. It has been calculated that living and working conditions are responsible for about 80 per cent. of the premature mortality and worse health of the less privileged part of the population. Factors which medical care can influence account for only about 20 per cent. of the total.
One of the Black Report's recommendations which has been vigorously followed (although not by the Government until recently) has been to increase research into health inequalities. Since 1980 there have been literally thousands of well conducted studies confirming and amplifying Professor Black's findings. My noble friend Lady Jay mentioned that I have recently carried out some research that is relevant to today's debate. I was going to keep that quiet, but as my noble friend has invited me to describe it, I shall do so briefly.
The study was carried out in a north London inner-city group practice. It is entitled Counting the Cost of Social Disadvantage in Primary Care. Its findings were based on a retrospective analysis of five years of patients' records. The methods used are described in our paper—here comes a plug, my Lords—which appeared in the British Medical Journal on 5th January. The main findings were that the cost per head of providing primary care, including medication, for patients in social classes I and II worked out at very nearly £100 per annum while the cost for those in social classes III and IV was £250 per head, or two-and-a-half times as great. That difference was rather greater than we had expected. We think that it is an inner-city effect. We found, for instance, that those in the lowest two social groups had 4.3 times as many episodes of serious illness as those in the professional group. The cost aspect of the study is a stark reminder of the other costs which poverty inflicts on the National Health Service—that is, if the care is equitably applied according to patient need (and there is evidence that it is not quite so equitably applied as we should like).
That is just one small piece of research. As I have said, there have been thousands of other well conducted studies. The most recent compendium of such studies is to be found in Health and Social Organisation: Towards a Health Policy for the 21st Century which was published by the Centre for Health and Society, which has just been established at UCL. One wonders what the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, our previous Prime Minister, would have thought of a centre with such a title. If studied, that volume could well serve as a basis for the health policy of the next government. I recommend it.

299
Our most important public health issue is the one that we have discussed today. With our new Minister for Public Health, we on these Benches will start to address the problem effectively as soon as possible from 2nd May.
6.50 p.m.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, for introducing this debate. We have had a long and interesting debate with 25 speakers. No one who has listened to the debate can be in any doubt about the influence that social and environmental factors have on the health of the nation. It would be churlish not to admit that the health of the nation has improved over the years since 1970. That improvement has happened in all classes of society, but the difference is that the improvement has been greatest among the middle classes. That has inevitably resulted in the gap between the health status of the affluent parts of society and those in the poorer areas having widened during those years; in other words, it has become worse than it was when we all suffered poorer health.
One must therefore draw the conclusion that poverty, poor housing, environmental conditions and poor diet have a profound effect on the health of that part of the population in social classes IV and V. The evidence for that statement is overwhelmingly presented by the body of people who are most involved in providing healthcare in the community, such as the BMA, the RCN and the Health Visitors Association.
The BMA calls for the Government to consider, above all, their policies in the field of housing, unemployment, transport and the environment, and to relate them to their policies on health. It calls upon the Government also to look more closely at their cost-saving exercises in the NHS, such as the abolition of free eye examinations and its implications for the long-term health of people, particularly people over 65.
Of all tests, eye tests are probably one of the most powerful tools for diagnosing early signs of potentially dangerous conditions, such as diabetes, cataracts, glaucoma, detached retinas and even brain tumours. Those are conditions which, if detected in their early stages, can be treated effectively at a relatively low cost. The RNIB confirmed that people are becoming ill and suffering incurable eye disease because of the withdrawal of free eye tests. The Government claim that it would cost £120 million a year to reinstate free eye tests. I should like to ask whether, against that so-called saving, they have made any assessment of the inevitable future increased cost to the NHS of not treating people with more advanced illnesses at the right time because of the lack of an early diagnosis.
My noble friend Lord Russell asked the Government always to ensure that the savings are greater than the costs of the increased care that will have to be provided in the future. Eye tests are a good example of preventive medicine which we on these Benches would wish to reinstate.
300
The RCN is concerned especially about the impact of poverty on children in our society. Many noble Lords have spoken about that. They have said that there are today 4.3 million children living in households whose income is less than half the national average. In 1979, the figure was 1.4 million. There has been a three times increase since then. Despite that, the RCN is concerned that there is no mechanism for weighting community and district nurses and health visitors' care on the basis of need. Inner cities are areas of worst deprivation but they receive no higher priority for the supply of those community nurses and health visitors than other areas which do not have the same need.
Health services should target and focus always on those most in need, in particular people living in poverty. Probably the most disturbing report that I read when preparing for the debate is the one from the Health Visitors Association published in November last year. I do not believe that it is scaremongering. It goes as far as to say that Britain would seem to be returning to the social conditions of 100 years ago. According to its survey, 29 per cent. of health visitors encounter TB every year; 93 per cent. gastroenteritis; and 4 per cent. rickets. One of the most upsetting things that it found was that 83 per cent. of health visitors encountered failure to thrive among children, which, together with rickets, is a sign of severe malnutrition.
My noble friend Lord Russell suggested that there should be hospital tests to detect malnutrition. Malnutrition and an unhealthy infant diet have long-term implications for the future. We are looking to build up problems for ourselves in the future by neglecting what is happening in society, because malnutrition and a bad diet are likely to increase the incidence of heart disease in later years. It is a tragedy that the many improvements in health and welfare now possible are being undermined by extreme poverty.
Another problem which has been mentioned is the increase in asthma. It is a disease that is growing alarmingly. Sufferers from the most deprived areas are almost twice as likely to be admitted to hospital than others. On average, 155 children with asthma are admitted to hospital each day of the year in this country. There again, there seems to be no doubt that poverty has an enormous impact on the incidence. Damp and mouldy housing, together with high levels of pollution in urban areas, are largely responsible for the difference in incidence between social classes.
At the end of the debate there seems to be no doubt that poverty, poor housing and environmental conditions are responsible for the widening gap in health between social classes I and II and social classes IV and V. Genuine progress towards closing that gap will take place only with the involvement in the NHS of other government departments and local authorities. Too often actions are taken by other government departments, perhaps in a cost saving exercise, which have an enormous impact on the health of the nation and the cost to the National Health Service. Close co-operation between the NHS social services and social security and the departments responsible for the environment and housing are a prerequisite for any improvement in the status of health, in particular that of the poorest in our

301
community. I charge the Government—whether the present Government or that coming in on 2nd May—to make sure that the departments which have an influence on the health of the nation work together and not against each other.
7 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I believe that the whole House will wish to thank my noble friend Lady Jay for her masterly, lucid and comprehensive speech and for giving so many Members the chance to speak on such an important subject. She has provoked a debate which has inspired many speeches of a high quality. They have not all been speeches of anger, but they have certainly been speeches of passion which has been rightly provoked.
The speech of my noble friend Lady Farrington was the better for being angry. It was a fine contribution and it reminded us that there are issues in our society about which we should be angry. Only with that passion will we tackle them. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Luke, that it is true that money cannot guarantee good health. However, a lack of money can certainly guarantee that one's chances of good health will be reduced.
The figures relating to children have been mentioned many times today. We know that a baby whose father is an unskilled manual worker is one and a half times more likely to die before the age of one than the baby of a manager or professional worker. We know that the poorest children are twice as likely to suffer from respiratory disease, four times more likely to be killed in a traffic accident and six times more likely to die in a house fire than are their counterparts in Social Class I. We should take those figures into great account and be angry about them. My noble friend Lord Desai said that there are issues at work which are not merely about the workings of the health service; they are issues which relate to overall social conditions in our country and issues which we must attack comprehensively.
There has been much debate about whether there is any real, absolute poverty in Britain today. My noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean spoke about the people who in winter choose between heating and eating. My noble friend Lord Murray of Epping Forest spoke about the mothers who choose between feeding their children and protecting them from the risk of accident. They were expressions of real poverty in our society. Many of us read in the myriad of material available for the debate the stories from individual families about the choices that they must make. We are most reluctant to start hectoring about good housekeeping and feeding families well for a week on the kind of money that we can spend without thinking in one evening on a meal for four.
We should be concerned not only with absolute poverty but also with relative poverty because of its effect on illness and the cost of that to society and its effect on economic growth. That point was made by my noble friends Lord Paul and Lord Haskel. The work of Wilkinson was referred to by my noble friend Lord Rea and it has been shown that very unequal societies, not only those with high rates of poverty, have worse health and economic growth than less equal societies. Winston
302
Churchill knew about that in 1943. He then stated that there was no better investment for a nation than to put milk into babies. He said that healthy citizens are the greatest asset that any nation can have.
If we are to perform economically well in the future we must perform well in terms of the health of our population. As regard concerns about child nutrition, when one compares countries, say, in the Pacific Rim, Malaysia and Singapore it is fascinating to note that they are looking at ways of feeding their children properly as part of producing an effective, well educated workforce for national success in the future.
In some ways, it has been a very depressing debate. We have heard a repetition of depressing statistics and depressing tales of how income poverty is compounded by the deprivation which comes with bad housing and living in a polluted atmosphere. My noble friend Lady Hilton spoke clearly of the effects of bad housing and pollution. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, spoke of the impossibility of having a healthy lifestyle when one lives in an area in which one's chances of dying prematurely are four times greater than in an affluent area.
I thought of the poem by Larkin when contemplating the terrible inter-relationship between housing, poverty, deprivation and a poor environment. Everyone remembers the first line of the poem, but that is not the one I shall quote. The final stanza begins:
"Man hands misery to man,
It deepens like a costal shelf,
Get out as quickly as you can,
And don't have any kids yourself'.
That is a terrible philosophy, but looking at some of the poverty and deprivation that we heap on individuals today one understands that despair.
Much has been said about the importance of looking at both costs and benefits when considering prevention as regards healthcare. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, has spoken of that on previous occasions. However, we must be careful before we throw up our hands, as did the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, when the Black Report was published, and say, "It's all very difficult. It's not certain that they were the causes, anyway. It's not certain that if we carried out those measures they would have any effect and, anyhow, it is too expensive". It is very easy to say that it is too expensive and to ignore the transfer of costs to other departments.
One sees that everyday with the health service. We are always willing to pay the cost of the repeated hospital admissions of the child with respiratory disease, but we are not willing to pay the cost of providing an adequately heated and insulated home for that child. We are willing to pay the plastic surgeon to repair the damage caused to children by the fires in which they are injured, but we are not willing to pay for fireguards and smoke alarms. We have a very narrow definition of cost and benefit, which gets us into terrible difficulties.
I believe that reference was made by my noble friend Lord Borrie to the Rowntree Report and the comment on it by Mr. Howard Davies, who said:
"Too much of our public spending is devoted to compensating for the effects of failure rather than investing in the ingredients of success".

303
It is the short-termism which deals with those consequences of failure but does not deal with investment which I believe is so damaging to us as a nation.
It is the acceptance of the inevitability—that quote that we have had from across the Floor—that the poor will always be with us; the inevitability that things will get worse; and the catalogue of neglect which has seen the nutritional standards of school meals go down, the withdrawal of the EU subsidy for school milk and the water privatisation programme which has allowed families in this country to be disconnected from clean water. There is that terrible acceptance that those things will always be there and nothing can be done.
But other countries do not accept that. Japan is a very interesting example in terms of economic growth and stopping inequalities. There are very low differentials in income levels in Japan. The height of its citizens has increased, as has the life expectancy of its citizens. Moreover, it has increased the healthy life expectancy of its citizens which Social Trends showed us this month that we have failed to do. Japan has the highest number of centenarians of anywhere in the world and they are healthy centenarians.
After the war, in Finland, a much poorer country than this one, raised infant mortality rates to much better than those in this country and they still are because of the focus on child and maternal health. Sweden has actually abolished the differentials in perinatal mortality between social classes. In America, 6.3 million children receive a free school breakfast every day. They have milk and a proper hot meal—not a bag with a sandwich, a biscuit and a coloured drink which is what the nutritional standards in this country allow. That is done not because it is some great Scandinavian liberal democracy which believes in socialised medicine but because it has worked out that every dollar invested in child nutrition in school saves three dollars in medicare.
Therefore, there are proper cost-effective reasons for taking action. There has been much talk about what is private and public responsibility in relation to health. I have worked for most of my working life in voluntary organisations and I do not challenge the scope that there is for community action. That is very important. But it is also important that we should not leave national issues like the health and nutrition of our children to charitable endeavour. It is a matter of concern for the whole country.
I listened to the right reverend Prelate describing that scheme in his own diocese. He described how a community can become involved and do a great deal to help itself. While listening to him, I was reminded of that haunting and powerful saying that it takes a whole village to raise a child and it takes a whole nation to raise a generation: to invest in that generation's health, education and development, to ensure that both individuals and the community to which they belong thrive.
304
It will take something else in this country. It will take a change of focus and direction of government policies after the sorry record of the past 18 years. We need a change in government so that there will be the leadership needed to create a more inclusive, less divided society. On these Benches, we are eager to embark on the task of creating that healthier society.
7.15 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, first, I start by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, on initiating what has been a fascinating debate, the subject of which is poverty and its link with health. I cannot vouch for the state of your Lordships' health. When listening to my noble friend Lord Brentford, who told us how we should support each other in your Lordships' House to give up smoking and to encourage healthy lifestyles, I was thinking of your Lordships' Guest Room. I was feeling somewhat unequal to the task. Perhaps I shall just issue visitors with a government health warning.
This evening, a number of theories have been postulated; statements have been made; and conclusions have been reached, many of which have been surrounded in controversy. However, I believe that there is a consensus that the causes of poverty are the most complex of all social issues and their link with health is deeply difficult. There is even disagreement as to definitions, a theme which was explained most ably by my noble friend Lord Luke. I thought that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, was going to sidestep that whole issue but if I understood him correctly, he was defining poverty as it relates to income support.
There is a problem with that definition because the more people there are on income support, and the more we help the less well off, the more poverty is created. Of course that is misleading. Likewise, using a fraction of national average income can be misleading as that ignores the rise in average income itself—about 37 per cent. in the UK since 1979. It ignores the fact that everyone is better off, including those who have least income.
I do not wish to delve into semantics but I state the obvious in saying that no ideology can solve the problems and no party has the monopoly of compassion. But this Government have demonstrated, through their actions, that they have been neither complacent nor uncaring. We are not burdened with the doctrine that everyone should be treated the same. Free of that constraint, we have targeted resources towards those who really are poor, in line, with the urging of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies.
That money has paid dividends. Independent research by the Institute of Fiscal Studies shows that there is very significant movement in and out of the 10 per cent. of those on the lowest incomes, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel. But surely the noble Lord is pleased that, of those who are in the bottom decile, up to half have moved up one year later.
I understand the great interest which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield has, especially regarding the influence of unemployment on a

305
community, on families and on individuals' health. That is one reason that this Government have been so concerned with the economy. Our economic policies have cut unemployment by almost 1.1 million since its peak in 1992 and a further fall of 67,000 for the last month was announced today, the eleventh consecutive month of falling unemployment figures. That contrasts sharply with the experience of other European Union countries, in particular Germany, which has sustained an increase of 0.5 million in one month.
Time and again, poor people do not ask for social security payments; they ask for jobs. They want to earn their way out of poverty. They seek the self-esteem referred to so powerfully by my noble friend Lord Birdwood. That is why we oppose the job-destroying minimum wage. We are not ashamed of spending money to attract inward investment. It is what it says: investment for the future as well as now. As my noble friend Lord Astor said, overall economic policy has a profound effect on poverty and health.
I am sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, feels that the Government are not on the side of the poor. Perhaps he has not related our policies to the results that we have achieved. During our tenure, average incomes have increased not only for those in work but also for those seeking work. The vast majority of people today are better off. Average incomes have risen by more than one-third, and those rises are not confined to a few top earners. Average income is up for all types of family, including lone parents. The least well off—those in the bottom 10 per cent. of income—have seen a rise in the consumer goods they own, and I rejoice in the fact that everyone is now better off.
During the past 18 years this country has been through a dramatic period of perestroika. From the chaos of 1979 we have come to realise that we have to compete in a world market. In parallel with that change there has been a revolution in health services. The ethic of the NHS has been nurtured but the delivery has been revolutionised. In 1979 inefficiency was commonplace—in fact it was never measured—and we had "never never" waiting lists. Today the average waiting time for an operation is four months. We are treating more people, for more conditions, with more staff and with a range of drugs and high-tech equipment—for example, laser beam technology—undreamt of 15 years ago.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, implied that the NHS was not that relevant to improving health. I would disagree with that view; indeed, so would the 9 million people treated last year. Moreover, I believe that her noble friend Lord Desai, in a fascinating—and, yes, largely spiritual—speech, made that point well. I must say that it is very interesting to listen to an economist who remains untouched by the Treasury. It is most refreshing.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, and the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, were dismissive of our Health of the Nation policy. Perhaps they are aware that it is applauded by the World Health Organisation and lauded by it as a model for other countries to follow. The WHO recognises it as a world leader and a world beater. It is
306
not a woolly series of political statements, as I suspect the Labour Party's sequel will be; it is a highly focused action plan, consisting of five key areas with 27 targets. Of those 27 targets, there are only two areas in which we are not making progress—obesity and teenage smoking. Deaths from coronary heart disease and from cancers are coming down in all parts of the country and length of life has been extended.
I would not claim that the Health of the Nation policy should take all the credit. But, as my noble friend Lady Brigstocke said, the public today are better informed, lifestyles are changing, teenage pregnancies are reducing and the number of people smoking is going down. I believe that great credit should go to the Health Education Authority for its work.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, mentioned the "Life Project" in the Wirral. Although I accept some of the noble Lord's humorous comments, I do think that the way that that project has influenced the local community is quite simply inspiring—likewise, many of the other health alliances which involve all sections of an area. I shall perhaps bore your Lordships on another day with details of a scheme that I visited in St. Helens and Moseley entitled "Hairdressers for Health". However, I shall not do so today.
I turn now to what is happening in the country and I look especially at our children today. Our children are growing taller and heavier than ever before and that is in all socio-economic groups. Infant deaths, deaths of babies under a year—an international indicator of general health—are at their lowest rate ever. Among social classes IV and V, infant death rates have fallen by more than half in the past 15 years. So, today, infant death rates in social class V are better than those in social class I just 15 years ago. That is real progress. Overall, the trend is one of steadily improving health.
Of course, to celebrate that achievement is not to deny that there remain stubbornly persistent differences in rates of illness and death between different social groups. Indeed, that issue was raised by many speakers this afternoon, especially the noble Lords, Lord Murray and Lord Borrie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Robson. But those disparities are not new; they did not suddenly appear in 1979 or, indeed, in 1992. Nor should we mislead ourselves into thinking that such variations are somehow unique to British society. I was amazed to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, mention Finland. Finland has far greater disparities between its various social groups than we have when it comes to health.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I was in fact talking about Sweden in terms of differentials in infant mortality and about Finland's performance since the end of the war, when it was low down in international comparisons overall as regards perinatal mortality. It has now moved right up the scale.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, if we look at all the health indicators in Finland, it will be seen that they do far worse than this country, as does France. That makes the point that this is not particularly pertinent to Britain; it is across developed countries.

307
While it is the case that our excellent national statistics have shown an association between health and social status for more than a hundred years, the same pattern is also seen in other developed countries. Some commentators argue, using particular measures of health, that some of the differences in Britain have become wider since the war. But, as I said, this needs to be seen against the tremendous overall gains in health and life expectancy which have benefited every social class. Simplistic arguments tend to imply the possibility of simple solutions and do not do justice to the complexity of these issues.
Both poverty and health are influenced by a huge range of factors. In the NHS jargon, it is impossible to ring fence them. Housing, employment, behaviour, genetic endowment, education, family relationships, lifestyles, geography and access to health services, all play a part.
It is certainly true that there is a link between deprivation and illness—not least mental illness. I use the word "deprivation" advisedly, because loss of employment, loss of a marriage or a family breakdown are causes of both illness and poverty. Only recently we debated "the family" in your Lordships' House without being able to formulate "the answer". Again, I believe that H.L. Mencken was most apt when he said:
"For every difficult and complicated question, there is an answer which is simple, easily understood and wrong".
My noble friend Lord Colwyn very succinctly described the complexities: there really is no quick fix. Therefore, the Government have addressed the problem systematically. Through the Child Support Agency we have sought to introduce a system where, particularly mothers with children, get financial support. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, will acknowledge that family credit has helped 700,000 people to get back to work. We have just launched the "Parent Plus" initiative to help lone parents get back to work. The long term unemployed now make up 37 per cent. of claimants compared with 43 per cent. 10 years ago.
Our voucher scheme is being introduced to increase the number of good quality nursery places for four year-olds, which will not only benefit the working parent but will also help the child reach its educational potential and will therefore provide a spin-off to health. I share the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, that childcare is a crucial issue. I am sure that the noble Lord will be pleased to hear that we have doubled the number of nursery places in the past 10 years.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, is of course correct to say that bad housing and unhappy communities cause illness. While it is part of the national character to dwell on failure, the extension of home ownership has been the greatest single factor in improving the quality of housing; and, indeed, we should celebrate the lowest mortgage rates for 30 years.
Over five years, public investment has built or refurbished around a quarter of a million homes for social renting or shared home ownership. The problems
308
of cold, damp and mould are being tackled by renovation and regeneration polices. Nearly 2 million homes have benefited from grants for basic insulation and draught proofing under the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme.
The noble Baroness referred to the 1991 English House Conditions survey. She will realise that it pointed to a falling number of unfit homes over the previous year. I can assure the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, that the Government are committed to ensuring that there is no necessity to sleep rough. The Rough Sleepers Initiative and the Homeless Mentally-ill Initiative are helping get people off the streets and into secure accommodation. Indeed, 35 projects funded by my department are helping homeless people to make contact with primary care services and to integrate them into mainstream services.
We share the views of the right reverend Prelate and those of the—
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. I do not wish to dispute anything that she is saying, but I would be grateful if the noble Baroness could give me an assurance that she will look at the points that I raised about the difficulty of the homeless in registering with a GP.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I shall certainly do so. However, as I said, we have schemes at present which are geared towards that. Nevertheless, I quite appreciate that the noble Earl wants a fuller response and I shall endeavour to write to him in that respect.
As I was saying, we share the view of the right reverend Prelate and those of the noble Lord, Lord Paul, about the problems of inner cities. We are committing almost £4 billion over three years to economic and social regeneration through the single regeneration budget. We can expect regeneration to pay health dividends through helping to create better homes and environments for families and communities, and improved prosperity. The active involvement of local people which is such an important feature of schemes such as City Challenge, increases pride and self-confidence and brings communities together. The results have been startling. Desolate, miserable, crime ridden inner-city areas have been transformed into thriving communities. Places where people were unwilling to go, let alone live and work, have been transformed and are now desired. As a Sponsor Minister I can confirm the transformation that I have witnessed.
I wish to refer briefly to education, as I know the Chief Medical Officer believes that education is one of the main keys to improved health. It is encouraging to see that educational standards are improving, with more young people obtaining good school-leaving qualifications. Today one in three are in higher education, compared with one in eight only 18 years ago. I was concerned to hear the noble Earl, Lord Russell, say that some of these students are ill. I expect that is a complex matter which also concerns lecturers, quality of education and other factors.

309
My noble friend Lord Birdwood is quite right; it is not for governments to tell people how to live their lives. That is arrogant and patronising. What is more, we know that it does not work. We should give them the information and then it is up to individuals to make their choices, not least in the area of food. The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, my noble friend Lady Brigstocke and the right reverend Prelate referred to diet and nutrition. I hope they will be reassured that a survey of the diets of over 3,000 children aged between 10 and 14 carried out in 1982 showed the intakes of all nutrients were above recommended levels. Government surveys over the past 20 years have consistently shown that there is no evidence of malnutrition in British children. I understand the points that were raised about the health visitors' survey. We find that quite an unsatisfactory survey, in that we are experiencing difficulties in obtaining the evidence and also as regards the methodology that was used.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that her former honourable friend, Mr. Matthew Parris was unable to live for, I believe, two weeks and feed himself while living on an income equivalent to income support, which at that time was higher in real terms than it is now? He has since ceased to be her honourable friend and has taken to writing about her noble friends instead. My recollection is that he could not feed himself, let alone feed a family.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we recognise that some people on low incomes have particular difficulty in eating a healthy and varied diet. That is absolutely true. But often where they live the right food is not available and they do not have storage and cooking facilities. We have done much work with the supermarkets on different baskets of food and we know that a healthy diet is composed of all sorts of foods. We are encouraging people to eat more bread, potatoes, pulses, seasonal vegetables and fruit. Those are not expensive items. We believe there is no such thing as a bad food or a good food. What we seek is a balanced diet.
When one is dealing with people on low incomes, one of the factors is energy. They do not have the energy to cook often if they are poor. There is also the question of accessibility to food. There is a range of issues here. What I am trying to put over to your Lordships this evening is that there is no quick fix. These issues are extremely complex. I become quite concerned when noble Lords on the Benches opposite think that one can snap one's fingers and the problem will be solved. We know that that is not so.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, that was the impression I had. It is interesting to hear the Shadow Chancellor say that for the next two years he will keep to the same public expenditure levels as our Chancellor has indicated. The Labour Party thinks that it will solve these problems without any increase in resources. I interpreted what many noble Lords opposite were saying this evening as a plea for better housing and other such
310
provision. However, that would require more resources. This Government have promised more money for the National Health Service for five years, unlike the party opposite. We know that health services also have an influence on the health of our nation. I am running out of time because of the interventions.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness but I ask her to withdraw the phrase "the party opposite" because there is one party opposite that has matched and even topped that offer.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I stand corrected. I wish to say a few words about tuberculosis, which was mentioned by a number of noble Lords tonight, including the noble Baroness, Lady Turner. The UK has an excellent record of controlling TB. We are determined that this should continue. TB notifications in England and Wales have reached the low level of under 6,000 cases a year, compared with around 50,000 cases in 1950. That success has been achieved against a worldwide resurgence in TB which is having a small but important impact on trends in the UK. One has to see it in that context.
My noble friend Lord Butterfield, in a scholarly and also practical dissertation, mentioned in particular the issue of smoking. My noble friend is right; the level of smoking in the poorest sections of our community is far higher than the national average. Our research shows that social disadvantage greatly increases smoking while in turn the expense of smoking increases hardship. Even though they have the most to gain from quitting, the traditional anti-smoking messages are resisted by some vulnerable groups, especially young people and low income groups. With this in mind, we are trying new approaches to reach these groups with the collaboration of voluntary bodies, social workers and role models. Indeed the "towering inferno" which I visited in Birmingham is one such classic case where real progress has been made in a tower block of council flats.
The noble Lord, Lord Murray, mentioned childhood accidents. He acknowledged that childhood accidents are declining across all social classes. We have a good record compared with the rest of Europe as regards adult accidents, but we accept that we need to address childhood accidents more vigorously. As well as the initiatives at the Department of Transport to reduce pedestrian deaths and car speeds, we fund a number of organisations and initiatives working to tackle childhood accidents. The noble Lord mentioned the work of the Child Accident Prevention Trust, and I refer also to RoSPA.
A number of noble Lords mentioned the Black Report. It was not so much the analysis of the Black Report that was disagreed with but its strong prescription. One of the recommendations of the report was that we should have a strategy for health. We have accepted that. As your Lordships will know, we have taken up a vigorous policy which I have mentioned, The Health of the Nation. Many of the strategies within that document relate to the Black Report. There is a lot of synergy between the two. I heard the noble Lord, Lord Rea, say that we had taken up the Black Report, albeit rather late. Certainly The Health of the Nation policy is bearing fruit.

311
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, also asked about the Cabinet sub-committee that oversees the whole of The Health of the Nation strategy. It meets about three times a year. Secretaries of State from nearly every department sit on that sub-committee. The most recent issue that it has addressed is the environment. The noble Lord will be aware of the consultation paper that has been produced which considers the environment in the context of Health of the Nation.
The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, mentioned the widening dispersion of earnings, in relation to the quote by my right honourable friend Mr. Lilley in Southwark Cathedral. I believe that that should be seen as a whole. My right honourable friend was saying that this is a global problem; and that the widening dispersion of earnings power was because the unskilled were lagging behind the skilled. He firmly rejected the notion that the Opposition's solution of making the rich poorer to make the poor richer had any basis, logic or practical application.
The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, raised a number of points. If the noble Baroness will forgive me, I shall write to her. However, as regards the health services and the evidence that the RCN submitted in briefing for the debate, I think that it has misunderstood the funding formula in the National Health Service which takes into account deprivation and is very much targeted towards those areas that need most healthcare.
I am aware that I am overrunning my time. I conclude by saying that I believe the majority of your Lordships care passionately about the health and well-being of the people of this country. I reiterate that I do not think that anyone has the answer. But I think we all agree that it is a thriving economy. There is full employment, regeneration of city centres, and better education, housing and health services, and a dynamic health of the nation policy which will lead to a fitter country. In all those areas this Government have a very proud record; and indeed overall we have a healthier nation.
7.41 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. At this stage of the evening it would be clearly inappropriate to respond in detail to many of the rather controversial points that the noble Baroness made. I believe that I speak for both Benches on this side of the House in saying that we strenuously reject the idea that any noble Lord on this side had offered quick fixes or simple solutions to what we all recognise to be extremely complex problems. I should be grateful if the noble Baroness would write to me if she can identify in the remarks I made any additional public expenditure commitments beyond those already undertaken by the shadow Chancellor and his colleagues.
We welcome the consensus which seems to have emerged about the link between poverty and ill health. I remind the House that that has not been true for the whole of this Government's term. We also welcome the Minister's acknowledgment that we on these Benches—I think that I speak now specifically for the Labour
312
Party—will have the opportunity to reorganise the health of the nation policy. We look forward to doing so at an early opportunity.
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. It has been extraordinarily interesting. I thank my noble friends who have brought a wide range of personal knowledge and expertise to this multi-faceted debate. The terms of the Motion were deliberately widely drawn. I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions. I believe that we have focused attention on a wide range of issues: economic policy, the environment, housing and homelessness, and the many problems of children living in very poor families.
In particular I thank my noble friend Lady Hayman for her excellent and comprehensive concluding speech. It left me with the necessity to say very little. I simply agree with her that this afternoon's debate has been depressing. The picture of life in Britain today for our poorest families has been saddening. My noble friend Lord Haskel said that I sounded rather angry. At the risk of transgressing the advice given to my noble friend Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, I am prepared to acknowledge that I am rather angry about the state of poverty and ill health in our country. I have been made angrier by some of the extraordinary situations and experiences about which we have heard today.
I said at the beginning that the debate was about social justice. I repeat that. It is also about the state of our sadly divided country. We shall hear more about that in the weeks leading up to the general election. But in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Policyholders Protection Bill
7.45 p.m.
Viscount Chelmsford: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill makes a number of amendments to the Policy Holders Protection Act 1975. That Act provides a system of compensation to certain policyholders of failed insurance companies. Before providing your Lordships with details of the proposed amendments, I should explain how the compensation scheme works.
The scheme is administered by the Policyholders Protection Board. If an insurance company fails and goes into liquidation, the board is required to compensate policyholders who are holders of "United Kingdom policies" as defined in the Policy Holders Protection Act. In relation to general business policies the protection is 100 per cent. in the case of compulsory insurance requirements, such as third party motor cover Other claims are protected to the extent of 90 per cent. provided the policyholder is a private individual, including private individuals as members of partnerships. In relation to long term business the board is required to try to secure continuity of cover so that 90 per cent. of the future benefit of the policy is protected. If this proves impossible, the board is required to pay a sum equal to 90 per cent. of the value of the policy in the liquidation. I should add that marine,

313
aviation and transport insurance and reinsurance business is not covered by the Act. Nor is Lloyd's of London, which has its own compensation scheme.
The compensation scheme is funded by levies from the insurance industry. Insurance companies are liable to pay levies amounting up to 1 per cent. of their worldwide premium income in any one calendar year derived from United Kingdom policies. General business companies pay for general business insolvencies and life companies pay for life insolvencies. In practice, the full levy has only once been called for in relation to general business and never in relation to life business. Even so, the board has collected some £342 million in respect of general business failures and some £6 million in respect of life business failures.
The new Bill has three main aims. The first is to restrict the Policy Holders Protection Act's coverage to exclude risks located outside the European Economic Area from the compensation scheme. The second is to update the Act to reflect the development of the single European market in insurance and the associated changes to insurance regulatory regimes throughout the European Community. Finally, the Bill introduces a number of technical measures designed to provide greater certainty for consumers and speedier settlement of claims by the Policyholders Protection Board.
As I indicated earlier, the Act is currently designed to protect so called "United Kingdom policies". These are policies issued by insurance companies in the United Kingdom, irrespective of the location of the risk. Therefore a policy of insurance sold by an insurance company in London to a private individual in the USA would be covered. But an identical policy sold by that company's subsidiary in the USA would not be covered.
As it has turned out, the Act's current geographic coverage may well have had a damaging effect on the industry's competitiveness. As a consequence of one insolvency, claims from US private policyholders, most of whom are members of partnerships, have amounted to £160 million, and there are more costs to come. This amounts to almost half of the levy raised to date. These costs have been largely borne by UK consumers in the form of higher premiums.
The Bill therefore proposes to confine the protection scheme to risks and commitments located in the European Economic Area, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. This is consistent with our EC obligations. Overall, however, it will reduce insurers' exposure to pay claims under the Act.
When the Policy Holders Protection Act 1975 was enacted, all insurance companies wanting to carry on insurance business in the United Kingdom had to be authorised by the Department of Trade and Industry. Hence the Act's protection was confined to business carried out by authorised insurance companies. The EC Third Insurance Directives, which were implemented in the United Kingdom in 1994, allow EC companies authorised in other EEA states to transact direct insurance business in the United Kingdom without the need for further authorisation. Business can be carried out through an establishment—that is, a branch—here
314
or directly from another member state. The Insurance Companies (Third Directives) Regulations 1994 kept United Kingdom branches of EC companies within the scope of the Policyholders Protection Scheme, despite the fact that they are no longer regulated by the DTI.
However, this left an important gap, because EC companies carrying on business here directly from another EEA state (so-called inward services business) are not currently covered. At the moment the amount of business transacted this way is extremely small, but over time it is expected to grow significantly. The Bill therefore brings for the first time EC companies providing insurance from an establishment elsewhere in the EEA within the scope of the compensation scheme.
Because the Act's geographic coverage is altered, it follows that the basis on which insurance company levies are calculated should be altered too. As I indicated earlier, the levy is currently based on worldwide premium income derived from UK policies. That basis needs to be maintained for some time, because there are substantial liabilities arising from the current geographic coverage of the Policy Holders Protection Act and those need to be discharged. For the moment, therefore, the only changes made by the Bill will be that, subject to de minimis provisions, EC companies carrying on inward services business here will be liable to pay levies on premiums in respect of UK risks and commitments; also, that premium derived by UK companies from policies covering risks and commitments in the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands will be brought into account. At a later stage, it will also be possible to reduce the levy base for companies established in the United Kingdom. For UK authorised companies the levy would be based on premiums in respect of EEA risks and commitments and for EC companies on UK risks and commitments. The European Economic Area includes Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein additional to those countries in the European Community.
The remainder of the Bill's provisions are largely technical, designed to improve the workings of the scheme. Their effect will be to strengthen consumer protection and speed up payment of claims. The most significant of these improvements is to modernise the Act's provisions in relation to so-called schemes of arrangement.
Over the past few years, schemes of arrangement have become the normal method of dealing with the insolvency of non-life insurance companies. Schemes are more flexible and less costly than the alternative of liquidation, and are generally better adapted to the rather specialised nature of insurance company insolvency.
The Policyholders Protection Board is able to participate in schemes by virtue of its discretion to assist a company in financial difficulties, under Section 16 of the Act. However, the scope of Section 16 is not quite as wide as the scope of the provisions which would apply in a liquidation, and some difficulties have been encountered in practice with some of the detail of its operation. The Bill amends Section 16 to deal with these difficulties. This will in future ease the process of putting together a scheme in which the board is to participate.

315
Other provisions allow the Policyholders Protection Board more flexibility in collecting levies—through raised borrowing powers and collection of levies by instalments. There is also a provision to close a loophole whereby insurance companies within a group could reduce their levy payments due to reduced net premiums, achieved by inter-group reinsurance.
The Bill also removes an obstacle which has prevented insurance intermediaries making interim payments to policyholders in cases of hardship and provides equal status under the compensation scheme for all parties covered by an insurance contract so that, for example, named drivers on a motor insurance policy would receive the same treatment as a contracting policyholder.
I should point out that the Bill also makes consequential amendments to the Friendly Societies Act 1992. That Act contains provisions to bring registered friendly societies within the scope of the compensation scheme but such provisions have not yet commenced.
I hope that I have been able to provide a clear and concise explanation of a complex and somewhat technical Bill. Taken together, its various provisions should be welcomed by the insurance industry and consumers alike. I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Viscount Chelmsford.)
7.55 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for explaining his rather complicated Bill. I see that the noble Baroness the Minister has an important engagement this evening, so I shall be brief.
Any Bill coming before the House so close to an election is obviously looked at with some suspicion. However, this seems to be a rather technical Bill which tidies up and modernises the Policy Holders Protection Act 1975. However suspiciously we look at it, we can see nothing threatening. So I welcome it.
We think that the Policyholders Protection Scheme, whereby policyholders are protected when an insurance company fails, is a good scheme. We welcome the Bill in the interests of the consumer.
There are several advantages to the consumer. As the noble Viscount told us, the Bill assists policyholders of failed insurance companies, by giving them added protection through the Policyholders Protection Board. It speeds up the settlement of claims and enables intermediaries to make payments on account in case of hardship. Perhaps the most important benefit to the consumer is that drivers are able to continue using their car if their insurer fails. However, the noble Viscount said that transport insurance is not covered. Does that still apply? Also, savers who buy certain investment bonds from insurance companies are protected if the insurance company fails. Can the Minister confirm that that protection will continue?
We welcome the inclusion of business transacted by British insurance companies in the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, as that will eliminate any uncertainty.
316
We also welcome the stronger protection that the Bill gives to those people with policies issued by insurance companies based elsewhere in the European Economic Area. That is because those insurance companies based outside the United Kingdom but transacting business here will also have to contribute to the Policyholders Protection Board where a similar scheme does not exist in their own country. We welcome that harmonisation. Will the Minister tell us which countries have a similar compensation scheme?
We certainly agree that it is about time that the Policyholders Protection Board's finances were brought up to date. I understand it is some 20 years since that was reviewed, and we welcome this opportunity. It is important because last year the board paid out £120 million to customers of London United Investments in North America. London United Investments went bust in 1990. The board also had a considerable number of claims from Lloyd's Names resulting from the collapse of their stop-loss policies. Have all those been cleared up? Can there be a cut-off date; or does the board have to wait until the policies are no longer valid? From the noble Viscount's remarks, I assume that they have to.
All this should help British insurance companies to become slightly more competitive, as the levy should be reduced. However, it appears that companies based in the United Kingdom will still have to pay levy on premiums collected outside the European Economic Area. In effect, they will continue to pay levy on worldwide risks.
If other insurance companies in the European Economic Area are not required to pay a levy on their worldwide premium, when will British insurance companies be able to stop paying this additional levy? Perhaps the harmonisation is not so harmonious as we thought. As the noble Viscount told us, half the levy raised to date applies to countries outside the European Economic Area. The levy on premiums paid from outside the EEA by UK-based companies obviously needs to be run down as quickly as possible.
Apart from that, the Policyholders Protection Scheme, under the 1975 Act, seems to be a good scheme for both policyholders and insurance companies alike. It is right that it should be brought up to date and modernised. It is right that there should be similar schemes within the European Economic Area.
Therefore, this is generally a good Bill. We congratulate the noble Viscount on steering it through this House. We wish it every success.
8 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, the Government welcome the Bill which has already been passed as a Private Member's Bill in another place with government and all-party support. I wish to thank my noble friend Lord Chelmsford for the clear way in which he explained it to us this evening.
As my noble friend said, the Policy Holders Protection Act 1975 provides a system of compensation to certain policyholders of insurance companies. The scheme is designed to protect the most vulnerable and therefore concentrates its efforts on private

317
policyholders, such as for motor and household insurance although it does not cover commercial transport. However, it also covers insurance taken out by partnerships which are deemed to be a collection of private individuals and the insurances which incorporated businesses are compelled to purchase by law: for example, third party motor insurance and employers' liability insurance.
The Government began a review of the Policy Holders Protection Act in response to growing criticism from the insurance industry about the size of their potential liabilities to pay compensation in respect of failed insurance companies. The review was undertaken jointly by the Department of Trade and Industry and the Association of British Insurers. This review could not be completed until the end of 1993 pending the outcome of legal proceedings concerning the coverage of the Act.
In July 1994, the Government published a consultation document which set out a number of proposals to amend the Act. Responses were received from both insurance companies and their representative bodies, consumer groups, insolvency practitioners and the legal profession. In all some 50 substantive representations were made. These demonstrated a wide measure of support for change, not only from the insurance industry but also from its customers who indirectly fund the cost of the scheme through higher insurance premiums.
In October 1995, the Government announced their intention to amend the Policy Holders Protection Act as soon as parliamentary time permitted. My noble friend Lord Chelmsford's Bill covers all the Government's proposals with two exceptions and I wish to draw these to your Lordships' attention.
The first relates to the coverage of partnerships under the Policy Holders Protection Act. As noble Lords have heard, the Act's definition of a private policyholder includes a partnership or other unincorporated body of persons all of whom are individuals. During the Government's consultations it was clear that many people were troubled by the fact that large and commercially sophisticated partnerships enjoyed much greater protection under the Act than incorporated businesses. It was also of concern that claims against large partnerships, for example in relation to professional negligence, were increasingly from other commercial bodies rather than private individuals. These bodies were somewhat removed from the individual consumer whose protection lies at the heart of the Act.
It was for this reason that the Government announced their intention to restrict the coverage of partnerships under the Act to compensation arising from compulsory insurance claims, thus putting them on an equal footing with incorporated companies.
My noble friend Lord Chelmsford's Bill does not include this measure because it was deemed, by the honourable Member for Bournemouth West in another place, to be too restrictive especially for members of small partnerships. The Government have accepted this and announced their intention of reviewing that particular proposal. The insurance industry has also
318
made it clear to us that they attach considerably more importance to a revision of the Act's geographic coverage.
The Bill also includes a proposal explicitly to extend he Policy Holders Protection Act's coverage to insurance policies issued by branches of United Kingdom companies in the Channel Islands and Isle of Man covering risks in those territories. Hitherto, there has been some legal doubt about whether such business was covered. Naturally, this has been of concern to the regulatory authorities there. The Government are pleased to support this provision, which has also been endorsed by the Association of British Insurers.
Experience has shown that it is necessary to have a compensation scheme to help policyholders of failed insurance companies. Within the United Kingdom we have a very good system of regulation and supervision of insurance companies to ensure that they are properly managed and have sufficient financial standing to pay claims. This function is undertaken by the Department of Trade and Industry.
But of course nobody can eliminate the risks of failure entirely, at least not without stifling a competitive market. In a competitive market place—and the UK is one of the most competitive market places in the world—some failures are inevitable. The Policy Holders Protection Act has therefore proved to be a valuable safety net.
Even so, as in all regulation, the Government need to balance the interests of the consumer and the industry they are regulating. I believe that everybody agrees that the current coverage of the Policy Holders Protection Act is drawn too widely and that this has had a damaging effect on the United Kingdom insurance industry.
This problem was clearly demonstrated by the failure of one large group of insurance companies—the insurance subsidiaries of the London United Investments Group sometimes known as the KWELM companies. We all hope that such an insolvency will not occur again. Nevertheless, it is right that the Act's coverage should be properly focused and that we should avoid the need again to pay large amounts of foreign claims at the expense of UK insurers and consumers.
The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, asked me whether we know how long the levy on the cover will take. I thank him for his great courtesy in informing me of the question beforehand and also for noting that I have to go out after these proceedings. I greatly appreciate it.
The Policyholders Protection Board's 1994 annual report stated that the so-called KWELM insolvency was a large and complex undertaking which would take many years to complete. Because of the nature of the business written, it has been impossible to set an accurate timescale. Much of the business underwritten by the KWELM companies was long-term professional indemnity and not all the claims have even yet come to light. It would be fair to say that it may be as long as 20 years before all those liabilities are discharged.
At the same time, we need to ensure that UK consumers are properly protected. The Bill provides for that. Not only does it strengthen protection for

319
UK consumers through coverage of inward services business from the European Economic Area, but also it provides greater certainty for consumers and should lead to speedier settlement of claims.
The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, also asked me whether certain investments made would be covered. If an investment is made as a result of taking out an insurance contract, the policyholder is protected by the Policy Holders Protection Act in the same way as other insurance products. My noble friend Lord Chelmsford has described the changes which the Bill will make in the Act's coverage. In short risks and commitments outside the EEA, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man will not be covered. However, United Kingdom consumers will be better protected because insurance-related investment products sold by EC insurers not established here will be brought within the scope of the compensation scheme. I should point out, however, that more general investments are not covered by the Policy Holders Protection Act. Instead, they are covered by the provisions of the Financial Services Act which established the investors compensation scheme, providing redress to investors in circumstances whereby the investment firm is in default and unable to meet its obligations.
The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, also wanted to know about other countries' compensation schemes. I am pleased to tell him that no other member state has a compensation fund as comprehensive as ours, but some exist, especially in relation to third party motor business. None of those schemes will be directly affected by the Bill. Nevertheless, Section 21 of the Policy Holders Protection Act already permits the Policyholders Protection Board, with the consent of the Secretary of State, to exempt an EC company from the levy if there are equivalent arrangements to indemnify qualifying policyholders in the member state in which the company's head office is situated.
I should also like to make one point clear since I know that it has been the cause for some concern. It has not been the Government's intention to make any of the proposed changes to the Policy Holders Protection Act retrospective. The Government made this clear
320
when they announced their intention to amend the Act in 1995. I am therefore glad to see that Lord Chelmsford's Bill covers the point. Anyone holding an insurance policy currently covered by the Act will continue to benefit from its coverage until that policy expires. In the case of general insurance, policies normally run for 12 months and the Bill contains anti-avoidance measures to stop people prolonging protection indefinitely.
The new provisions on geographic coverage will, therefore, apply only to insurance policies taken out after the Bill comes into force.
As I have already indicated, on behalf of the Government I welcome the Bill. I am grateful to my noble friend for sponsoring it and I hope that it will soon become law.
8.10 p.m.
Viscount Chelmsford: My Lords, I thank the two noble Lords who have spoken. Both of them took part in the previous debate and are therefore tired and weary. The Minister, I know, has a date. I fear that I made a speech which was far too long. Perhaps I was expecting more excitement from noble Lords around the House than in fact was the case.
The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, made reference to a comment that he said I made on lack of transport insurance. I do not think that I did make such a comment. Perhaps he might care to look at the Official Report tomorrow. I was trying to get through the speech rather quickly, I admit, but I do not believe that I made such a comment.
The Bill has now received all-party support. I hope that your Lordships will give it a Second Reading this evening. I commend the Bill to the House.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down perhaps I may just explain that the reason why there is not a full House for his Bill has something to do with a football match between England and Italy.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at eleven minutes past eight o'clock.

  UN Dues: United States Arrears
  UN Dues: United States Arrears
  Israel: New West Bank Settlements
  Israel: New West Bank Settlements
  Service Families Medical Centre, Hohne: Vaccine Availability
  Service Families Medical Centre, Hohne: Vaccine Availability
  NATO
  NATO
  Nuclear Weapons: Research
  Nuclear Weapons: Research
  General Sir Peter de la Billière
  General Sir Peter de la Billière
  Scotland: Milk Suppliers
  Scotland: Milk Suppliers
  TV Licence Fee Consolidated Regulations
  TV Licence Fee Consolidated Regulations
  Northern Ireland Heritage Properties: Management
  Northern Ireland Heritage Properties: Management